Religion is slowly killing this great country

[croissant_savant]

So.............among other things human embryos have gills at one point and humans have vestigial tail structures because?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

good point man...or, girl.

What about our appendixes? They used to be another stomach! And our pinkies are next to go!

[Guest Guest]

If there is no God, how do you explain our existance .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The irony that this is from someone named 2smart4u.

Ok, next logical step. Where did GOD come from?

Also, what makes YOUR religion true. If you are Christian, then were did the Qur'an (Islamic "bible"), the Tanakh (Hebrew "bible"), etc., etc. come from? If the Christian bible is the truth, then the only logical explanation is that all the other are man made, fakes. Look at how many people follow these man made books as the word of GOD. I really hope that makes you think.

[Guest recked]

Are you kidding?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PBS tells it pretty clearly, free and ready for viewing online anytime you're ready to learn...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/program-3114.html

[Guest Lokix]

I'm amazed that some people are absolutely convinced that man has evolved from some lower life form without any evidence to support that position.  We know birds and mammals have evolved over the millennium, and there's evidence of  that. But man is another story, there is no evidence to support the THEORY that man has evolved from a lower life form. A "missing link" has never been found, dispite over one hundred years of serious digging around the world. Until ANY evidence is found, your arguments are hollow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm amazed that some people are absolutely convinced that man was just "poofed" into existence by some "god" without an evidence to support that position.

Some people amaze me...

You're saying his point is invalid because lack of evidence, but that religion is right, eventhough the only "evidence" is some book.

Wonderful example of intelligent thinking there, pal...

Just so you all know... there actually is quite a bit of evidence to support evolution, there just is not enough evidence of the right kind to take it from theory to 100% fact. You bible beaters have nothing more than a book written by a bunch of guys having hallucinations to support your creationism theory.

[Guest Chaplin]

That's not such a tough one to answer, actually.  The Miller-Urey experiment shows that electricity (in the form of lightning) that strikes atoms known to have been present (read about how known elements formed during cooling after big bang) on the Earth will combine into organic molecules (specifically amino acids) that are what make up DNA.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_...experiment.html

This process, like many natural phenomena, is complex to the point of seeming miraculous and may lead some to theories of intelligent design, but that would basically be starting a new religion since there is no reference (metaphorical or literal) in Judeo-Christian scripture for the fact that species emerge through a process of mutation and natural selection.

If you want to challenge "materialists" though, you'll do better to question us on the nature and definition of consciousness which so far has not been described in material terms (that is, consciousness as "error-correcting self-awareness" not just eyesight, perception, respiration, etc.) There is so far no evidence to account for a material basis for consciousness, and there are compelling arguments that consciousness may pervade the universe exactly as time and space do. That's not likely to be popular among monotheists either however. Good luck to all, may human belief systems continue to, uhmm, well, evolve to achieve the undisputed ideal of peace on earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I can say to that is: You're absolutely right. You make absolute sense. Three cheers.

[Guest Guest]

Ah Yes.....Good Ol' Religeon. The Opiate of the Masses. As far as any religeous fanatics go, if heaven is full of people like you then I don't think I want to go.

I do still like Christmas,though.

[Guest Guest]

If there is no God, how do you explain our existance .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there were a God, how do you explain his/her/its existence?

[Guest Paul]

If there is no God, how do you explain our existance .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a serious and intellgent question, and while others have answered it well, I would like to add my two cents.

The question invokes the problem of infinite regression.

The argument goes like this:

The naturalist cannot explain our existence without God.

Therefore, God must exist.

The first statement falsely assumes that it is in the nature of things for humans to know the ultimate answers of our existence. The truth is that there are many things we do not know. That does not mean the scientific naturalist is on the wrong path. or that s/he knows less than the supernaturalist/theist.

The second statement is a non-sequitur. There is simply no connection between the premise and the conclusion.

Now, instead of assuming no God, assume God.

As at least one other person has asked you, how do you explain God's existence? You can't. That is the problem of infinite regression: Your argument puts you in exactly the same place as the scientific naturalism you criticize. You can choose to accept an answer if you like, but that is all you have done --- chosen to believe.

[Guest A. Theist]

Its a sad but true fact that many, many wars were started over RELIGION.

I'm not trying to bash any one or groups of religion, but, unfortunately there will never be any common ground to set the groundwork for a peace free world.

I am a Catholic, born & raised, and I am ashamed to say that we are part of the problem. We're not the only ones though. 9/11 occurred due in part to religious differences, although their version of the Muslim faith was twisted into a "nothng but death to those who don't believe in Muslim" mentality. We all know that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, but again religion plays an ugly part in history.

If you need more examples, just read your history books.

Sorry, God. I know I'm going to hell now

Hopefully I didn't offend any people who read these posts. If so, I apologize.

[Guest Impressed]

Fascinating topic.

Much better that the crap on the Harrison & EN posts.

Different levels of eductaion and different class of people I suppose.

[Guest Guest]

That's not such a tough one to answer, actually.  The Miller-Urey experiment shows that electricity (in the form of lightning) that strikes atoms known to have been present (read about how known elements formed during cooling after big bang) on the Earth will combine into organic molecules (specifically amino acids) that are what make up DNA.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_...experiment.html

This process, like many natural phenomena, is complex to the point of seeming miraculous and may lead some to theories of intelligent design, but that would basically be starting a new religion since there is no reference (metaphorical or literal) in Judeo-Christian scripture for the fact that species emerge through a process of mutation and natural selection.

If you want to challenge "materialists" though, you'll do better to question us on the nature and definition of consciousness which so far has not been described in material terms (that is, consciousness as "error-correcting self-awareness" not just eyesight, perception, respiration, etc.) There is so far no evidence to account for a material basis for consciousness, and there are compelling arguments that consciousness may pervade the universe exactly as time and space do. That's not likely to be popular among monotheists either however. Good luck to all, may human belief systems continue to, uhmm, well, evolve to achieve the undisputed ideal of peace on earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There was a show on the National Geographic Channel that exhibited this successful experiment. They used Sea Squirts and through introducing electric current into the section of DNA that builds their one-chambered heart, these scientists made an evolutionary change that gave the specific Sea Squirt a two-chambered heart.

See? Evolution is fact.

[Guest 2smart4u]

This is a serious and intellgent question, and while others have answered it well, I would like to add my two cents.

The question invokes the problem of infinite regression.

The argument goes like this:

The naturalist cannot explain our existence without God.

Therefore, God must exist.

The first statement falsely assumes that it is in the nature of things for humans to know the ultimate answers of our existence. The truth is that there are many things we do not know. That does not mean the scientific naturalist is on the wrong path. or that s/he knows less than the supernaturalist/theist.

The second statement is a non-sequitur. There is simply no connection between the premise and the conclusion.

Now, instead of assuming no God, assume God.

As at least one other person has asked you, how do you explain God's existence? You can't. That is the problem of infinite regression: Your argument puts you in exactly the same place as the scientific naturalism you criticize. You can choose to accept an answer if you like, but that is all you have done --- chosen to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the same response I would give to the Darwiniacs who support the theory of evolution; how do you explain the theory of the evolution of man from a lower life form ? You can't. There is no evidence. The Darwiniacs have .....chosen to believe.

[Guest Guest]

I'm amazed that some people are absolutely convinced that man has evolved from some lower life form without any evidence to support that position.  We know birds and mammals have evolved over the millennium, and there's evidence of  that. But man is another story, there is no evidence to support the THEORY that man has evolved from a lower life form. A "missing link" has never been found, dispite over one hundred years of serious digging around the world. Until ANY evidence is found, your arguments are hollow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, there's plenty of evidence of human evolution; a brief summary of it, with links to examples and pictures, is available at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/.

Of course, the evolution-deniers use the Infinite Gaps approach to defend their "missing link" claims: If you show an intermediary between A and Z, they point to the two new (and smaller) gaps from A to N, and then N to Z.

Fill in those gaps, and they point to the four smaller gaps that now exist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. All for the purpose of maintaining their claim that "no missing link has ever been found!"

[Guest Guest]

As Richard Dawkins put it the theory of the big bang is the lesser of two evils when compared to creationism. Both are hard to believe but to say that its hard to believe that it all started from simple beginnings to complex things (big bang).. but then say its easier to believe that a super complex being, God, existed at the very beginning..  now that is even harder to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given that you can see the Big Bang using a telescope, why is it hard to believe? Any good telescope will show you the recession of galaxies away from us, and microwave observations will show you the light from the Big Bang. There's also the fact that the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory accurately predicts the abundance of elements in the universe.

[Guest Guest_James_*]

As Richard Dawkins put it the theory of the big bang is the lesser of two evils when compared to creationism. Both are hard to believe but to say that its hard to believe that it all started from simple beginnings to complex things (big bang).. but then say its easier to believe that a super complex being, God, existed at the very beginning..  now that is even harder to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given that you can see the Big Bang using a telescope, why is it hard to believe? Any good telescope will show you the recession of galaxies away from us, and microwave observations will show you the light from the Big Bang. There's also the fact that the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory accurately predicts the abundance of elements in the universe.

[Guest Reenie]

As is so often the case, the "Don't THINK--just believe as you are told" faction reveals "there" intelligence and deep logic with "there" grammar and spelling abilities! Sorry! I can't help it!!

[Guest plunge]

That's the same response I would give to the Darwiniacs who support  the theory of evolution; how do you explain the theory of the evolution of man from a lower life form ?  You can't. There is no evidence. The Darwiniacs have .....chosen to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hiya.

As a matter of fact, the evidence for human evolution is one of the most evidentially detailed transitions we have in the fossil record. While we cannot detail everything, we have a very clear record in fossils and a genetic record that matches it in every respect we can test: something that would be pretty much impossible to explain by coincidence.

But let's get some facts straight here:

Humans aren't just "from" apes: they ARE apes: the group homo sapien is nested WITHIN the group Hominoidea (apes), and this grouping is far from arbitrary: it is derived in the same way we derive all such taxonomic groupings. It's so obvious that even creationist taxonomists like Linnaeus grouped us with the chimps long before evolutionary theory explained WHY that should be.

Everything that defines what an "ape" is distinct from all other primates applies to humans. All apes, and ONLY apes have a unique pattern of teeth (certain number and position of canines, inscisors, molars, etc.). Humans, of course have this exact pattern. And the molars of apes all have the same unique pattern of grooves and peaks: a pattern unique in the animal kingdom. Want to know what that pattern looks like? Go look at your own molars in a mirror. They are ape molars.

All apes have the same basic pattern of hair coverage: almost exactly the same number of hair follicles. Including us. Our follicles generally produce a much finer, thinner hair than other apes, but while these differences may seem visually like big deals, in terms of morphology (i.e. actual body structure), they are quite minor differences. If we are not in fact apes, then isn't it quite an incredible coincidence that we should have the same number of hair follicles as all other apes? That seems like quite an exacting detail. In fact, we find that same sort of exacting detail everywhere: in virtually every respect, the physical differences of humans from other apes are not much greater than the differences between other different sorts of apes (for instance, chimps vs. gibbons). The only major features of note to a taxonomist are our increased frontal lobe sizes, a slight rebalancing of our skeletons that make us more conducive to walking upright (and, in fact, many other apes can walk upright if they want, and we've even encountered some that walk that way almost all the time, like we do), and, finally, a slight indentation in the top of our mouths which makes it easier for our tongues to help form the array of sounds we use for language.

That's pretty much it.

Now, then the evolutionary question is simply: how did our ape ancestors, which we're more like the other apes than like us, get to be like us?

The answer is quite clear, both in the fossil record, in the genetic record, and most importantly, in the way those two independent records match up.

For instance, the fossil record of early homonids is very rich: there are thousands of different fossil specimens, and when you look at them all in geological sequence, you see a very clear pattern of transition on all of the features I just mentioned. You see a gradual increase in the brainpan sizes necessary for larger and larger frontal lobes, more and more and more until you get into the human ranges. You see steps along the path of the rebalancing of the skeleton. Everything that evolution NEEDS to document from the evidence we have, it has documented. It's not a question of needing more evidence at this point. More evidence will fill in a lot of really interesting details as to the specifics of which species lie where on the entire hominid family tree, exactly what certain species lived when and how closely they were related to which others, but the basic shape of the tree is already well and even exhaustively demonstrated. There is no "missing link": that term doesn't mean anything.

But the fossil record is really only the icing on the cake: a flat out historical confirmation of something that we could know and demonstrate without any fossils at all simply by knowing that evolution can happen and looking at taxonomic similarities of existing life.

And we haven't even touched in genetics yet, have we? Or how all of these bits of evidence, to be useful at all, all of them have to fit in with what we know of the geology of the planet and all other known physical laws... and they, in fact, DO fit all of that.

But maybe you could clarify your argument a little bit: you know, the one about how there is no evidence whatsoever, first, before we delve into all that.

[Guest plunge]

That's the same response I would give to the Darwiniacs who support  the theory of evolution; how do you explain the theory of the evolution of man from a lower life form ?  You can't. There is no evidence. The Darwiniacs have .....chosen to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hiya.

As a matter of fact, the evidence for human evolution is one of the most evidentially detailed transitions we have in the fossil record. While we cannot detail everything, we have a very clear record in fossils and a genetic record that matches it in every respect we can test: something that would be pretty much impossible to explain by coincidence.

But let's get some facts straight here:

Humans aren't just "from" apes: they ARE apes: the group homo sapien is nested WITHIN the group Hominoidea (apes), and this grouping is far from arbitrary: it is derived in the same way we derive all such taxonomic groupings. It's so obvious that even creationist taxonomists like Linnaeus grouped us with the chimps long before evolutionary theory explained WHY that should be.

Everything that defines what an "ape" is distinct from all other primates applies to humans. All apes, and ONLY apes have a unique pattern of teeth (certain number and position of canines, inscisors, molars, etc.). Humans, of course have this exact pattern. And the molars of apes all have the same unique pattern of grooves and peaks: a pattern unique in the animal kingdom. Want to know what that pattern looks like? Go look at your own molars in a mirror. They are ape molars.

All apes have the same basic pattern of hair coverage: almost exactly the same number of hair follicles. Including us. Our follicles generally produce a much finer, thinner hair than other apes, but while these differences may seem visually like big deals, in terms of morphology (i.e. actual body structure), they are quite minor differences. If we are not in fact apes, then isn't it quite an incredible coincidence that we should have the same number of hair follicles as all other apes? That seems like quite an exacting detail. In fact, we find that same sort of exacting detail everywhere: in virtually every respect, the physical differences of humans from other apes are not much greater than the differences between other different sorts of apes (for instance, chimps vs. gibbons). The only major features of note to a taxonomist are our increased frontal lobe sizes, a slight rebalancing of our skeletons that make us more conducive to walking upright (and, in fact, many other apes can walk upright if they want, and we've even encountered some that walk that way almost all the time, like we do), and, finally, a slight indentation in the top of our mouths which makes it easier for our tongues to help form the array of sounds we use for language.

That's pretty much it.

Now, then the evolutionary question is simply: how did our ape ancestors, which we're more like the other apes than like us, get to be like us?

The answer is quite clear, both in the fossil record, in the genetic record, and most importantly, in the way those two independent records match up.

For instance, the fossil record of early homonids is very rich: there are thousands of different fossil specimens, and when you look at them all in geological sequence, you see a very clear pattern of transition on all of the features I just mentioned. You see a gradual increase in the brainpan sizes necessary for larger and larger frontal lobes, more and more and more until you get into the human ranges. You see steps along the path of the rebalancing of the skeleton. Everything that evolution NEEDS to document from the evidence we have, it has documented. It's not a question of needing more evidence at this point. More evidence will fill in a lot of really interesting details as to the specifics of which species lie where on the entire hominid family tree, exactly what certain species lived when and how closely they were related to which others, but the basic shape of the tree is already well and even exhaustively demonstrated. There is no "missing link": that term doesn't mean anything.

But the fossil record is really only the icing on the cake: a flat out historical confirmation of something that we could know and demonstrate without any fossils at all simply by knowing that evolution can happen and looking at taxonomic similarities of existing life.

And we haven't even touched in genetics yet, have we? Or how all of these bits of evidence, to be useful at all, all of them have to fit in with what we know of the geology of the planet and all other known physical laws... and they, in fact, DO fit all of that.

But maybe you could clarify your argument a little bit: you know, the one about how there is no evidence whatsoever, first, before we delve into all that.

[Guest -Suzie-]

Exorcisms...

[croissant_savant]

Exorcisms...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

finish the sentence?

[Guest BushBacker]

Hiya.

As a matter of fact, the evidence for human evolution is one of the most evidentially detailed transitions we have in the fossil record.  While we cannot detail everything, we have a very clear record in fossils and a genetic record that matches it in every respect we can test: something that would be pretty much impossible to explain by coincidence.

But let's get some facts straight here:

Humans aren't just "from" apes: they ARE apes: the group homo sapien is nested WITHIN the group Hominoidea (apes), and this grouping is far from arbitrary: it is derived in the same way we derive all such taxonomic groupings.  It's so obvious that even creationist taxonomists like Linnaeus grouped us with the chimps long before evolutionary theory explained WHY that should be.

Everything that defines what an "ape" is distinct from all other primates applies to humans.  All apes, and ONLY apes have a unique pattern of teeth (certain number and position of canines, inscisors, molars, etc.).  Humans, of course have this exact pattern. And the molars of apes all have the same unique pattern of grooves and peaks: a pattern unique in the animal kingdom. Want to know what that pattern looks like?  Go look at your own molars in a mirror.  They are ape molars.

All apes have the same basic pattern of hair coverage: almost exactly the same number of hair follicles.  Including us.  Our follicles generally produce a much finer, thinner hair than other apes, but while these differences may seem visually like big deals, in terms of morphology (i.e. actual body structure), they are quite minor differences.  If we are not in fact apes, then isn't it quite an incredible coincidence that we should have the same number of hair follicles as all other apes?  That seems like quite an exacting detail.  In fact, we find that same sort of exacting detail everywhere: in virtually every respect, the physical differences of humans from other apes are not much greater than the differences between other different sorts of apes (for instance, chimps vs. gibbons).  The only major features of note to a taxonomist are our increased frontal lobe sizes, a slight rebalancing of our skeletons that make us more conducive to walking upright (and, in fact, many other apes can walk upright if they want, and we've even encountered some that walk that way almost all the time, like we do), and, finally, a slight indentation in the top of our mouths which makes it easier for our tongues to help form the array of sounds we use for language.

That's pretty much it.

Now, then the evolutionary question is simply: how did our ape ancestors, which we're more like the other apes than like us, get to be like us? 

The answer is quite clear, both in the fossil record, in the genetic record, and most importantly, in the way those two independent records match up.

For instance, the fossil record of early homonids is very rich: there are thousands of different fossil specimens, and when you look at them all in geological sequence, you see a very clear pattern of transition on all of the features I just mentioned.  You see a gradual increase in the brainpan sizes necessary for larger and larger frontal lobes, more and more and more until you get into the human ranges.  You see steps along the path of the rebalancing of the skeleton.  Everything that evolution NEEDS to document from the evidence we have, it has documented.  It's not a question of needing more evidence at this point.  More evidence will fill in a lot of really interesting details as to the specifics of which species lie where on the entire hominid family tree, exactly what certain species lived when and how closely they were related to which others, but the basic shape of the tree is already well and even exhaustively demonstrated.  There is no "missing link": that term doesn't mean anything.

But the fossil record is really only the icing on the cake: a flat out historical confirmation of something that we could know and demonstrate without any fossils at all simply by knowing that evolution can happen and looking at taxonomic similarities of existing life.

And we haven't even touched in genetics yet, have we?  Or how all of these bits of evidence, to be useful at all, all of them have to fit in with what we know of the geology of the planet and all other known physical laws... and they, in fact, DO fit all of that. 

But maybe you could clarify your argument a little bit: you know, the one about how there is no evidence whatsoever, first, before we delve into all that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One correction in the above post. All men are not apes, only the left wing Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats are apes. Republicans have been created by God and are endowed with a higher intelligence.

[Guest Paul]

That's the same response I would give to the Darwiniacs who support  the theory of evolution; how do you explain the theory of the evolution of man from a lower life form ?  You can't. There is no evidence. The Darwiniacs have .....chosen to believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are incorrect. The evidence is overwhelming. Several people have given you just a thumbnail sketch of a few tiny corners of evolutionary theory on these pages, and of course you don't respond because you don't have any background to respond with. Read the books I cited to you with an open mind, and you will no longer make that statement.

You haven't read any of them, have you? Be honest. I already know you haven't. Why not just admit it, and learn something for a change, instead of proclaiming yourself 2smart for the rest of us? You may think that's a real put-down to us, but --- well, would you really like to know what the rest of us see?

Not to mention that you don't deny the point. All you do is say, "Oh, yeah, well you more." If you've taken college courses, I assume you're an adult. Get my point?

[Guest Guest]

So.............among other things human embryos have gills at one point and humans have vestigial tail structures because?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2samrt4u will tell you that these are the side effects of drinking Kool-aid.

[Guest Guest]

Fascinating topic.

Much better that the crap on the Harrison & EN posts.

Different levels of eductaion and different class of people I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. 2smart4u does some of his/her "best work" on those boards.

[Guest Guest]

One correction in the above post. All men are not apes, only the left wing Kool-aid drinking defeatocrats are apes.  Republicans have been created by God and are endowed with a higher intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So nice to hear from an UNevolved WANKER who has NOTHING intelligent to say so falls back on his ASININE Kool-Aid remarks.

Why don't you try to explain why you're so willing to label yourself the backer of a bumbling incompetent?