U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[danae 0]

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me

Are you saying none of the events, people, or places in the Bible can be proven? Because I would so DEARLY love to prove you wrong.

Please do prove me wrong!

Yes Im very eager to hear this one too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, the Bible does not actually say that the Earth is flat, nor does it state that the Sun in fact revolves around the Earth. "Four corners" is a metaphorical way of refering to the whole Earth, the same way we speak of the four points of the compass. And I'm sure you speak of "sunrise", instead of something like, "The imaginary line of the horizon descended due to the Earth's rotation this morning so that the Sun became visible at our longitude at 0655 ante-meridian local time."

True - but ultimately its science that allowed us to understand those concepts and apply them. If all ancient peoples had to work with was their religious text how would they logically visualise "four corners" - that the earth is flat might be a logical progression (as they were working with insufficient information to make an alternative determination).

[*Robert* 2]

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me

Are you saying none of the events, people, or places in the Bible can be proven? Because I would so DEARLY love to prove you wrong.

Please do prove me wrong!

Yes Im very eager to hear this one too

Me too, but I think we all know... that will never happen... she is only good for mindless insults and jibberish... now way she could actually come up with the evidence she describes, because afterall... we all know it does not exist... once again... rantings of a lunatic fundamentalist....

Who says people who question "creationism" are atheists? Similarly who says that the quantum physicists, biologists and geneticists don't have religious beliefs?

Isn't that just another form of absolutism?

Thank you for bringing that up. I don't consider myself, and never have, an atheist!!! I haven't said what I believe in, because no one has asked, and I haven't said. Unlike some people around here who want to profess their undying beliefs to the cyber-world of VJ, like we actually care! Instead, they assume, just because we don't think the exact same way as they do... we are atheists. Goes once again to show their arrogance and narrow minded viewpoint.

Edited August 13, 2006 by roi_aggie

[*Robert* 2]

There's no "harm" in believing in creation - except when it spills into secular institutions and people try to form legislation based on those beliefs.

Religion has no place in science classrooms, intelligent design which has become little more than 'creationism' by stealth, attempts to propagandise the subject and subvert the methods of scientific inquiry.

that i'll agree with

and btw, i don't believe in the creationism in the classroom. i've yet to meet anyone in kansas that does.

oh this is just a hoot... guess you don't get out much, since Kansas is in the middle of the bible belt, and home to some of the most devout fundamentalists.

LINK

Sheesh...

LINK

LINK

Yeah... once again chuckie, you are soooooo right... Kansas just totaly embraces the teaching of Evloution, both past, present, and future.

Guess you're not from around there ARE YOU???!!!

[lisaf 0]

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me

Are you saying none of the events, people, or places in the Bible can be proven? Because I would so DEARLY love to prove you wrong.

Please do prove me wrong!

Yes Im very eager to hear this one too

IT BE CHRISTMAS, AAAIIIIGGGHHT!!! BY ALI G

"There's this bird called Mary, yeah? She's a virgin (wossat then?)

She's not married or nuffink, but she's got this boyfriend, Joe, innit? He

does joinery an' that. Mary lives with him in a crib dahn Nazaref. One day

Mary meets this bloke Gabriel. She's like `Oo ya lookin at?' Gabriel just

goes 'You got one up the duff, you have.' Mary's totally gobsmacked. She

gives it to him large 'Stop dissin' me yeah? I ain't no Kappa-slapper. I

never bin wiv no one!' So Mary goes and sees her cousin Liz, who's six

months gone herself. Liz is largin' it. She's filled with spirits, Barcardi

Breezers an' that. She's like 'Orright, Mary, I can feel me bay-bee in

me tummy and I reckon I'm well blessed. Think of all the extra weez gonna

get on the social an' that.' Mary goes 'Yeah, s'pose you're right'

Mary an' Joe ain't got no money so they have to ponse a donkey, an' go

dahn Bethlehem on that. They get to this pub an' Mary wants to stop, yeah?

To have her bay-bee an' that. But there ain't no room at the inn, innit?

So Mary an' Joe break an' enter into this garridge, only it's filled wiv

animals. Cahs an' sheep an' that. Then these three geezers turn up,

looking proper bling, wiv crowns on their 'eads. They're like `REEESPECT!,

bay-beeJesus', an' say they're wise men from the East End. Joe goes: 'If

you're so wise, wotchoo doin' wiv this Frankenstein an' myrrh? Why dincha just

bring gold, Adidas and Burberry?' It's all about to kick off when Gabriel

turns up again an' sez he's got another message from this Lo rd geezer. He's

like 'The police is comin an' they're killin all the bay-bees. You better

nash off to Egypt.' Joe goes 'You must be monged if you think I'm goin'

dahn Egypt on a minging donkey' Gabriel sez 'Suit yerself, pal. But it's

your look out if you stay.' So they go dahn Egypt till they've stopped killin the first-born an'

it's safe an' that.

Then Joe and Mary and Jesus go back to Nazaref, an' Jesus turns water into Stella. "

[Melo 1]

IT BE CHRISTMAS, AAAIIIIGGGHHT!!! BY ALI G

"There's this bird called Mary, yeah? She's a virgin (wossat then?)

She's not married or nuffink, but she's got this boyfriend, Joe, innit? He

does joinery an' that. Mary lives with him in a crib dahn Nazaref. One day

Mary meets this bloke Gabriel. She's like `Oo ya lookin at?' Gabriel just

goes 'You got one up the duff, you have.' Mary's totally gobsmacked. She

gives it to him large 'Stop dissin' me yeah? I ain't no Kappa-slapper. I

never bin wiv no one!' So Mary goes and sees her cousin Liz, who's six

months gone herself. Liz is largin' it. She's filled with spirits, Barcardi

Breezers an' that. She's like 'Orright, Mary, I can feel me bay-bee in

me tummy and I reckon I'm well blessed. Think of all the extra weez gonna

get on the social an' that.' Mary goes 'Yeah, s'pose you're right'

Mary an' Joe ain't got no money so they have to ponse a donkey, an' go

dahn Bethlehem on that. They get to this pub an' Mary wants to stop, yeah?

To have her bay-bee an' that. But there ain't no room at the inn, innit?

So Mary an' Joe break an' enter into this garridge, only it's filled wiv

animals. Cahs an' sheep an' that. Then these three geezers turn up,

looking proper bling, wiv crowns on their 'eads. They're like `REEESPECT!,

bay-beeJesus', an' say they're wise men from the East End. Joe goes: 'If

you're so wise, wotchoo doin' wiv this Frankenstein an' myrrh? Why dincha just

bring gold, Adidas and Burberry?' It's all about to kick off when Gabriel

turns up again an' sez he's got another message from this Lo rd geezer. He's

like 'The police is comin an' they're killin all the bay-bees. You better

nash off to Egypt.' Joe goes 'You must be monged if you think I'm goin'

dahn Egypt on a minging donkey' Gabriel sez 'Suit yerself, pal. But it's

your look out if you stay.' So they go dahn Egypt till they've stopped killin the first-born an'

it's safe an' that.

Then Joe and Mary and Jesus go back to Nazaref, an' Jesus turns water into Stella. "

ROFL!!! Hahahahaha!!!!!

[PlatyPius 5]

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me

Are you saying none of the events, people, or places in the Bible can be proven? Because I would so DEARLY love to prove you wrong.

Yeah, I'd like for you to do what a million scholars have failed to do for the past 2000 years.... prove that Xianity is THE one true religion. Yes, we realize that some of the things in it are historical - which proves nothing; we have historical fiction today, too - no....we want PROOF that EVERYthing in the Bible is true.

Until you can prove that every event in the bible is true, then it is still a faith - a BELIEF - not a fact. Same with Evolution.... it's a theory, a logical possibility, not yet a fact.

Just remember that while you believe that xianity is THE true faith, there are also Hindus who believe the same thing (and their religion was here before xianity, too), as well as Muslims and others. Until people realize that they are all a BELIEF, not a fact, there will never be "Peace on Earth".

[Melo 1]

Yeah, I'd like for you to do what a million scholars have failed to do for the past 2000 years.... prove that Xianity is THE one true religion. Yes, we realize that some of the things in it are historical - which proves nothing; we have historical fiction today, too - no....we want PROOF that EVERYthing in the Bible is true.

Until you can prove that every event in the bible is true, then it is still a faith - a BELIEF - not a fact. Same with Evolution.... it's a theory, a logical possibility, not yet a fact.

Just remember that while you believe that xianity is THE true faith, there are also Hindus who believe the same thing (and their religion was here before xianity, too), as well as Muslims and others. Until people realize that they are all a BELIEF, not a fact, there will never be "Peace on Earth".

I think you have summed it up well

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me

Are you saying none of the events, people, or places in the Bible can be proven? Because I would so DEARLY love to prove you wrong.

Yeah, I'd like for you to do what a million scholars have failed to do for the past 2000 years.... prove that Xianity is THE one true religion. Yes, we realize that some of the things in it are historical - which proves nothing; we have historical fiction today, too - no....we want PROOF that EVERYthing in the Bible is true.

Until you can prove that every event in the bible is true, then it is still a faith - a BELIEF - not a fact. Same with Evolution.... it's a theory, a logical possibility, not yet a fact.

Just remember that while you believe that xianity is THE true faith, there are also Hindus who believe the same thing (and their religion was here before xianity, too), as well as Muslims and others. Until people realize that they are all a BELIEF, not a fact, there will never be "Peace on Earth".

Except of course that evolution is backed up factual supporting evidence. It's not perfect however, but neither does it pretend to be.

[danae 0]

IT BE CHRISTMAS, AAAIIIIGGGHHT!!! BY ALI G

"There's this bird called Mary, yeah? She's a virgin (wossat then?)

She's not married or nuffink, but she's got this boyfriend, Joe, innit? He

does joinery an' that. Mary lives with him in a crib dahn Nazaref. One day

Mary meets this bloke Gabriel. She's like `Oo ya lookin at?' Gabriel just

goes 'You got one up the duff, you have.' Mary's totally gobsmacked. She

gives it to him large 'Stop dissin' me yeah? I ain't no Kappa-slapper. I

never bin wiv no one!' So Mary goes and sees her cousin Liz, who's six

months gone herself. Liz is largin' it. She's filled with spirits, Barcardi

Breezers an' that. She's like 'Orright, Mary, I can feel me bay-bee in

me tummy and I reckon I'm well blessed. Think of all the extra weez gonna

get on the social an' that.' Mary goes 'Yeah, s'pose you're right'

Mary an' Joe ain't got no money so they have to ponse a donkey, an' go

dahn Bethlehem on that. They get to this pub an' Mary wants to stop, yeah?

To have her bay-bee an' that. But there ain't no room at the inn, innit?

So Mary an' Joe break an' enter into this garridge, only it's filled wiv

animals. Cahs an' sheep an' that. Then these three geezers turn up,

looking proper bling, wiv crowns on their 'eads. They're like `REEESPECT!,

bay-beeJesus', an' say they're wise men from the East End. Joe goes: 'If

you're so wise, wotchoo doin' wiv this Frankenstein an' myrrh? Why dincha just

bring gold, Adidas and Burberry?' It's all about to kick off when Gabriel

turns up again an' sez he's got another message from this Lo rd geezer. He's

like 'The police is comin an' they're killin all the bay-bees. You better

nash off to Egypt.' Joe goes 'You must be monged if you think I'm goin'

dahn Egypt on a minging donkey' Gabriel sez 'Suit yerself, pal. But it's

your look out if you stay.' So they go dahn Egypt till they've stopped killin the first-born an'

it's safe an' that.

Then Joe and Mary and Jesus go back to Nazaref, an' Jesus turns water into Stella. "

Now that is Sweeeet!!!

[pedroh 21]

the thing here is.. are beliefs more important than scientific breakthroughs? can a dogma be more powerful than something that in fact can help mankind? like stem cell research? isn't this kind of debate probly the one that copernicus or kepler faced when they told everybody 'no, the earth is not the center of the universe', or when Newton stated that celestial bodies obeyed physical laws rather than a Creator's will? or, Darwin evolutionist theories? and.. I mean, really.. of these scientifical breakthroughs.. 3 out of 3, science has prevailed over what religion says. now.. I'm not saying that stem cell research or biogenetics are the same as astronomy, because of course doesn't have the same ethical problems, but in fact it has the same or more scientifical value, that can indeed improve mankind life..

now I'm not saying that just because the world thinks stem cell research think its right.. you have to stand against your beliefs and ride the bandwagon.. but.. what if the belief was wrong? like when astronomy was born. yeah, church said earth was teh center of theuniverse, but they were wrong.. physicists are building machines to prove that the big bang indeed existed by tracking their still traveling particles (i.e. large hadron collider).. and the main thing.. why does believing in one thing has to cancel the other?? many quantum physicists believe in a God (as they say, not the God u pray to, but rather the clockwork engineering God conceived by Spinoza) as the source for even the most advanced theories, like superstrings.. and again, what if there was a big bang? would you still thing the Book is still truthful? or would you deny what science probably or not will be able to prove?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Personally, I have no problem at all with the Big Bang, and I could even give some room for the possibility of some form of evolution of animals, but definitely not the evolution of humans. I do take the Bible very seriously, and believe that it is in fact the very word of God, though transmitted through the language styles of the human writers.

I don't see anything in Scripture that necessarily conflicts with the Big Bang Theory. I think the biggest objection that some Christians have is with the age of the Earth; they believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, or at most up to perhaps 15,000 years old. This is mainly arrived at by adding up the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham. The problem is, the Bible never does this...no total figure is given. Also, the phrase "begat ___" does not necessarily refer to a father siring a son, but can also refer to descendants much further down the line; so there can in fact be large gaps in the timeline. It is also claimed that the word for "day" in Genesis 1 can only mean a 24 hour day, but that isn't true. In fact, the same word is used in Genesis 2 to refer to the entire period of Creation. So, it is certainly possible that far longer periods of time are being referred to.

I think the Big Bang fits quite nicely in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The rest of the chapter really is not about the creation of the Universe, but about the creation and development of the Earth. And the way it is written, it fits very well with the current understanding of how a planet in a new solar system forms, if it is understood that the observer in the narrative is placed where the Spirit is, i.e., hovering over the surface of the water. This even accounts for the appearance of the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day. That section is not so much talking about the moment chronologically when those objects were created (that I believe is part of Genesis 1:1), but is mainly giving the functions they serve from our perspective. It is at this point that the astronomical objects, which were there already (the light source in Genesis 1:3) became visible as distinct points of light.

And I do think there is room for evolution of some sort in the text of Genesis 1. God says, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds...," possibly referring to natural processes being used for the creation of animals. However, the case with Man is different. It is not the earth bringing forth Man, but God Himself creates Man, not from previously existing animal species, but from the "dust of the Earth"

I don't believe that there are necessary conflicts between science and the Bible. The problem comes when either is used to answer questions that they can't or don't answer. Science cannot answer questions such as the origin of life itself or the meaning of life (42??), and the Bible does not answer questions such as the precise mechanisms that He used in creating the Universe.

[pedroh 21]

Personally, I have no problem at all with the Big Bang, and I could even give some room for the possibility of some form of evolution of animals, but definitely not the evolution of humans. I do take the Bible very seriously, and believe that it is in fact the very word of God, though transmitted through the language styles of the human writers.

I don't see anything in Scripture that necessarily conflicts with the Big Bang Theory. I think the biggest objection that some Christians have is with the age of the Earth; they believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, or at most up to perhaps 15,000 years old. This is mainly arrived at by adding up the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham. The problem is, the Bible never does this...no total figure is given. Also, the phrase "begat ___" does not necessarily refer to a father siring a son, but can also refer to descendants much further down the line; so there can in fact be large gaps in the timeline. It is also claimed that the word for "day" in Genesis 1 can only mean a 24 hour day, but that isn't true. In fact, the same word is used in Genesis 2 to refer to the entire period of Creation. So, it is certainly possible that far longer periods of time are being referred to.

I think the Big Bang fits quite nicely in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The rest of the chapter really is not about the creation of the Universe, but about the creation and development of the Earth. And the way it is written, it fits very well with the current understanding of how a planet in a new solar system forms, if it is understood that the observer in the narrative is placed where the Spirit is, i.e., hovering over the surface of the water. This even accounts for the appearance of the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day. That section is not so much talking about the moment chronologically when those objects were created (that I believe is part of Genesis 1:1), but is mainly giving the functions they serve from our perspective. It is at this point that the astronomical objects, which were there already (the light source in Genesis 1:3) became visible as distinct points of light.

And I do think there is room for evolution of some sort in the text of Genesis 1. God says, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds...," possibly referring to natural processes being used for the creation of animals. However, the case with Man is different. It is not the earth bringing forth Man, but God Himself creates Man, not from previously existing animal species, but from the "dust of the Earth"

I don't believe that there are necessary conflicts between science and the Bible. The problem comes when either is used to answer questions that they can't or don't answer. Science cannot answer questions such as the origin of life itself or the meaning of life (42??), and the Bible does not answer questions such as the precise mechanisms that He used in creating the Universe.

the only problem is.. taking the bible too serious has several problems.. do you believe all what leviticus says? so it's ok and God wants us to have slaves? stone hookers and whatnot? do you honestly believe that in the end of time 6 horsemen will appear flying in the sky dropping pests on us?

so, how can one part of the Bible be 'acceptable' and not the other.. in this case.. either all the Bible is right, or all the Bible is Wrong.. I don't think God would like a half-arsed job of what he said..

Also, I don't see why not don't we humans evolve the say way as other living forms in nature? I mean.. I often feel this situation as selfishness from some humans.. who still want to conserver a little of divinity and claim that we are made to the image of God.. I'd assume it's the magic part of it.. but.. I don't see it wrong to say 'alas.. we humans are merely living forms, evolved just like any other form in the world'.. I see this more as a defense of our semi-divine status rather than find a feasable or logical theory..

[Melo 1]

Hmmmmmmmm here is what taking the Bible literally could mean...

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her Radio show. On her radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as thought-provoking.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination...End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbours who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).> He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp