# Evolution vs creationism ?



## IKE (Dec 21, 2017)

I believe in evolution rather than creationism......which do you believe in ?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 21, 2017)

A little of both.


----------



## Wintermint (Dec 21, 2017)

I don't think 'belief' comes into it. The word suggests faith. If you are a fundamentalist Christian your faith might suggest that you should ignore scientific evidence and go with the irrational option.

Evidence - scientifically gathered, painstakingly analysed with no agenda and no thought for the conclusion other than where the evidence leads, tells us that evolution was and is real.


..and what a handsome fellow you are! : )


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 21, 2017)

One doesn't 'believe' in science. One examines the evidence and if it is strong enough, one accepts the theory.
The evidence supporting the process known as evolution is overwhelming so I accept this ground breaking theory as valid.
Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea and has as much scientific validity as the phlogiston theory of combustion.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 21, 2017)

I do agree with evolution but that really doesn't answer much, because how did evolution start? How did anything start? I haven't seen any kind of explanation yet.


----------



## retiredtraveler (Dec 21, 2017)

Olivia said:


> I do agree with evolution but that really doesn't answer much, because how did evolution start? How did anything start? I haven't seen any kind of explanation yet.



Everything was started by aliens!layful:


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 21, 2017)

Thanks IKE!!!

It's beginning to sound like we need to cancel Christmas dinner, LOL!!!


----------



## Lon (Dec 21, 2017)

Evolution


----------



## Olivia (Dec 21, 2017)

retiredtraveler said:


> Everything was started by aliens!layful:



"To Serve Man"?


----------



## Ruthanne (Dec 21, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> One doesn't 'believe' in science. One examines the evidence and if it is strong enough, one accepts the theory.
> The evidence supporting the process known as evolution is overwhelming so I accept this ground breaking theory as valid.
> Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea and has as much scientific validity as the phlogiston theory of combustion.


I don't understand your last sentence Warri; could you put it in different words so I can understand?


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 21, 2017)

I am a Creationist, and believe in a young earth, one that is thousands of years old, and not millions of years old. I believe that we were created by an intelligence that was infinitely greater than ourselves, and created by design, and not by random evolution. 
Obviously, I am also a Christian and believe in God, but even people who do not believe in the Bible are coming to the conclusion that we were created by intelligent design. They simply believe that it was by some kind of space travelers who came here thousands of years ago, and created man to help mine for gold. 
If a person has an open mind to look at both sides, there is actually more evidence for creationism than there is for evolution.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 21, 2017)

Olivia said:


> I do agree with evolution but that really doesn't answer much, because how did evolution start? How did anything start? I haven't seen any kind of explanation yet.



An excellent thought.

Evidence that life has evolved over time is overwhelming and is found in the fossil record , comparative anatomy, embryology and  genetics. The mechanism of evolution is more controversial. Darwin's theory was pivotal in focusing attention on adaptation to changing environments and competition for resources. Genetics has helped us to understand the role of ****** reproduction and mutations. With each scientific advance, the original theory is being refined. That is how science progresses in any field.

The question Olivia raises is much harder to answer. How did non living matter give rise to living molecules? It must have happened, but how? That is the question that is still wide open.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 21, 2017)

Olivia said:


> "To Serve Man"?


Loll.


----------



## n_brown (Dec 21, 2017)

I believe creation initially had taken place, and that the ability of species to *evolve*(adapting to changing conditions) is a subset of the original coding.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 21, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> One doesn't 'believe' in science. One examines the evidence and if it is strong enough, one accepts the theory.
> The evidence supporting the process known as evolution is overwhelming so I accept this ground breaking theory as valid.
> Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea and has as much scientific validity as the phlogiston theory of combustion.


The theory of phlogiston and calx was a valid scientific theory in that it offered an explanation and was subject to disproof.  It was, in fact, disproved.  Creationism offers an explanation, but it is not subject to disproof.  Therefore, it has no scientific validity.

The following has nothing to do with the above; I just like dragons.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 21, 2017)

Most of us, especially those of us who live in the United States, remember the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in May of 1980. The eruption initially caused huge flooding of the Toutle River, and destruction of most of the area around the volcano. 
The ash cloud was carried eastward and covered all of Washington State on the eastern side, as well as parts of Idaho and Montana. 
After the eruption, the whole geography of the area was dramatically changed, and scientists have now started looking at the similarity between the canyon and layers of rock left around Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon. 
Even though we were all taught that it took millions of years for the river to cut through the rock to form the Grand Canyon, it is entirely possible that this is wrong, and it could have happened rapidly, just like happened with the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption. 
Here is a short video that explains how this happened in 1980-1982, and presenting the similarities with the formation of the Grand Canyon. 
However, there many other videos on this subject that go into everything in much greater detail, if someone wants to do more research about this. This short one does give you the basic gist of the idea.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 21, 2017)

Ruthanne said:


> I don't understand your last sentence Warri; could you put it in different words so I can understand?  Sorry, am dumb today.



Sorry Ruthanne, I did not notice your question.

There are two parts to my last sentence

"Creationism is a negative reaction to a scientific idea". Prior to Darwin publishing his work "The Origin of Species" biblical creationism was not a popular notion. In the Middle Ages creationism referred to the idea that God created our unique souls; an event that took place at the moment of birth. Darwin's theory was unfairly and incorrectly interpreted as proposing that mankind had evolved from monkeys and this set off a firestorm of religious objection and biblical fundamentalism became the powerful counter movement. You will remember the famous Scopes monkey trial depicted in the movie "Inherit the Wind".

The second part of the sentence refers to  a discredited theory about how substances burn.



> The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory that postulated that a fire-like element called phlogiston is contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. ... The theory attempted to explain burning processes such as combustion and rusting, which are now collectively known as oxidation.



Experiments carried out by the French scientist Lavoisier demonstrated that oxygen is necessary for any substance to burn. After that the phlogiston theory died away. There never was any such element as phlogiston. 

There is a similarly discredited theory of evolution proposed by Lamarck which said that characteristics acquired during life are passed to succeeding generations but genetics put that one to bed. You simply cannot produce taller children by having yourself stretched on the rack.

Science is  full of discarded theories including a flat earth and the Earth being the centre of the Universe. However, in tiny pockets of the world, there are still some discredited ideas being kept alive.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Dec 21, 2017)

If you believe in creation, that's what you believe. But the world uses evolution as a fact. I fail to understand why this would cause problems in ones daily life.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 21, 2017)

You are right, Fuzzy.

As a person of faith and a former science teacher I have no problem with this question.
A long time ago I came to understand that the most important religious question for me to consider is, "Who is my neighbour?"
The answer to this question informs my everyday life and is much more important than "Is there life on other planets?" or "What caused the Big Bang?" However, all such questions are interesting to us because Homo Sapiens is a very curious species.


----------



## HiDesertHal (Dec 21, 2017)

Evolution!

Who ever heard of Man supplying a Rib to create Woman?

And on Creation: God "spitting out" the Seven Seas?

Are there people of sound mind who actually believe those tales?

I am a Lutheran who stopped going to Church many decades ago, when I began to think rationally.

HOWEVAH, I still believe in a Universal, Superior "intelligence", whether its adherents are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamists, etc. 

These are Faiths, and one must have a faith in *something.* I happen to choose Nature as my God, and I mean the Nature that is governed by Physics, and extends throughout the Universe, not just here on Earth!

HiDesertHal


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 21, 2017)

Evolution?

Heh,takes more faith to believe that one.
When the medical profession can settle down to something definite in regard to what’s good for you, and not keep changing/reversing their stance, then I might begin to consider whatever the latest ‘scientific discovery’ tells us.

The premise of things evolving is akin to taking, say, watch parts, putting it all in a bag, shaking the crap outa it, believing that one day, say, a gazillion years, you’ll have yerself a watch..and if you, after a gazillion years, peeked in the bag, and all you saw was watch parts, well, heh, it that’s because it actually takes a bazillion gazillion years…times two.

Now,creationism, if that’s what it’s called today, is contained in the Bible, along with the book of Daniel, of which contains prophecies that are so pin point, so precise, well, one need not have all that much faith to believe.

I think the faith deal comes in accepting His forgiveness for our dastardly selves

Yes, I believe in God

Not man's science

Not religion

God

...and what's left of His creation


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 21, 2017)

HiDesertHal said:


> Evolution!
> 
> Who ever heard of Man supplying a Rib to create Woman?
> 
> ...



Last I knew, the only or maybe one of very few bible stories that may have some basis in reality is the great flood. Apparently many pre-written cultures have a great flood story with many shared features. However, the part about some guy building an ark to save all of the world's species stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

I vote evolution.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 21, 2017)

I agree, Aunt Bea.  I don't think the one necessarily excludes the other.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 21, 2017)

The evidence supporting evolution is over-whelming. Take one small example: the modern horse descended from a tiny creature about the size of a small dog. We have the fossilized bones of every stage between "Eohippus" and the modern horse, which we are all so familiar with.  There are thousands of such examples.

The mechanics of evolution revolve around an animals abilities, or lack thereof, to survive in it's environment.  Any animal that can not locate food and reproduce, goes extinct. Mutations occur quite randomly. Most of those mutations work against its survival. Periodically, however, a randomly occurring mutation helps the creature survive, and reproduce, and gives it an advantage over others of its species. Thus it lives longer and produces more offspring which also have the same mutations as one of its parents. 

It should be noted that evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the animal wants. Take the giraffe for example. It did NOT gain a long neck because it wanted to. Tens of millions of years ago, one single animal, was born with the genes to have a slightly longer neck. This allowed it to "out compete" with others of its kind, and thus it could reach higher and get more vegetation than others of its kind. Those genes were passed on to its offspring.

Simple common sense tells us that an eagle with better eye sight has a huge advantage in the quest for food. If that eagle happens to be male, he has a greater chance of being selected by the female as a mate. In other words, he is a better provider. Thus the chicks have those better genes and they are fed more food by the parent and they survive. 

*That is what evolution is all about. Random mutations give an animal a better chance of surviving and producing more offspring. 
Quite simple really.*


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 21, 2017)

My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures. So what if it takes billions of years? It's a big universe, things take time; all according to God's plan, in God's time, not ours. 

I wouldn't be surprised if mathematics is the language of God.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 21, 2017)

Traveler said:


> The evidence supporting evolution is over-whelming. Take one small example: the modern horse descended from a tiny creature about the size of a small dog. We have the fossilized bones of every stage between "Eohippus" and the modern horse, which we are all so familiar with.  There are thousands of such examples.
> 
> The mechanics of evolution revolve around an animals abilities, or lack thereof, to survive in it's environment.  Any animal that can not locate food and reproduce, goes extinct. Mutations occur quite randomly. Most of those mutations work against its survival. Periodically, however, a randomly occurring mutation helps the creature survive, and reproduce, and gives it an advantage over others of its species. Thus it lives longer and produces more offspring which also have the same mutations as one of its parents.
> 
> ...



What you are talking about is more of a micro-evolution, which is quite possible, and is actually being done all of the time. That  is why we have dogs that look like St. Bernard’s look, and other dogs that are chihuahuas. 
Some of this kind of breed evolution happened naturally, depending on where the animal lived and what they needed to survive, and most of it now is done by selective breeding. 

What does not happen is evolution turning one creature into a different creature. Ferns do not turn into palm trees, dogs do not turn into cats. 
You can follow the evolution of any particular species, but it still stays within that same species.


----------



## NancyNGA (Dec 21, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures. So what if it takes billions of years? It's a big universe, things take time; all according to God's plan, in God's time, not ours.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if mathematics is the language of God.


I like that, Rose.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 21, 2017)

Not saying that anyone has to accept evolution, but in evolution species do evolve into new species.


----------



## rgp (Dec 21, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> A little of both.



 That's my thought on it as well.....

 One thing I do know...it's not IMO worth fighting over. And I have seen otherwise rational people damn near come to blows over it.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 21, 2017)

Olivia said:


> Not saying that anyone has to accept evolution, but in evolution species do evolve into new species.



Can you give some examples of that perhaps ?  I have posted information that helps to show why the history of the world might not have played out quite the same as we have been taught in school. So far (and not picking on you as an example, Olivia), most of what I have seen is people saying that they “know” evolution is right and science taught us all the right things. 
When evolution does not happen between species, they say that there are just some missing links and we have not found them yet, and that is why evolution is only a theory, just like any other theory. 
Science is starting to look at things differently, if anyone will take the time to watch even one of the videos that I posted, and in the future, school kids may learn a different story about how the world was formed.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 21, 2017)

When evolution of species happens, it happens over millions if not billions of years. I'm not an archaeologist so I can't off the top of my head give you facts about fossils, etc. But if you like, here is a website that explains it. 

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

I personally don't believe that evolution rules out a creator. I'm just one of those that believe that God could do it anyway He wants. Doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Just is not written like a science book. And what is important is not having to be persuaded that everything has to be a certain way to have faith.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 21, 2017)

rgp said:


> That's my thought on it as well.....
> 
> One thing I do know...it's not IMO worth fighting over. And I have seen otherwise rational people damn near come to blows over it.



Quite true.


----------



## Knight (Dec 21, 2017)

Science is working towards resolving once and for all the mystery, but for now the info in these two articles for me point to evolution. Those that believe in creation will continue because that works for them. Thankfully we all get choices that don't impact another. 




1.Three decades, the biological revolution
To a biologist, freeze-drying microbes for harsh space travel conjures up rather mundane kitchen science, a simple reenactment of how a yeast packet taken from the freezer can make bread dough rise prior to baking. But to a new breed of biologist exploring the harshest conditions on Earth, how a delicate microbe manages to counteract vacuum, boiling temperatures, burning radiation, and crushing pressures deep in the frozen icecaps is the study of life itself. 
For example, only now after 30 years of biological progress can scientists begin to scan down the genetic script underlying the causes of malaria, syphilis, cholera and tuberculosis. Within a few years, it is estimated that 50 to 100 complete genomes of living organisms will be entirely deciphered, presenting the first opportunities for deep evolutionary comparisons and insights into exactly the remarkable means by which the common Strep. bacteria could revive itself after 2.6 years on the moon.


https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast01sep98_1/


2.Last paragragph of example #7


This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.


http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/


3. Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion 


https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html


1. Science has shown delicate microbes can live in space.
2. Science is demonstrating evolution is a fact.
3. Science explains the age of earth


The bible has a lot of nice stories to explain what was known at the time it was written. It is comforting to think there is a maker that would have to be billions of years old. But that generates more questions. Who made the maker & how did they manage to extend the makers life for so long


----------



## Traveler (Dec 22, 2017)

Happyflowerlady said:


> What you are talking about is more of a micro-evolution, which is quite possible, and is actually being done all of the time. That  is why we have dogs that look like St. Bernard’s look, and other dogs that are chihuahuas.
> Some of this kind of breed evolution happened naturally, depending on where the animal lived and what they needed to survive, and most of it now is done by selective breeding.
> 
> What does not happen is evolution turning one creature into a different creature. Ferns do not turn into palm trees, dogs do not turn into cats.
> ...



When you were talking about DOGS, what we see is the result of HUMAN intervention. That's called selective breeding. It has nothing to do with naturally occurring evolution.  If I want to select dogs that can herd sheep, for example, I would watch my adult dogs and then I'd select pairs of animals that are already herding of their own accord. I'd mate those pairs and after several generations I'd have dogs that are even better at herding sheep. 

Now, when it comes to NATURAL evolution, dogs do not turn into cats. That is NOT how evolution works. Take any species you wish, set them in the wild uncontrolled environment, and given enough TIME they will change into a better and better example of what they used to be. It is said, in Africa, that the cheetah made the gazelle fast. That is exactly correct. So, how does that work ? In any herd of animals some are going to be slower than its mates. Those slower ones get eaten and the faster ones escape. Gradually, over tens of thousands of years, the population of gazelles are much, much faster than their ancestors. 

Now, occasionally a group of animals becomes isolated from the original group. This can occur because of a changing environment, a shifting of the land masses (earthquakes), or into case of birds, a long distance flight to a far off island. In the NEW environment the animal is confronted with a different set of challenges ie. a completely different environment, different foods and/or different predators. This is where "speciation" occurs. Cut off from the original group they can and do adapt to the new challenges. Thus, in to process, they become a different species. That means they can no longer mate with the original group.  Take for example humming birds. There are many hundreds of different species of humming birds. Believe it or not there is a species of humming birds that has adapted to extremely high altitudes. Those high altitude birds can no longer mate with their lowland jungle distant cousins. Some humming birds have a beak only 1 inch long, while a different species of humming bird has a beak 4 inches long. *That is evolution in action !

Tiny changes over millions of years produces an animal vastly different from its ancient ancestors. 

Evolution science does not say that an elephant can turn into a bird.  It does say that whales are mammals who once were land dwelling animals. If you examine the skeleton of a whale you will find buried in the flesh , near the tail, a set of bones that were once hind legs, left over from the time it was a land dwelling animal.
*


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 22, 2017)

Some interesting questions to ponder -

Is the universe conscious? Scientists are still trying to discover what consciousness is and how and when did it develop? 
Is it only found in higher level organisms and, more to the point, is it located in the brain or dispersed throughout the body?
Is it possible that conscientiousness is actually a property of cells, all cells?
Could it be a property of molecules, or atoms or some sub atomic particle as yet not fully understood?

Is it also possible that the universe actually self organising? 
The direction of evolution is from simple to complex, which is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.
If it is self organising from simple to complex what is the interplay between random events and selected ones? 

Is the existence of a universal consciousness the same thing as that which the Bible refers to as the Spirit of the Lord?
Does a self organising universe point to the Hand of the Creator?

Just musing. 
I do not have definitive answers. 
Feel free to ponder and record your thoughts.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 22, 2017)

Phew, Warrigal.  You're musing WAY over my pay grade.  Calling Stephen Hawking.


----------



## Capt Lightning (Dec 22, 2017)

If you don't understand something, you can always make up an answer.


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 22, 2017)

All this is over our pay grade. 

Us humans simply may not be intelligent enough to understand how we got here even if someone/something that knew tried to explain it to us... and that's something you need to take into account when you read some historical(?) explanations, like the Bible, petroglyphs, etc where ancients have tried to record what they knew, had seen, and/or thought. For example, can you imagine trying to explain how our civilization works and came to be to some primitive tribe in parts of the world where they have remained isolated if you dropped in on them, stayed for a few weeks, and then left. Now imagine how they might explain to each other and their decedents what you told/showed them.

That said I'm of the opinion that we are the results of some kind of creationism where evolution has occurred over time.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 22, 2017)

rgp said:


> One thing I do know...it's not IMO worth fighting over. And I have seen otherwise rational people damn near come to blows over it.



worth repeating


----------



## Sunny (Dec 22, 2017)

> Evolution?
> 
> Heh,takes more faith to believe that one.
> When the medical  profession can settle down to something definite in regard to what’s  good for you, and not keep changing/reversing their stance, then I might  begin to consider whatever the latest ‘scientific discovery’ tells us.



Gary, you're missing the point. Science doesn't "settle down" and say, "Yup, that's it, folks, that's all she wrote."  It is constantly, er, evolving and bit by bit refining its understanding about what makes things happen. That's why its theories are called theories, not the one and only ultimate truth, end of discussion.  All science can tell us is that the evidence points to the probability of something. 

In creationism, there is no evidence at all that something happened the way the creationists say it did. You are required to accept a story just based on faith. No proof required.

Before you laugh so hard at science, maybe you should learn something about how it works.

P.S. On the other hand, no matter what the medical profession has to say about chocolate, I have faith that it is good for you! And nothing will shake that faith!  Amen.


----------



## rgp (Dec 22, 2017)

"Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents."

NOT arguing, just sharing a thought...how do we know that the scientist are even accurate in their 'aging' method ? Are those rocks really 3.5 billion yr/old? .......or a zillion ?...LOL

Speakin'a rocks...It's always intrigued me , the number of petroglyphs that hint to spacemen / spaceships. Misinterpretation of the drawing?...Who knows?


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 22, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Gary, you're missing the point. Science doesn't "settle down" and say, "Yup, that's it, folks, that's all she wrote."  It is constantly, er, evolving and bit by bit refining its understanding about what makes things happen. That's why its theories are called theories, not the one and only ultimate truth, end of discussion.  All science can tell us is that the evidence points to the probability of something.
> 
> In creationism, there is no evidence at all that something happened the way the creationists say it did. You are required to accept a story just based on faith. No proof required.
> 
> ...



sorry I didn't clarify my stance on science
meant thinkers with opinions and single malt scotch to offer

(chocolate was created.....by God....on the eighth day...and it was soooooo gooood)


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 22, 2017)

I have looked at a lot of those drawings that seem to be of spacemen, space ships, airplanes, and even helicopters, and that is actually what they do most resemble.  In South America, they found little artifacts that had a face something like a dragon (maybe), and a short, birdlike body with wings. 
It also looked like a tiny version of an airplane, and so they followed the dimensions exactly and created one of those remote-control planes, and it  flew perfectly; leading one to believe that what the original thing that was copied, was probably an airplane, and once that was lost to civilization, they just carved them into birds. 

The idea of space travelers coming here to earth and genetically modifying humans has always been very intriguing to me also, and the artifacts pointing to that are fascinating. 
This is called “Intervention Theory”, and one of the best books on the subject was written by Lloyd Pye, and called “Everything That You Know Is Wrong”. 
Lloyd Pye passed away a few years ago, but his book has been updated with new information and can be purchased on Amazon. 
http://www.lloydpye.com/

There is also an excellent video with lots of pictures explaining this theory on Youtube. It is a long video, but worth watching if you have an interest in the possibility that there were aliens here who transformed the world into what we see now. 
Lloyd Pye did not believe in a God as such, so this is not some kind of a religious viewpoint.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Dec 22, 2017)

The argument is if you believe in creation, then one cannot believe evolution And vice versa. It's a poor argument. Religion is not the basis of science, and science is not the basis of religion. Religion is the basis of religion. Science is the basis of science. One does not justify the other. It's apples and oranges.


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 22, 2017)

Olivia said:


> When evolution of species happens, it happens over millions if not billions of years. I'm not an archaeologist so I can't off the top of my head give you facts about fossils, etc. But if you like, here is a website that explains it.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real
> 
> I personally don't believe that evolution rules out a creator. I'm just one of those that believe that God could do it anyway He wants. Doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Just is not written like a science book. And what is important is not having to be persuaded that everything has to be a certain way to have faith.



I agree, "I'm just one of those that believe that God could do it anyway He wants"


----------



## Knight (Dec 22, 2017)

fuzzybuddy said:


> The argument is if you believe in creation, then one cannot believe evolution And vice versa. It's a poor argument. Religion is not the basis of science, and science is not the basis of religion. Religion is the basis of religion. Science is the basis of science. One does not justify the other. It's apples and oranges.




Apples= creation=believing in how mankind began
Oranges= science= slowly uncovering the mystery of how mankind began.


The potential for science to prove one way or the other how mankind began works for me. 
My choices
1. Hope to be around for a definitive answer.
2. Live in fear of what happens when I die.


Either way death is going to happen and like the billions already dead, I won't be back to tell anyone what happens.


----------



## Capt Lightning (Dec 22, 2017)

I'm just trying to imagine this creation thing.  Some thing - let's call it "God" for the want of a better word, is bored so creates an envelope and a pencil and starts to scribble a few formulae.  When he/she/it is happy, they attach a fuse and stand well back to observe a 'Big Bang'.  Over Billions of years, all sorts of things happen.  Stars are formed, planets evolve and on some, life evolves too.  

Far away on a small planet orbiting a small totally insignificant star (one of billions),  a "homo sapien" is sitting at his computer and thinking, "What on Earth was this guy thinking about ?".  Why did this 'god' thingy bother?  Was it just a bizarre experiment?  I mean, there are plenty of good things going on,  but if this 'god' is responsible, he/she/it must also be responsible for the bad things like disease, famine, natural disasters etc..
Another thing, why is everything so complicated?  Why couldn't they have given us a simpler body and endowed bits of it with mystical powers. 

Well maybe this god creature got the sums wrong - got a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Maybe this creator, just doesn't give a damn how it turns out - or maybe - this 'God' people talk about is no more than a myth.  I'll go for the last one.


----------



## Ruthanne (Dec 22, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Sorry Ruthanne, I did not notice your question.
> 
> There are two parts to my last sentence
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation, I will ponder and ponder and ponder.


----------



## Knight (Dec 22, 2017)

Capt Lightning said:


> I mean, there are plenty of good things going on,  but if this 'god' is responsible, he/she/it must also be responsible for the bad things like disease, famine, natural disasters etc..



I am responsible I just fool humans into believing, I only do good things, the free will I gave them  accounts  for the bad.



Capt Lightning said:


> Another thing, why is everything so complicated?  Why couldn't they have given us a simpler body and endowed bits of it with mystical powers.



Not complicated at all. You can't see me but yet here I am able to get you to read what I write. In the old days pictures and messages carved in stone was enough. I'm asking you to have blind faith in me even though you can't see me, can't shake my hand, can't buy me a cup of coffee.  Only thing different is I no longer live in the sky I have a few locations I really enjoy. I like snorkeling in the waters of FIJI. Can't beat the skiing in Vermont and French wine at a little sidewalk cafe in Paris is really relaxing after spending all day monitoring peoples thoughts to see if they are going to qualify to join me.

If that doesn't appeal to you, then maybe you should have blind faith in Allah. Unlike the bible there is this 
[h=2]Sensual Paradise[/h]In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur'anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed[SUP][1][/SUP] to virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Conversly, women will be provided with only one man, and they "will be satisfied with him".[SUP][4][/SUP]

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins

I suggest women stick with me.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 22, 2017)

Ruthanne said:


> Thanks for the explanation, I will ponder and ponder and ponder.



You can however 'if you are lucky' produce a taller individual than you by mating with a taller individual, but there is no guarantee depending on if the gene for tallness is recessive or not. Same with a lot of things like eyes shade.

Mendel demonstrated that with pea plants.

As to how it 'started'? It's hard for a human brain th grasp that there might not have been a beginning at all.

Could be always was and always will be.

I do believe from fossils that evolution exists. 

What bothers me is that we will never find out for sure.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 22, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> You can however 'if you are lucky' produce a taller individual than you by mating with a taller individual, but there is no guarantee depending on if the gene for tallness is recessive or not. Same with a lot of things like eyes shade.
> 
> Mendel demonstrated that with pea plants.
> 
> ...




I'm not clear about what bothers you.  Is it "the beginning" ?  If so, the beginning of what ? The Earth ? Life on Earth?

This is a great thread. I hope it continues for a while.


----------



## exwisehe (Dec 22, 2017)

these posts are interesting.  I waited for awhile before deciding to answer.

The video posted by FlowerLady was very good.  Thanks for that. His argument about “assumptions” is very well to the point of the issue.

In my view, the scientist’s viewpoint is a modern version of what God said to Job in the 38[SUP]th[/SUP] chapter – one of my favorites.  You know the story of Job I hope.  Long story short, he wanted an audience with God, who he felt had unfairly pitted him against Satan, even though he had not deserved it (and I think he had a valid point).  

Anyway, God finally allows it to happen: that is, Job has his wish and God talks to him (one of the rare times in scripture when God talks personally to a human).  In so many words, God asks Job: “Where were you when I……?” And God points out that He created the measurements of the earth, the sea, along with its boundaries, the clouds, the darkness, the morning dew, the moisture to water the plants, the lightening bolts, the strength in the legs of a horse, ….etc, etc. 

His “*where were you*” statements were, in essence, the same as the questions raised in the video and could be changed to “*Are you able to ……*”.   Job’s answer, upon realizing God’s greatness and power, was to say: “*I lay my hand over my mouth*…” and say no more.  He had no answer for God, and neither do scientists today!

It’s the same now.  No scientist can explain the Big Bang theory, because they have no answer for the first micro-second, called a “singularity” or billionth of a billionth, of …. etc, called a picosecond, I think.

Therefore, as always, I believe the biblical account in Genesis 1:  In the beginning was God, and His spirit hovered over the face of the unformed “mass” and by His power He created the universe, and then man. By man, I mean a created being with intelligence, emotion, rationality, social tendencies, (ability to love, or hate) – that is, in God’s image (not an animal’s).  

So I am a creationist.


----------



## rgp (Dec 22, 2017)

Capt Lightning said......


"Well maybe this god creature got the sums wrong - got a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Maybe this creator, just doesn't give a damn how it turns out - or maybe - this 'God' people talk about is no more than a myth. I'll go for the last one."


   I often wonder, when we see,on the news, a survivor of a tragedy [tornado , hurricane etc.] it seems they always say 'thank god we survived'... or something similar. Do they also thank god for the folks that died ? I mean if he is responsible for one....is he not for the other ?


----------



## fishmounter (Dec 23, 2017)

I too wonder about terrible tragedies.  How we are asked to pray for victims, so that God will heal them.  Why don't they pray to their god and ask him to not let people suffer in the first place!  If there is a god and he/she is almighty and all knowing, why do these awful things happen to innocent people, especially to our children!?  Makes me angry when I hear people say that "God works in mysterious ways". or "God has a plan"..  And yes, I am a big believer in evolution!  Where in the world do some people think man has only been around for a couple thousand years?  And I've heard some say that Dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old!  What!?  Oh well, people are going to believe what they want, and I'm ok with that.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Traveler said:


> I'm not clear about what bothers you.  Is it "the beginning" ?  If so, the beginning of what ? The Earth ? Life on Earth?
> 
> This is a great thread. I hope it continues for a while.



It's clear what bothers me. Never being able to get the answer to any of what you mention. What if there is no beginning. What if there is no end.

Humans are used to beginnings and ends. But it's not necessarily so in the universe.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> It's clear what bothers me. Never being able to get the answer to any of what you mention. What if there is no beginning. What if there is no end.
> 
> Humans are used to beginnings and ends. But it's not necessarily so in the universe.



Not to worry. The earth went about its business long before you or I were born and it will continue long after we have turned to dust. As far as I'm concerned, I don't even worry about what will happen after humans have passed into extinction. The earth will perhaps suffer for a time ( due to radiation or whatever ) and then it will continue on doing its earthy business. Creatures will continue to evolve, compete for scarce food resources, fight, reproduce and then die. Others will take their place and so it goes, on and on, until the Sun finally burns out, billions of years from now.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 23, 2017)

fishmounter said:


> I too wonder about terrible tragedies.  How we are asked to pray for victims, so that God will heal them.  Why don't they pray to their god and ask him to not let people suffer in the first place!  If there is a god and he/she is almighty and all knowing, why do these awful things happen to innocent people, especially to our children!?



If there is an omnipotent being, I wish it would get more involved in the planning stages of tragedies instead of the praying for survivors stage. That's a terribly poor use of resources.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 23, 2017)

Several people, especially Capt Lightning have expressed my thoughts on this subject so I'll just mention something I said to my wife recently.

We have always grown most of the food we eat. We till the ground, shovel in manure and compost, plant the seeds and crawl through the rows on our knees, pulling weeds and smashing bugs. We pick the crops as they mature, shelling peas, snapping green beans, etc. We spend days in the kitchen canning the crops as they mature. We freeze many of the vegetables too. Gardening is a lot of work, hard work and it gets harder when you get older.

I used to hunt a lot and we had game to eat but no longer. I know buy meat at the grocery with money from my pension and social security which I earned through nearly 50 years in the workplace.

When relatives come to visit my wife and I cook some wonderful meals from using the above mentioned food.

When they sit at the table, before the even take the first bite, the thank god for the food. What did god have to do with it?

The only conclusion I can come up with.....I must be god.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

rkunsaw said:


> Several people, especially Capt Lightning have expressed my thoughts on this subject so I'll just mention something I said to my wife recently.
> 
> We have always grown most of the food we eat. We till the ground, shovel in manure and compost, plant the seeds and crawl through the rows on our knees, pulling weeds and smashing bugs. We pick the crops as they mature, shelling peas, snapping green beans, etc. We spend days in the kitchen canning the crops as they mature. We freeze many of the vegetables too. Gardening is a lot of work, hard work and it gets harder when you get older.
> 
> ...




Well no.  Where did the sun come from to provide the plants with light and energy?  We are just lucky that the Earth is just the right distance from the sun.  My theory is that Earth is just a fluke in the universe.  Spending all that time and money looking for another Earth capable of sustaining life is just a waste of time.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 23, 2017)

fishmounter said:


> I too wonder about terrible tragedies.  How we are asked to pray for victims, so that God will heal them.  Why don't they pray to their god and ask him to not let people suffer in the first place!  If there is a god and he/she is almighty and all knowing, why do these awful things happen to innocent people, especially to our children!?  Makes me angry when I hear people say that "God works in mysterious ways". or "God has a plan"..  And yes, I am a big believer in evolution!  Where in the world do some people think man has only been around for a couple thousand years?  And I've heard some say that Dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old!  What!?  Oh well, people are going to believe what they want, and I'm ok with that.



Some of the early carvings on temples and even on pottery are of creatures that look like the composite pictures we are shown of what a dinosaur is supposed to have looked like “millions of years ago”. 
Since no one had even heard of such a creature until well into the 1800’s, when the first bones were found, how did earlier civilizations draw or carve  them so perfectly ?  There is a famous temple in Cambodia with carvings of dinosaurs on the doorways. 
They were depicting creatures that they not only were familiar with, but that they hunted for food, since some of the pictures show humans killing the dinosaur.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper, we're not exactly "lucky" that the earth is just the right distance from the sun.  If it were not, we wouldn't be here at all.  Simple as that.

According to what I've read, there's a huge probability that there is other intelligent life in the universe. Some of those trillions and trillions of stars must have conditions and planets conducive to life, even though that life might be very different from what we are accustomed to.  But I agree with you that it's probably a waste of time looking for them, at least with our existing technology.

Exwisehe, that question that God asks Job, "Where were you when..." is a very profound and brilliant answer to all our doubts. It points out that we mere humans actually know nothing at all about the ultimate scheme of things. It is beyond our understanding.  But it has nothing to do with creationism vs evolution.

Smiling Jane, amen to your comment that it would be better if God got more involved with the planning stages of tragedies, instead of dealing with the survivors. I've never understood why God gets all the credit when someone miraculously avoids, or is saved from, disaster, while He gets none of the blame for all the suffering and death of that same disaster. Do they really think the controlling force of the universe is personally picking out certain individuals to be rescued?  Not to mention that He cares which football team wins?  Or whether the kid passes the test?  Or how the medical results will turn out?  Clearly, we are all praying to "fate," because we humans feel pretty helpless about things most of the time, and we really, really, really want things to go a certain way for us.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]     [h=1]“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”[/h]   
  ―     Omar Khayyám 
​


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 23, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Exwisehe, that question that God asks Job, "Where were you when..." is a very profound and brilliant answer to all our doubts. It points out that we mere humans actually know nothing at all about the ultimate scheme of things. It is beyond our understanding.  But it has nothing to do with creationism vs evolution.



So true

Medical science has shown we use very little of our mind's capacity
However
Our imaginations seem quite vivid


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

> Camper, we're not exactly "lucky" that the earth is just the right  distance from the sun.  If it were not, we wouldn't be here at all.   Simple as that.



But that is 'luck'.  The other planets in our solar system didn't make it.

I know all about the trillions and trillions of stars.  Stars are suns. Not all stars have planets circling them. The star has to have a planet in the exact orbit just like the Earth.  And most important of all.  Liquid water.

Not easily come by in the universe.  Lots of ice but not much in the way of oceans as on Earth.

Too far away anyway to come to any conclusive evidence.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 23, 2017)

All of the probabilities given by astronomers and mathematicians point to the fact that there have to be other planets capable of supporting life.  Even if the number is one in a million, that would have to be a pretty large number when you get up into the trillions.  But we mere humans will probably never know the answer.

I believe we are evolving right now, in a way that is very obvious. Look at any group of young people anywhere; what are they doing?  Right, they are looking at their phones!  Their minds are linked together electronically in a way that has never been seen before on this planet. There is already talk about implanting chips into people to receive and send electronic messages.  Fast forward a few hundred years.  Ordinary "people" will be a dying breed, on the way out, replaced by semi-human androids who are partly flesh and blood, partly electronic connections. That will be the next evolution. We will eventually be as extinct as the neanderthals, or at least will be an inferior, old-hat species.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Sunny said:


> All of the probabilities given by astronomers and mathematicians point to the fact that there have to be other planets capable of supporting life.  Even if the number is one in a million, that would have to be a pretty large number when you get up into the trillions.  But we mere humans will probably never know the answer.
> 
> I believe we are evolving right now, in a way that is very obvious. Look at any group of young people anywhere; what are they doing?  Right, they are looking at their phones!  Their minds are linked together electronically in a way that has never been seen before on this planet. There is already talk about implanting chips into people to receive and send electronic messages.  Fast forward a few hundred years.  Ordinary "people" will be a dying breed, on the way out, replaced by semi-human androids who are partly flesh and blood, partly electronic connections. That will be the next evolution. We will eventually be as extinct as the neanderthals, or at least will be an inferior, old-hat species.



Look at the preponderance of the evidence so far.

Nothing compares to Earth and I don't care how many trillions.

Look at the way Nature operates.  Nothing is two alike.  Not even humans.  Not even snowflakes. Not even seeds. Not even leaves on a tree.

Everyone has this fanciful wish about something like E.T.

Do you know how far the nearest star is and how long it would take to get there?

The limiting speed in the universe and it has never been disproved, is the speed of light.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> *But that is 'luck'.  The other planets in our solar system didn't make it.*.



This kinda summarizes the question - is Earth where it is by luck or by design?  Or maybe there are other explanations, such as it is here by luck but mankind was placed here to take advantage of the lucky orbital placement.


----------



## rgp (Dec 23, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> This kinda summarizes the question - is Earth where it is by luck or by design?  Or maybe there are other explanations, such as it is here by luck but mankind was placed here to take advantage of the lucky orbital placement.





Doubt we'll ever know....Does it really matter ?

Granted, I'm curious as well but.....I'd rather our brain-trust work more on the tangible problems at hand. Like the lives & the world of us now living, and what we leave behind for those not yet born.

If we truly are the result of some entity , or another race from out  in space....then they are going to do with us as they choose anyway, so ??

It's just like the eat right exercise argument....there is no absolute answer....it's all a matter of genetics. If there were an absolute....most folks would do it, and that would end the controversy.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> This kinda summarizes the question - is Earth where it is by luck or by design?  Or maybe there are other explanations, such as it is here by luck but mankind was placed here to take advantage of the lucky orbital placement.



Not as far as I am concerned.  The conditions were just right.  As far as I am concerned everything on Earth is a random occurrence.

You can't plan in advance and expect it's actually going to happen because if that was true I could make a fortune in the stock market.

You are born.  It's luck that you are male or female although the default is to the female.

You meet someone.  Random occurence.  You get married and have children.  You have no idea what the children are going to resemble or what they will be like.

If you try to stick to thoroughbreds you will run into inbreeding with all it's problems like the Royal Family of Russia.

Race horses have bleeding gums. 

Just observe Nature and how it works and you can't go too far wrong.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 23, 2017)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of it's all just luck , but I see way too much evidence to the contrary.  What you ascribe to luck I believe is all part of God's design, though I will certainly admit I do not comprehend how all of that design functions.   I'm not sure what thoroughbreds and bleeding gums have to do with this discussion, though.  

God Bless and have a nice day
Hoot


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Not as far as I am concerned.  The conditions were just right.  As far as I am concerned everything on Earth is a random occurrence.
> 
> You can't plan in advance and expect it's actually going to happen because if that was true I could make a fortune in the stock market.
> 
> ...


 Some members of European royalty have had vestigial tails.  That is rather nifty.  I wonder if any learned how to wag them.

Almost all of my income for the past fifty years has come from investments.  Some of us can plan in advance.


----------



## Wintermint (Dec 23, 2017)

I'm a rationalist and it is notable that things that were the deepest of mysteries to human beings for literally thousands of years , from where the sun goes to at night, what the wind is made of, what are those sparkly lights in the sky - have all and more, much more, been explained by human beings using rational means and evidence. Pretty much any question that was answered with a religious response has been superseded with a rational explanation. Some of those old assumptions, many with religion at their core, such as the earth being at the centre of the universe seem almost laughable now.

Ans yet mysteries still abound. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth and to think we are unique in some way is the height of vanity. And yet we are special. We are part of the universe, each of us made from stuff born in the middle of stars that has come together and is capable of looking out at itself and asking questions about it all. We may be very rare in the universe. I suspect we are personally. And because of that we should not squander the mental powers we have evolved and developed on superstition and fearful responses to mystery, but wonder and ask even more questions.


----------



## Knight (Dec 23, 2017)

Genesis 5:1
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.


Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man
http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-27.htm


Google search between likeness & image has a lot on varying opinions by those dedicated to bible study. This intrigued me.


Then God said, Let us make humankind  in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth (Genesis 1:26). 
http://web.ccbce.com/multimedia/BLB/faq/nbi/690.html


Who & what are the "us"?


Then there is.


Likeness has been interpreted to mean moral. 


Genesis 9:6 pretty much sets the tone for war or any other reason for taking a life. That IMO is not a great moral attribute. What were the "us" thinking? 


I'm going to go out on a limb here and rule out Image. When I think of an image I think about a picture, a statue, a painting. The bible doesn't mention what we know to be real in terms of ugly not to bright humans.


These
Neanderthals (UK: /niˈændərˌtɑːl/, also US: /neɪ-, -ˈɑːn-, -ˌtɔːl, -ˌθɔːl/),[3][4] more rarely known as Neandertals,[a] were archaic humans that became extinct about 40,000 years ago.[8][9][10][11][12][13] They seem to have appeared in Europe and later expanded into Southwest, Central and Northern Asia. There, they left hundreds of stone tool assemblages. Almost all of those younger than 160,000 years are of the so-called Mousterian techno-complex, which is characterised by tools made out of stone flakes.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> But that is 'luck'.  The other planets in our solar system didn't make it.
> 
> I know all about the trillions and trillions of stars.  Stars are suns. Not all stars have planets circling them. The star has to have a planet in the exact orbit just like the Earth.  And most important of all.  Liquid water.
> 
> ...



I remember years ago, when I was fascinated by chemistry, learning that although our planet is water based it is possible to have a parallel chemical environment based on the ammonia molecule. Perhaps on some other planet where the NH3 molecule can exist in liquid, solid and gaseous forms, there is life that takes advantage of this alternate chemistry. Obviously, it would not be anything like that which exists on earth, nor could it survive here, just as we could not survive there.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion of it's all just luck , but I see way too much evidence to the contrary.  What you ascribe to luck I believe is all part of God's design, though I will certainly admit I do not comprehend how all of that design functions.   I'm not sure what thoroughbreds and bleeding gums have to do with this discussion, though.
> 
> God Bless and have a nice day
> Hoot



Thoroughbreds and bleeding gums and the Royal Family of Russia.  Inbreeding causing hemophilia.

Natures design.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I remember years ago, when I was fascinated by chemistry, learning that although our planet is water based it is possible to have a parallel chemical environment based on the ammonia molecule. Perhaps on some other planet where the NH3 molecule can exist in liquid, solid and gaseous forms, there is life that takes advantage of this alternate chemistry. Obviously, it would not be anything like that which exists on earth, nor could it survive here, just as we could not survive there.



We really don't care about mushrooms existing on other worlds do we?

What is this fascination with other worlds?  There are all kinds of places on the Earth that are uninhabited.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Loll.



Man used in this sense is everyone on Earth male and female.

It's an adjective.  

A chairman could be male or female.  I've never heard of a chairwoman, have you?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> We really don't care about mushrooms existing on other worlds do we?
> 
> What is this fascination with other worlds?  There are all kinds of places on the Earth that are uninhabited.



Scientists care about all sorts of things on other worlds from the rocks to the atmosphere and the internal structures. From these studies we are able to confirm our theories about our own world and learn more about our unique home.

Since I was reminiscing in an earlier post, allow me to do it again. I once enrolled myself in a short astronomy course for science teachers run by the Chief Astronomer of NSW. Week by week he explained what was currently known about the universe and we had the added pleasure of being able to view the night sky through the wonderful optical telescope of Sydney Observatory.

His final message - look after the Earth because it is the only place where a human can exist for even one minute without a space suit.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 23, 2017)

> Nothing is two alike.  Not even humans.  Not even snowflakes. Not even seeds. Not even leaves on a tree.



Camper, how do you know?


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Thoroughbreds and bleeding gums and the Royal Family of Russia.  Inbreeding causing hemophilia.
> 
> Natures design.


{shrug} Meaningless comment.  That's not the issue in this thread.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 23, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Man used in this sense is everyone on Earth male and female.
> 
> It's an adjective.
> 
> A chairman could be male or female.  I've never heard of a chairwoman, have you?


Yes. I have also heard the term chairperson used on occasion. Times change, we even have sheros now.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 23, 2017)

HappyFlowerLady,  I would dearly love to know where you got those pictures of what are supposed to be dinosaurs. The very last thing I wish to do is insult you or your religious beliefs but I do not think they are ancient carvings. If we look at the 2nd picture, (post # 60) look closely at the "feet" of the alleged dinosaur. That type of dinosaur had legs like a log turned on end, similar to what a modern elephant, hippo or rhino has. 
The animal in the 2nd picture has some very strange "feet". No four legged dinosaur ever had "feet" like that. Heck, the carving even shows "toes". 
I believe the person who made those carvings/drawings saw a cartoon, or a movie, and tried to copy it.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 23, 2017)

Traveler, I have no idea if the pictures are real or not, either. I am simply keeping my mind open to the possibility that what we have believed about ancient history might not be what it really was after all, and as archeologists find new evidence about things, I enjoy reading and studying about the possibilities. 
Ancient history of this type is one of the things that i am very interested in, so I have read different ideas of what might have existed. 
Like everyone else, I grew up learning about evolution, and believed that it somehow fit in with the Bible version of creation, even though I had no idea how they fit together. 
Now, I am trying to overcome those preconceived beliefs, and actually look at other options, and some of them have merit, such as the information about the similarity between the making of the Spirit Lake canyons in Washington State, and the Grand Canyon, both having been formed in a much shorter time frame than what was previously believed. 

It is fooolish to try and make a conclusion about something unless we have studied all of the evidence. 
Whatever is, IS, whether we understand or believe it or not. At this point in my life, I don’t care so much what the truth turns out to be, as I do learning as much as I can about what it might be. 

Here is a short video that shows more about the carved stones that I posted pictures of, and there is a lot more information if you look on the internet. The Cambodian temple at Angkor Wat also has what appears to be a dinosaur carved into the doorway, and it was made around 1100 AD. 
If that is so, then it is possible that dinosaurs existed in some places much longer than we have believed that they did, and could even possibly still exist in very remote parts of the earth.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Camper, how do you know?



Science and the preponderance of the evidence. Have your fingerprint checked. See if anyone else has the same.

Back to inbreeding. It doesn't work because Nature doesn't favor sameness.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> {shrug} Meaningless comment.  That's not the issue in this thread.



Threads have a way of morphing. It's natures way.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Yes. I have also heard the term chairperson used on occasion. Times change, we even have sheros now.



And that's supposed to benefit mankind tremendously?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 23, 2017)

It benefits the XX half of humanity.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 23, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> It benefits the XX half of humanity.



Tremendously?


----------



## debbie in seattle (Dec 23, 2017)

You guys are too heavy on this question.    We believe what we each believe, right or wrong.   Great question though.


----------



## Knight (Dec 23, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> His final message - look after the Earth because it is the only place where a human can exist for even one minute without a space suit.




But if a person believes in evolution.


Three decades, the biological revolution
To a biologist, freeze-drying microbes for harsh space travel conjures up rather mundane kitchen science, a simple reenactment of how a yeast packet taken from the freezer can make bread dough rise prior to baking. But to a new breed of biologist exploring the harshest conditions on Earth, how a delicate microbe manages to counteract vacuum, boiling temperatures, burning radiation, and crushing pressures deep in the frozen icecaps is the study of life itself. 
For example, only now after 30 years of biological progress can scientists begin to scan down the genetic script underlying the causes of malaria, syphilis, cholera and tuberculosis. Within a few years, it is estimated that 50 to 100 complete genomes of living organisms will be entirely deciphered, presenting the first opportunities for deep evolutionary comparisons and insights into exactly the remarkable means by which the common Strep. bacteria could revive itself after 2.6 years on the moon.


https://science.nasa.gov/science-new.../ast01sep98_1/

Evolution is a fact.


Fossils show mankind and animal life far different than what we see now. Billions of years vs. the bible version & time frame in the bible. Then there is the made in his image or likeness thing. If a human can't survive in space for even one minute how does that being that is billions of years old survive?


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 24, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> And that's supposed to benefit mankind tremendously?


I think it will benefit humankind immensely.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 24, 2017)

debbie in seattle said:


> You guys are too heavy on this question.    We believe what we each believe, right or wrong.   Great question though.


I don’t understand why debating an interesting question would be construed as heavy.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 24, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Tremendously?



Language can have very negative effects so hopefully it can also have positive ones as well.
For us oldies not so much, but for young girls just forming ideas of their potential I would say tremendously would not be impossible.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 24, 2017)

HappyFlowerLady,  Unfortunately, Erich von Daniken is a proven fraud. He makes a small fortune writing about how aliens built the Egyptian Pyramids and other such non-sense. One of his many books on the subject, "Chariots of the Gods" has made him a millionaire. If Mr Von Daniken told me that the Sun rises in the East, I'd double check it out. IMO, the man is a fool. It is very likely that he had those pieces of pottery made just so he could show "proof".


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 24, 2017)

I disagree Traveler. True Erich von Daniken made some mistakes in his first book but his overall vision was a good one. He has opened the eyes of millions to possibilities other than the mainstream teachings. Whether one believes his theories about ancient aliens or not, he has at least got people thinking. I personally believe there is a lot of merit to his ideas.

Too many, probably most people accept the religious teachings they were brought up with as fact without giving them a thought Those who think are the ones who learn.

You seem awfully concerned that he has made a lot of money. He has made a lot of money because millions of people are interested in his ideas.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Language can have very negative effects so hopefully it can also have positive ones as well.
> For us oldies not so much, but for young girls just forming ideas of their potential I would say tremendously would not be impossible.



I hope you are right but I doubt the common use of language getting changed is going to do much good for the benefit of mankind.

This is one of those things that no one pays much attention to.  When you refer to a ship it's always in the female form.

She left for Liverpool today.  Did it harm anyone?  Is it accepted?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

rkunsaw said:


> I disagree Traveler. True Erich von Daniken made some mistakes in his first book but his overall vision was a good one. He has opened the eyes of millions to possibilities other than the mainstream teachings. Whether one believes his theories about ancient aliens or not, he has at least got people thinking. I personally believe there is a lot of merit to his ideas.
> 
> Too many, probably most people accept the religious teachings they were brought up with as fact without giving them a thought Those who think are the ones who learn.
> 
> You seem awfully concerned that he has made a lot of money. He has made a lot of money because millions of people are interested in his ideas.



The hard evidence shows that the Egyptian pyramids were built by the people who populated what is now called Egypt.

No aliens involved.


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 24, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> I don’t understand why debating an interesting question would be construed as heavy.



What I find the most fascinating in this thread is that some folks seem to be absolutely sure they have things figured out when it is indisputable by sane, intelligent people (including them) that there is no way they can be absolutely sure. LOL


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 24, 2017)

As to the question posed by the former evolutionist in FlowerLady's video - why haven't scientists been able to create life in the lab - they have indeed.

Back in 2010 Craig Venter and his team created a completely new "synthetic" form of life from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive. 

They called the life form "Synthia". 

I also recall seeing a documentary - on _Nova_? - that detailed the success of computer scientists modeling the creation of life from random combinations of chemicals that existed before "life" itself. The computer model took millions of years of hit and miss pairings, but finally achieved a series of amino acids and DNA that became a proto-life form. 

I see it as being equivalent to the idea that if you have a room full of monkeys sitting in front of typewriters, at some point (perhaps millions of years later) they will have produced the entire works of Shakespeare.


----------



## mimento mori (Dec 24, 2017)

To begin, I have an absolute PASSION for science!  Everything about it and no matter the arena,  I love it!  Paleontology, Geology, Neural mechanics, Biology, Archaeology, Chemistry and just about anything that ends in ology, I am in love with.  
Now, is it because it is always right?  On the contrary, the reason I love it is because that which science has proven to be correct is nearly always proven to be incorrect on another date and by the same scientific methodology that was formally used to provide the "facts".  
Though it may seem so, there is nothing about any part of science that is deemed as empirical because it is, after all, a process in which the imperfect is asked to provide the perfect. 

What is human consciousness?  Scientifically Undefined.   What is thought?  Cannot be measured, heard, nor seen. Scientifically Undefined.  Do humans have instinct?  Now scientifically unknown due to quantum DNA entanglement theories.  
Is Water Wet?  How many planets are really orbiting Sol?  Are we alone in our solar system or the universe?  Are animals sentient? 

So many questions surround us but yet, some individuals can, without any shadow of a doubt say with empirical certainty that such and such is what they believe it to be and for the most part, are simply relying on the say so of someone else.  

I, for one, do like the explanation of creationism for I absolutely do believe in a designed reality as provided by an authority we call God.  Others may choose to believe they came from a one celled organism that eventually crawled up out of the muck and later evolved into an intelligent human being.  
No matter the preference, there is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence which can satisfy all of the proofs that are needed to form anything other than the second step of hypothesis.  

Whether the creationist or the evolutionist, everything relies on an extreme amount of faith attached to it for what is deemed to be scientific proof today, will be scientifically proven wrong tomorrow.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 24, 2017)

[QUOTEScience and the preponderance of the evidence. Have your fingerprint checked. See if anyone else has the same.[/QUOTE]

Camper, how on earth could anyone find out if "anyone else" has the same fingerprints?  All we can check is what's on file. Is every fingerprint that has ever existed on file?

As for the snowflakes, that's even more absurd. Whenever I hear that old canard about no two snowflakes being the same, I immediately think, "How do you know?"  When a thing is impossible to verify, it is absurd to make
assumptions about it.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

Sunny said:


> [QUOTEScience and the preponderance of the evidence. Have your fingerprint checked. See if anyone else has the same.



Camper, how on earth could anyone find out if "anyone else" has the same fingerprints?  All we can check is what's on file. Is every fingerprint that has ever existed on file?

As for the snowflakes, that's even more absurd. Whenever I hear that old canard about no two snowflakes being the same, I immediately think, "How do you know?"  When a thing is impossible to verify, it is absurd to make
assumptions about it.[/QUOTE]


Sunny. You read too much into my posts.

It's supposed to be understood that no two fingerprints are exactly the same.

That's why it's reliable evidence in criminal cases.  That's why if you commit a crime your fingerprint becomes part of the database and compared if you commit a future crime.

Since each snowflake is created individually from a drop of water, it's just science that each one will be different from another one.

How do you know?  Well you really don't know for sure but the preponderance of the evidence shows that the odds are there in favor of the claim.

You are always looking for 'absolute' proof.  It doesn't exist.  Splitting the atom was a theory.  It worked.  You can't see it in action so are you going to claim it doesn't happen?

When you walk around do you observe?  That's a good hobby to take up.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

SifuPhil said:


> As to the question posed by the former evolutionist in FlowerLady's video - why haven't scientists been able to create life in the lab - they have indeed.
> 
> Back in 2010 Craig Venter and his team created a completely new "synthetic" form of life from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive.
> 
> ...



Well just a second now.

They didn't create the ingredients.  They used what was available.

It's no different than creating an explosion from gunpowder is it?

You are just changing forms.  Nothing is created or destroyed.  It just changes form.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 24, 2017)

SifuPhil said:


> As to the question posed by the former evolutionist in FlowerLady's video - why haven't scientists been able to create life in the lab - they have indeed.
> 
> Back in 2010 Craig Venter and his team created a completely new "synthetic" form of life from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive.
> 
> ...


The "empty" cell was already alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium


----------



## Sunny (Dec 24, 2017)

> How do you know?  Well you really don't know for sure but the  preponderance of the evidence shows that the odds are there in favor of  the claim.



Aha, so we agree at least on this much.  All I'm saying is that we don't really know that no two snowflakes are or have ever been the same; we also don't know that it's impossible. There's no way of testing that. It does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence would point in the direction that sure, at two points of history, two different snowflakes could be identical. There is a finite number of patterns that would work; sooner or later, there would be repetition. Probability is all we have to go on.

As for your rather condescending suggestion that I observe things when I walk around because that's a "good hobby,"  why are you assuming that I don't do that?  Because my observations don't bring me to your
exact conclusions? Wow.

And I am "always looking for absolute proof?"  Well, if there's any statement that is the exact opposite of my philosophy, that is it. I am looking for "scientific evidence," which I can say because this is not an official government document; that is a very different thing from absolute proof. Do you know what scientific evidence is?  

Example: Someone tells me he believes that Santa Claus is real. Not as a "yes, Virginia" symbol of the Christmas spirit; he believes that a physical entity actually flies around in a reindeer-driven sleigh. My answer would be, of course, "Prove it."  I am looking for scientific evidence. There is no reason to believe anything just because someone tells you it's so.


----------



## mimento mori (Dec 24, 2017)

@Camper 6 said: "Splitting the atom was a theory.  It worked.  You can't see it in action so are you going to claim it doesn't happen?"

I do believe one can absolutely see it happen and if one so chooses not to, there is always the math to prove it out.  
So far as the snowflake goes, each flake does indeed derive from a singular drop of water formed around a singular piece of dust.  Even if the water was to be specifically designed to produce such and such a fractal during it's freezing process, the very thought of producing the exact same dust fragment in each is highly improbable at best.  

On evolution, EVERYONE believes in evolution but just not the one that is in question.  To deny that one's journey from conception to adulthood is not a continuous evolutionary state would be misunderstanding the very nature of our being.  

On synthetic DNA, the synthesis calls for biological chemistry not just simple chemistry.  Humans share DNA with a pickle but I dare not believe that I somehow evolved from a cucumber smothered in vinegar.  But again, I am not here in the attempt to change anyone's structure of faith because just like belly buttons, each person has their own with which to admire or change as they should wish.  
​


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Aha, so we agree at least on this much.  All I'm saying is that we don't really know that no two snowflakes are or have ever been the same; we also don't know that it's impossible. There's no way of testing that. It does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence would point in the direction that sure, at two points of history, two different snowflakes could be identical. There is a finite number of patterns that would work; sooner or later, there would be repetition. Probability is all we have to go on.
> 
> As for your rather condescending suggestion that I observe things when I walk around because that's a "good hobby,"  why are you assuming that I don't do that?  Because my observations don't bring me to your
> exact conclusions? Wow.
> ...



Here again when I suggest you observe I mean look for identical objects in nature. Two trees alike. Two leaves alike. I guarantee you that you will have a tough time finding anything exactly alike.

Instead of always trying to prove someone else wrong, try proving yourself right.

You are looking for absolute proof. You are not satisfied otherwise.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 24, 2017)

Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting.  It was once thought, by the ancient Greeks that all matter was made up of the 4 "elements": earth, air, fire and water.  This, of course, was proven to be wrong. We now know that all matter is made up of one or more of the elements found on the "periodical tables of the elements". If we combine 2 atoms of Hydrogen with 1 atom of Oxygen, we get water. That is indisputable. It is also science in action.

I trust that no one disputes that we can tell who the parents of a child are by examining the DNA of the child and comparing that to the DNA of the male and female adults who claim, or deny, they are the parents. Again, science in action. 

Every living thing on earth has DNA.  Everything from a bacteria to a human has DNA. We are now able to read the DNA structure of any and all living things. For example, we can tell the heritage of any human by examining his/her DNA.  If we select any human at random, we can tell with 100% certainty that that individual has X% Nordic DNA, Y% of middle eastern DNA and Z% of Hispanic DNA. Thus we can state with absolute certainty where that specific humans ancestors came from.  If we take a few drops of blood from a Japanese person and we give that sample to a genetic testing lab, and we do not give the lab ANY information about that individual, the lab will tell us that the individual is (A) male or female, and (B) the blood type and (C) primarily of Japanese heritage. Science in action.

It might surprise some people to learn that everyone of European ancestry has DNA markers showing between 1 to 3% of Neanderthal DNA. This demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that their was, 40,000 years ago, some interbreeding between Cro-Magnon Man (modern man) and Neanderthals. Again science in action.

Faith did not do this. Science did it.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 24, 2017)

I would be a very lousy evangelist, because my closest friends have been atheists. Once in a while in some context they would say that they don't believe in God. So... I certainly don't care. Beliefs are personal except when it impedes on others. That's my only criteria in that regard, except for being honest people one can count on.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 24, 2017)

Camper, why would the two leaves, snowflakes, etc. have to coexist in time?  One of those identical snowflakes could have existed a few million years ago, the other right now.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 24, 2017)

Can we PLEASE stop talking about snowflakes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.  Please ?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Camper, why would the two leaves, snowflakes, etc. have to coexist in time?  One of those identical snowflakes could have existed a few million years ago, the other right now.



Remember what I said?

Trust your own observances in your own time of reference. You can speculate all you like. But in your own observances?

See you don't trust fingerprinting and yet that's how people get convicted.

Could your defense be that someone else did the crime and they have the same fingerprint?

When I cite nature it's that nature does not favor sameness. Nature favours diversity. At least that's my observance.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

Traveler said:


> Can we PLEASE stop talking about snowflakes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.  Please ?



Just scroll on by. You don't have to read posts you aren't in favor of.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 24, 2017)

The OP said: "I believe in evolution rather than creationism......which do you believe in ?"

It didn't say anything about you had to prove why.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

rgp said:


> "Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents."
> 
> NOT arguing, just sharing a thought...how do we know that the scientist are even accurate in their 'aging' method ? Are those rocks really 3.5 billion yr/old? .......or a zillion ?...LOL
> 
> Speakin'a rocks...It's always intrigued me , the number of petroglyphs that hint to spacemen / spaceships. Misinterpretation of the drawing?...Who knows?



You believe in carbon dating or you don't for determining the age of rocks.

_Radiocarbon dating_ (also referred to as _carbon dating_ or _carbon_-14 _dating_) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of _radiocarbon_ (14. C), a radioactive isotope of _carbon_.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 24, 2017)

mimento mori said:


> @Camper 6 said: "Splitting the atom was a theory.  It worked.  You can't see it in action so are you going to claim it doesn't happen?"
> 
> I do believe one can absolutely see it happen and if one so chooses not to, there is always the math to prove it out.
> So far as the snowflake goes, each flake does indeed derive from a singular drop of water formed around a singular piece of dust.  Even if the water was to be specifically designed to produce such and such a fractal during it's freezing process, the very thought of producing the exact same dust fragment in each is highly improbable at best.
> ...





> I do believe one can absolutely see it happen and if one so chooses not to, there is always the math to prove it out.




Well not really because the math could be just a theory until it is proven.


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 25, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Remember what I said?
> 
> Trust your own observances in your own time of reference. You can speculate all you like. But in your own observances?
> 
> ...



About your believe in the infallibility of unique fingerprints... here is one article but I have seen other discussions about how matches are determined and how "experts" fudge their results to get the outcome they want. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique/

[h=1]Why your fingerprints may not be unique[/h]
Fingerprint  evidence linking criminals to crime scenes has played a fundamental  role in convictions in Britain since the first forensic laboratory was  set up in Scotland Yard in 1901.
 But the basic assumption that everyone has a unique fingerprint from  which they can be quickly identified through a computer database is  flawed, an expert has claimed.
 Mike Silverman, who introduced the first automated fingerprint  detection system to the Metropolitan Police, claims that human error,  partial prints and false positives mean that fingerprints evidence is  not as reliable as is widely believed.
 Nobody has yet proved that fingerprints are unique and families can share elements of the same pattern.


... and there is more in the article.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 25, 2017)

Nothing is 100 per cent infallible.

However if they find a fingerprint at a crime scene and the suspect has the same fingerprint.

The odds are that he was there.

There are always challenges but this one has stood the test of time.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 25, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Nothing is 100 per cent infallible.
> 
> However if they find a fingerprint at a crime scene and the suspect has the same fingerprint.
> 
> ...



lol - at first you were saying no two fingerprints/snowflakes/trees/yada yada were alike.  Now you've walked that back to say "nothing is 100 per cent infallible".  Hmmmm.

Peace and love
Hoot


----------



## Sunny (Dec 25, 2017)

Actually, I agree with Camper on this. Although I don't necessarily think that every fingerprint that has ever existed anywhere on earth, at any time, is unique, I do believe that the probability of a suspect in a crime having the same exact fingerprint as someone else who is also a valid suspect, is so incredibly minute that we might as well call it "impossible."

Good plot for a new Agatha Cristie style murder mystery.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 25, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> lol - at first you were saying no two fingerprints/snowflakes/trees/yada yada were alike.  Now you've walked that back to say "nothing is 100 per cent infallible".  Hmmmm.
> 
> Peace and love
> Hoot



Of course.  There are always humans making mistakes and contaminating the samples.  You can't prove that there are two identical snowflakes without presenting them can you?

Are there two identical humans on the Earth?

Even identical twins are different from one another.

One can say surely with all the billions born two were alike.  But how are you going to back that up when billions have died.

I say that the Earth is a fluke and unique in the universe at this time in the history of the world. No other like it.

You can say that there are millions of stars and planets and surely one must be the same as the Earth.

I can't lose my argument and neither can you because due to the speed of light, it is unprovable.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 27, 2017)

First of all, let me state that I have always been oriented in a science direction - with a special interest in archeology, Paleontology, zoology and microbiology.
IMHO:
1) I believe all religion is a form of mythology (about as valid as early Egyptian,Greek and Roman religions): an attempt by a primitive peoples to explain what was to them at the time as unexplainable. Once accepted by a fairly large portion of the population, government seized on it as a means of controlling and manipulating the population (or a power grab), as well as an excuse for their aggression against their neighbors, etc. It is "the Word" and there are no arguments or other explanations permitted, although there are some superficial changes that do creep in as dictated by the powers that be or the general populace.
2) Creationism is a rather transparent attempt to reconcile the competing explanations for the discrepancies between evolution and the biblical mythology.
3) Evolution is an ongoing attempt to explain the "How did this come about" of life. It is fluid and changes as new evidence becomes available to add to their knowledge base. No one really "knows" how life began and most reputable scientists admit that freely - but they are searching for answers.
I, personally, have no problem with whatever religious beliefs a person has - as long as:
1)  they do not try to force their beliefs on me or others
2) they do not try to incorporate their religion onto the government.
3) They do not attempt to use the government to force the tenets of their religion on non-believers


----------



## Traveler (Dec 27, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> First of all, let me state that I have always been oriented in a science direction - with a special interest in archeology, Paleontology, zoology and microbiology.
> IMHO:
> 1) I believe all religion is a form of mythology (about as valid as early Egyptian,Greek and Roman religions): an attempt by a primitive peoples to explain what was to them at the time as unexplainable. Once accepted by a fairly large portion of the population, government seized on it as a means of controlling and manipulating the population (or a power grab), as well as an excuse for their aggression against their neighbors, etc. It is "the Word" and there are no arguments or other explanations permitted, although there are some superficial changes that do creep in as dictated by the powers that be or the general populace.
> 2) Creationism is a rather transparent attempt to reconcile the competing explanations for the discrepancies between evolution and the biblical mythology.
> ...



Well said. My thoughts, exactly.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 28, 2017)

Ditto here.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 28, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> First of all, let me state that I have always been oriented in a science direction - with a special interest in archeology, Paleontology, zoology and microbiology.
> IMHO:
> 1) I believe all religion is a form of mythology (about as valid as early Egyptian,Greek and Roman religions): an attempt by a primitive peoples to explain what was to them at the time as unexplainable. Once accepted by a fairly large portion of the population, government seized on it as a means of controlling and manipulating the population (or a power grab), as well as an excuse for their aggression against their neighbors, etc. It is "the Word" and there are no arguments or other explanations permitted, although there are some superficial changes that do creep in as dictated by the powers that be or the general populace.
> 2) Creationism is a rather transparent attempt to reconcile the competing explanations for the discrepancies between evolution and the biblical mythology.
> ...



It's a tough world out there.  So whatever it takes to get through it religion, mythology, or whatever.

Go for it.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 28, 2017)

Right on dragonlady


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 28, 2017)

I totally agree, dragonlady. I don't give a flip if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, as long as they don't demand that I agree with them or that their belief becomes law.

It was great fun to watch Joseph Campbell discuss the myth of the hero as it pertained to Jesus. We need more like Campbell.


----------



## exwisehe (Dec 28, 2017)

Of course I have to disagree. Your statement _I believe all religion is a form of mythology..._ " is possibly true with some beliefs, but not Christianity.  Let me explain.

first, *mythology* is defined as: a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something, usually gods, heroes, or legendary heroes; according to Webster.
[FONT=&quot] 
[/FONT]      In scripture, Acts 2 , the chapter that records the events of the Day of Pentecost, records the first example of the preaching of salvation in the name of Jesus Christ to the general public. I always start here when someone asks me how Christianity began. Of course, "And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (Acts 11:26) states when they were first named. 

The name stuck because of the description of the people around Judea that the believers acted, preached, assembled in homes, worshiped, etc. just like Jesus did, so they were referred to as “little Christs” at Antioch.  So, contrary to your opinion, unless you can offer proof, Christianity is not a mythology, but a way of life. 

In fact, as Acts 14 relates, there were some pagans in some towns that Paul preached to who were believers in mythology. After Paul had commanded a lame man to stand, he immediately leaped up walked around joyfully. The stunned, heathen crowd wanted to worship Paul and Barnabas as incarnations of the “*gods,” *Zeus and Hermes, after which the evangelist began to fervently convince the crowds to stop. They proclaimed to them that they were men just as those in the crowd, not worthy of praise. Then when they were finally convinced the crowd that they were mortals, the disappointed heathens stoned Paul and left him for dead. 

Christianity could only be a myth if Jesus Himself was a myth.  History proves otherwise.  Look at the writings of Josephus, Origen, Justin Martyr and others.  There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical figure.

And that is what Christianity is based upon - the person, life, teachings, and Godhood of Jesus, not a fictitious god.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 28, 2017)

Exwisehe, of course the "miraculous" events of Christianity could be a myth without Jesus being a myth.

By the same token, Moses probably was a real live person. But that part about him raising his staff and parting the Red Sea is pure myth. Many religions attach myths to the stories about real people. Those tales are still being promulgated in some parts of the world today. Take Kim Jong Un, for instance.  In addition to the fact that he has invented a miracle drug that cures cancer, ebola, and aids, I found this about him:

The dictatorship is known for making outlandish claims about its own prowess. The state claims that Kim Jong Il invented the hamburger and had magical powers which meant he did not need to use the toilet.[FONT=&quot]  [/FONT]They also claim that he was born atop a North Korean mountain prompting a double rainbow and new star to spontaneously appear. Unfortunately for the state, records show that he was born in Siberia.
​


----------



## exwisehe (Dec 28, 2017)

Yes, as you say, the "miraculous events of Christianity could be a myth without Jesus being a myth."  You are right! But I personally would rephrase it as the "miraculous" events of Jesus "could" be a myth.... but also "could not" be a myth.  Of course, that's where our faith comes in, isn't it?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 28, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> I totally agree, dragonlady. I don't give a flip if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, as long as they don't demand that I agree with them or that their belief becomes law.
> 
> It was great fun to watch Joseph Campbell discuss the myth of the hero as it pertained to Jesus. We need more like Campbell.



Why? How will society benefit?  The premise here is that you shouldn't force your beliefs on someone else.  

So what do we have then? Hypocrisy in action?


----------



## exwisehe (Dec 28, 2017)

No, from the tenors of the posts, I think the premise was posed as: Has the world we know and live in developed through the process of evolution - a pure scientific process, where laws are true only if they can be tested, proven, repeated in the laboratory manner, etc. without any "outside", "unearthly presence", or deity (or other descriptions) or has it been created by an omnipotent and omniscient God?


----------



## DaveA (Dec 28, 2017)

Smiling Jane stated;  "I totally agree, dragonlady. I don't give a flip if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, as long as they don't demand that I agree with them or that their belief becomes law.



I tend to agree with you Jane, however - - - -I don't go on cruises.  If you enjoy cruise ships and such, you might want to re-think that "flat earth" comment.  When at sea, the horizon's only about 12 miles away.  if your cruise exceeds that distance, you might be in line for an unpleasant surprise.  Ever wonder where those ships go that disappear over the horizon?????:eek1:


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 28, 2017)

Every religion, and scientific 'history' too, has an element of mythology to it. Human beings are story tellers and their stories tend to be 'sticky' and attach themselves to other more factual events.

I would be interested to hear how Joseph Campbell deals with the mythology of Jesus. Over the centuries there has been a degree of added myths but the historic Jesus is still there at the centre of the story and he is a man of flesh and bone. His teachings have been recorded and there is a consistent core message, reduced to its essence in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus didn't waste too much time discussing the origins of man or of the earth. He preached about the present and pointed to a better future to come. Nor did he emphasise religious rituals or seek to control people with fear. Whether we believe that Jesus was also divine is up to each of us but to dismiss the historic Jesus as fiction is to ignore reality. The Jesus story is not in the same category as Hercules or King Arthur.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 28, 2017)

exwisehe said:


> Of course I have to disagree. Your statement _I believe all religion is a form of mythology..._ " is possibly true with some beliefs, but not Christianity.  Let me explain.
> .



I would suspect that most "believers" in most religions feel that theirs is the "one true faith"
As for accuracy, that is highly suspect. Much of what has gone into the Christian bible is based on hearsay evidence written down decades after the events themselves. Then there were the translations - not always translated as they were originally written - both thru error and deliberate editing when the original writing contradicted the church's current opinion on that. The books of the bible are hardly exact translations - there's even some evidence that some "books" were deliberately left out.
Like any "hearsay evidence" that passes thru several sources, the end product is highly suspect.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 28, 2017)

I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of this thread is.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 28, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> I would suspect that most "believers" in most religions feel that theirs is the "one true faith"
> As for accuracy, that is highly suspect. Much of what has gone into the Christian bible is based on hearsay evidence written down decades after the events themselves. Then there were the translations - not always translated as they were originally written - both thru error and deliberate editing when the original writing contradicted the church's current opinion on that. The books of the bible are hardly exact translations - there's even some evidence that some "books" were deliberately left out.
> Like any "hearsay evidence" that passes thru several sources, the end product is highly suspect.



And? So what?  No one forces you to read the Bible or believe in a religion do they?


----------



## Olivia (Dec 28, 2017)

I'm thinking Religion should be banned as a discussion topic along with Politics. I cannot see anything positive coming from it.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 28, 2017)

Olivia said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of this thread is.


I believe the purpose is to share ideas and points of view. Some people enjoy debate - myself included. It may not be your "cup of tea". I doubt that anyone really expects to convert anyone either way.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 28, 2017)

Olivia said:


> I'm thinking Religion should be banned as a discussion topic along with Politics. I cannot see anything positive coming from it.


That's your opinion - and, of course, you're entitled to it, but obviously there are those of us who disagree with that point of view and enjoy such a discussion. Fortunately for us, only the administrator has the power to ban subjects and only for specific reasons.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 28, 2017)

Debate is my cup of tea. I've been on a skeptics debate board for seventeen years. There's only six of us left (not because of religion but because of politics). Two us us are "believers' and four are atheists. When it comes to religion we mainly just ignore each other. if we got into serious debates about it, there would be zero left. Even though we totally disagree we are the six left because we in the end allow each other their beliefs and non-beliefs. I still don't see what arguing about religion accomplishes. It's like that saying--- never attempt to teach a *pig* to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the *pig.  It causes bad feelings. No one is going to get converted to either side. It's just going to get people irritated one way or the other. That's my opinion. *


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 28, 2017)

Olivia said:


> Debate is my cup of tea. I've been on a skeptics debate board for seventeen years. There's only six of us left (not because of religion but because of politics). Two us us are "believers' and four are atheists. When it comes to religion we mainly just ignore each other. if we got into serious debates about it, there would be zero left. Even though we totally disagree we are the six left because we in the end allow each other their beliefs and non-beliefs. I still don't see what arguing about religion accomplishes. It's like that saying--- never attempt to teach a *pig* to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the *pig.  It causes bad feelings. No one is going to get converted to either side. It's just going to get people irritated one way or the other. That's my opinion. *



And this is where it all goes
I, too, have been in long term debates, and closed door conferences for over 30 years
There is little reward, if any, to ‘winning’
Oh, and toss in some pseudo philosophy to keep the pot stirred  

Now, about that pie
Cherry has always been my fav
I think, if anyone has any sense at all, it should be theirs

Arguments?

Anyone?


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 28, 2017)

Olivia said:


> Debate is my cup of tea. I've been on a skeptics debate board for seventeen years. There's only six of us left (not because of religion but because of politics). Two us us are "believers' and four are atheists. When it comes to religion we mainly just ignore each other. if we got into serious debates about it, there would be zero left. Even though we totally disagree we are the six left because we in the end allow each other their beliefs and non-beliefs. I still don't see what arguing about religion accomplishes. It's like that saying--- never attempt to teach a *pig* to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the *pig.  It causes bad feelings. No one is going to get converted to either side. It's just going to get people irritated one way or the other. That's my opinion. *


  As I said, "That's your opinion - and, of course, you're entitled to it," If you disapprove of our discussing it, you are certainly free not to participate in it, but, with all due respect,  you are not free to dictate subjects which which we are allowed to debate.
Nuff said!


----------



## Olivia (Dec 28, 2017)

> As I said, "That's your opinion - and, of course, you're entitled to it," If you disapprove of our discussing it, you are certainly free not to participate in it, but, with all due respect, you are not free to dictate subjects which which we are allowed to debate.
> Nuff said!



Neat diversion.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 28, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> As I said, "That's your opinion - and, of course, you're entitled to it," If you disapprove of our discussing it, you are certainly free not to participate in it, but, with all due respect,  you are not free to dictate subjects which which we are allowed to debate.
> Nuff said!


Apparently the owner or owners of the website have accorded her the right to suggest what should and shouldn't be subjects of discussion.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 28, 2017)

> Apparently the owner or owners of the website have accorded her the right to suggest what should and shouldn't be subjects of discussion.



Yes, I get it. 

Apparently, Dragonlady feels I was targeting her. No, I was not. I was simply saying that slamming religious beliefs are not exactly what I and some others feel are appropriate to a Senior Forums community where there are a diversity of members here.


----------



## Traveler (Dec 28, 2017)

Olivia said:


> Yes, I get it.
> 
> Apparently, Dragonlady feels I was targeting her. No, I was not. I was simply saying that slamming religious beliefs are not exactly what I and some others feel are appropriate to a Senior Forums community where there are a diversity of members here.



Exactly, so.  I am a believer in evolution and not creationism but I respect the rights of others to believe what they choose.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 29, 2017)

Olivia said:


> Yes, I get it.
> 
> Apparently, Dragonlady feels I was targeting her. No, I was not. I was simply saying that slamming religious beliefs are not exactly what I and some others feel are appropriate to a Senior Forums community where there are a diversity of members here.


Dragonlady wants to be boss.

I believe that the theory of evolution through natural selection currently offers the best explanation of the origination of species.  However, I wish that this position didn't place me in the same category as Dragonlady and a few of her comrades.  They're a very nasty bunch.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 29, 2017)

Wow. this went downhill in a hurry! Speaking of nasty! I don't want and will not reply to this area of the thread any further. The handwriting is on the wall and this will deteriorate into further nastiness. 
I do not want to be "Boss"  and I do not believe you were targeting me specifically. I just want to participate in an ongoing discussion without someone presuming to censor the subject. It certainly appears that you are deliberately stirring the pot with the idea of shutting this thread down. I will post no more in answers to those attempts, but I will contoinue to post to this thread as I feel indicated


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 29, 2017)

well I'm targeting everone here when I say I think y'all are nuttier'n pecan pies

of which, come to think of it, are now my favorite

(btw, this thread has *evolved *to that hot little place one* creates *when overstating things)

TO THE PIE THREAD!!!


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 29, 2017)

DaveA said:


> Smiling Jane stated;  "I totally agree, dragonlady. I don't give a flip if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, as long as they don't demand that I agree with them or that their belief becomes law.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with you Jane, however - - - -I don't go on cruises.  If you enjoy cruise ships and such, you might want to re-think that "flat earth" comment.  When at sea, the horizon's only about 12 miles away.  if your cruise exceeds that distance, you might be in line for an unpleasant surprise.  Ever wonder where those ships go that disappear over the horizon?????:eek1:



Sorry I missed this, DaveA. I've never been on a cruise because I'm too much of a misanthrope to enjoy being stuck in the middle of the ocean on a ship full of people with whom I would prefer not to associate. I also have an odd form of claustrophobia that manifests itself in making small islands or oceangoing vessels a harrowing experience.

Even so, it's my understanding the horizon only appears flat to those on the planet's surface. Judging from the photos I've seen from space, the curvature seems to become apparent fairly soon.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 29, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Wow. this went downhill in a hurry! Speaking of nasty! I don't want and will not reply to this area of the thread any further. The handwriting is on the wall and this will deteriorate into further nastiness.
> I do not want to be "Boss"  and I do not believe you were targeting me specifically. I just want to participate in an ongoing discussion without someone presuming to censor the subject. It certainly appears that you are deliberately stirring the pot with the idea of shutting this thread down. I will post no more in answers to those attempts, but I will contoinue to post to this thread as I feel indicated



The ignore function works well.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 29, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Every religion, and scientific 'history' too, has an element of mythology to it. Human beings are story tellers and their stories tend to be 'sticky' and attach themselves to other more factual events.
> 
> I would be interested to hear how Joseph Campbell deals with the mythology of Jesus. Over the centuries there has been a degree of added myths but the historic Jesus is still there at the centre of the story and he is a man of flesh and bone. His teachings have been recorded and there is a consistent core message, reduced to its essence in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus didn't waste too much time discussing the origins of man or of the earth. He preached about the present and pointed to a better future to come. Nor did he emphasise religious rituals or seek to control people with fear. Whether we believe that Jesus was also divine is up to each of us but to dismiss the historic Jesus as fiction is to ignore reality. The Jesus story is not in the same category as Hercules or King Arthur.



Joseph Campbell was widely published; I'm sure his works are available in libraries and bookstores, and maybe articles online. He taught mythology for many years and wrote extensively on the subject of the archetype of the hero in mythology.

Campbell did not dismiss "historic" Jesus nor did he deny his existence. I never heard or read of Campbell being disrespectful toward Jesus, or anyone else for that matter. What I found fascinating is that he discussed Jesus as a historical person quite separate from the mythology that sprang up around him after his death.

Probably a better comparison than Hercules (who as far as I know was purely a fictional character) or King Arthur (about whom the jury is still out; I recently read about an archaeological dig that may have found artifacts), are the Founding Fathers of the US. They were very real people who became mythologized. One of my favorite teachers taught American history when I was a junior in high school. He would come into the classroom, sit on the edge of his desk and tell us stories about the real men who were the Founding Fathers. I thought the reality was far more interesting than the larger than life silliness we were spoonfed in our history books.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 29, 2017)

Thanks Jane. I will try to look into his work.

I have seen the same myth building around Mother Mary McKillop, the first Australian to be recognised as a saint by the Vatican. The real Mary was a very down to earth woman who had a concern for poor rural children who were missing out on education. She founded a new order of nuns who did not live behind convent walls. They went out in pairs to the places where children needed schooling and lived in rented rooms or even tents if need be to fulfil their mission. Mary would visit them on horseback, swimming the horse across rivers in the process. She was intrepid. 

She had no truck with superstition and extended her work to include schools, hospitals and orphanages. She fell foul of the bishops who wanted to control the nuns and was excommunicated for a time but never gave up and her order was revolutionary in that it had internal self government and was not subject to rule by diocesan bishops.

I admire this woman but when she was in the process of being beatified and canonised the myth making was clearly evident. The myths were converting a real, determined, strong woman into a plaster saint, but the real woman is still there if we but look behind the myths.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 29, 2017)

McKillop is a great analogy, Warrigal. It actually detracts from a genuine hero when the myth overcomes the reality of the person. It seems to be a requirement of the beatification process.


----------



## hearlady (Dec 29, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures. So what if it takes billions of years? It's a big universe, things take time; all according to God's plan, in God's time, not ours.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if mathematics is the language of God.


Yes, I've always believed science and creation will come together and all will be known.
There is SO much that is above and 
beyond our comprehension.
I think we have a veil and sometimes it is cracked which is why someone struck by lightning can suddenly play concert piano. Or why an autistic child can solve the most complicated equations.
Is the dissolving of the veil true ultimate knowledge of it all?


----------



## Capt Lightning (Dec 29, 2017)

_My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures._

So, excuse me for asking "WHY?".  Why did this 'god' create evolution?  Why did this 'god' create a violent, imperfect universe.  What is the meaning of it all?  Was this just god being bored and finding something to do?   I think Stephen Fry put it beautifully when asked what he would say if he confronted God.

“How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such  misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly  evil.

  “Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who  creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I  would say. ”

Well, what's the answer?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 29, 2017)

Capt Lightning said:


> I think Stephen Fry put it beautifully when asked what he would say if he confronted God.
> 
> “How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such  misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly  evil.
> 
> ...



I see this a little differently.

I believe that God created the world and gave man the ability to deal with what comes his way but it is up to man develop his skills and use his _god given_ talents to create a decent life in an imperfect world.  I don't see God as a helicopter parent that will hover over us and protect us or erase the obstacles from our lives.


----------



## mimento mori (Dec 29, 2017)

Exactly correct in my most humble estimation.  Whether a person believes one thing or the other is a personal choice like which type of diet one chooses to endorse.  There should be no stipulations as to how and why one would "get along" with other people on a forum such as this.  i.E.  I believe this and that and I will get along with other people's beliefs if they do this and that.  A simply daft attitude to take.  

As I wrote earlier, I do not really care whether one believes in evolution or creationism.  I have a few friends who are devout atheists while I am a minister of the gospel but we know where the lines are drawn and dare not to cross them.  We workout and train together, talk and share our thoughts and experiences and no one is the worse for it so how is it that a simple discussion forum such as this one creates so much angst from a singular query?  Perhaps the disconnection of one person to the other might be the answer for I do not believe that angry discussions are maintained in a physical one on one debate in full public view.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 29, 2017)

I accept the criticisms. Next time I have a problem or suggestion, I will contact a site administrator directly or post in the Forum Support and Suggestions thread. I stand corrected (and humbled).


----------



## hearlady (Dec 29, 2017)

Capt Lightning said:


> _My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures._
> 
> So, excuse me for asking "WHY?".  Why did this 'god' create evolution?  Why did this 'god' create a violent, imperfect universe.  What is the meaning of it all?  Was this just god being bored and finding something to do?   I think Stephen Fry put it beautifully when asked what he would say if he confronted God.
> 
> ...


So you will ask why.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 29, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> Dragonlady wants to be boss.
> I believe that the theory of evolution through natural selection currently offers the best explanation of the origination of species.  However, I wish that this position didn't place me in the same category as Dragonlady and a few of her comrades.  They're a very nasty bunch.



No one would ever place you in the same camp, Big Horn. 
It is one thing to have a peaceful discussion and sharing of ideas (which we were all doing just fine, regardless of our opinions on the topic); but when the thread degenerates into verbal abuse of other people  instead of intelligent discussion, then it is really no longer a topic thread, but a bashing thread. 

This is exactly why Matrix had to stop allowing political discussions here. 
Debating a political or religious topic is one thing, and perfectly fine; but when it turns into name-calling and vindictiveness, then it is time to put an end to that kind of a topic, and so he banned politics. 
This thread was never intended to be a rant about religious beliefs(or lack of them),  it was simply a discussion thread about how we think the world might have come into being, and with our reasons for thinking the way we do. 
There is no reason to disrespect anyone for what their personal opinion might be. We can all listen to each other, and if we are open-minded, we can all learn from each other. 
To me, that is the purpose of any discussion, is to see what we can learn from it.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 29, 2017)

Gary O' said:


> And this is where it all goes
> I, too, have been in long term debates, and closed door conferences for over 30 years
> There is little reward, if any, to ‘winning’
> Oh, and toss in some pseudo philosophy to keep the pot stirred
> ...



No problem at all. I love lemon but I would share a cherry pie with you anytime and enjoy it.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 29, 2017)

Capt Lightning said:


> _My 2 cents; Evolution is the process that I believe God uses to create human beings as well as all creatures._
> 
> So, excuse me for asking "WHY?".  Why did this 'god' create evolution?  Why did this 'god' create a violent, imperfect universe.  What is the meaning of it all?  Was this just god being bored and finding something to do?   I think Stephen Fry put it beautifully when asked what he would say if he confronted God.
> 
> ...



You will never find out. There are some things in this universe that do not settle down to a definitive answer.

Some problems are not solvable. Our human brain has a hard time with that.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 29, 2017)

Personally, I would find a life entirely devoid of mystery a red beans and rice affair. Practical, but, after a time, hugely dull.


----------



## Knight (Dec 29, 2017)

When it comes to religion, people have a choice, have faith in what is written or not. Pointing out that fossil remains of primitive mankind doesn't paint a pretty picture of made in his image or likeness. Fossil remains tell a story not explained by religion. 


As stories go I'd like to be living as long as Noah did according to Genesis 9:28 & 9:29 


 Shem's Blessing and Noah's Death 9:28 Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood. 9:29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died.…
New American Standard Bible
http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-28.htm


The reason I'd like to live for 950 years I'm convinced the mystery of why earth has a wealth of life forms would be solved. Having faith in a creator that according to fossil remains has to be older than the stories is a personal choice, if it makes a person comfortable who can argue against that?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 29, 2017)

The Earth has a wealth of life forms so everyone can eat.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 29, 2017)

I wish I could live on pie.


----------



## treeguy64 (Dec 29, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> I wish I could live on pie.



Absolutely the best answer to a silly question!


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 29, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> The ignore function works well.


Remembered it and acted accordingly. The original question was (I've come to believe) a troll and I naively got sucked right in. Live and learn


----------



## Olivia (Dec 29, 2017)

Well, since Dragonlady won't be reading this post just like she hasn't read my latest post (I'm on ignore) I feel free to post this.



> A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.
> 
> The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.
> 
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 29, 2017)

I would be most disappointed if the ban on all things political were to be extended to include all matters pertaining to religion.
What are we, children? Can we not as mature adults choose to participate in a thread that interests us and choose to disengage if the level of interaction take a turn that displeases us?


----------



## Olivia (Dec 29, 2017)

Well, it won't be me that would be asking that. I still have the scars.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 29, 2017)

Olivia, remember that you are on the internet. Don't take things personally. A snarky response from some stranger should be like water off a duck's back. There are no scars unless you start internalising negative comments.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 29, 2017)

I was making a joke to lighten things up. Okay, I guess I deserved that.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 29, 2017)

Olivia said:


> I was making a joke to lighten things up. Okay, I guess I deserved that.



Sort of like the young monk in your story.

The older monk  looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of  the river, *why are you still carrying her?*”

Great story!


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 29, 2017)

Olivia said:


> I was making a joke to lighten things up. Okay, I guess I deserved that.


I apologise. My post was kindly meant. I did not realise that you were making a joke. 
On the interwebs it is easy to misinterpret the intention of a post because we are not face to face as in real life.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 29, 2017)

Olivia said:


> Well, since Dragonlady won't be reading this post just like she hasn't read my latest post (I'm on ignore) I feel free to post this.


One of my favourite stories. Thanks.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 29, 2017)

> I apologise. My post was kindly meant. I did not realise that you were making a joke.
> On the interwebs it is easy to misinterpret the intention of a post because we are not face to face as in real life.



Yes, that's true. I should have used a smiley face, but I thought "scars" was such an exaggeration that it seemed to me that it was obviously a joke. But as you said, words alone can really be misinterpreted.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 29, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> No problem at all. I love lemon but I would share a cherry pie with you anytime and enjoy it.


Lemon...cherry, don't matter
The crust
That matters
....and who I share it with

I'll keep a fire for ya, pard


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 29, 2017)

Use lard. Best flaky crusts.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Use lard. Best flaky crusts.


truth

Lard
is the creator
causing flour to evolve into
...heaven

(I didn't wanna stay off topic)


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Hmmm. My family and I prefer all butter crusts. The flavour is fabulous.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 30, 2017)

I have a friend who makes a mean chocolate pie.  And I forgot about rhubarb pie -- I sure wish my mama was still here to make her wonderful rhubarb pie.  Mine never tastes quite like hers did, though I put the same things it it (maybe the missing ingredient is her loving hands).


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Hmmm. My family and I prefer all butter crusts. The flavour is fabulous.



Well now, I gotta go there


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> I have a friend who makes a mean chocolate pie.  And I forgot about rhubarb pie -- I sure wish my mama was still here to make her wonderful rhubarb pie.  Mine never tastes quite like hers did, though I put the same things it it (maybe the missing ingredient is her loving hands).


Moms, grammas seemed to become forgetful when it came to divulging all the ingredients
(gramma's rhubarb pie rocked!!)


----------



## hearlady (Dec 30, 2017)

Thank God! He evolved this into a pie thread by creating Gary O'.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

hearlady said:


> Thank God! He evolved this into a pie thread by creating Gary O'.



Thou shalt N*OT! *goad the pie aholic, hearlady

a little story (so far off topic it may never come back);

*Gramma*
Kin came from the dust bowl, Okies. The Joad family (TheGrapes of Wrath) represented them well.
Gramma coulda easily played Ma Joad…if she didn’t….

Gramma raised me.
Actually, she raised everyone in our country neighborhood.
She made a home with little, but always clean.
The aroma from her kitchen was everlasting.
She could turn corn bread and hominy into a feast.
Sometimes she’d just take some left overcornbread, and break it up into a bowl and pour milk and sugar on it.
Called it ‘crumbs’.
Always a pie or cobbler.
Always a huge garden.
Always tending something, or someone.
She could give you a bath with a teaspoon of water.
Ever so often, we'd head to 'Monkey' Wards in the old ‘51 Chevy.
It was her outing. 
Most times we'd be picking up something like a post hole digger, or a part for a pressure cooker that she'd ordered, nothin' fancy.
After pulling a number, we’d sit in the big room downstairs of the huge multi-storied Wards store, waiting for them to pull our order.
I remember one time she fished my hand out of a spittoon of which I’d found interest in its contents.
I don’t remember ever going in with them after that.

She had a genuine warmth that accepted anyone, and a kindness that made her home yours.
Nothing gushy, just down home, grapes of wrath folk.
Plain speaking.
She had an economy with words.
Names of things and places were all 'whatchcallit'.
She called most everyone ‘kid’, except for me. She called me ‘picklepuss’. For a while there I thought my name really was picklepuss.
She had huge, pillowy gramma arms.
When she’d raise ‘em to hang laundry, they’d kinda drape down, giving the impression of a giant flying squirrel, or better yet, a caped crusader…X Gramma, queen of the quilting bee. 
When she'd settle you down for a nap they'd envelope you. 
No one got away. 
Where do grammas get those arms, and when?
She always had ‘em as far back as I can recall.
They were very nap inducing, coupled with her high pitched nasal country tone singing you to slumber, her super powers were always too much for extended consciousness.



As sweet as she was, she could be stubborn when necessary.
We had a collie/shepherd dog named Tag.
Our family had a long history of keeping a dog outside.
It rains a lot in Oregon and a wet dog in as mall house is not a good combination.
Tag was gun shy, and whenever we had a thunderstorm he’d run under the car or house, or in the house if you’d let him.Thinking back, I think the whole family was gun shy, as we’d oftentimes run furtively out to the car to sit out the storm…something about the tires grounding the car.
One of these storms hit relatively close one vening, so we decided to get in the car and drive the mile around the corner,up the hill, to Gramma’s house. Tag followed, running right behind the car. Maybe he’d heard about the grounding theory…..sweet dog, but his intellect was a bit skewed. Looked kinda like Lassie, but was more the antichrist of the collie world.
Arriving at Gramma’s, she greeted us by opening her screen door a few inches.
It was enough for Tag to forcefully nose his way in.
Ever try to get a dripping wet panic stricken dog out of your house? Evidently Gramma had.
In less time than you could say ‘whatchcallit’,Tag was flying back out the door, through the air and off the porch. He did a couple belly rolls and slinked under the car.
Gramma put her broom back, behind the door, at the ready, like it was her shot gun.

Work for her was recreation, rewarding, sustaining.

In church you could hear her high pitched Minnie mouse voice whining out a hymn, tears in hers eyes.
She lived to be 97, out living three husbands.
A year after one of them passed, she'd go to Mode-O-Day, buy a bright flowered dress, get her hair done, put on a bit of rouge, bake a pie, and snag another one.

Of anyone's passing, hers I feel the most.

As it's been said, a full life, well lived.
Her last words to me were, "I just want to be where there's life".

I believe she is.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Hope Tag was ok, he must have been terrified.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Hope Tag was ok, he must have been terrified.


he managed to live thru many storms thereafter
(avoiding gramma's broom)


----------



## hearlady (Dec 30, 2017)

That story brought a smile to my face and a tear to my eye.

I had 2 Grammy's. Both lived into their 90's. They were good examples of strong depression era women. And they made darn good pies.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

hearlady said:


> I had 2 Grammy's. Both lived into their 90's. *They were good examples of strong depression era women*. And they made darn good pies.



Yes
yes they were


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

The thread has obviously been hijacked. Guess they disapprove of the discussion also. A sneaky way to censor.


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 30, 2017)

Ok Enough damn pies!  Let's get back to the arguments!


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 30, 2017)

Maybe people got sick of it finally and don't want to argue.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 30, 2017)

Nothing wrong with pie!


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Maybe people got sick of it finally and don't want to argue.



Then why get on this thread at all? Most of us were not "arguing" anyway;we were "discussing". Every discussion is not necessarily an argument. I, and I suspect, others found the discussion interesting.
I have never before put a poster on ignore, but over the years I have had too many confrontations with believers who have become aggressive, nasty and very pushy when I have revealed that I am not a believer. I had no desire to deal with this again; hence the "ignore" designation.


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Then why get on this thread at all? Most of us were not "arguing" anyway;we were "discussing". Every discussion is not necessarily an argument. I, and I suspect, others found the discussion interesting.
> I have never before put a poster on ignore, but over the years I have had too many confrontations with believers who have become aggressive, nasty and very pushy when I have revealed that I am not a believer. I had no desire to deal with this again; hence the "ignore" designation.


Well, I AM a true believer and anyone who disagrees is wrong!  The tooth fairy is the real deal!!!


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

So is the Easter Bunny, especially the chocolate versions.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 30, 2017)

I  find it sad that this thread has been derailed, but perhaps all that was going to be said has now been said.

May I remind members that discussion can take place under Groups and all viewpoints are welcome but frivolous derailment is not. To post you do need to ask to join but no-one is ever refused on the Groups that I administer.

Free discussion can occur in _Speakers Corner_ and _Of Matters Spiritual. _Topics are a bit more sophisticated than the old chestnut of evolution/creationism. This alone puts off those members who are uninterested in serious discussion.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 30, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I  find it sad that this thread has been derailed, but perhaps all that was going to be said has now been said.
> 
> May I remind members that discussion can take place under Groups and all viewpoints are welcome but frivolous derailment is not. To post you do need to ask to join but no-one is ever refused on the Groups that I administer.
> 
> Free discussion can occur in _Speakers Corner_ and _Of Matters Spiritual. _*Topics are a bit more sophisticated than the old chestnut of evolution/creationism. This alone puts off those members who are uninterested in serious discussion.*



Thanks, this is helpful.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> So is the Easter Bunny, especially the chocolate versions.



Ridicule is another tactic that is used to prevent discussion ,


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Ridicule is another tactic that is used to prevent discussion ,



You might want to check out the post I was responding to. Maybe you can loosen the binds on my pillory a little.

After quite a number of posts about what kind of pie people like and then a Tooth Fairy mention, don't single me out for the scourge.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> You might want to check out the post I was responding to. Maybe you can loosen the binds on my pillory a little.
> 
> After quite a number of posts about what kind of pie people like and then a Tooth Fairy mention, don't single me out for the scourge.




My comment was a general one not directed at a specific individual. There was no indication that you were responding to any other post.  Your post was an example of the specific type of post. You were, after all, at least a part of the manipulative tactics.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> My comment was a general one not directed at a specific individual. Your post was an example in place of posting all. You were, after all, at least a part of it.



Oh yeah, one post after how many?

If you want to turn this thread around, you need to do it yourself. Scolding participants is not likely to accomplish your purpose.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

LOL I didn't "scold" anyone. I merely pointed out a tactic.  One or two comments wouldn't have merited a comment from me- several did


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> The thread has obviously been hijacked. Guess they disapprove of the discussion also. A sneaky way to censor.


Or perhaps they disapprove of some of the attitudes expressed, and choose to lighten things up. It is apparent that people’s feelings have been hurt, unnecessarily, IMHO. Warri, i apologise for my part in derailing your thread, but not everyone is as sanguine about negativity as you are. Hence, oil on troubled water attempts.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> My comment was a general one not directed at a specific individual. There was no indication that you were responding to any other post.  Your post was an example of the specific type of post. You were, after all, at least a part of the manipulative tactics.



I was on your side until you started this whatever you call it. It sure looks like a scold to me, but I'm sure it's hard to type with your hands on your hips.

Have you noticed you've become part of the problem instead of the solution?

I'm sure I'll be pilloried for that one too.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

Comment deleted because it was redundant.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> LOL I didn't "scold" anyone. I merely pointed out a tactic.  One or two comments wouldn't have merited a comment from me- several did



That's where you're wrong. I didn't make several comments of the sort  that derailed the thread. I was enjoying the discussion until someone  made an unfounded accusation against the evolutionists and then it all fell apart.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

OMG I never said you did.. Apparently my identifying disruptive behavior has really fired up some people. It was basically rude, but now I'm being vilified for pointing it out. (scratches head)


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

How can we be certain how any individual will react to certain forms of speech? One person’s free speech is another’s scolding. Perhaps it would be best to address the subject rather than the person. As for tactics, that can be a slippery slope.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

Sounds good to me. I'm for evolution - how about the rest of you?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Sounds good to me. I'm for evolution - how about the rest of you?



I'm sticking with a little of both!

Is there any pie left?


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> I'm sticking with a little of both!
> 
> Is there any pie left?


I have some cherry, and blackberry too. Anyone hungry?


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

I ran across a review of a drbate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on this very subject. Interesting!



> > Days  after a wide-ranging debate on creationism and evolution between Bill  Nye and Ken Ham, the event is driving an online conversation. Themes of  belief and literalism, logic and faith — and, for some, relevance — are  being aired and disputed. And some wonder what the debate accomplished.
> > The  video of the more than two-hour debate, in which Nye and Ham presented  their views on how the Earth and its surroundings were created, has been  viewed more than 830,000 times on YouTube. At one point, the live event  drew more than 500,000 viewers.
> > And the interest has  persisted. We've sifted through some of the reactions to the debate,  along with what people make of the opposing viewpoint. Below is a  sampling of what we're seeing:
> > On our live-blog page for the debate, Richard Arthur came away with the top-rated comment (out of more than 2,000 responses):
> > ...



https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...5141/who-won-the-creation-vs-evolution-debate


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 30, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> The thread has obviously been hijacked. Guess they disapprove of the discussion also. A sneaky way to censor.


'







Have I been bad?





My intent was for a bit a humor to temporarily replace the heat…

Anyway, if the ingredients were to somehow come together…how long would it be for saaaay a pie to come to being?
(if it’s a billion years I’ll just create one…because I can)

OK OK, sorry

Please continue.

I’ll go make popcorn


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2017)

Found another interesting article on this subject

Creation vs. Evolution Controversy  *Evolution* is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually  more complex or better form.  Charles Darwin proposed a theory, now called  the _Theory of Evolution_, stating that animals differentiated into species when the survivors of a changing environment were able to pass their genetic traits to their offspring.

 The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that can be tested by observations and application of the scientific method. Support for the theory of evolution is based on fossil evidence that has accumulated throughout the geologic history of the Earth. The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a contemporary example of the  adaptation of life-forms in response to their environment.




Darwin cartoon	 
*Creationism*, or *Intelligent Design*, is the religious belief that a higher power created the  animals and everything that exists today through supernatural intervention.  Religious beliefs, such as  creationism, have to be accepted on faith and cannot be tested or investigated. Creationism beliefs are usually based on a strict interpretation of the Bible or other religious holy books. The book of Genesis starts with the statement "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and goes on to describe how in six days God created the plants, the animals, the sun, the moon, and the stars.  Biblical interpretation infers that the world was created about 6000 years ago. The modern creationism movement received support from the 1961 publication of  The Genesis Flood  by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris.  Neither author had any training in geology, but they claimed that Noah's flood had laid down all the sedimentary rock before erosion carved the Earth's current topography.  The authors dismissed fossil evidence for a long history of life, and claimed that the world had been created to seem old. 
*The Controversy*
Conflicts between Evolution and Creationism occur when evolutionists argue that creationism is  not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested by the scientific method, whereas creationists argue that evolutionists do not take God into account and that evolution is just a theory rather than a fact.   Scientific methodology which is based on physical evidence can never be reconciled with the creationist faith-based belief that the Old Testament of the Bible,  which was written by Israelites around 1400 BC, is the only true account of creation.  Creationists continue to ridicule Charles Darwin even though his theories have been confirmed through many scientific studies. 
   Science requires that a hypothesis or theory should be testable and supported by physical evidence,  whereas religion requires acceptance of a doctrine or belief without analysis or judgment. For this reason, conflicts between evolution and creationism can never be resolved.   DNA testing has shown that humans and chimpanzees have a 98-percent genetic similarity, providing overwhelming evidence that apes and humans have a common ancestry.   Scientists are willing to accept these results as evidence that man is a specific type of ape, but this is what creationists find most revolting, since they believe that  "God created man in his own image", as stated in Genesis 1:27.






 
    The theory of evolution regards the similarity of primates as an indication of common ancestry.
Michelangelo's fresco in the Sistine Chapel shows God creating Adam in his own image. 

​ 
*The Theory of Evolution* was conceived by Charles Darwin during a five-year survey  expedition around the world.  The ship, _HMS Beagle_, sailed from Plymouth, England on December 27, 1831. Darwin studied geological features, fossils, and living organisms at the various stops that the ship made as it circled the globe.  He collected an enormous number of wildlife and fossil  specimens and tried to solve the puzzle of how the variety of life forms arose.   Charles Darwin published his _Journal and Remarks_, also known as _The Voyage of the Beagle_, in 1839 as a travel memoir that contained detailed scientific observations of biology, geology, and anthropology. Darwin conceived his theory of natural selection and sketched an evolutionary tree on his _First Notebook on Transmutation of Species_ in 1837.  Twenty two years passed before he  published his book _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_ in 1859.  The essential features of the Theory of Evolution that distinguish it from Creationism are: 


Life is very old.  Life forms, fossilized as    _stromatolites_, have been dated to 3,500 million years ago.  By contrast,   accounts of Creation estimate that the world is less than 10,000 years old.
Species originated from an ancient organism which over time diversified and   gave rise to a wide variety of life forms.  Creationism argues that all the diversity of organisms   was created simultaneously.
Natural selection is a process in which favorable heritable traits become more common    in successive generations of reproducing organisms.     Adaptations that specialize the organisms for particular ecological niches     cause divergence that eventually results in new species.  Creationism    does not address natural selection.
  The Theory of Evolution is one of the great unifying concepts of modern biology.  Today, the study of DNA sequences of closely related species provides clues to the mutations that produced organisms with different physical features.  DNA sequences  also make it possible to identify contemporary organisms that share common evolutionary ancestry. 

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/search/evolution.html


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 30, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Or perhaps they disapprove of some of the attitudes expressed, and choose to lighten things up. It is apparent that people’s feelings have been hurt, unnecessarily, IMHO. Warri, i apologise for my part in derailing your thread, but not everyone is as sanguine about negativity as you are. Hence, oil on troubled water attempts.



Not my thread at all. I actually find this particular topic old hat but I do think people for whom it is of great interest ought to be able to express their views without abuse, ridicule or facetious responses.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 31, 2017)

Well, it appears that the "Forces of Darkness" have been successful in torpedoing this thread. Sad


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Have you ever seen evolution In action?

I have. My son was crawling on all fours and as I watched him one day he decided to get up and walk on two feet.

It was amazing.


----------



## Olivia (Dec 31, 2017)

I'm genuinely sorry, Dragonlady, that I ruined this thread for you. If I could do it over, I would. Also, as I had mentioned earlier in the thread, I do believe in evolution.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 2, 2018)

Found another interesting perspective on this subject.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/a-retired-pastor-explains-why-she-abandoned-the-christian-faith/

[/QUOTEI always knew Santa was make-believe. My parents taught me Jesus was the reason for the season, God’s free gift to all who believe in him. They never lied to me about anything, including Santa Claus.
A few years ago, I watched a little boy after a funeral. He seemed oblivious to the conversation occurring over his head until one grownup exclaimed: “I still believed in Santa Claus then!”
Beneath them, the child’s eyes and mouth popped open. Laughter riffled the air. He searched upward for his parents. But they were laughing and never met his startled gaze.
I recalled that boy’s alarm when my husband, Phil, and I tried to tell friends that our beliefs had changed.
“What beliefs?”
“God.” Startled silence. Jaws dropped, eyes wide.
“You can’t mean that,” one said.
Phil and I were ordained ministers. I had accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was four at the altar of a revival tent in New York’s Catskill Mountains. Growing up in those woods, I talked to Jesus—not an audible conversation so much as my heart’s constant refrain of love and gratitude. When we married in 1965, I called Phil my “second best friend.”
Even after I became a feminist, I seldom questioned familiar creeds. The idea of domination no longer fit my worldview. So, I asked Jesus, “Is there a name I can call you instead of Lord?”
“Sure,” came the lighthearted reply: “Call me Cramps.” I laughed at this divine nod to women’s bleeding and birth pangs. That was the sort of conversation God and I had: a relaxed, confident projection of my own evolving beliefs.
I could not account for other people’s beliefs about God. In 2003, when President George W. Bush grew impatient with the search for weapons of mass destruction and launched his tragic invasion of Iraq, I suspected he thought he was hearing from God, like Joshua at Jericho. He seemed to think Iraqis would eagerly lay down their arms before our triumphant Lord.
On public radio, I heard a teenage brother and sister describe their reasons for enlisting, beginning with their mistaken belief that Iraq had attacked us on 9/11. She was 17 and eager to leave school. He was 19, heading for boot camp. Was he afraid to die? No, he said: “I’m a Christian. So, I know where I’m going.”
Islamic fundamentalists likewise promised teen recruits eternal glory of martyrdom and paradise. Allahu Akbar! God bless America! Religious slogans in these contexts made me sick.
Bush declared that he had to invade Iraq because God wanted to set people free. I paced our empty church and told the President: “You just cut my umbilical cord to Christianity.”
I had no idea what that meant. If President Bush was like a midwife, cutting my connection to those lifelong beliefs, then what new life was being born? Years later, Phil reminded me that someone else had freed us from our theological assumptions in a far more generous and life-giving way.
In the year after Phil’s cancer diagnosis in 2005, we had begun to take comfort in the BBC documentaries of Sir David Attenborough, who thrilled us with the wonders of nature and never mentioned God. We snuggled in bed and watched the lumbering scholar describe the marvels of planet Earth. His diction remained precise whether he knelt in mud or dangled from a giant redwood. His self-deprecating humor and matter-of-fact summaries of evolution soothed us. Breathtaking photography of animals and plants on far-flung continents filled us with awe.
Phil and I felt no crisis of faith when we told each other we no longer believed in a supernatural being. The bad midwife had freed us from magical thinking of religious ideologues. The good midwife had welcomed us into a vibrant world of natural wonder that had been here all along.
I think God happens between people
Aerialist Nik Wallenda balanced himself differently above this world of natural wonder. When he crossed the Grand Canyon in 2013, he walked one-quarter-mile on a half-inch cable 1500 feet in the air with no safety net. “Thank you, Jesus,” he said, his words recorded. “Lord, help this cable to calm down. I command it in your name. Praise you, praise you, Jesus.”
I grew up talking to Jesus like that. Nik grew up walking on high wires since he was two like his mother, father, and extended family. Despite his strong belief, I knew Nik could not walk on water across the Colorado River. He would sink like a stone. Faith often works when you believe, but gravity always works, whether or not you believe.
When Phil and I told each other our thinking about God had changed, we felt a sense of relief. But when we tried to tell others, they gasped. No matter how gently we introduced the subject, it seemed like too much for some people we loved.
Later we understood how evolution had changed us in imperceptible increments over a long stretch of time. We were like fish that crawled onto land and, over eons, evolved into air-breathing, live-bearing, warm-blooded beings without knowing how that happened.
During millions more years, some returned to the sea, where legs morphed into flippers instead of fins. They became dolphins, whales, and manatees. But they remained warm-blooded and still breathed air. Their tails lay horizontally and moved up and down, the way legs had propelled their ancestors on land. They would never again be fish. Never again hold their tail fins vertically and swish them side-to-side. The change was irreversible.
We had become secular Christians. Though deeply rooted in Christianity, Phil and I discovered that our growing edge was secular, not bound by old familiar creeds. We still value our kinship with many Christians, but we no longer believe that a self-aware supernatural being sent his only begotten son to die for us. We no longer believe a blood sacrifice will bring us everlasting life.
That gospel message saved my paternal grandfather around 1898. His own father succumbed to alcoholism and abandoned the family, leaving his teenage son to suffer a nervous breakdown. I still have the tract that brought my grandfather hope and healing. The same hope became a refuge for my mother at the age of five, because her mother had taught her how to talk to Jesus before she died, in 1914, giving birth to her fourth baby.
Neuroscience shows how our brains feed on messages of hope. Today, opioid addicts achieve sobriety with help from a Higher Power. Those liberating beliefs can atrophy into walls that separate people. Or they can evolve into bridges that connect them. Months into our marriage, Phil stretched my fundamentalism when he said: “I think God happens between people.”
Atheists can sound as smug and superior as fundamentalists. Creeds—or their adamant absence—can turn to concrete, crush our humanity, and sink this lifeboat we all share.
As much as Phil and I wish we could be together forever, we accept the scientific evidence. We belong to a species that dies. When our brain cells disintegrate, our unique identities will disappear.
This truth makes our fleeting lives on planet Earth more precious than ever.][/QUOTE]


----------



## Sunny (Jan 2, 2018)

> Atheists can sound as smug and superior as fundamentalists.



Although that sounds superficially like the truth, it is not a valid comparison. Of course, anyone can "sound" smug and superior; that's a personality trait, not a reflection of truth or reality.  

Non-theological example:  One person claims the earth is flat, based on "belief."  He sounds very smug and positive that he is right. But when asked for any rational proof, he can't give any.

A second person claims that the earth is spherical (more or less), based on scientific data. He also sounds smug, especially when he is referring to the flat earth guy. But that doesn't reduce his logical reasoning to the same
level as the true believer, whose absolute conviction is based on what he calls "faith."


----------

