I hardly pursue evolution with ardor or faith. I don't accept it based on faith - I accept it based on evidence.


Brief questions:

How old is the earth? Proof?
How old is the universe? Proof?

I have to head out - just a brief note:

I am an agnostic (I do not believe any religions -false-, I merely do not ascribe to any religious beliefs, as I have no evidence by which to base a decision).

I am a determinist, and believe evolution is the best theory we have regarding how the laws of physics and mathematics have melded life as we know it on the planet Earth in the Solar System in the Milky Way in our Universe.

Yay, Im sure we can all look up the various different definitions of religion and debate on that. What I believe it really comes down to is that man cannot and will not comprehend any time soon the full scale of how things happened.

So many people waste so much time staring into the past asking why, what, and how. I cant remember what scritpture it was, but the words :

Be still, and know that I am God.

come to mind. Sadley for those who dont give thought to such things, that is not enough.

I feel sad for people who NEED proof, need evidence. I'm not some sheltered little girl who's grown up in one of those little white churchs with the steeple and organ and all of that. My first church was quite odd to me, the people prayed in tongue. My mother and sister can still pray in tongue. There were years without church, just one of those people who answered I was Christian when asked, didn't give anymore thought to it.

I went through a couple years of studying Wicca. I needed proof for everything as well, it was not a fullfilling life. My mom had to almost die before I started believing in God and miracles. And now I wholeheartedly believe in Him and them. I might go to a different kind of church, it used to be a movie theater which makes our "choir" (meaning Christian rock group) sound awesome. I'm in the middle of a miracle right now, a blessing for my best friend who deserves it more than anything. I don't need proof to believe in God, but I arm myself with it anyways. I have very little respect for those who have been spoon-fed everything their entire lives. The "perfect Christians" who when you ask them about their religion have nothing of substance to say.

Well, there are those in the world who need proof, and I feel like God knows His children enough to know who, and eventually give it to them.

I am far from spoon-fed anything. I came to this on my own. And I honestly feel no need to back up anything I believe with proof to show that I have "lived life" or to show that I am not somehow naive in what I am talking about.

I'm not trying to proove anything about myself. I don't appretiate how Rhysus called me ignorant where this topic was previously brought up. I am not ignorant, and I can tell you are not ignorant either.

I know where your comming from. I diddnt see that. Heres a quote from the MSNBC news forums (groups.msn.com/newschat the best moderated news chat forum out there)



Rhysus' point of view is from the standpoint of lacking the knowledge of God's divine nature. Instead of being indignant at him calling you ignorant for your beliefs; try to understand that the view he takes is generally myopic, in that he cannot believe in what he cant see, and anyone who sees differently is naive.

Sorry, Raan, but that just isn't true. You're using the exact same argument that he's using, but worse, but because you have no evidence. The very fact that you're trying to use that argument without evidence does, in fact, prove that it's simply blind hope. There's no "knowledge." Maybe you're right to think God exists, maybe you're not. Nobody really knows with 100% certainty, although it is possible to logically prove things like no omnipotent being can exist. (Then again, it's possible to mathematically prove 0 = 1, which causes problems as you can imagine.) But regardless of who's right, it's purely faith, hope, and trust, since there's no real reasoning behind it. My, and Rhysus', point of view is not "myopic", because we actually take facts into account. I won't be so quick to accuse your view of being myopic as you are of mine, but rather than being defensive about the accusation and proving him right, there are better ways of arguing that your faith may be valid without trying to say that there's no reasoning behind anything else.

DAmn it! You guys post to much.. anyways I wrote this long thing in the PHysics thread... Here it is in the proper thread, I hope it fits this conversation.


Ok, I feel compelled to respond to the Creationism hijack. Warning this will be long.

First of all, as Alyvia pointed out, the "SUN" was created on the 4th day. Would you mind telling me, what said a day was a day during the first 3 days? In Ancient Jewish Literature (and I mean ancient) The creation of the earth is explained much like a pregnancy. Just like a child grows rapidily in its early years, and over time, the growth period slows down, the creation of the earth could be similiar. (on a side note, the Most ancient of Jewish traditions, teaches that the 7 days of creation and the adam and eve story, did not happen in the Physical world(or as its called, the world of action). It happened in the world of creation, and what Adam was really kicked out of, was this world of creation, and was sent down to the world of Action(i.e the physical world) Adam then was not 1 single man, but rather a single soul sent to the animal like population of the world, chaning man from his animal state to his more refined half spiritual/ half animal state.(end note, that is the language of the ancient traditions, not really changed to compensate for modern theories)(This explanation makes many things, such as the curses given to man, make all that more sense))

To use the Bible to say that the entire universe was created over a 168 hour period is a bit silly, and few who actually study these things believe that. There are a numerous of books that show various theories of how modern science understanding fits perfectly with a less literal reading of the 7 days of creation. I find it uncesary to go through them here.

At the same time, Evolutionary biology, really fails to explain the "explosions" of evolution that appear to have happened, world wide, in around the same period. It also seems to not really explain why all humans are able to bread with eachother, despite long years of isolation.(yet two squirrel populations, divided by a large city are found, after just 60 years to not be able to reproduce with eachother) Just about all modern animals have a VERY similiar emroyonic stage. However, the further you go back in history, the more diverse the various organism were that existed back then.

To me, it makes much more sense to say that a guiding force exists that has helped the movement of the earth and its animal species. And that a specific design has been made that allows us to learn the process and reasoning behind this guiding force. Just as gravity guides all objects towards the largest object, there is a Evolutianry force that guides animals, plants, and the earth itself to move and shape itself. I have some personal beliefs as to what that force is, and how involved it is with the guiding of everything, but that is neither here nor there.

I find string theory, and Intelegent design theory to make much more sense than any Macroevolutionary theory. (I do beleive there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that Microevolution exists) So to explain, its easy to explain with evoultion the existance of Eearly chickens and different specieis of dog. However, how do you get from an ambibia to a fish, and from a fish to a land animal, and from a land animal to a bird, and from a bird to a lizard?

And Mind you; Humans break all rules of evolution. (especially the concept of bad genes getting removed from the genepool, because we care for our sick)

Actually, it is. I know for a fact, without a doubt, 100% undeniably, never to be revoked, that God exists. I know, that Christ died for the sins of mankind, and provided a way for every living person to return to Him. This knowledge, is unshakable, and un deniable for those who have it.

Well, I suppose I could argue that it's not possible to know anything apart from about 2 or so basic axioms for certain, but I'd have hoped that even being a LITTLE less skeptical than that would prove the point.
And I suppose I'll have to say, now, that I know without a doubt, 100% certainty, that God doesn't exist. Christ, who may or may not have existed (I think he did) didn't die "for the sins of mankind", and there's no returning of living people to him. Unshakeable and undeniable.
The point is, though I could argue that, it's just so much better to debate reasonably, using logic, rather than just attempting to override the argument with faith and then claiming it's the same as reason. Because faith and reason are not synonymous.

When you say Him do you mean G-d or Jesus?

Anyway, no Evolution is not a religion, and Creationism is not a religion. However, Athiesm is a religion and its "Bible" is the various books of Science. Just like other religion's Bibles are composed of various books of thier traditions. (The Catholic bible is different from the Jewish bibles is diffferent from the Mormon bible.)

And out of curiosity, Why does the mormon translation of the 7 days always say.. and I god said:, instead of saying G-d said:?
The book of dutorotemy is very clear that G-d Himself did not put ink to parchment. The only thing G-d wrote himself was the 10 commandments, and then it was only the first set. (This is not a matter of Faith, its a matter of text)

Shiri, read my -long- post.

Atheism is not a religion. I am an atheist, firm atheist. I believe there is no god, that Jesus was not an immortal, or anything like that, no heaven, nothing.

It's the lack of religion. If nothing about its views proves that, then look at the name. Our bible is not science. Apart from anything else, that makes it sound like the bible is the default, and science is at odds with it and something new and extraneous.

...and I have read your long post. Just because I don't choose, this time, to respond to it point by point, doesn't mean that I haven't read it. I have taken your views into account, I am simply responding to Raan with my own opinion in mind.

I do not believe that evolution is a religion in the same way that I do not believe that the Curse of the Bambino had any basis in reality beyond the psychological mindset of those who believe in it. Modern religions are much the same way. Where the modern theory of evolution provides evidence within a consistent, reliable framework of ideas that can be shown empirically to be accurate, religion is by definition mired in the embrace of ignorance.

oh, sorry, I keep forgettting to write things.

Creationism could never be proven false, but it can be proven unnecessary. For example, most Christians now a days does not argue that gravity exits, however, when people dropped things without knowing the concept of gravity, a perfectly valid explanation, and still true, is that G-d set it up so that it always falls. Its the same thing with Creationism.

Evolution, in its current form of being taught in highschool, tends to give arguments that Humans are just like any other animal and have a direct link to all other animals through Evolution. This "Fact" is nothing more than a religious statment. The problem most religious people have with "Evolution" is that it fails to recognize the fact that Humans are not just another speciies of Animal.

When a Scientific theory comes along that accuratly and logically explains how Humans came to being, and how various seemingly unrelated species came about, then "Creationism" will no longer be asked to be taught in schools along with MacroEvolution.

There is no proof for creation. It can only be 'justified' by a lack of proof for other theories. You cannot prove something by a lack of evidence, it is illogical and wrong. Discrediting evolution does not credit creation.

Sure it may seem impossible to conceive that everything, including our very existence, is just a universal fluke and is the product of a stroke of cosmic luck or some kind of unimaginable and unexplainable event. But is it any more rational to say, "Oh, it must have been the magical superhero(s) who lives in space and is invisible and perfect and we can never understand!".

I'm right. You're wrong. End of story.

There is no such thing as a missing link. There does not need to be.

We are not direct decendents of chimps and apes and such (is YOUR great great grandaddy a monkey?) that is not how evolutions works and anyone who has taken a basic biology lesson should know that.

Please, please, tell me you really don't believe the world is only 4,000 years old.

Creationism is a theory based on a book. Evolution actually has some evidence to support the theory.

Because faith and reason are not synonymous.


No they are not, nor ever will be. Thus my point. You have no capability of seeing things through the eyes of one who has faith and or knowledge in something you cannot logically comprehend. It reaches a point where logic and human reason no longer applies. Those who try to combine both have too many missing peices, because they cannot see the whole puzzle.

I can almost guarentee that Alyvia and I are not of the same religious faith. Latter Day Saints arent even considered Christian by the majority of protestant mainstream culture. But I can agree with her that is it not right for you to point fingers claiming naivety when you have know idea what that person knows or believes.

Claims that the devoutly religious are niave because they ARE devoutly religious are outrageous, and generally (yet not always) of a subconscious hidden fear that they may be in fact, right. On the other hand it could also be that the person or persons have grown so self sure of their own personal knowledge of the world, that anyone who thinks differently then themselves are of course naive.

Dagnev, and Rexali both seem to be able hold a well rounded, and generally intresting debate without downgrading, defiling, or otherwise attacking others personal intelligence to try to prove a point; which only serves to discredit them on both the Creationist, and Evolustionist sides of the scales in the eyes of their peers.

So in conclusion. Claiming Alyvia is Niave because she believes what she does, is not only niave in of itself, but more or less wrong; for you have no idea what it is like to be in her shoes.