The Duggars—Parasites of Science
I’ve received a bit of flack, both in the comments on this site and elsewhere on the web, for my humorous but negative articles on the Duggar family. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are extreme fundamentalists. Their irresponsible and rampant fertility strains an already overpopulated world.
One of the things that bothers me the most about the Duggars isn’t limited to them. Almost all fundies are equally at fault on this one point (it’s just more obvious with the Duggars). That point is:
A parasite is an organism that sucks life from its host and provides nothing in return. This would be bad enough if it were merely freeloading, but a parasite actually burdens the host. Pile enough parasites onto one host, and it dies.
Christian fundamentalism and its toxic products (creationism, theocracy, superstition, misinformation, prejudice, fear, hate, etc.) are spreading. They even managed to get one of their own elected president.
The Duggars and almost all fundies suck all the benefits they can from the modern world—most notably the miracles of modern medicine—yet they deny evolution, the very core of modern biology, that makes all of this medicine possible.
As their ilk continue to press for the evisceration of science standards taught in the public schools, they are weakening the very host that gives them life.
I found a couple of excellent articles at Look Out, It’s Evil!. In the first article Professor Bleen has altered the Duggar family portrait to make the following point:
[T]he reason that the Duggars have [seventeen] live, healthy children, instead of nine or ten clinging to life with varying success, is the triumph of science over the medieval superstition they teach their children—and want taught to all American schoolchildren—in place of science.
That’s right. Without modern science, without modern biology, without evolution!, their healthy, giant family would be neither healthy nor quite so giant. Yet they advocate policies that would destroy the very miracles that they enjoy.
Professor Bleen has another article that is even better. He writes:
I rant about the Duggars not for their beliefs per se, but because they insist they have the right to force their medieval view of Nature on the rest of us Americans, while simultaneously feeling entitled to the benefits of the very science that they decry.
Professor Bleen does more than just complain. He offers a solution, which I heartily endorse:
With this in mind, here’s my proposal: anyone who lobbies, publicly, in favor of abandoning modern biology, should forfeit all the advantages that modern biology has provided us. It only makes sense.
It makes perfect sense, Professor! It’s time to put a stop to these scientific tapeworms.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
An apt solution. One that the rest of us would no doubt find amusing.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
These people are fucking weird.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
You are just sad! Enough said.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Shaun:
Would you care to elaborate? Or is your opinion so shallow that you actually can’t explain why you hold it?
February 17th, 2008 at 7:52 am
You are a RUDE person. You should be ashamed of yourself.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Pissing off fundies is what I do. I’m glad I ruined your day.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:54 am
One would think one could find intelligent information on the internet…how wrong I am! I would suggest you do a little more research about evolution and creationism before you publicly humiliate yourself.Recommended reading, “The case for a creator” by Lee Strobel,a confessed Atheist turned believer….If you have the courage of your convictions that is.One would hope that all this ranting is backed by some knowledge instead of emotion….don’t you think?
February 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Nadine:
Really? You’re suggesting I learn a little more about evolution before publishing an article? Do you have any idea how retarded you are? Evolution is one of my avocations. I understand it better than most people outside of academia. For you to come on here and suggest I don’t understand evolution is beyond brainless. Most creationists have at least two neurons they can rub together. Maybe you could borrow one.
No, I am not going to read your silly book. I have read hundreds — yes, literally hundreds — of separate and distinct arguments for and “proofs” of a creator, both on the internet and in various print publications. Every single one of them has fallen woefully short of non-laughable, let alone plausible or vaguely convincing. If you people actually had any proof of a god, I sincerely doubt you’d keep it hidden in just that one book that few people have ever heard of.
Although emotion gives me the drive to create this site to protect our country from people like you, everything on it is backed by knowledge. Oh, yes, I do think — apparently about a million times more often than you do.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Dang it, Ron. You got to blast Nadine before I did.
Well, there is a point she raises I would like to expound upon. She describes the irritating and creepy Lee Strobel as a former atheist, which makes me wonder about such people. Christians occasionally trot out these ex-heretics to buttress their cause, as if to suggest there is some intellectual credibility to their childish fable, and that the philosophical and logical underpinnings of atheism are weak. My suspicion is that these ex-atheists really never were atheists to begin with, but were only lapsed Christians. I’d love to know the reasons these people give for becoming atheists in the first place. I doubt they’d have anything to do with the problem of evil or free will, or the utter lack of evidence for a god, or the problem of where a god came from in the first place. No, it probably would have a more mundane explanation, like they were “lost”, or they were angry with god about something, and failed to take their frustration to the logical conclusion.
Christians really do not understand atheism, because if they did, they’d become atheists and never look back. I understand Christianity, and I easily recognize it for the sham that it is. For me to adopt the Christian worldview it would literally require a miracle. Perhaps people like Nadine sense on some subconscious level that their vaunted faith will topple like a house of cards the moment some inconvenient fact inhabits her mind, so to spare herself the bother of examining the world in a realistic fashion, she and her ilk make one losing argument after another, embarrassing themselves in defense of a dogma unworthy of defense. People like Strobel claiming to have once been atheists are like grown adults saying they now accept that Santa Claus invades their homes once a year. Yes, its a terrible argument, but that’s just what we’ve come to expect here at the good old Bay, isn’t it?
May 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Beautiful. Like you, when I heard about this family, I just had to know more. And I discovered like you, that the whole family is utterly brainwashed. They live on a compound, a freakin’ compound! They just arrested 200 of them in New Mexico. Maybe when they start inbreeding, and Daddy Days become Daddy-on-Daughter Days we’ll actually start to hear the truth.
That said. I don’t wish any ill on the family. Or on the daughters. And the idea of incest is reprehensible and I think ol’ Jim Bob would probably agree. After all, he don’t want to bring on the fire and brimstone either. That said, Lot’s daughters slept with him because they wanted to see his patrolineage continue. So who knows, I wonder how Daddy and Daughters feel when they get to that passage of the bible. I feel all weird inside! Look I’m not above being wrong—maybe they’re all just super-nice people. But…then again…
As far as genes are considered, I think it’s pretty clear that the Duggar family is extremely healthy. Probably the reason they are outcreating the rest of the country. Of course, when the Duggar family meets its arch nemesis, the Duggar pathogen, the whole clan will be wiped out. Still I wonder if she would consent to a paternity test?
Do we know what Daddy Duggar does?
Still, there is something irrepressibly weird about this situation. And I think it needs to be investigated. Moreover, my girlfriend, an evolutionary anthropologist has told me that the physical stress of repeated pregnancy can actually dull a woman’s wits. A brief google search reveals nothing to substantiate that claim. So I’ll move to strike that your honor.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Michelle Duggar had wits? If she’d had any wits, she’d have run, screaming, away from a guy with a name like “Jim-Bob” nineteen years ago. By sticking around and letting Jizz-Blob “every sperm is sacred” Duggar treat her as little more than an incubator, the woman is complicit in her own degradation. Yes, maybe she regrets it now — one look at her glassy-eyed, sickly smile makes one wonder — but at this point it’s too late.
As far as what “Daddy” does for a living – need you ask? He’s playing the tax-exempt, “we’re a church” scam for all it’s worth, and no doubt he gets support from the network of like-minded fundie wackos the family is a part of. I’ve heard vague rumors that he’s a realtor, but unless he sells commercial properties on Fifth Avenue, it would be pretty hard to support nineteen people. Pimping his brood on TV probably helps, too.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ron, Brian, Hammclov, and Sue Blue. I just wanted you to know that you are prayed for today. Jesus died to save us from our sins. May God open your eyes and heart to the truth of Him and His Word.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Amy
I just wanted you to know that I bought a lottery ticket for you today. If it wins, I’ll send you the money. The odds are 156 million to one. That’s still better than the odds that there is a god.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Amy, I’m sure that all of them appreciate your concern, but really, if God wanted our eyes ‘open’ wouldn’t He (Oh sexism…back for another round I see) try a little harder? Or do we just not matter?
You obviously have good intentions (I have a Christian friend who told me something similar when I was distressed over my parent’s divorce), but this isn’t what we want. We don’t want to be told that a God cares about us…how about you? How about people like yourself telling us that we are free to atheism, that we are not bad immoral people, that science is not religion and the two were never meant to intermix?
I think that would be a little more appreciated ^^
May 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Okay, I love this professor so much, and I wish we really COULD do that. Let the Duggars and their ilk reap the rewards of their completely inane beliefs. Let Michelle go through her pregnancies without prenatal care, go through labor without doctors.
In fairness, I don’t think a lot of these fundies stop to consider the full scope of what they’re saying. They take medicine for granted — it just happens. Doctors exist. They obviously don’t stop to think about where all those medical advancements came from, or what it was that turned this country’s medicine into an actual science.
I recommend the book The Great Influenza by John M. Barry to them as food for thought. It’s about the 1918 flu epidemic, but it also details how medicine in the USA went from quackery to what it is today. Basically, physicians here copied their counterparts in Europe and took God out of the equation. They STUDIED things. They kept their minds open, rather than shutting them and sticking a Bible on top like so much of the rest of society. There’s a line — and I’m paraphrasing here — that’s something like “they were willing to follow the paths of science WHEREVER they might lead”.
It’s possible to be a religious scientist. You just can’t do it if you’re a fundie. My grandfather was a doctor, and an Irish Catholic, and when I asked him once how he could reconcile the two, he said that only idiots and children took the Bible literally, and that God gave people brains so they could use them. Coming from someone of his generation and background, I thought that was pretty damn awesome.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Amy, feel free to waste your time on my behalf; it’s no skin off my back. I only wish you would spend it doing tangible good for others…you know, things like actually, physically helping those in need rather than just praying for them. I’m sure the starving, homeless, etc. would appreciate food and shelter far more than prayer. But no…it’s so much easier — and cheaper — just to pray. You can feel like you’re doing something about all the problems in the world without actually having to break a sweat or crack the wallet. So go ahead! Feel good about yourself.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
And just what the heck does “Jeeesus died for our sins” have to do with the discussion of the Duggar’s uncontrolled proliferation?
May 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Saith Amy: “Jesus died to save us from our sins. May God open your eyes and heart to the truth of Him and His Word.”
Whenever I hear arrogant Christians bragging about their glorious eternity in Heaven, and how smart they were to accept Jesus to get there, I wonder if they’ve ever thought it through. I then immediately realize that no, they almost certainly haven’t thought it through. You see, they confidently tell us that we are all born with a “sin-debt” and that only Jesus’s precious goddamned blood can erase that debt. Those of us who refuse to accept Jesus as our personal savior will be thrown into Hell for all of eternity whether we like it or not. It’s a bit like saying you’re late on your mortgage and are about to be evicted, but you’ve never even bought a house in the first place. In fact, you weren’t even in the market for a house. But the mortgage company just gets its kicks out of fucking you over, especially when it makes no sense at all.
Forgive me if I take umbrage at being saddled with imaginary guilt over the death of an imaginary person who willingly went to said death for the sole purpose of appeasing an imaginary god bent on vengeance for an imaginary crime committed by other imaginary persons. But, please, Amy, by all means, continue with the wishful thinking, because I’m sure it makes you feel better. You’ve read all sorts of horrible, sacrilegious words on this site, and possibly others like it, and you just can’t believe that anyone would reject your crazy-ass religion. Retreat into your bubble, say some magic words to Jesus and pretend you’ll get to live forever. That’s the easy way to deal with reality, isn’t it?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
So like, what is prayer? I mean when you get down to it, it’s supposed to be a conversation with God, but usually it just involved people clasping their hands, closing the eyes, bowing their head, and thinking to themselves and wishing for something. But every time I prayed for world peace (a selfless, rather noble prayer, I would think) it never came true. If prayer is so powerful… why? DOH! I almost forgot — not in the plan! Well, then who’s to say your eternal bliss in heaven is “in the plan,” then, Amy?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Praying is basically the yellow “Support Our Troops” sticker of the charity world.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Yeah, I especially get a kick out of the logic (or lack thereof) that says, this dude died to pay your debt, but — wait! You’re still on the hook unless you take the blame in the first place and accept his payoff on your behalf. Otherwise it’s not really paid. And you’re gonna burn. Sky Daddy’s gonna throw all his bad kids in a lake of fire and watch them scream and writhe for all eternity…why? Because every father gets a kick out of torturing his kids, right? And those members of the damned one’s family that got “saved” get to watch too.
Shit, with friends, relatives, and gods like that, who needs enemies?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Sarah,
I’m a Christian. I don’t believe that atheists are going to Hell or that being an atheist automatically makes you immoral. I believe that atheists are free to hold their beliefs just as I am free to hold mine. I don’t believe that religion should trump science or that the Bible should be taken literally. How’s that?
Brian, I’m pretty confident I understand atheists. Some of my friends are atheists and I’m married to a humanist. I’m also pretty confident that God is out there. Call it a hunch, if you want. It’s not a matter for proof or disproof. God is a matter of faith, not a subject of a “case”… I think Lee Strobel missed the point.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Elaine: Sorry I wasn’t clear ^^; but I didn’t mean that all Christians think like that…however almost all of my encounters (That being a lot considering I live in red Arizona and in a town mostly composed of old farts with very old ideals which they have then passed on to their children) have been harassment after a failed convert, people telling me I’m a horrible person for no reason whatsoever, people wanting not be nice to me for the sake of being nice, but instead to try and “save” me so that they look good up in heaven or whatever…(All of which just made me slide over from being simply agnostic to full on atheism)
However, it gives me a lot of hope to find the occasional friendly theist ^w^ I think I’ve only encountered them on the internet though…Welcome to Bay of Fundie!
May 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Sarah,
I too consider myself a Christian, yet I do not take the Bible literally, believe in a physical Heaven/Hell, or that a firstborn was sacrificed to appease an angry diety. I usually find myself agreeing with the likes of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. I agree w/Elaine re: atheists and agnostics being free to hold their own beliefs like I can. I too feel that there is a source larger than myself, so I haven’t been able to head down the atheist path just yet; maybe I will, maybe I will never head down that path. But there are some friendly Christians who like to learn, and they do exist outside the internet.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Melanie: Oh I know they do, however the internet makes it a lot easier to find them ;P
May 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Just as the internet makes it a lot easier for sick bastards to find other sick freaks.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
May 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Bible verse address-John 3:16
May 14th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Amy,
I fully realize that every keystroke of this comment is a complete waste of my time, but come on. A bible verse? Is that the best you can do? John 3:16 could only be of value to me if I were an NFL field goal kicker and needed a day-glo orange sign to aim at.
Do yourself a favor. Challenge your faith. Read Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. Put it to a real test. You’ll find yourself in a win/win situation. If your faith survives the withering assault of reason, you will be vindicated. If not, you will have learned something new about our world and, more importantly, yourself.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Amen, Brian! Keep on trying — don’t give up. Most of these fundies are too far gone, but you never know when you just might break through the clouds of delusion.
Although I have considered myself an atheist for a couple of decades now, reading Harris, Dawkins, and others really solidified it for me. They gave me concrete answers to those fundies (many in my own family) who simply couldn’t believe that I could “turn my back on God” and insist on trying to win me over with biblical woo and threats of eternal damnation and hellfire.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Amy — don’t bother with the bible verses. I come from a religious family and, regrettably, once wasted nearly two years of my young life studying the bible and reading it from cover to cover. There’s nothing you can quote that I haven’t read before. It didn’t impress me then, and it doesn’t now. So spare me the platitudes and engage in real debate about the state of reality, or truck on over to the Duggar’s website. They are a regular gold mine of religiosity.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Brian-I have read Carl Sager, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Charles Singer, Victor Stenger, and Kenneth Miller. I have not read anything from Sam Harris. I will have to check him out. These men articulate the vast complexities of human biology and countless other areas of science. The more they reveal these incredible complexities, the harder it is for me to believe that life, nature, science itself, occurs accidentially and for no purpose. This is one explanation of why I believe in God. I don’t desire to offend you or argue my point. I’m just sharing. I want to share God’s Word and pray that God reveals truth. I don’t think your words are a waste of your time. I’m listening. I appreciate what you have to say, even if I don’t agree with you completely.
Sue Blue-I’m not trying to offend you. It seams that I am. I apologize. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “debating the state of reality”. If you want to explain further, I’ll listen, but I fear that it would be difficult to have a debate on reality. Yours seems to be defined by worldly knowledge (considering your words about Harris and Dawkins) and mine by faith in God. I just want to share God’s Word with you and pray that (this time) He reveals His truth to your heart.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Amy, that’s like saying “what is the purpose of stars”. Life does not need a set purpose and nor does it have one.
Going back to my star example: they don’t really have a purpose now do they?…And yet even without a “planned” purpose, they are doing something aren’t they? They are providing heat, light, and energy around the universe. That’s about the closest answer you will ever get to a purpose.
Personally, I like life without a purpose. It gives it more meaning in the sense that it can expand. It is not bound by a destiny or fate that’s rigid and flat. It’s creative and ever changing, ours to make of it what WE wish.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Sarah-I just wanted to say that I believe you are free to choose atheism, I don’t think you are bad, immoral people…(any more than anyone else, including all believers),and I agree that science is not a religion. I just want to share God’s Word and pray that He reveals truth. You suggested that you don’t matter to God because He hasn’t tried very hard. Let me suggest that He is fighting for you (even through this website) and through all who earnestly share His truth with you. God has given you the free will to choose His truth or the worlds’ truth. He is not rejecting you, you are rejecting Him. 2 Chronicles 15:2 says, “…if you seek Him, He will be found by you…” I know you said that you didn’t want to hear that “God cares” that you would rather hear “people like me” say they care and let you believe what you want. I am simply sharing God’s Word and praying that He reveals His truth. I hope you will know that I am a “friendly Christian”. I may not believe everthing that you believe, but my intentions are good, like you said, and I wouldn’t share the gospel of salvation if I didn’t care.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Sarah-I’m not sure I understand. How can you realize that the stars provide heat, light, and energy and also say they have no purpose? Also, I do not begrudge you your creativity in your everday life, I just want to share God’s word with you and pray that He reveals His truth.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Sue Blue-I’m not sure how you could assume that I don’t help people in need in other “tangible” ways besides praying. (which I believe is tangible) God’s Word calls us to serve the needs of others.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Parrotlover77-God does not promise “world peace”, (not that He can’t deliver) but He does promise eternal life for those who believe in Him and accept Jesus’ gift of salvation.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:22 am
They don’t/ If you think about it, the only reason they exist is because the materials that make them up are present. There is no set purpose (and there really shouldn’t be) but just because it isn’t doing what it is ’supposed’ to do (or basically, have a purpose) doesn’t mean that it isn’t doing anything at all.
I think you misunderstood me, the second part of my argument is based off the idea of a set purpose in life. A destiny to fulfill, etc, etc.
What I meant is that there should be no destiny, no one truth, no single answer, no one reason to live your life by. Having a purpose is basically saying that you were made for this reason and this reason alone. Think of it like characters in a story book. As one of my least favorite authors ever once said, “Characters are born of necessity”
Every writer worth their salt knows this is bullshit.
Authors like the mentioned above create their characters to fill in a certain area for their story. Their characters are hardly born as they are perfectly manufactured to fit whatever the author wants them to and they go no further in the story than the plot requires. This is why his characters are flat, unlikeable, and boring. These are not real people.
That is what a purpose is at the very bottom of the definition.
And once that ‘purpose’ has been completed…what next? What’s the point after that? Does life lose all meaning after you’ve done what you were made to do? Seriously, that just makes no sense.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:08 am
“..the heavens declare the glory of God..”…read that passage,because THAT is the purpose of the stars and universe.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Hey Amy, I left a cup of coffee on the radiator.I left for vacation, and when I came back, there was mold growing.That must mean that the radiator was meant for the mold.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Amy and S. : Why should we assume any single religious text is correct. All could be wrong, and yours could be the false one. How about this: Disprove every other religion and prove Christianity to rule out the possobility of an ‘unknown’ religion.
Let the onslaught begin.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Amy – You can’t have it both ways. Either “prayer works” OR “God doesn’t promise world peace.” Which is it? By your last assertion, you are saying prayer does not work.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Sarah – Yea, I think Amy is getting confused on your verbiage. “Purpose” in this context is a relative term. The sun has a very big purpose for me. For the little green men in the Andromeda galaxy – not so much! When you described your meaning using the term fate, it made a lot more sense.
Amy – Believing that “there is something more” is a natural human thought. That’s outside the realm of science because it’s unmeasurable. Personally, I would like to think there is a “reason” so-to-speak for the universe (not in standard religious human-centric sense, but more in a general sense of why does existence exist at all), but I’m equally open to a completely random explanation, even if it’s not as grand or romantic. Maybe some super smart aliens are playing universe marbles and we’re a completely unnoticed side effect. Or maybe we’re just the dream of dolphins. Point is, there is zero evidence that human existence itself is the point of the universe. In fact, the contrary is looking more likely every day. The drive for wanting a higher purpose is, unfortuantely, what leads many like yourself down the road you’ve taken. Not to belittle you, but you stated that you wanted a higher purpose and therefore chose the bible. Why not Buddhism? Why not Wicca? What’s so special about Christianity? Why not make up your own religion? Why not borrow pieces from all religions? Why believe an ancient book written hundreds of years after the events supposedly took place, with very little evidence to support the protagonist ever existed, let alone was divine?
May 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Parrotlover77-I can only speak personally and cannot begin to “prove” faith. I have personally experienced the power of prayer. I could share specifically, but I cannot “prove” that it was divine. I am not saying that God has given me everthing I have asked for, but I believe that He hears my words and considers my thoughts and requests. I do not have the veiw that God is my personal “genie”. I believe that His wisdom is greater than mine and ultimately choose to surrender to His will. Again, it is not my desire to argue or debate. I was only answering your question concerning my confidence in my salvation. My salvation is promised in God’s Word, but world peace isn’t (promised). I will answer your questions to the best of my ablility, but my intention is to share God’s Word and pray that He reveals His truth to you.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:59 am
S. and Sarah-Psalm 19:1-4 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” I believe the heavens do declare God’s glory and proclaim the work of His hands. I just didn’t understand what Sarah meant when she said that stars provide a service, (in her opinion, only heat, light, energy) and also believe they have no purpose. I now understand that she believes the stars have no “divine” purpose.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Parrotlover77-Yikes! I’m having trouble keeping up! I read what I’ve written so far, and don’t think I said “I wanted a higher purpose, therefore I chose the Bible”. I believe that someone shared the gift of salvation with me, I prayed and asked God to reveal His truth to me and He did. He chose, I accepted. This is what I believe, but I can’t prove it in a way that would satisfy you Also, I don’t think “Christianity is special”. I believe God’s Word to be truth. This makes it impossible for me to make up my own, or borrow from other religions to suit me. This does not mean I think others are not free to choose for themselves. God gave you the free will to believe in aliens, dolphins, or nothing. I do wonder why you are open to so many possibilities EXCEPT God. (honest and friendly question
) Also, why do YOU think it is natural for humans to believe (natural human thought) that there is “something more out there”? (again, honest and friendly question 
)
May 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
” I believe God’s word to be truth”.
Just curious which version of “God’s ” word would that be? I assume you read a specific version of the bible, one that is based on translations of text written originally in another language and therefore most likely at least partially flawed.
Do you believe that everything in the bible, both old and new testament is to be taken as literal word from “God”?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Daniel-If we just die and become nothing, then I guess I’m wasting my time having faith in God. If that’s true, then the joke will be on me, but you won’t be there to laugh and I won’t be there to hear you laughing. So I guess it doesn’t matter. I realize that I’m assuming you believe there is nothing after we die. You didn’t specifically say that. I just read between the lines. If I misunderstood, my apologies. I can’t prove my faith.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Barbara-I have read different translations of the Bible. I believe that the goals of new translations is to provide people with an accurate, readable Bible in contemporary english (or whatever language it is translated) In the Introduction of the Holman Christian Standard Bible it says “Bible translation is both a science and an art. It is a bridge that brings God’s word from the ancient world to the world today. It requires a dependence on God to accomplish the sacred task.” II Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is God breathed”. I believe “all” means updated translations. I do not mean to say the updated SCRIPTURE changes, just the language style. Let me explain. I will use Colossians 1:16 as an example.
“For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him.” (King James version)
“For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him.” (New International version)
“because by Him everything was created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
“For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, everthing got started in Him and finds its purpose in Him.” (The Message)
I could go on with other versions, but I think you see my point. The language style is different, but the meaning is the same. I also read a Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Key Word Study Bible. This provides the vocabulary and syntax of the original languages.
Concerning your question, “Do you believe that everything in the Bible, both old and new testament is to be taken as literal word from “God”. If I am understanding your question right, then yes. I believe “all scripture is God breathed (inspired). I believe He is the author. I’m not sure if that is what you meant or if you are asking me about literal and figurative interpretation. Let me know.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Sarah-I’m curious to why you think people who believe in God and His purposes have a fate that is rigid and flat? I’m not sure what you mean by this, or if that is what you are implying. Will you explain a little further?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Amy-It is complicated, but I believe that when a person dies, they exist in memories, the mark they left on the world, and in time.
Oh, and I asked you “What makes your belief and message distinguishable from the thousands of others”.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Daniel-I don’t know everything about the”thousands of other messages”, but so far I have not come across another religion that shares the message of salvation solely through Jesus Christ. I’m sorry I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking for proof. I would have to use scripture to “prove” a faith in Christ alone or to “disprove” other religions. This wouldn’t “prove” anything to someone who does not believe the Bible is truth.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Melanie, Elaine, you guys are awesome and (where I am, at least) all too rare.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Daniel-I should also mention that I do not desire to offend you or tell you what to believe. My intention is to share God’s Word and pray that He opens your heart to His truth. I am also interested in what other people think about such issues and desire to answer questions (if I can) and ask a few of my own. I don’t think we can debate “reality” as Sue Blue said, because our definitions of reality differ so greatly. I would hope others would be open to the discussion too. If not, OK.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I’m not going to debate,but getting back to the subject at hand,don’t forget that God can create a crisis in order to get the Duggar’s attention and to help them to grow.If that happens,in my opinion,that crisis will be a crisis with one or more of the kids rebelling,or Michelle’s health during pregnancy and/or the baby’s health.
In order to prevent this,Jim Bob needs to start thinking about his wife’s health,his future children’s health,and his children’s education and their place in the world.Often times people with Michelle’s “we are the chosen ones” attitude will be knocked down a few levels by God to humbleness.Having such an arrogant attitude towards adopted children isn’t favored by God,and if a crisis happens that brings them to their knees,then don’t think that it’s gong to be impossible to someday hear Jim Bob spouting off against Bill Gothard’s beliefs.If pregnancy hurt or killed her,I suspect he would come to have a very different attitude.Don’t think it’s impossible.That is exactly what god could choose to do.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
S.—
It’s a nice thought, but I have an unfortunate feeling good ol’ Jim-Bob is so puffed up on his own self-righteousness that he’d just declare Michelle’s death “the will of God” and try to find a new model. While I have no doubt they both truly do believe in what they’re doing, it remains at its root an act of ego. I’ve seen it more than I’d like to — people (and not just Christians) who are so proud of how “good” and “righteous” they are. It’s just like a little child showing off, going, “Look at me, I’m so SPECIAL.” Pardon the expression, but Jim-Bob strikes me as the kind of guy who’s convinced his sh*t doesn’t stink. He’s a MAN, and therefore somehow better than everyone else.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Amy — When all other arguments fail, the one the religious always seem to resort to is the old “what happens when you die” line. To which I always answer — “nothing”. They can’t seem to understand that the thought of nonexistence doesn’t scare me into god’s waiting arms. It will be the same (to me) after I die as it was before I was born. The world will go on.
Aside from all the questions about the credibility of the bible and the existence of a god, or any gods, it seems to me that the death issue is the area where “faith” breaks down. In 2005, my twenty-five-year-old son was murdered (And no, I’m not an atheist because I’m angry at God for allowing this to happen. I was an nonbeliever for many years prior). My christian fundamentalist relatives were just as shattered by his death as I was, and it occurred to me, even in my grief, to wonder why. If they truly believed he was “in heaven” and that they would shortly be seeing him again, then why grieve? Shouldn’t christians rejoice in the dead loved one’s escape from this sin-benighted planet? If you believe you’re going to heaven, then you should welcome death. You should be glad — maybe even a little envious — when one of your loved ones has the the privilege of shedding his corporeal shell. But they’re not. They’re right there, crying their eyes out, screaming why?
It is my conviction that religious faith cheapens life. Religious faith teaches that the wrongs and injustices of the world will be redressed by God at some future date, so why bother to do anything about it ourselves? This kind of thinking underlies the current fundie resistance to such issues as global warming. Who cares if we destroy the planet — God made it for us to use as we see fit, and he’s going to come and make everything all right again anyway. How much more precious is life when you believe it is your one and only life. How much more precious is all life when you feel the profound depth and breadth of it on earth, and how related we are, in the very molecular depths of our bodies to all of it. I am not dust, I am life four billion years in the making. For me, that truth is far more moving than Bronze Age myths. I have lived, I am living, and my immortality will be the mark I make with this one life.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sue,
I’m really sorry you had to lose your son — I can’t even imagine what that must have been like. I have to say that you’ve just given the most eloquent and sensible explanations of your convictions I’ve heard from anyone, religious or atheist. I have my own thoughts as to what happens after death that have probably never been shared by anyone anywhere ever, but I don’t think I have it in me to explain it, and certainly not like you’ve just done.
I’ve got the same problem you do with regard to any religion that says all will be better after death, so what happens on Earth doesn’t matter; it’s just a handy excuse for taking no responsibility for anything that happens to you in your life, or anything you do. “Will of God” is just a blanket excuse for Christians who don’t want to face the idea that something could actually be their fault.
I’ve wondered that before, too — why some Christians grieve as they do. It’s heartbreaking to lose a loved one no matter what you believe, but you would think some of these Holy Joes would be more resigned to it. I’ve known Christians who were shattered by it, and some who took it in stride, and I have to admit I don’t understand either. The ones who broke because of it obviously didn’t have enough conviction behind their faith, and the ones that didn’t break have a strength of belief in their holy fairy tale that I can’t understand, either. Part of me can’t help but admire the latter, in a way, even though it boggles me; it takes a lot of will to have that much faith, and it’s just unfortunate that they’ve chosen to place all that energy and effort where they have.
I think that a lot of Christians crave certainty, and not just in terms of life after death. They want a guidebook, basically — a manual to life that will tell them what to do when they’re not sure, and eventually to tell them how to die and what to expect when it happens. They want to know what comes after death, and believing can occasionally be the next best thing to knowing, apparently. Myself, I don’t have a problem with wondering — obviously everybody finds out someday, and I’ve got a few theories. In the case of the weepy-eyed Christians, I would say that they use their faith as a kind of baby blanket, something to make up for whatever strength they themselves don’t have.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
“Sarah-I’m curious to why you think people who believe in God and His purposes have a fate that is rigid and flat? I’m not sure what you mean by this, or if that is what you are implying. Will you explain a little further?”-Amy
I thought that my story-book analogy would be a good enough explanation, but I guess not. Ok…
It is because to have a purpose or fate, what other point is there to have any potential or meaning for anything outside of that purpose? If a purpose is so broad as you claim it is, then what is the point of having one at all? It doesn’t make sense.
Parrot: That’s what I consider a purpose really…because in the end, a reason is just another cause which must be worked towards. I consider it fate (Which I’ve never believed in…especially because I love coincidence ^w^ but that’s just my opinion)
Sue: I know that this probably doesn’t mean much, and that saying things like this is really in a sense meaningless (I know it made me feel even worse when people told me “I’m sorry for your loss” after my grandfather passed away) but…I wish you happiness.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Sue Blue-First of all, I am truly sorry to hear of the death of your son. I extend my heartfelt condolences.
I’m not sure what arguements you are talking about. (the arguements that failed) Also, I didn’t use the “what do you believe happens when you die?” line. Daniel offered his belief.
I understand fully that the thought of “nothingness” after death doesn’t scare you.
I can only speak for myself, not your relatives, but I don’t understand why you think believing in eternal life means I shouldn’t be sad when someone I love dies. My grandmother, who raised me and was my best friend, died three years ago. I was, and still am, devastated by the loss. Even though I know I will see her again someday, (she believed and accepted Christ as her savior) I still miss her and I still need her. That doesn’t go away. Having said that, there is also a part of me that is happy for her because I do believe her to be in a “better place”, if you will.
If she would have been murdered, I would have asked God, “Why?” I think it’s OK to cry out to God for anwers.
I’m not sure who you’ve been talking to. I’ve never heard a believer say, “Who cares if we destroy the planet?” I believe God created the planet, that He calls us to be good stewards of it, AND to love and serve others.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “you feel the profound depth and breadth of your life on earth, and how related you are in the very molecular depths of your body to it. You are life four billion years in the making.” You go on to say, “You have lived, you are living, and your immortality will be the mark you make with this one life.” I thought you believed you were “nothing” after you die. I then assume that you believe you were “nothing” before you were born.
Also, where did you get the four billion number? Your belief may be more “moving” to you, but I fear you’re trading a “nice” ideology for truth. Again, this is my opinion, my belief. I also believe you are free to choose for yourself. I’m not trying to bully my belief onto you. I’m just trying to clear up some misconceptions. To respond to you and ask questions, not to be contentious. Please know this.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Sarah- I’m sorry, I’m still not following you. I don’t think I’ve mentioned what I think my purpose is.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Sharley,you could very well be right,I won’t disagree.My guess is he’d go for a younger model in that case.Someone who would have many more years of fertility left.
On being a man,I wonder if he won’t allow any of the kids to have anything other than a J name,like his.Either that or they’re doing it because of Jesus’ name starting with a J.But my guess is it’s himself.(Mr ego).
May 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Too bad, you brought it up.
So if you defer to his infinite wisdom, why pray in the first place? Won’t the “plan” play out as his divine will designed in the same way with or without your requests for assistance?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Amy — the bible is circular logic. (e.g., the bible is the word of god because god says so in the bible.) Quote-mining the bible does not impress me. Tangible facts do.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Amy — I am as open to other religions as I am Christianity (i.e., not open unless it stands to scientific scrutiny OR something truly supernatural occurs that defies the laws of the universe). I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument. It was not a statement of my preference for other religions over Christianity.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Pascal’s Wager. Another logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Criticisms
You sure you got the right god? There are thousands to choose from. Most of which give you damnation if you are worshipping the wrong one…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:16 am
While you, yourself, may not hold it to be true, many Christians believe in pre-destination. Additionally, the whole concept of “God’s plan” aligns closely with that of the concept of “fate.” As in, what will happen is already determined and we are just puppets. Yadda, yadda. Free will is popular with some Christians too, but the bible straddles the fence.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
…My intention is to share God’s Word and pray that He opens your heart to His truth…
Another example of a prayer not working so much…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Sue — Sorry to hear about your son. I lost my wife when I was 27 (and she 26). It didn’t drive me to my lack of faith either; I’ve always had it. I consider myself more agnostic than atheist, though. Her parents were/are major fundies and obviously they grieved at the loss. And I had that very same thought. Of course I’m sad because I knew I’ll never see her again, but why are they sad when they simultaneously say that they KNOW for a FACT they will see her again someday soon. At worst this is just a temporary absence for them. Like living in a different country for a while. Besides, my wife/their daughter had a lot of medical problems and was in a lot of chronic pain, so that should come as a comfort to them that she’s now in eternal bliss. It’s a strange situation where one’s faith collides head-on with reality. They may not even consciously realize it. Some part of their subconscious knows, though, because they are sad, like all humans in that situation. It is very peculiar. Anyway, shhhh, don’t tell them I’m not christian because it would break their heart.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Pay more attention to the fundies. That’s a popular line I hear quite often.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Whatever happens,it’s going to be interesting to see in the next several years to come,how this all plays out.I have a feeling the tv specials will come to an end as things start going askew.Christian or no,they’re not giving a darn about Michelle’s health,their kids’ education,or even letting their kids be kids,(at least the girls,anyway).Not to mention they totally don’t give a hoot about the rest of the world.If they did,they’d adopt.I don’t know what God they’re praying to,but it’s certainly not one I’d ever consider as being real.I don’t know how anybody can be dumb enough to believe that Bill Gothard nonsense!
May 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Thanks for your support, Parrotlover77. I’m so sorry to hear about your wife. You were so young to go through that. I know my son’s wife was, and still is, almost totally incapacitated from the devastation of his death. My little granddaughter still suffers nightmares. They are Catholic, and their priest has actually been a great help to them, not because he offers platitudes from the Bible, but because he goes out of his way to see that my daughter-in-law and granddaughter get the material help and counseling that they need to survive. So, I have to concede that, just like most atheists are not evil, not all religious people are twisted fundies. I hope you have found support as well.
I see we’ve still got Amy offering her two bits here. While I believe that most folks that say they’ll pray for me are generally goodhearted if misguided, it’s painfully obvious that everything I said rolled right off like water off a duck’s back. I guess it’s just a waste of time to try to point out when and why their logic breaks down, since they see everything through God-colored glasses.
Getting back to the Duggars, my point in bringing up all the other stuff was to make the case that fundie attitudes toward death, personal freedom, the rights of women, and environmental concerns can be summed up in the idea that god is in control and will make everything okay in the end. I really don’t care how Michelle wears her hair or whether the names of all their spawn start with the letter “J”. What really chaps my ass is that their uncontrolled breeding speaks to their complete belief that God has invested humans with special rights that supersede those of all other life on earth, so they don’t have to care about overpopulation, food shortages, gas prices, global warming or anything else, because God’s got their backs. Another core belief seems to be that reason and intelligence are tricks of Satan. Using our own brains opens us up to evil influence somehow. This just seem a little too convenient, doesn’t it? Early church founders knew the threat that knowledge represented — that’s why it was illegal for commoners in Europe to own a copy of the Bible. If they could read it for themselves, they might be able to figure out what a load of crock it was!
The arrogant attitude of these fundies, with their blind hatred of science (but none of them are throwing out their cell phones or computers or HD TVs) seems to me to smack of desperation. Science and technology move forward at an ever faster rate, leaving fewer and fewer mysteries to be ascribed to God, and somewhere in their tiny little hearts, they know they are being backed into the last corner.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
S—
I’m with you on guessing Jim-Bob would go for a younger woman if Michelle died, and I would bet the kids’ initials do come from his name, not Jesus. (I think anyone who gives all their kids the same initial is freaking weird, no matter what the reason, but in this case it, like everything else, is just so much worse.)
I don’t consider the Duggars to actually be religious. A lot of my stepfamily are, and they’re people I respect very deeply even if I don’t share their beliefs. They’re not like the Duggars, who sit there and (very loudly) go “Look at us, we’re so good and righteous and special, you should ALL want to be us.” People like that aren’t into it for the sake of it, they want everyone to know how good they are and, by association, how bad everyone else is.
I’ve spoken to a couple of my religious family members about why they hate people like the Duggars and the Jerry Falwells of the world. All of them have said that A.) people like that make the rest of them look bad, but B.) it offends them on a personal level. They realize that all kinds of people out there will use religion to further their own goals, whatever those goals may be, but where that drove me away from religion it just pisses my relatives off. Even the ones who aren’t strict in their faith, like my stepfather (who was raised Catholic, but who makes it to church for Christmas about once every five years) consider the fundies as a whole a type of sacrelige.
I will admit that I have to make a conscious effort not to automatically judge someone if I find out they’re Christian. It’s a terrible kind of prejudice, and it comes directly from my own experiences with fundies. 99% of the Christians I know are good, kind, nonjudgmental people, but that 1% left a bad taste in my metaphorical mouth that I’m still working to get rid of. They do their alleged faith more harm than good, but of course they’d never see it that way. To them, anyone who doesn’t automatically fall in line and join the fundie-train is just an unrepentant sinner who’s destined for hell, and who must be harangued within an inch of their life in the hope that they’ll crack.
My great-uncle, who passed away last year, was a devout Mormon, and was also one of the most admirable people I’ve ever known. He didn’t judge my family for not being Mormon, nor did he even say “Oh, I’m praying for you.” He just did his thing, and let us do ours, and was a kind and caring person who would do almost anything for anyone, whoever they might be. There’s no way in hell I could ever buy into Mormonism, but if there was, the way he lived his life with his faith would be a lot more compelling a reason to join it than any amount of preaching and browbeating. I don’t know what happens after we die, but whatever happens I hope he wound up somewhere good. I’ll hazard a bet that when the Duggars go, they’re going to be in for a nasty shock, no matter what happens — if they do come face-to-face with some kind of higher power, they’re probably going to get handed a laundry list of all the things they’ve f***ed up. I kind of wish there was some sort of God who could look at them and go “Religion: You Did It Wrong.”
May 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Amy — the “four billion years” I referred to is the time when the earth, about half a billion years after it coalesced into a molten ball orbiting the sun, finally cooled off enough for the first quasi-living organisms (possibly viruses — “simple” RNA molecules in a protein envelope) to form from the chemical precursors of life. I don’t know why some people find evolution “insulting”. I think it’s because they have never truly studied it and have a very limited concept of what it means, as evidenced by statements like “if humans came from apes, why aren’t any apes changing into humans today” and other idiotic drivel. To me, it is insulting to be asked to believe that some sky fairy scooped up a handful of dirt and formed humans — or worse, since I’m a woman — that I was formed from a man’s rib (women don’t even merit a handful of dirt). Knowing that I am a link in a chain extending unbroken back through the depths of time to that very first single cell is to me inspiring and moving. Knowing that I am really and truly related to every life form on this planet (we share 60% of our DNA with oak trees, for instance) gives me a greater appreciation for it. I am not superior to other life — I am a part of it. So who is the better steward — the one who thinks “what the hell — God’s gonna fix it up anyway” or the one who is absolutely certain that this is our one and only home?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
To address the “immortality” statement — I was not implying in any way that I believe in an afterlife. I was quite clear on that. My intent was to show that atheists such as myself find meaning in our lives, not our death. Death is the end. If we want to be remembered, we can make enough of an impression during our lives that others will carry our legacy on. For instance, Mozart “lives” on in his music. In that sense, he is “immortal”.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Sarah — thank you for your thoughts. Loss is something we’ve all experienced — but somehow I’m always more comforted by those who, like you, don’t express their condolences with religious platitudes. My religious relatives went into “prayers n’ platitudes” overdrive after my son’s death. The platitudes were annoying and the prayers had no discernible effect whatsoever, but they never missed a chance to try to impress upon me the need to “turn to God and be comforted” and to “open my heart to God” so that I would be “saved” and thus see my son again. This was the worst thing — that they would use this tragedy, the worst any parent can experience — as a proselytizing opportunity. That they would hold me hostage to my grief. To them, nothing is more important — not love of family or compassion for the grieving — than giving up your willpower and life to God. Maybe I’m ranting, but I can’t express enough how harmful I have found religion to be.
Looking at the glassy-eyed stares of people like the Duggars, hearing the way they never express an original thought but only parrot their dogma, makes me certain they don’t know the meaning of the word “compassion”.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I like to thank Parrotlover, Sharley, Sarah, and others who have read my rants and responded to my grief. It is appreciated. I only wish I could get through to some others and get them to really think about what their beliefs ultimately mean. I can’t claim to have all the answers, but I am certain that we are each responsible for our own lives. Sharley has expressed this perfectly in the post above. I would like to think that I have the spine to face life and its responsibilities without the security blanket of religion.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Sue Blue-Thank you for your response. I was confused about what you meant. Thank you for explaining.
Everyone-I have been sincere in asking these questions. I really am curious, interested, and willing to listen. I know that I have WORN OUT MY WELCOME! I accidently wandered onto this site last week. I have to say that I have not experienced very much warmth OR welcome. I didn’t think offering my prayers would cause such an uproar. (If you don’t believe, then what harm could it do?) I understand now that it offends most all of you here at the Bay. For that, I apologize. As for the questions and offering my “two bits”, I assumed intellectuals welcomed discussion and an opportunity to share all they have learned. I know a few of you did share, but most of your words were steeped in anger and sarcasm. I’m a little surprised that a group who believes “this is it!” would spend there precious time on earth hating and criticizing Christians. Is this really the mark you are wanting to leave? Bashing “ignorant people who believe in fairy tales”? I’m also surprised to find out how little you know about Christians (someone who believes in salvation through Jesus Christ). The “fundies” you talk about don’t even come close to who I am. I have tried to educate myself in other areas of belief. I’ve read a lot. It would have been nice to talk to you and get it “straight from the horses mouth”, so to speak. I guess the only people welcome here are those who think, act, and believe like you. I do appreciate what you have shared and you have certainly left an impression on me. Even though I don’t agree with you completely, I still wish you the best. Take care.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Amy, what is there not to get? I’ve explained my reasoning about four times now and Parrotlover even outlined it further. What is it you are not understanding?
And try to see it from their view: We’ve all been hurt in some way by religion. I remember that my first real religious experience was a fight during middle school between a sexist young fundie and myself in history class. He was angry because the Jews were talked about in class more than the Christians and when I tried to explain to him that the Jews were around a lot longer than them, he went nuts and started arguing with me over it for the next two class periods. The very next year, I was cornered by two of my closest friends (who were also fundie) and was basically beaten into a corner (Because for one, I didn’t know how to debate yet, and two, I didn’t know what the hell was happening).
Ever since then, I have been battling with religion because, while raised agnostic, I was always taught to use logic and reasoning to figure things out; i.e connect the dots…and the dots never pointed to a God, but whenever I tried to explain it and speak out, I was shushed, bullied, and screamed at until I backed off. I was also a pretty ignorant kid and I didn’t really understand religion at the time because I had never really encountered it…it always just seemed like a club that everyone else was in save for my immediate family.
Think about it like this, Amy: I was a kid who was being yelled at and didn’t understand why…and it really hurt. Adults, friends, family (Extended family are either Catholic or Orthodox Jews) were all telling me that I was wrong (Not saying why, but that I was) and that I should shut up and never question their beliefs.
Of course what made it all worse was that what they said went against everything I was taught in science class…I swear that was probably one of the most confusing parts of my short life. I mean seriously, when you have one side telling you one thing (but offering evidence to back it up) and then another side (with whom you have personal relations with) telling you that only parts of the evidence-supported arguments are correct (the ones that don’t interfere with their religion)…let’s just say for me it was not a fun life lesson.
Amy, when people have bad experiences with something it’s REALLY hard for them to be open minded about it. Tell me, would you ask an African American or a Native to just forget the years of slavery and slaughter? Why would you ever expect someone to just “forget” what hurt them and move on? Sure, not all Christians are fundies and not all whites are horrible racist red-necks…however the memories are still there and they are painful. Acceptance is one thing; forgetting is another. We are not perfect because we are human, we hold grudges and we make stereotypes and I’m pretty sure that you made some about us yourself during your stay here at BoF. You might not want to talk to any atheists for a while because it probably did hurt and you are wondering why you have been judged like this…it’s a cycle of hatred really (And it’s never easy getting back out of the rut…still we are all trying little by little…everyone in the world is…ok that was a lie ^^; not everyone, but a lot)
As for your comments, you have failed in all areas to provide actual proof for your arguments, nor have you really asked questions…you’ve just repeated over and over “I don’t get it” and have forced us to rehash our statements (which gets pretty tedious). If you really want to give BoF another go, I say that you cut the crap and just give a straight-forward opinion and a reasoning to back it up. Seriously, it’s ok to like Jesus or God; plenty of Christians have openly admitted their beliefs and have been perfectly accepted into the entourage…however the way you went about it was pretty offensive to many people and that is why you got the back-lashing you did.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Sarah-These are my last comments, I promise. I gave many straight forward opinions and statements of faith…I believe Bible is truth, I believe God created the world, I believe that “God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life”, I believe in prayer, I believe “The heavens declare God’s glory”, I believe that the works and science of people like Richard Dawkins (complexity of human biology,etc.) suggest, not with intention, a creator, I believe the different translations of the Bible display different language styles but not different meanings, I believe I am called to love and serve others, I believe I am called to be a good steward of the world God created…should I go on? Have I “PROVED”, to your satisfaction, that I openly admitted my beliefs? I have also stated that I CANNOT PROVE MY FAITH…it’s faith. I have also said that I believe God gives us free will to choose His salvation or not. I understand, now, that offering prayer offended you, I apologized. I would think you could cut me some slack. I withstood some pretty harsh comments before calling it quits. Anyway, I still don’t understand why “stupid people” with “fairy tale beliefs” have such a big impact on you. If “Fundies/Christians” are all morons, then why waste the little time you have on earth holding on to what they have “said and done” to you. It seems it is only making you bitter-something that only affects YOUR life, not theirs. Why waste your precious time hashing out what you think the Duggars have the right to do, or give your opinions on them at all. They are going to believe what they believe regardless of what you write on this site. I doubt they will ever click on to a site titled, “The Duggars-Parasites of Science”, and if they do, I don’t think your cruel opinions and harsh judgements would cause them to drop their beliefs and consider what you call “reason”. It’s not “changing the world” or “leaving your mark” or “contributing to science” if you’re only willing to speak genuinely to athiests’ and people of YOUR ilk. You could have really talked to me. I need to go. I have already said too much. I’m tired and I’m speaking in haste. My daughters are in a dance recital tomorrow. (I have four children, is that an appropriate number in your judgement?) W. and A. have been practicing all year and I want to be sure I’m rested. They need a “fresh” mommy to lead them through their rigid and flat lives.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Sarah-ONE more…You, nor anyone else, said anything to me that “proved” God doesn’t exist. Double standard?
May 17th, 2008 at 3:09 am
Sarah-Wow! I just can’t quit. I just wanted to clarify that my long rant wasn’t directed at only you. I don’t remember any comments from you concerning the Duggars.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Sharley,I agree with the others,that was a great post! And yes,I do believe the Dug’s use religion to further their own agenda.I won’t profess to know what’s in their hearts, I can only say that what I outwardly see are 2 parents looking for any excuse in the book to keep having baby after baby,as if it is a race to see how many they can produce! I also don’t see them letting their kids reach their highest potential,by ensuring they get a good education.I see the Dug’s trying to write the script for their whole lives,in part by denying them a decent education in the name of religion and homeschooling,and while that might have been feasible in the little house on the prairie days,in a modern world it just isn’t very likely to work.The girls seem to be taught that nothing else is important except having babies,serving men and doing housework.It’s just really sad.I hope they can break free of that someday,and get to see what life is really all about.
As for Michelle,she seems far too controlling,and I suspect it’s going to backfire on her.(Actually,both parents do).I get the feeling they expect their kids to all get married to another from a quiver family,have each build a house on part of those 20+ acres,(so they can all be near the compound,lol),and start pumping out baby after baby.While that might seem to Michelle to be a very down to earth thing to do,I seriously doubt that’s going to happen ! And so I suspect we’ll be hearing from them in the future about how they’re living their lives wrong,and not serving the Lord.Gag.
If there as one thing I would say to Michelle,(or both of them,really),it is that you are setting yourselves up for a huge case of rebellion by your children in the future,by being so controlling.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Amy: When have I ever said in my comments that I hate all religions or that I hate people who believe in “fairy tales”? Please do not put words into my mouth, thank you very much!
And for disproving God, there has never been one shred of evidence that points towards a higher power; not even a hint. No it’s not a solid fact, but still, why should I believe in something for which there is nothing at ALL in scientific history that points towards its existence? Back in the day, people didn’t have microscopes, but we still had EVIDENCE for the germs that we couldn’t see such as diseases and plagues. They left behind a long trail of existence even at the microscopic level!
As for what I meant by proving your faith, I meant say WHY you believe in these things. I am interested in why you believe in your religion because as you said, it is just faith, but why? That’s really all I was asking and I apologize if that was not clear enough. Personally, I had no problem with your prayer, but my point was to tell you that it offended others here on the site.
Fundies actually do affect a lot because they have been influencing the government that runs this nation AND considering that I live in red Arizona, YES I face religion every day (Especially in my high school biology class where we are currently learning about Evolution and having to fight with all the creationists in the classroom every step of the way! It does affect me and that is why I “waste my time”. I care about my rights and I never want them stripped away from me because of someone else’s own “faith-based” beliefs. I actually do have many Christian friends and contrary to your opinion of me, I do not hate religion (it has left a bad taste though as I mentioned before). The only reason I would have for hating a theist is if they constantly tried to convert me despite constant refusal, tried to enforce their own personal religion into the government, sciences, and education (There are over 80000 religions worldwide…if we let them do it for one religion, to be fair we’d have to do it for all of them! Where is the lawfulness in that?) and if they did something I consider immoral (My morality is humanitarian, plain and simple) so no racism, oppression, etc. for me.
Everything else I am cool with for the most part.
The reason I go here to BoF is because there ARE NO ATHEISTS in my school and probably only five or six in my life. If I was Christian living in an atheist town, would you consider it strange of me to go to a website where I could occasionally talk to others who shared my viewpoints? I don’t mind talking to theists so long as they are willing to open up to actual debating instead of just telling me to shut up. I am flexible in all areas save for science. Religion is as you said “faith” and that doesn’t belong in science…what everyone else believes personally though is their choice and I will never infringe upon their right to that.
And the Duggar’s are just plain sickening. I doubt they will change their lifestyle, HOWEVER they can serve as an example to people as what not do to. I believe that it is unfair that because of their religion, they basically get everything in life for free. Do other families get that? No! Practically half of the world is starving (and plenty of them are probably fairly religious themselves) but do they get a tax-free home or have the means to take care of all their kids? Probably not.
I’d also have to agree with the article mentioned. Why should these people get to take advantage of the products of evolution if they think it is so evil? That is just hypocritical.
One last thing on the Duggar’s: apparently Michelle gives parenting advice to some fundie friends which involves slapping a stick at a toddler so that it stays on the blanket and doesn’t move…that is just friggin child abuse there.
Lastly: Your comment seems to portray a lot of anger, but I don’t see how I have “attacked” you. None of my comments have been hurtful or have been directed at you on a personal level, and yet you are being quite snarky with me here. I have just told you my experience with religion and like I said, it has not been good and it still affects my views today, but I have not judged you because I want to see your entire view beforehand. I do not wish to be a judgmental prick like some theists and atheists because I believe in giving every single person a fair chance.
Anyway, I am sorry if this offends you, I might have been a little harsh here due to a fairly bad incident that occurred about three hours ago with my father. If you feel at all like I am taking something out on you here, then I apologize in advance.
PS: Good luck with your daughters’ recital. The kids I baby-sit for have one in about a week.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sue Blue — The Southern Baptists aren’t quite as good at material help as the Catholics you speak of (no surprise). Catholics may be 100 years behind on birth control, but there are a lot of areas where they are surprisingly modern, sensible, and even do great work. Great points! I wish your daughter-in-law and granddaughter (and you!) well! Healing takes time. I’m now happily remarried with a house full of feathered children (I don’t do human children lol). You made some great points about the Duggars. It’s so easy to get distracted by their “from another century” hairdos and clothing, but that’s not the real problem.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yea, I got that too. When my relatives did it, I wasn’t so annoyed, knowing that they were saying the “turn to God” stuff more as a way of them empathizing, because I’m sure they’d want to hear that stuff should they be going through what I was. (They don’t know I am a nonbeliever.) What pissed me off more were the letters I would get from churches that were apparently just scouring the obituaries and blasting out letters to try to convince me that I need THEIR church to find my salvation. Freakin’ leaches.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I guess I didn’t use Mr. Winky
enough for Amy to realize that I’m not upset/pissed/etc. Not sure how else to word a real argument/debate that she wouldn’t think she’s worn out her welcome. I’m all for a good debate. Especially when I’m right! 
I enjoy getting people to THINK about their superstitions, even if they don’t change their mind. It’s a free country, after all. Ah, well. What can you do?
May 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
It’s impossible to prove a negative. That is a logical fallacy. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof for more information.
Oh, I almost forgot:
May 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I have an ear infection and my ear canal is swollen shut. I tried praying, but, again, it didn’t work. Sigh. Prayer… Guess I need some of those new fangled sciencey antibiotic thingies.
Oh, almost forgot again:
May 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Sarah-I had conceded defeat, but I need to reply. I know that I was snippy last night. I was sleepy, cranky, and not at my best. This is not an excuse, but it’s my reason. I was responding to you AND OTHERS on the site. I do sincerely apologize for my attitude, but not my words. I still have the same views. I would like to clear something up…I never said you “hated other religions”. I said you, and others, aren’t willing to speak genuinely to anyone other than those who think like you. This has been my personal experience here on this site. I take your harsh comments about believers personally because I am one. It was pride that made me lash out. Yuck! (Again, I’m sorry) Also, I wandered onto this site accidentally. I did choose to contribute, but I didn’t seek it out.
I feel I have explained the reason I believe in Christ as Savior, but I’m happy to dig a little deeper. Someone shared the message of “salvation through Jesus Christ”, I prayed that God would reveal His truth to me and He did. Since then, I have experienced the power of prayer and He has grown me in my faith. Now, I know this is not a satisfactory answer to someone who wants physical/scientific proof. I don’t have that. (Unless you count the whole world and all it’s glory, something that I believe suggests a creator.) It was not ever my intention to “prove” my beliefs or ask anyone to “prove” theirs. I only asked because others kept asking me. I don’t think there is any evidence that proves that there isn’t a God. You stating your belief in science and scientists doesn’t disprove God. I don’t believe all science to be accurate. It’s all about credibilty. You don’t think the Bible is credible, I don’t think Dawkins/Darwin/etc. is credible. That’s just the way it is. I was sincerely interested and desired to be educated. Though I live in a verrrry BLUE state, I don’t know any athiests, agnostics, etc. I was willing to listen, not because I’m looking to convert, but because I desire knowledge. I decided not to be the Christian who just says, “I’ll pray for you”, as I was criticized. (not by you)
I still say you need to find the strength to shake off what others do to you or say to you. Even in the midst of battle. It will only make you bitter. I’m not saying you should be super human, you will have moments when it hurts and you throw in the towel, (like I did last night) but you need to be able to be OK inside. Whatever hurt you have only affects you. I also want to take this moment to suggest that some of those Christians, if they have indeed been hateful, may not have learned how to debate yet either. Not to over simplify, but they may just be immature. I don’t know any of these people, so I have no foundation for what I just said. It’s just a thought. God calls believers to love and serve others, but we are still fallible. We don’t always do that. I also would like to suggest that not everyone who says they are a Christian are indeed Christians. “Christian” has become a term used very loosely. The definition I agree with is someone who believes in and accepts Jesus Christ as Savior. If people deny Christ, I don’t think they should call themselves “Christ”ians. Again, my opinion.
I know what you mean about governmental issues. I fear the same things, only concerning my right to faith in Jesus, deciding what’s best for my children, etc. I don’t have any answers, but I can relate.
Thank you for wishing us luck at the recital. It was fun. The girls did a wonderful job and I was very proud.
I better sign off. Maybe someday science will prove the existence of God. I surely wish it worked that way.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Parrotlover77-If you really want to say something to me, then just say it. It’s really hard to hear you through all your sarcasm. It only makes me not want to listen OR talk to you.
It is a free country, like you said, and you can say whatever you want, do whatever you want (within the law), and believe or not believe in whatever you want. The same goes for the Duggars. It may drive you crazy, but it’s true.
As for them denying science, yet utilizing it’s benefits. I’ve never heard them deny the reality and benefit of medical advances. Personally, I don’t believe in evolution, but I don’t deny the advances in the medical community. That’s what I don’t understand. Why do you, credit all the modern medical advances to Darwin and the theory of evolution? Not sure if this is what you have been saying.
Could you please just explain to me why you think this, if you do?
May 19th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Parrotlover77-Just to clarify…When I said I don’t believe in evolution, I meant specifically “particles-to-people” evolution. I feel that evolution scientists describe natural history in untestable events.
Evolutionists simply state that prokaryotes were the first organisms to inhabit earth 3-4 billion years ago. They state that no obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occured over the next few billion years. They then say that a bacteria was created (eukaryotes in connection with symbiosis) This bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into mitochondria or hydrogenosomes. Then an independent second engulfment of orgamisms led to the formation of chloroplacts in algea and plants. This went on for awhile until about 1 billion years ago, when suddenly, multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans. (this confuses me, because in my understanding, evolution doesn’t allow for something to spontaneously appear) Then the evolution of multicellularity occured in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algea, cyanobacteria, slime moulds, and myxobacteria. Soon after this, biological diversity appeared over the next 10 million years. Whew!!
I think this highly speculative and untestable, therefore a blanket statement and not proof. There is a lack of certainty, and in all I have read, I have not come across anything that can prove this happened. (not that I have read and studied everything out there) I HAVE read the admission of MANY scientists that there is uncertainty in how life began.
Based on the information I’ve gathered, I believe evolution (“particle-to-people”) is just as much a leap of faith as creationism.
This is an ancient debate-I’m not assuming any of us will come up with THE ANSWER THAT ENDS ALL DEBATE! I’m not sure it’s even wise to keep going with this. In the end, I’m sure we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Until then, I welcome your thoughts (minus the sarcasm) if for no other reason than to be informed so I can be more understanding.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Regarding evolution/medical advances…
Sarcasm is a deep part of my personality that I thoroughly enjoy and embrace. But to answer your question in all sincerity, see the following link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01
And some more fun reading about the truth behind evolution: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution
May 19th, 2008 at 6:07 am
You are conflating two unrelated issues. evolution and abiogenesis. It is perfectly normal to conflate the two when you do not exactly understand what each is trying to describe. Evolution is a process of achieving diversity in life, whereas abiogenesis is the process by which life begins (and also what, exactly, is the “start” of life or the first life form).
As for not believing the theory because you have no evidence… perhaps you should read a real scientific journal or other scientific source. Wikipedia’s evolution article is actually incredibly well-sourced. Much of what you wrote was “they say this, but offer no proof.” This is simply not the case. There is a mountain of proof, but it is never discussed on creation websites or by creation proponents because it damages the credibility of the misinformation they are spreading.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Amy – We have the answer that ends the debate. But faith in ancient stories blinds people to accepting the evidence that proves those stories wrong. Incidently, there are millions of Christians that accept science and believe there is a God. Those that hold onto the genesis creation story simply refuse the believe their own eyes.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:11 am
And my final post to Amy here unless she returns… Her answer on why she believes so strongly in her faith is also a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .
Now, that’s perfectly fine, in a sense, because faith IS a logical fallacy, or else it wouldn’t be faith — it would be fact. But it’s important to note for the purposes of a debate (which deals with facts) that “I can’t answer why, it just happened” is the above logical fallacy.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Amy,
“Evolutionist” is a term coined by fundies/ID proponents to somehow suggest that the beliefs of scientists are on par intelectually with the beliefs of Creationists. ( DUH, I will add -ist to the word and they sound like me!!! ) It is not a term that any scientist who believes in evolutionary theory would refer to themselves by but since most of your knowledge of evolution probably comes from what was written by Creationists, it’s understandable that you would use this term. It reminds me of the term “partial-birth abortion” which was never a recognized medical term ( intact D&X is but doesn’t really roll off the tongue and give a mental image the way PBA does ) but certainly put fear into the minds of uninformed conservatives.
When I first read your latest entry, I was momentarily impressed by your understanding of parts of evolutionary theory, specifically how many scientist believe life began. Then I read the wikipedia entry on evolution and I found the part you mildly reworded.
The difference between evolution theory and creationism is that evolution as a concept is being proven in bits and pieces all of the time. String many of these together and you come up with more and more proof that we do have a common ancestor with primates, that the earth is as old ( or older ) as we suppose it to be and that, yes, genetically we all began as single cell organisms. As more and more of this theory is studied and proven to be fact, it chips away at your belief system and it scares the crap out of you because you have nothing else. You might be forced to admit that we were right all along, that THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS NO CREATOR, THERE IS NO WHITE BEARDED MAN IN THE SKY.
Lastly, you say you welcome the thoughts of others so that you can be informed so as to be more understanding. I say that’s a load of bullshit. You obviously have a strong belief system, I would not even begin to think that anything that anyone on this forum could say would sway you.
Let’s get back to the Duggars and their odd use/disuse of medical science. They obviously trust the medical profession enough to use it for prenatal care and delivery. I believe the photos I have seen of Michelle giving birth all show her in a hospital. Yet, it’s been stated several places that her doctor warned her after #10 that additional pregnancies would become more and more risky. I suppose if she bled out on the delivery table this would be looked at as “God’s Will” and “Michelle was called to the Lord in Heaven”. So she accepts medical help when she needs it, but turns a blind eye to some pretty serious advice when given it.
As far as the government and your right to believe in God/Jesus, there is no indication that our government would ever take that right away from you. On the other hand, the government should continue to protect its citizens of all faiths and belief systems by making sure that it does not promote any one religion or belief system. Do you see signs of something else?
What has the government done lately to decide what is best for your children? If keeping religion out of schools is what you are referring to, that is in the best interest of everyone’s children. I’m only assuming that is what you mean, though. If it isn’t, please enlighten me.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Whoops! One more post here for Amy. “I also would like to suggest that not everyone who says they are a Christian are indeed Christians. “Christian” has become a term used very loosely. The definition I agree with is someone who believes in and accepts Jesus Christ as Savior.”
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
May 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I do so wish the gov would require home schoolers to be tested and required to be on par to a certain grade level per age of the child.I admit I haven’t researched it,but with the way the Duggar’s are going about it,I can only come to the conclusion that Ark. requires no standardized testing in order to be allowed to home school them.I agree with another poster that all of the Duggar children are probably several grade levels behind what they would be if they were in public or private school.This is a shame because education is a basic right.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Barbara-I used the wickipedia definiton because it was a good summary of the theory of evolution. I have read other sources. I believe they say the same thing. Regardless of the source of my post, I still believe it’s conjecture based on what a group of men say is proof. There may be a majority of scientists who believe it to be fact, however, their belief is based on how THEY define “theory” and “fact”. I hear criticism of the Bible for theses same reasons. (ex. “a group of men got together and wrote the Bible and called it truth”)
I have read about these things, but this is the first time I have talked to anyone who held these things to be truth, factual, and above reproach. I STATED that I did not ask these questions with “openess” to possible conversion. I wanted to hear the thoughts of everyday people, not just scientists. The people who live this belief. All this in an attempt to be more understanding, (emotionally, I guess you would say) of those who don’t believe what I believe. I never implied that I wasn’t firm in my faith or that I was seeking an alternative.
I’m wondering why you would think that I would be scared if my faith in God was proven false. “because I have nothing else” I’ve heard a lot of proclamations that living a “belief in nothing life” is the way to go. If my faith in God is proven false, then I will be free from my oppression. If I continue to believe in God until I die and then nothing happens. Oh well, what harm has been done to me? Life has no meaning or purpose anyway. Life just simply exists and is only what we ourselves make it.
I’m sorry I used the term evolutionist. I didn’t mean it in the way that I think you took it. I am not above reproach and agree that putting “ist” at the end is generalizing.
Everybody keeps saying things like “evolution is a concept being proven all the time, bit by bit” but not giving any examples.
As far as what the government has done lately to decide what is best for my children, nothing. I do homeschool my children and that right is being threatened. I can get behind the rational of taking prayer and religion out of public school. I don’t think public school teachers should be responsible for the spritual teaching of my children. I don’t think that religion should be taught in public school at all. I think it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children such things. I do think that evolution, particle-to-people, should be taught as “what some scientists, even a majority of scientists, believe as fact, but not as an absolute. When children get older, they can research all possibilities and decide for themselves. Personally, since it such a debated issue, I don’t think any of it belongs in public school. Public school should be a place where the basics of education should be taught, (reading, writing, mathematics). Morality and absolutes belong at home between parent or child. Not just Christian morality, but ALL sources of morality as well. When did we decide that it was up to government and school teachers to shape the minds, hearts, souls, lives of our children? If Public schools just taught the basics then I would be happy to send my children.
I do believe in evolution in a sense. Humans evolve from a fetus to adult, but there is no evidence that humans evolved from algea. Where are the fossil records to prove this? Where are all the “in-between animals” An ultrasound can show bones forming in the differnt stages of fetal growth. Where are the fossils showing the different stages of particle-to-people evolution? Genetic similarities don’t prove we all come from the same thing. God could have used similar material to create the world and everything in it.
I realize I am just argueing with you at this point. I am convicted that my pride is what is driving me to continue. I really should go.
Barbara, there is a God and He is the Creator. I don’t know about the white beard. Thanks for sharing. Best wishes to you.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Parrotlover77-Will you please give me an example of proof of evolution or abiogenesis. I guess I confused the two, but I feel the same could be said of abiogenesis. It’s conjecture.
My post to Barbara expresses my thoughts further.
I think this is it for me. I’ve enjoyed the challenge and the insight. Thanks for your responses. I wish you the best.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I had some great links refuting this, but since they have links, they are apparently stuck in moderation. Check back later and scroll up and you’ll see my retort to this tired old argument. (You are far from the first to attempt to redefine “evolution” so that it no longer is a sound scientific theory with moutains of proof.)
May 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
If you spent as much time trying to research the subject as you do writing these incredibly long essays restating the same thing over and over and over, you would find the proof. I’ve linked in this article and many others on BoF (and so has Ron, who, quite understandably, is tired of arguing which is why he isn’t around, plus many others) tons of proof. But fundies just don’t seem interested in reading it, not too shockingly.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Amy – lots more answers to your questions in the link below. It takes me seconds to find this on the google. The fact you have not found it yourself (nor, presumably, have you even attempted to look) and instead rely on us to provide the answers shows your complete apathy in finding out the actual truth about the story of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions#Evolution
May 19th, 2008 at 11:29 am
S.
I am required to submit to standardized testing. I can’t speak for all states, but this is true for mine. I agree that homeschooled children should be tested to meet grade level requirements.
Have you seen the Duggar children’s schoolwork? What do you base your opinion that you are sure they are several grade levels behind kids in public and private school?
I can only speak for my own children and the many other homechooled children I know personally, not the Duggars, but it has been my experience that homeschooled children exceed academic requirements.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Parrotlover77-you can send me to as many links as you want, I know that scientists cannot prove what occured 10 million years ago. They can speculate based on what they define as fact and reason.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Amy,
You chose to come to this site, knowing full well that the opinion of the vast majority of readers and contributors is different than your own.
I really do not have anything else to say to you. I am not sure why you are still hanging around.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
And now we reach the pinnacle logical fallacy: argument from personal incredulity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You can personally believe they can never “prove” anything from 10 million years ago. It does not change the fact that facts can be obtained from that long ago. BTW, use of the word “proof” is actually inaccurate (but I let it slide until the latest logical fallacy) as proof only applies to mathematics in the way you are using it (eg, “prove” a theory).
May 19th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I’m a little disappoint in Amy because she almost seemed like she genuinely wanted to hear what we have to say and for us to hear her side and to have a good debate. But the last comment about “you can send me as many links as you want” proves (to use her favorite word) beyond a reasonable doubt that she has no intention of educating herself based on the things we have to say and the sources we cite, which is (in my experience) very typical fundie behavior. Too bad. I had hopes for her. Also, if she’s a product of home schooling, that is quite a bad strike against fundie home schooling… I apologize to any home schoolers that are reasonable and scientific when it comes to science, it was only meant to be a slam against Duggar-esque fundie home schooling, not home schooling in general.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Barbara-you asked me to “enlighten” you. Take care
May 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Amy: By “enlighten”, do you mean dimmen?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Amy,of course I haven’t seen it.I base my opinion on the fact there are so *many of them,that it’s highly reasonable to assume (and notwithstanding the fact Michelle herself only has a HS diploma,and is not instructed in teaching) that with all of those school-aged children,plus the little ones to take care of to boot,(breastfeeding,attention,feeding,playing,dressing,baths,diaper changes (the older ones get their share of helping with those tasks,they readily admit,taking time away from their own selves to learn),that it’s not logical to assume they really get any quality time in for schoolwork and studying.Notwithstanding the fact they’re required to learn piano and violin,and harp for the girls (whether they want to learn these instruments or not),leaves little time for much else.(except bible time with Daddy,morning and night!).As I understand it,the courses and instruction booklets they use are unaccredited,designed for homeschooling/religious purposes,and not much else.I would imagine these kids are going to have a difficult time getting into a decent college,that is,if they’re even going to be allowed or encouraged to do that,should they be able to break free of their parents’ influence.I think it’s logical to assume education doesn’t mean much to them,especially and at least not for the girls,as it appears they’re being raised to be mothers and wives,and not much else.
Yes,I understand that,see my explanation below.
Parrot,same here.I’m not against homeschooling per se…it’s the way these ppl go about it that has me concerned.Inferior education is at the top of my list of thoughts about them.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I believe this is the curriculum they use. http://ati.iblp.org/ati/
According to their own website, the bible is the primary textbook. Given that, I have a hard time believing they’ll be equal to their counterparts in academic knowledge.
I also have a serious problem with the older kids taking on teaching roles to the younger ones. Granted, given some of the homeschooling parents I’ve known, there probably is little qualitative difference. One of the moms I know incorrectly uses apostrophes when she makes plurals. So glad she’s “ejucating” (yes, I saw that spelling recently on a homeschool board) her kids. I just have a problem with those kids having to take time away from their own studies to teach younger kids.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:04 am
SUS – Good point. If the parent/teacher doesn’t know how to use apostrophes, how will the children ever learn the correct way? It’s just one small example…
Taking on homeschooling is a HUGE undertaking that can be rewarding if done right. The fundies don’t see it that way. They just see it as a way to keep their kids from being exposed to other viewpoints that might disagree with their own. It’s quite sad. Another horrible tool of indoctrination where the kids have no choice in the matter.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I can’t imagine what the Duggar kids’ math assignments must look like if they’re using the bible as their textbook. After all, it’s the authoritative tome by the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and it says that pi is equal to 3. No need for all those messy, inconvenient, science-y decimals. Geography? Well, the earth is flat because the bible talks about the “four corners” and the sky being held up by pillars. And the Flood accounts for all the physical features of the earth, from the Grand Canyon to the Himalayas. Never was no Ice Ages, and them dinosaur bones? Put their by Satan to fool the people who rely on their brains and reason for answers instead of God’s trusty handbook.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
They probably believe that Neanderthals were just deformed humans who were probably evil Satan worshippers who were cursed by God (This is the story my family’s church puts out). Never mind that their fossil remains are found over three continents, and their “deformities” are remarkably uniform, and that their earliest remains are far older (by 100,000 years or so) than any homo sapiens skeleton ever found. They aren’t mentioned in the Bible, so, ipso facto, they didn’t exist.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Wow Edilsb,
You do certainly make a good arguement.
(It’s spelled that way twice, obviously not a typo)
Homeschooled?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
P.S.
Bothered you enough to spend the time posting here, didn’t it?
May 20th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
No, it means there was nothing of substance in your post to respond to. You basically chided us for our behavior towards Amy but then called us retards, smug, pouty left-wing brats.
Obviously, you did not come here for open dialogue.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hate Speech? Criticizing the Duggars due to their shoddy homeschooling, huge drain on resources, producing hive minded spawn, and generating nothing for society does not hate speech make. What do you mean easy? My cock is larger than that little conjecture you scribbled, as it will be for all of your future comments.
“Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke”
May 20th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Thx for all your comments,the older ones instructing the younger ones has me concerned,too.It takes time away from their own studies.
I would imagine there would be one child in each grade,k-12 if they were in a regular school.And I really doubt Mrs D. has 12 lesson plans! I don’t know if they even get a HS diploma w. these courses? I’ll read up on it.
It seems very arrogant not to allow them around others unlike themselves,if they’re so great,then can’t others learn from them?!
May 20th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
wow,I just went back and read,but I’ve said I believe in God.I also said I think the Duggars are not really living for God.They’re in it for themselves.That ridiculous excuse to shun ALL birth control is so lame it doesn’t even walk with crutches! I went over the JOY thing they teach their children..Jesus first…excuse for baby after baby…Other second…nope,they’re not doing it.The others are their own children.They wouldn’t saddle them with baby after baby if they truly cared about them ! They’d sit them down and ASK them how they felt about another baby,since they partake in the childrearing! But Opps….if they said,no,they didn’t want to keep doing it…they’d be called selfish and told they’re not living for God! And then finally, Yourself last…no,again,the parents are making themselves no. 1!
What has this family done to help others?? I haven’t seen them do anything on all those trips. My own kids do mission trips with their youth group every summer,and throughout the year,and they’ve worked at our local soup kitchen and children’s home (they slept there for a week, too!),they’ve traveled to other states and painted and built things for elderly and less fortunate people.But oh!! The Dug’s won’t allow their kids to be around such people.They might learn something awful from them! Religions against adopting are truly selfish and arrogant! I really see no humanitarianism in them whatsoever.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Jim Blob,no. 1 ego in America,no wonder he didn’t get the votes.He can’t even put his own wife’s health first.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Barbara, I love you. This guy’s obviously just some bitter rightie who stumbled in here and now can’t get out.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
You can’t come in here acting snotty and not expect people to respond. If you’re so pro-Duggar, go find an appropriate message board and quit being obnoxious on this one. You’re not impressing anyone, but as I suspect your whole goal was to annoy people, I doubt that will bother you.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
edilsb: Why thank you. Is the theory you speak of Intelligent Design or Creationism?I don’t know about anyone who makes up facts on this site, check your favorite sites.
“I admit I lie all the time, and I’m always right.”
May 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Sharley, I heart you too!
I heart J Blob too even if the size of his unit scares me.
Oh wait, my cock is bigger than edildo’s conjecture too. And I’m a girl.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Parrot-My conscience has been bothering me. I asked a question and you tried to answer. I just wanted you to know that I went to the links that you sent me to. Thanks for looking that stuff up. I’ve read it and I’ve read similiar stuff before. Having said this, I still think that it is all conjecture and speculation. It is not “fact”.
I was really questioning YOU. I wanted to know what facts you believe that validates evolution or abiogenesis as proof of particles-to-people evolution. If you don’t want to answer me directly then send me to a site that shows the pictures of all those in-between-animals. If there are “mountains of EVIDENCE” it shouldn’t be hard.
I have been willing to listen. You haven’t been telling me specifics. You just simply state “mountians of evidence”. The sites you send me to state that the origin of life is still unknown. How can you not see that? Can’t you concede that it’s conjecture? Therefore, it takes a leap of faith to believe it. Only someone with a time machine can PROVE what was going on 10 million years ago.
As far as the “Argument from Ignorance” site, right back at ya! Scroll down to “Burden of Proof” and “Induction Usage”. Is this a double-standard?
I responded again because I wanted you to know that I appreciated your time and thoughts. I have enough respect for you to tell you that. If you want to tell me what SPECIFICALLY has you sold on particles-to-people evolution or if you can google up those fossil records, I’ll talk to you later. If you avoid the issue, then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I sincerely wish you the best. It’s been interesting.
BTW-I went to public school and graduated from a public university, too….so
edilsb-Wow! Not sure about your tone, but agree with your “views”. Appreciate the support.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
edilsb:
Well, wait until morning. Most people are trying to sleep by now.
No one has been insulting creationists here for their beliefs, just their attempts to justify such beliefs with science.
Just read the comments in the many other posts relating to evolution for JHVH-1’s sake. Either that, or wait for someone to gain enough sleep to carry on blowing you away.
And goodnight to Barbara,Sharley,Parrot, the intelligent Amy, and you edilsb.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
edilsb —
No, I just want obnoxious twits like you gone. There are reasonable theists here whose input I appreciate (Melanie, Elaine, and S. in particular, all of whom have commented farther above). All three have been polite. I’ve not addressed Amy’s because it’s a debate nobody can win — the existence of a God can neither be proven nor disproven, and I’m not about to get into that one. If someone wants to pray for me, that’s their own business; it won’t change my mind, but it’s not hurting anything. Yeah, it’s sort of formlessly annoying, but it’s not going to harm me in any way.
You, on the other hand, have now made any intelligent debate with you impossible. All you’ve done is act like a self-righteous twat. You claim we’re rude, but it’s a case of pot, kettle, black. I could, if I cared, attempt something like rational discussion with you, but I have a feeling it would be one-sided and pointless, since all you seem to want to do is insult everyone. Do as all a favor and go be a dick somewhere else.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:23 am
Who brought up Al Franken? BTW, exposing logical fallacies for what they are and then providing links that source evidence for the argument (which provide more links to more sources) seems pretty solid to me. Amy (et al) have provided no such evidence — only feelings, opinions, and emotions which is appeal to emotion and also argument from ignorance among other logical fallcies.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:26 am
Seriously, what is WITH fundies and the persecution complex?!?!
May 21st, 2008 at 6:34 am
Since we (the agnostics/atheists at BoF) have been accused of being hostile to anybody with a differing viewpoint, I wanted to take this opportunity to say that what “S” is doing here (above) is awesome. Normally I wouldn’t bother replying because this site isn’t about patting everybody on the back for the things they do right. It’s about exposing fundies for what they are.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:36 am
Oh COME ON, do you have to make it so easy?! CAN’T RESIST SARCASTIC COMMENT! CAN’T RESIST! MUST…SAY…IT…AGH!
Maybe it says you are stupid and didn’t learn anything at the “liberal public university.”
May 21st, 2008 at 6:40 am
What argument? All I saw was a lot of complaining.
As J.R. Bob’s ending comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek, I won’t even comment on it. But the first part — where do we get our facts? Mostly the Duggars’ website. Check it out sometime.
What facts? I’m still waiting. As I’m sure Sharley is too. We’re just all holding our breath…
Your post actually not containing any substance is, indeed, what makes it so.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:07 am
Well, again, you can choose to not believe the evidence. That is your prerogative.
Okay, first of all, I’m a network engineer, not a biologist. The “mountains of evidence” I speak of are quite thoroughly examined in part in the links I sent you and also in really any biology or geology textbook, as well. If you want transitional fossils, you have them. The google will provide links to peer-reviewed articles, studies, etc… I cannot change the mind of somebody whose mind is already made up. But you asked, and I have answered… again.
As for my “personal” beliefs. My philosophy aligns closely to naturalism, as I believe the universe does not contain supernatural elements, since there is no evidence for it. What this means is very key to the underpinning of my philosophy on the universe. This is not scientific and I am not attempting to persuade anybody, but you asked. Supernatural essentially means that there are parts that defy the laws of the universe and are not explainable or measurable. So far throughout history, there is zero evidence that anything supernatural exists. If something supernatural occurs (let’s say, for example, the rapture happens) and there is no explanation for it, one must conclude that there is a supernatural element to the universe. I find that unlikely to happen since it has never happened before in history (insofar as evidence is concerned as certainly the bible describes many supernatural occurrences). However, where my agnosticism comes in is that I do NOT discount the possibility that, despite all the evidence against it, a God just might exist, but just doesn’t take an active role in the universe (miracles, et al). This is not “doubt” about my beliefs, it’s just keeping enough of an open mind to accept an unlikely event, should it happen. A PERFECT explanation of this is Carl Sagan’s invisible dragon story. Carl Sagan is a personal hero of mine because (among many many other reasons) his philosophy on the universe is identical to my own, pretty much.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
There are many unknowns in science. Abiogenesis does not have a theory backed by irrefutable evidence yet. Evolution does, but evolution does not purport to explain origins on life. If you want to believe that 4 billion years ago, God touched the “primordial soup” with his hand and set forth life, go ahead. That’s not incompatible with evolution, even if it is incompatible with the working theories of abiogenesis.
I think I see the fundamental difference between you and me on this point. I personally don’t really care how it got started. I don’t spend time thinking about it. It is certainly a fascinating subject which I would love to know the answer to, but I don’t stay awake at night thinking about it. With all the awesome things discovered by science in my lifetime, I find it difficult to believe that we won’t know the answer someday. Additionally, with all the things that are not true in the bible, I find it very difficult to believe that the Christian god sparked life into existence, when so much of the rest of the bible is factually incorrect or implausible.
So when you say “it takes a leap of faith to believe it” I respectfully disagree. It takes a basic understanding of science, a basic understanding of the variables involved, and a basic understanding of the history. There is little faith involved. There is much trust involved, however. For instance, I trust the opinion of the majority of scientists on subjects I do not understand in great detail, the same as you trust your preacher to understand the bible better than you do. Faith, however, is nowhere to be found for me. I don’t need to have faith in the law of gravity for it pull my ass down to earth.
I’m pointing you to theories that others have made, summarizing their claims, and then giving you links to the evidence. My burden has been met. No double standard. “Because it says so in the bible” is not evidence. Nor is “because I felt it.” Your burden has not been met. In addition, I have never argued from ignorance.
There is NO SUCH THING as “particles to people evolution.” Evolution is about CHANGE in species. That’s it! As in, you start with species A. Stuff happens. You eventually get species A, B, and C. The “stuff” that happens is complex and is discussed thoroughly in many links I’ve posted previously. Evolution has NO component that says particles come together and form a person. That is a strawman argument!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 8:49 am
Thx for your nice comments Parrot,and I think Carl Sagan was awesome as well! Look him up on youtube.com if you haven’t already (everyone),there are some really great vids there,and a wonderful speech he made,I’m sure you know the one I mean.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:10 am
Parrot-NOW I understand where YOU are coming from. I’ve admitted that I’m not an expert on these matters. I concede that I may be reading these articles, books, links, etc., incorrectly. The most important thing to me was understanding what you personally believe, but I do admit to arguing (I think I’ve misspelled this word too…must be a fundie thing) Anyway, thank you for sharing.
Knowing what you know about what I believe, you can understand why I think about it so much, can’t you? If what I believe is true, then there are dire consequences for those who do not find Christ. My intentions, therefore, are good and sincere.
I know that I have not been able to prove that God exists. I knew from the beginning that I couldn’t. I’ll admit that. If I’m going to be honest, there have been times when my faith has wavered and been shaken. I’m just a housewife/custodian and not an expert on my own “religion”. But I do know what I have personally experienced, though it cannot be explained scientifically, I trust that it is real.
Let me ask this question. Have you ever given God a chance? Not the Bible, not Christians, not religion, but God Himself? Would you ever consider SINCERELY, WITH AN OPEN MIND, asking God to reveal His truth to you? Asking Him, “If you are real, then please reveal yourself to me?” You can do this alone-without anyone present to trick you or brainwash you. It’s an experiment you can do for yourself.
Let the burden of proof land in God’s lap.
Pleeeaaassseee don’t get angry at my suggestion. I’m not trying to FORCE anything onto you. I don’t have that power. It’s just a suggestion. I’m sure you could chalk it up to “typical fundie behavior”. (You would be right-you’ve got me on that one!) Still…shouldn’t you, in the name of science, explore all possibilities? (even supernatural possibilities) I personally don’t think it wise to wait for the rapture for the evidence God. You know what I mean?
May 21st, 2008 at 9:52 am
Many times. Nothing has ever happened. I was raised Christian and even went through the confirmation (indoctrination) at my church. I asked hard questions, even then (and I sincerely BELIEVED in god back then), which they had reasonable explanations for (or so it seemed until I learned that what they said was made up) so my mind was put at ease. Later on, less and less made sense until I released I wasn’t alone (found other like minded agnostics/atheists) and I began to realize that all the reservations I had were normal, not a “test of faith.” And even after all those doubts, I plead with God — I BEGGED — to have my doubts proven wrong, but he never answered — because he wasn’t there!
I finally realized that if God did exist, he/she/it was NOT the christian god I had read about. If there is a creator being, if there is a soul, if there is any of that stuff, it’s not revealed through Christian texts. Instead, it’s a non-interventionist creator, or, by the Carl Sagan allegory, an invisible incorporeal dragon. If that is, indeed, the case, what difference is there between the incorporeal invisible dragon and no dragon at all? Nothing. There is no consequential difference. He may exist, but he is not intervening in our lives and is not going to punish us for not believing. That punishment aspect (if you want a brief history lesson) was added to keep people in line. The church used to assert absolute control over people’s lives. That’s how they kept them in line. Simple Pavlov’s dog experiment. Reward for good — punishment for bad. And the ruling class set what was good and what was bad, not God.
I always explore all possibilities. Any time I hear of “new evidence” for ghosts or haunting, a part of me gets really excited, even though I know I will be let down. I’ve always been a fan of occult stuff (ghosts, haunting, big foot, nessy, psychics, etc.), but I have yet to see even a tiny shred of evidence any of it exists. I guess that comes a lot from my fascination with fantasy stories, role playing games, and so forth. It’s a weird combination, but I guess you could call me a fascinated skeptic.
Also, at this point, I am as concerned with not being rapture-ready, as I am with not being jihad-ready, or any other end-times story ready from any of humanity’s other 80000 religions. I regard Christianity as I regard any other religion: a nice set of tales used to teach lessons of morality and explain unexplainable things to ancient peoples. Of course morality has changed quite a bit since it was okay to stone your children to death when they talk back to you or when you had to sacrifice a person to make sure the sun rises the next morning, but I digress.
Those that have a non-dogmatic “belief” in a higher power, I have more respect for, even if I disagree with them, because at least they realize that the texts used to justify mainstream religions do far more harm than good. A good example of this are the Deists that formed the United States, especially Jefferson. He believed in a higher power, but knew that using phrases in the bible for the dogmatic control of people out of fear (like the Church of England) was a bad thing for freedom and humanity.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:54 am
Well, I hate to disappoint you, so fuck off already. You aren’t contributing Jack F. Shit to this conversation.
There. Now I should be thoroughly back on your bad side.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:58 am
Good lord, he’s written a lot and done a ton of interviews… Which one DO you mean?
May 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
I figured she was referring to the pale blue dot speech? Al Gore used the photo and paraphrased the speech in An Inconvienent Truth ( you know- the movie which the fundies would say helps spread the “myth” about global warming.)
May 21st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Parrot-Fair enough. I’ll leave that one alone. Know that you are sincerely prayed for. I know, I know…you think it’s waste of my time. I get that. I still believe otherwise and I can trust God to work in you the way He is going to. I believe He is the one who reveals knowledge, but it’s a gift He is not going to force on you. It is your choice and if you can live with your choices, then I genuinely respect that.
I think our discussion has come to a close. I can’t think of anything else, right now, anyway. If down the road, I have a question, I hope to be able to come back and pick your brain.
Thanks again and may your life be filled with many good things.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:05 am
I have no reason to “take” anything, especially not from you. Need I remind you that -you- started out being rude, not me. Pardon me for not sitting quietly aside and letting someone insult me.
I’ve given a higher power a chance. I don’t believe in a Christian God, but I do believe there is some kind of life after death. It’s based on my own experience, which could quite easily be argued away by strict logic, but there are some things that have resonated with me and that I have some faith in. It’s pretty much the meaning of “agnostic” — believing there’s something there, without knowing (or guessing) what it is. I don’t believe in creationism, nor do I have any faith in any holy book, because both they and conventional religion were invented by men, and men, surprise surprise, lie. With all the various gospels and stories out there, people picked only certain ones and declared them “true” — because they were the ones that best served the chooser’s purpose. Given that every holy book I’ve read (and admittedly I’ve only read a few) is littered with false information, in addition to contradicting itself multiple times, I just can’t believe in it, and will not try. Even that which can’t be disproven can’t be proven, either.
You could easily argue that the things I do believe can’t be proven, either, but, just like you have your faith, I have mine and nothing has convinced me to lose or change it. People believe what they believe, and I can respect that, so long as they don’t try to foist it off on me. Most people would probably laugh at my (admittedly bizarre) faith, which is why I keep it to myself — it’s not my place to try to change anyone’s mind about anything like that. I’ve had multiple people preach at me, and it’s never stirred anything in me — all it does is annoy me. I don’t debate faith with people because, when you get right down to it, nobody can prove jack shit. It’s why I respect atheism and atheists, too; if you don’t believe in anything spiritual, you don’t, and nobody has the right to say that you are wrong if they can’t prove it. You can’t force someone to believe something, and even if you could it would be entirely wrong to do so. A person should have faith in something because they want to, not because someone (or something) tells them they should.
My mother believes that all religions ultimately lead to the same thing. Like everyone else, she may be right and she may be wrong. Myself, I’m content to wait and see, and meanwhile lead my life as I see fit. I mentioned a while back that a lot of people use religion as a kind of security blanket (and I’m not saying everyone does, by any manner of means), and I don’t feel the need for one. I don’t know, and I don’t need to know. Like Sue said, I’d like to think I’m strong enough to face life without a metaphorical safety net.
This website says that, because some obscure Bible verse demands it, women should wear nothing but dresses. It also says “Many will have ideas and convictions about what *you* should wear, but what matters most is what the LORD is directing and what your husband prefers.” Why? Why should I let something that was written two thousand years ago, by a man, influence what I wear? And certainly my husband has no right to say anything about my clothes — if I told him he should, he’d laugh. (He’s an atheist — if you think I’M rude, you should get him going someday. His mother is a reasonable Christian, and respects his atheism, but his father is a scary Fundie who never loses an opportunity to tell him he’s going to hell. And, just as his mother respects that he believes in nothing, he respects that I do have a type of faith.)
Even as a child, the misogyny of virtually every major religion was a total turn-off for me. I’m not about to let a man tell me what to do — I’m not about to let anyone tell me what to do. Most of the Christians I know ignore those rules, and it made me think, “What is this, religion a la carte? How can you pick some guidelines and ignore others? What’s the point?”
Reasonable religious people don’t hurt anyone, and so I have no problem with them. If they want to let some book tell them they can’t wear pants, it’s no skin off my nose — they can believe whatever they want. Yeah, I personally think it’s stupid, but it’s their funeral and I’m happy to let them have it. It’s only if they try to force it on me that I’m going to get bitchy, and that is why I have a problem with fundies. They preach, they judge, and they’re trying to shove their beliefs down everyone else’s throats. They want Intelligent Design taught in public schools. They want mandatory PRAYER brought back to public schools. They have no respect for anyone else’s beliefs, and many will happily tell you you’re going to hell for not believing in their particular collection of religious fairy tales. While the existence of a deity cannot be disproven, most of the Bible can, and I can’t suspend my disbelief to ignore that. People can tell me I’m wrong all they want, but until they can prove it, they’re preaching in vain.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Thanks for the link, I’ve been looking for a place to get some new bloomers. Now if only I could decide if I want ruffled or unruffled. Hmmmm…better ask my husband!
May 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Sharley-I just wanted to reply to say that I appreciated your last post. I now understand what you believe and why. Thank you for sharing.
It may seem like I’m saying “you’re wrong”, I’m not really, but since we both believe differently it is implied by both sides. You know what I mean?
Also, I’ll just add this quickly, I don’t believe that religion should be taught in school. I believe the teaching of such things belongs at home between parents and children. Since it is such a controversial topic, I don’t believe the theory of evolution/abiogenesis should be taught as undisputed fact, either. If we allow this theory, then we SHOULD allow opposing theories. I think it would be easier to take it all out of public high school. Maybe it would be better to save it for higher education, when the students can choose for themselves. (ex. Evolution 101 or Intelligent Design 101, or Dream of Dolphins 101, etc.) This sounds reasonable to me, but I don’t know.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Sharley – I just wanted to say that I’m not praying for you.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Sigh, Okay.. I know we’ve come to a “let’s agree to disagree” part of this debate here, but I have to point out that if we hold science education back because people are afraid of how it interferes with their religious dogma or because we “just can’t possibly conceive of it” then we will never progress. It is a disservice to the future generations of humankind. Besides, WHERE DOES IT END? Do we start teaching alternate theories to gravity? Flat earth vs round earth?
May 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Parrot-It would only be holding science back a few years. What harm could that do? Instead of students learning at age 15,16,17, they could learn about the theory of evolution/abiogenesis, intellegent design, etc., from a higher education public school, if they choose, at age 18,19,20. Again, where is the harm in that?
I said it should all be put to an end. Parents are responsible for raising their children and for making sure they are educated. (whether by homeschool or public school.) If a parent strongly believes their child should study evolution and all that it entails, then they could teach that to their own children. There is a lot of curriculum out there. (a lot of books, articles, links, too) We live in a country with so many different beliefs. Public school, at this point in history, needs to be absolutely neutral. It should teach the foundation, the building blocks, to which all other “chosen” education can be built on. When a child reaches adulthood, they can decide for themselves. (ex. to make the faith their parents believe their own or not, or go on to a university and take classes that further explain the complexities of evolution beyond what their parents have taught them) Keeping public school neutral is not holding anyone back. PARENTS can teach ther kids whatever they see fit.
Despite the views here and in your circles, there are a lot of people who do not wish this theory to be forced on their children as undisputable fact. Tax paying people, I might add.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Amy: Intelligent Design or Creationism in your last paragraph?
But I do have a feeling that your last post may finally end this two week argument.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Amy — I hate to burst your bubble, but science is neutral. Certainly cutting edge science isn’t the place for high school students (they are still learning the basics there), but teaching biology WITHOUT evolution is like trying to teach chemistry without teaching atoms!
You may not like what evolution has to say, but it is a fact (evidence of evolution is strong in nature and repeatable in laboratory experiments), a theory (mechanisms by which the observed evidence occurs exist and are able to predict), and a law (a scientific theory so strong as to be considered irrefutable).
May 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
J.R. “Bob” Dobbs – You wish!
May 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Amy — I wanted to address this specifically because it is outside the scope of our previous discussion. This argument is different from my worldview. As a blue-blooded liberal, I feel it is in the state’s best interest to make sure its youth are educated, despite even the parents’ wishes to keep their children ignorant. Your argument is more libertarian/conservative, and that’s fine as it is your opinion.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The pale blue dot,yes,that’s it !
(And I want the ruffled bloomers,whether my hubby likes it or not! LOL).
May 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Sometimes I think some of these Southern baptists here in the South would,(if they had their way about it…) throw us in jail for not attending church every week! No,I’m not kidding!
And why is this ‘dress for your gender’ thing only applied to women? Perhaps it meant cross-dressing in general,back in the biblical days? Though I don’t think God really cares what one wears.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Parrot-I should have said that my last post was all just “my opinion”. I’m not lobbying to get a bill passed or anything.
I agree that the the basics of science include biology and therefore, evolution by the definition you sent me to on Wickapedia, is fine. I guess I was referring to the “common misconception” (that I admittingly made) that “evolution” means particles-to-people evolution. I did confuse evolution with abiogenesis. I think a lot of people do this, including some high school teachers. Mine did.
Wickapedia’s definition says, “In biology the word evolution describes the changes on gene frequencies that occur in populations of living organisms over time. Describing these changes does not address the origin of life (abiogenesis)”
As you said, they are commonly and mistakenly conflated. What I really meant is that the “origin of life”, since even scientists don’t agree on what it is, should be a subject left out of public school. I only wrote evolution/abiogenesis together in my last post because the two ARE so commonly conflated.
I can get behind your views concerning “the state’s best interest to make sure its youth are educated. I wholeheartedly agree. I very much agree with state testing of homeschooled children to make sure they are up to par with their public school counterparts. EVEN IF THAT TESTING INCLUDED ABIOGENESIS, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, DOLPHIN DREAMS, ECT. I can get behind and also will teach my children biology, therefore evolution, and even delve into the theories of abiogenesis. (I haven’t so far because they are too young to understand, 10, 8, 5, and 13mos.) All this to say, I would teach them WHATEVER is required of the state I live in. I will just add the disclaimer “this is what a majority of scientists believe”. I think that’s fair. When they become adults and head off to college they will be free to check out what that “majority of scientists” believe.
People are just assuming Christian homeschooling parents just sit around and force feed the Bible to their children. Personally, the subjects I cover are: Bible, Mathematics, Language Arts, Science, History and Goegraphy, Reading Comprehension, Spelling, and Penmanship. All subjects are an important part of our schooling. I cannot speak for the Duggars, but all of the homeschooling families I know are of this way of thinking. (to clear up some misconceptions)
Just an example and just to let you know, this is what we covered in Science with my third-grader:
YOU GROW AND CHANGE
-Air we breathe
-Food for the body
-exercise and rest
PLANTS
-Plant parts
-Plant growth
-Seeds and bulbs
-Stems and roots
ANIMAL GROWTH AND CHANGE
-The environment changes
-Animals are different
-How animals grow
-How animals change (tadpole to frog,etc)
PROPERTIES OF MATTER
-States of matter
-Physical changes
-Chemical changes
SOUNDS AND YOU
-How sounds move
-How sounds are heard
TIMES AND SEASONS
-The earth rotates
-The earth revolves
-Time changes
-Seasons change
HEAT ENERGY
-Sources of heat
-Heat energy
-Moving heat
-Benefits and problems of heat
PHYSICAL CHANGES
-Change in man
-Change in plants
-Matter and time
-Sound and energy
LOOKING AT OUR WORLD
-Harm to our world
-Caring for our world
I don’t think I’m keeping my children ignorant. Based on what I shared, do you? (I’m sorry this post is so long)
May 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
J.R. Bob-If I’m understanding your question, I was referring to particles-to-people evolution as undisputable fact-BUT I also believe that creationism and intelligent design have no place in public school. This is my opinion.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Amy,sure,that’s all fine well and good for a 3rd grader…but are you equipped for the high school years? Can you lead them into Algebra 1 and 2,Geometry and beyond? Can you teach them foreign languages,Advanced Placement History and English,if they’re intelligent and want to intellectually seek out that knowledge? Are they encouraged in music lessons and or singing,(mine are in chorus,would be kind of hard to do if they’re homeschooled),if they so desire? Will they be allowed to debate with other homeschoolers if they wish? And so on and so forth,for all the experiences that school can give them.
It’s just that I think children learn so much more when they’re exposed to a variety of instructors,with the varied variety of experiences and knowledge they have to offer.I’ve never been worried public school is going to teach my children bad things,nor cause their behavior to run amok,nor cause the to not believe in God.I just don’t believe in sheltering them in such a capacity.I’m not sure I even believe in private school;in a way it’s saying to society,’Hey,my kid is too good for the rest of you!’.Although I can understand if some parents believe their child is getting a better education there.
I just don’t believe in taking those experiences away from them.I don’t believe in sheltering them.They NEED to be exposed to all of society,IMO,from the intellectually challenged,to the geniuses,form the poor to the well-off.It’s very hard to learn compassion if they’re never exposed to anyone who needs it.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I hit the button before I was finished.Anyway,my last comment was going to be that I recall reading somewhere to not to shelter your children from adversity or bad situations.Like the school bully, for example,children learn compassion for others, and personal strength from such experiences.I agree.Not that I hope they get bullied,but it’s difficult to learn strength and compassion when one is never exposed to situations they can learn from.
Every work place has at least one person who is difficult to get along with,some people will leave a job because of that person,only to find the next workplace has someone just as bad or worse.Children learn coping skills from being exposed to all types of people,something I think they don’t get in homeschooling and possibly private school.That is JMO.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Wow…I go away for a couple of days and look at everything I missed!
Amy, tis ok ^^ I myself was a little ruffled (Like I said…I was having some issues with my father…still not excuse, but still ^^; sorry).
I don’t mind talking to people who have different beliefs…the only issue I have is if they tried to force it on me, the government, or the education system. Now saying that you are a Christian and believe in God, etc, etc is one thing…but if you take it a step further and claim that it’s not faith, but instead science, then I have a problem.
Science (As Parrot mentioned before) is neutral. It is not biased. For something to be scientific, it must follow the actual method. You can probably wiki it easily if you’ve forgotten the steps (I know I can almost never remember them all for the life of me)
I actually didn’t seek out BoF either. What happened was my sempai on dA wrote a journal linking to an article written here (this was back when I was agnostic) and I read a few articles, commented a bit, and then didn’t come back a for a while. However, not too long ago, I’ve embraced full atheism (Only some of my classmates even know this…I doubt I will ever tell my orthodox Jewish extended family) and returned to the site to see if I could talk to any one who shared my frustration.
XD I wasn’t asking for physical proof…I just wanted to know why you believe what you do. I know every one has their own reason for seeing the world the way they do and that’s fine…but I love hearing people’s stories (Especially because I enjoy studying people in general). As for the Bible not being credible, I just don’t. After all, if it was truly intended for science…then wouldn’t that have been mentioned? Wouldn’t they say. Plus all of.
I still have a long way to go myself. As Parrot and some of the others know, I’m only 16 (As of a week today ;P) but I know how to debate because it was one of the few classes I loved during middle school. My teacher was a really good arguer and taught us a lot on the rules and regs of formal and informal debating. I try to keep to those as much as possible because being snarky will just make everyone upset and lead to both combatants getting personally involved and throwing all their notes and actual evidence out the windows.
;P Dance recitals are always cute. One of the girls accidentally fell at ours, but she just got right back up! That’s one thing I miss about being a kid…even when you mess up, everyone just keeps clapping anyway.
And now on to the newest blogger in this topic: edilsb!
You want to debate? Ok then!
What is wrong with our facts? (Or facts in general? I can only conclude that by highlighting the word that you have something against them) We have backed up all of our claims by suggesting peer-reviewed sites, given examples, and listed plenty of evidence. I don’t see what is so wrong with that? That’s how you debate! One side presents an argument and provides evidence to support their claim, the other tries to poke holes in it while presenting their own evidence-backed argument, then both duke it out before they end with closing statements before the audience decides who the better team was based on the facts presented.
Second…I’m not quite up to speed on politics, but I’ve never heard of Al Franken. Maybe that’s just my ignorance as a teen, but still…All my information comes from articles that have been peer reviewed, tested (By the SCIENTIFIC METHOD) and retested over and over, connects facts from other theories and links it all together, and WORKS. If it didn’t work, it would have been tossed out, simple as that. Seriously, the only reason that Evolution is still an issue is because many people are so convinced that they are right and that the science behind Evolution is wrong that they choose to fight it. The same thing happened back during the Civil Rights era, the Women’s Lib movement, and other big social revolutions in history. However while those are not scientific, they do relate by the fact that it has been proven that no one sex or race is better than the other. There are too many exceptions for these subjects to be so black and white (forgive the pun) so it makes no sense to keep women and people of other racial ethnicities away from the hard-earned rights of the white male majority. The only reason people fought against these groups though is because it went against what they believed was right (which doesn’t MAKE it right…but it’s what they believed)
With science however, it should hardly be such an issue because we know the theory works, (Other wise you would be seeing old diseases breaking out in epidemics all across the country) and we have proven it with cold hard facts. Look at any of the other posts on the site and check out the links we’ve added ;P tis what they are there for.
Look, we are not claiming to know everything about this world. We are being honest here. Maybe our political views are biased, but our scientific views are not. The system that science relies on would FAIL if all of them lied (As we’ve seen from a few past fakers) Evolution is a completely valid scientific theory…now if it’s Abiogenesis that you have a problem with, well that is still in the works. Now we have proven that it is possible to create the same amino acids found in DNA by this process, but the problem is we cannot create the exact conditions of early Earth. As my biology teacher told us last week: Life was probably created thousands of times, but due to the Earth getting constantly bombarded, the UV rays (No ozone layer yet…) which kill DNA (SKIN CANCER!) it had very little chance of starting and developing into a more stable form. Things started looking clearer is when life was able to get a firmer grip on the Earth and begin to adapt to it.
But that isn’t the theory of Evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life: simple as that.
One of the things my old teacher used to say is that all alien movies were way off their mark because if they had two eyes, a mouth, a nose, ears like most animals on Earth have…that would mean that they probably developed here because to get those combinations of features would mean they would have had to also develop from a common ancestor of the creatures on Earth.
As for arguing fairly, I was snarky all of one time on this board and the reason was because I was getting snarked back. People tend to retaliate in the same way they are attacked unless they are able to stop, think, and then make their move (But impulsive is very much my personality type, so sue me) I have argued with many fundies in the past and only a few times have they agreed on the indisputable fact that their religion is not science. They can believe it…they will always have that right and I shall never attempt to tread upon their opinions and feelings, but science is a completely different road (unfortunately for many people across the states and the world; it remains to be one less traveled). Science starts out with questions and then strives to answer them by looking at all the views at first…but then it’s ultimately the tests that reveal the truth.
Wiki the scientific method and see if any religion (There are over 80000 by the way) can be properly tested by that. And no…you cannot say that the method does not work because if it didn’t then you would have to erase all technological, biological, chemical, (etc, etc) advances made since this method was officially put into place. Really…just these products are enough to prove that it works and will continue to work as technology continues to stretch further across the realm of possibility.
Lastly, this is not a freedom of speech argument. As stated above: believe what you want, but that won’t make it science. That would be the same as me going up to a dog and saying it is a frog. I have every right to say it if I want to, but that won’t change the dog into a frog.
We are not trying to convert people here. Our aim is to educate people on what science and human rights are. We have the right to be free from religion just as you have the right to your beliefs.
The reason I am atheist is because I feel as those there is no ultimate explanation and that there never will be…but I love science and it’s been one of the few things in my life that I’ve felt could do the impossible. It’s the closest thing to “magic” that I’ve ever had as a child, but unlike magic and all that…there are reasons and they all interlink at some point. To me as a writer, that has got to be the most intricate novel ever: the story of life.
Now this is my personal opinion…but it doesn’t change the fact that science has done a lot for you such as building and designing the computer and software that enables you to comment on this board.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Amy: It’s “Bob” !!!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Sarah,
Each time I read one of your posts I am amazed at your abilty to communicate so effectively and with a level of maturity that outshines many contributors who are, I am sure, many many years older than you are. You are obviously one very smart cookie! Picked your college yet?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Sarah,I was just about to compliment you as well! You’re so intelligent and articulate that you impress me as being much older! (though I do believe you!).
May 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Sarah-It’s good to hear from you again. I’ve been wondering where you’ve been?
I just want to clarify that I am not “against” science and I don’t think “faith in Jesus” is a science or can be proved by science. I don’t disagree with the theory of evolution (the changes on gene frequencies that occur in populations of living organisms over time) I am against people using this as an example of proof of particles to people evolution or the origin of life, which SOME people/teachers (not all) do. I do not deny the advances of medical science or any science for that matter. I am just stating that there is no proof of people evolving from particles or proof of the origin of life…I’ll even say “yet”. You are free to trust the compelling arguments of a majority of the science community. I CAN honestly see why you and others do.
I did share what I believed with you, but had no intention to FORCE my beliefs onto you. I believe it is your free will to believe whatever you feel is truth. I apologize if I came across that way. If you are comfortable with what you believe, though my belief is different, I genuinely respect that.
I do understand where you are coming from and I sincerely appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Bob-I apologize.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
S.-It’s getting late. I’m going to sign off for the night. I will try to respond to you in the a.m.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Amy: I’ve been studying for finals. (Last few days were Geometry, Biology, and Japanese, tomorrow and Friday are Humanities, Spanish, I cannot wait for summer…but then comes French T-T)
Any teacher that cannot understand the theories/subjects that they teach should be fired. However evolution doesn’t work like that. (This is just my basic understanding of what happened…we had to skip a lot of evolution because genetics took too long) The idea is that through abiogenesis, the first bits of RNA were created, then created DNA (Grew more complex) and then (by that time at least) lipids (fat) had appeared and the DNA had slipped into the lipids. Now cell membranes today are constructed by fats such as these, which is why it’s believed that these are the first bacterium. Not quite what we have today, but it’s close because it has a membrane and a single strand of DNA coiled up loosely at the center.
It’s a vair strange process but we have observed similar bacteria making processes in the lab (Like I said before…we still cannot recreate early Earth. Our only clues are way back in Aussieland where the rocks are ancient and the first photosynthetic cells still live today…I hope to go one day before all the stromatolites die out and take some photos like shown here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/40 )
Don’t worry. I can tell from your end that you aren’t trying to convert anyone. It’s easy to get confused through an internet chat seeing as you have no facial expressions, tones, etc to help convey what you really mean (Trust me…I almost never catch internet sarcasm unless it’s REALLY obvious) For the most part, our signals got crossed…but I get what you are saying and I’m not accusing you of trying to convert us. Don’t worry ^^ I understand.
^^ Nice to see you’re still here though.
Barbara: Thanks, but as for college…I’m not quite sure. I definitely want out of Arizona because I am not much of a desert rat and despise the heat (Although NAU has a vair nice campus and I do like some of their programs so I might consider going…) I’ll probably start looking at the start of my junior year after I take the pre-SATS again (And hopefully do better a second time around ^^;)
S: I’ve been mistake for 19 appearance-wise, but most people online think I’m in college already ^^; however I am actually pretty childish (And I doubt I’ll outgrow it ;P) Thanks though ^^ I just hope that all this will be useful out in the real world. To them though, as long as I look like a kid (and occasionally talk like one) then I’m still just another idealistic kid with my head and ears stuffed with cotton.
edilsb: Ok, the second part of your last sentence made no sense at all. I think you might be missing a conjunction in there somewhere because I don’t understand what you are trying to say to me.
Yes, I HAVE read all of the posts, the title, and the article. And HELLO, we just are saying that we don’t like what the Duggars are doing. We cannot stop them, however we can say how horrible it is that they get to take advantage of science’s products when they themselves say that science is bullshit. This would be like me saying that I don’t believe that butter causes health problems despite what the scientists and boatloads of medical evidence have told me. So I eat all the butter I want (Duggars having as many kids as they want because they think that God wants them to) But when I have to get triple-bypass for my poor struggling heart I go back to the science (which told me it was a bad idea in the first place) to give me the operation.
It’s downright hypocritical and we are allowed to speak our minds about it!
What I was getting at before was your direct assault on our blog, bloggers, the rules of engagement, etc, etc. I was trying to explain to you without resorting to snarking (Despite what my first instincts were at your extremely rude comments…but even though it’s childish and idealistic, I still hold true to ‘treat others with the same respect you wish for yourself’ so I kept my overall opinion to myself)
If you were confused as to what my intentions were for the above comment, I apologize.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 am
Wow then we are in agreement. Awesome!
We find common ground… Abiogenesis is a little too cutting edge to dig into in the high school curriculum, even I think so. Personally, I wouldn’t care if a teacher did or did not teach those theories, as it is still speculative, but if a child asked, I also wouldn’t have a problem (in this case only) with a teacher saying “well modern scientists think this, but religious traditions think that” since it’s sort of out of scope with basic biology, and the kids can learn more about it should they take a liking to biology.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 am
S – I agree with your stance on home schooling in that I think the public school system provides far more to the child than just the instruction. You learn how to deal with other people with different opinions, you learn how to deal with things outside of your control, you learn how to deal with asshole supervisors (teachers), you learn how to deal with bullies, you learn how to deal with deadlines, you learn different cultures, you learn how to speak in public, you learn how to take criticism from strangers, and on and on…
All that being said, I do not in any way want to make home schooling illegal nor do I want to stereotype the home schoolers that go above and beyond to give their kids lots of outside experiences to compensate for the above. It’s just something I’ve always felt was commonly overlooked.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
Just for the record, I pegged you at a senior graduating this year. You are quite a bit more mature and FAR more intelligent than I was at 16! Keep up the good work!
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 am
Sarah – I’ve read stories of religious kids in classes speaking out (in an obnoxious “it’s just a theory” way) to the teacher when they discuss the subject of evolution. Did that happen in your school?
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 am
I must take this opportunity to give mad props to my alma mater, the University of Florida. You’d love it!
That’s a good quality. I’ve never grown up either. Neither has my wife nor my best friends in life.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
eidlsb, I appreciate that you could come out and say that.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am
S.-All good questions. I’ll try my best to answer.
First off, though I personally believe that academic excellece should be a goal, I don’t think homeschooled children should be EXPECTED to “out-perform” their public school counterparts, not that you were saying that. Even if a homeschooled child just meets the basic state requirements, I believe they should be above reproach. When a child is homeschooled, the student and the parents are responsible for the success or failure of that child. When a child in public school falls behind and eventually drops out of school, the teacher is not ultimately held responsible, the student and the parents are, as they should be.
I want to also begin by saying that my husband and I did not decide to homeschool our children solely on the basis of our faith, or on our opinions of public school. (not to say we LOATHE public school or think it EVIL. We do have SOME criticisms) It was a lifestyle decision more that anything. When our two older children were in public school (pre to second grade) We didn’t feel “family” was a focus or priority. The kids walked out the door at 7:30 a.m. to catch the bus and then we didn’t see them again until 4:30 p.m. They would have a snack, play with the neighborhood kids for a little while, come in for dinner, homework/reading assignments took another hour or so. Then we sent them off to bed. Our children were 5 and 7 years old and they spent the majority of their day with other adults and children we didn’t even know. They hardly even spent any time with eachother. We believe that we, as parents, are responsible for fostering good self esteem, good manners, good study habits, excellence in academics, etc. We, personally, were finding it very hard to do this in the limited time we had with our own children. (Not to say that it CAN’T be done by parents of public schooled children) We also enjoy the flexibility homeschool offers. If one child is excelling in an area, we can move on to more challenging curriculum. If one child is struggling in an area, we can spend an extra week on the subject until he/she masters it. We can take our learning to museums, stores, restaurants, banks, the ocean, the forest, rivers, farms, zoos, hospitals, fire stations…the list goes on. Not to mention the strong relationships that are being developed between mother and daughters, father and sons, mother and sons, father and daughters, and even between siblings. A solid foundation is being built in these young children before they are exposed to the harsh realities of the world. There worth is being defined before they head out. I read a “greenhouse” example in a book a few years ago. it suggested that no one would think of taking a tender young plant and planting in 8 inches of snow and have much hope for it to flourish. That’s what a greenhouse is for-to provide optimum environments for plants to grow. When their roots have developed and they are strong enough to withstand harsh weather, they can be transplanted to the outdoors. As I stated before, I don’t believe public school to be EVIL, I just don’t think it to be, these days, an optimum environment for my children to grow and flourish…especially at age 5 and 7.
In regards to your comments about bullying and such experiences, going to public school does not guarantee “bully and other experiences” to grow from. Some kids are never bullied. Those who are usually end up saying they hated their high school experienc because of it. In fact, bullying was said to play a big part in those terrible school shootings. (Not to suggest that all bullied children will or do respond that way) I suppose these experiences can foster compassion, but not in every case. Public school is not the only place where compassion for others can be learned. There are mission trips, volunteer work, and extra-curricular activities. My daughters (ages 5 & 7) enjoy ballet and tap. My son (age 10) has played baseball, golf, soccer, and enjoys playing piano. When they get older their activities and exposure will get more diverse. Parents, in my opinion, should decide what’s best for their children. (as long as what they decide for them falls within the law)
By no means do we homeschool our children because we think they are “too good” for public school, public school students, or public school teachers. It is just our conviction that the ultimate responsibilty of raising and growing our children falls into our lap. Homeschool is the avenue WE CHOSE to fulfill this responsibilty. I want to be sure to say again that this is what we feel is best for OUR children. We do not have bad judgements against people who utilize public school. I only pointed out our list of “cons”. We do not deny there is a list of “pros” and we know some famillies who have great success with public school.
I will admit that I have come across homeschool “elitest” attitudes, but not often. Thankfully, our attitude and ideas seem to be the “rule” and not the “exception”. (at least in the circle we are in and the other circles I know of)
Speaking of school, I need to get back to the kids. They are ready to start math and lunchtime is approaching. This is a long post and I haven’t even addressed all your questions and comments. I will try to get back to you later. I want to address “being equipped” to teach advanced subjects and the social aspects of homeschooling.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Parrot: Yeah, still don’t even have my driving permit yet ^^; something that my boyfriend (Who should not even be talking because he is 5 months younger and able to get his permit as well) loves to mock me for.
Florida is definitely a nice area and I’m willing to consider anywhere that would let me travel around and teach English. The only areas I am steering clear of are Arizona, the mid-west, and New York (I love NY and miss living there…but I’d rather not have to see my extended family every weekend…).
I have encountered people who think that the word “theory” in science means “uncertain” but not in my classroom…then again I go to a fairly progressive school (even while being filled with theists, most of which are pretty liberal, thank Kira) with vair good teachers. Although the rest of the students are pretty…behind. Let’s say I do tutoring and I’ve encountered sophomores like myself who cannot divide 11 by 2 or follow simple instructions on how to do basic perspective drawing (The reason they pass their classes is that they cheat off all their friends) and when the teachers try to help, they complain about how the adults are “nagging” them. In a sadistic sort of way, I really hope that once they get out of high school, they get screwed in a way that makes them realize that they passed up the chance to get a free education which many people in the world would kill to have. (Even if U.S. education standards are down the toilet at this point)
Most of them probably wouldn’t know the difference between science and opinion, even if you spent the rest of your days explaining it. It just goes in one ear and out the other with these people…
However, today in class we did get into the old “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are they still here?” issue, so I explained it in as much detail as possible to the number one fundie in my class who likes to try to prove me (Only atheist…or at least the only open one) wrong and tell me how I don’t know anything about Christianity or its followers (Which is BS. I know more than most of the Jesus freaks. I read the Bible as part of a writing eval because the stories are vair good for being stories. Most of them reminded me of Grim’s Fairytales…but Grim’s tended to be more repetitive in terms of plot so they were fairly boring outside of my two favs “The Twin Brothers” and “Faithful John”. Also, most of my friends are Christians who have been kind enough to explain their reason for believing.).
;P My sister wants me to grow up already. She thinks since I’m 16 and still watch (GASP) “cartoons” (I hardly consider “Hellsing”, “Death Note”, and “Full-Metal Alchemist” children’s series XD but what does she know?) and wear my own clothing style, that I’m immature and stupid (I admit that whenever I try to argue with her, I look pathetic in comparison. She has a silver tongue that could cut Samehada to bits!). Meh…whatever…I’ll be 59 and still cosplay, write cyber-punk stories, read manga, and laugh at Monty Python and South Park. Hopefully by then, I’ll have become fluent in Spanish, Japanese, French, and Russian (At least…but I want to squeeze in German too if possible) and I can insult her three (She is fluent in Spanish) ways to next Sunday ^^
YAY FOR PETER PAN SYNDROME! XD
edilsb: Tis ok. It is always hard to think of posts on a website as the words of actual people…Fuck, I know I’ve insulted a lot of people on youtube (“And where did you get those statistics? Don’t you know the little label on the back of your undies doesn’t count as a scientific proof, asshat?” ^^; I remember getting rammed by IDers for being rude after that one…) but that’s why I tend to use little smilies. You can’t see a person’s face unless you have a webcam…but these little buggers help to convey what can’t be shown through words. It’s a little silly, but I don’t like it when people misunderstand me…it gives them a wrong impression of who I am. Glad to see that you’ve realized this as well. Care to start off fresh? ^^
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
S.-I will try to make this post a lot shorter. You asked about teaching more advanced subjects and what we were going to do. As far as the basic requirements that need to be met for testing, I think we’ll be OK. If our children excell in an area or desire to learn something out of our scope, then we will have to committ to either learning it ourselves or find someone else who can teach them. There is a lot of really good curriculum out there. Google “homeschool curriculum” if you are interested in examples (foriegn languages, music, etc. avail. too).
You also questioned the social issues. I live in a pretty small town and yet we have 51 homeschool families (over 150 kids) listed in our directory. There are more, this is just what was listed. We have a newsletter that a group of the high school kids put together, we have educational and “just for fun” field trips. We have co-op classes (debate, speech, drama, journalism, spelling bees, etc.) Some parents will offer their expertise and teach a group of kids…cooking, knitting, or nuclear physics, for example.
Our local high school allows homeshooled children to play sports and join other extra-curricular activities. Our kids can also participate in whatever the local parks and rec. offers. The homeschool group is actually having a “field and games” day at the end of this month.
Our kids do socialize, not in the “everyday” way that public school kids do, but they do. They have experienced arguements, hurt feelings, anger, you name it, with their friends and with their sibs. These have been teachable moments. My kids have about 5 really good friends each and quite a few friendly acquaintances. This number could grow as they get older. I think that’s pretty good. Some public school kids, though they have more children to pick from, can’t say the same.
I will just add that my high school experience was a good one. I had good friends, enjoyed my classes and my extra-curricular activities. My husband would say the same. We did not base our homeschool decision on bad public school experiences.
Anyway, I know I have OVER-ANSWERED you. I’ll sign off. Thanks for listening.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Parrot-Yikes! Never thought “common ground” and “agreement” would be in any post between us.
Teachers need to be very careful with what they say these days. We are a
“sue-happy” country, no matter what side your on.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
I spelled “you’re” wrong. It’s late!
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 am
HELL YEA. Cosplay wasn’t really around when I was in high school. But I totally would have hung with the cosplay freaks if it was! Nowadays, ehh.. too much work. lol
I must say your family is quite the exception to the American stereotype. I took three years of Spanish but about all I know now is how to count to like maybe 30 and a couple little phrases. I should have taken Japanese since I’m more fascinated with the culture and would have probably been more interested in the language since I could “practice” by watching anime without subtitles. But Spanish… Well, let’s just say telenovelas and Sabado Gigante are not really my thing…
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Sarah-I hope all went well with your finals today. (and yesterday)
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Meh…for cosplay I just go to the nearest thrift store with a picture of the person I’m doing and then pick out stuff that matches. Hell, this weekend I’m going to one in Phoenix with a friend (First I have to take the damn shoulder pads out of my jacket though…otherwise I just look ridiculous!).
I love Spanish now (But only because I have a penpal from Mexico who I can regularly converse with) but before I despised everything to do with learning another language. Luckily, I got a good teacher though and it opened up the possibility of a career as a linguist (But I’m doing it more so for the hell of it).
We weren’t always like this ^^; when we were members of the upper-middle class our world was pretty…well perfect and our thoughts didn’t extend much past our neighborhood. Moving downtown though has had a great effect on us all. I’ve probably matured more in the last two years alone than the rest of my life combined.
Well Japanese is so incredibly simple (outside of the damn kanji and the bastard particles!) but having a really good teacher makes it so much easier. The only issue now is I keep wanting to switch languages halfway through a conversation such as with my Spanish final (I said “wakarimasen” about eight times instead of “no se” and I caught myself trying to say “iie” instead of “no” about three)
Still fun and easy to pick up though…hmmm…I wonder if the Duggar children are being taught a language…it is a standard requirement.
Amy: Thanks ^^ I passed all of them, but my Spanish didn’t go as well I had hoped due to the fact that I could hardly remember my own name that early in the morning XD But school is officially done! (Well…until Tuesday at least…that’s when I start French)
May 24th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Sarah-Ahh…francais. Tres bien. Bonne chance, mon ami.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Parrot-Sorry to bother you again, but in an earlier post you said “If you want transitional fossils, you have them. The google will provide links to peer-reviewed articles, studies, etc.” Well I have been searching in vain for those “transitional fossils”. Could you point me in the right direction?
May 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sarah — You are the first person to tell me Japanese is simple. Maybe I stand a shot after all. lol. Of course speaking and writing are two different things entirely. All the zillion ways there are to write japanese might be more the hurdle I’ve heard about (can’t recollect) than the actual speaking and comprehension part. I must say that a non-roman script (of any form) scares the bejesus out of me. Especially when the “letters” span into the thousands instead of the familiar 26!
Amy — Which species would you like to know more about? I’m perfectly happy to send you to some links I’ve found in my various internet browsings. Part of the problem with “transitional fossils” is that since there are so many billion species and so forth, it’s a bit overwhelming to just put together something “simple” to demonstrate. I believe (and Ron may know better than I) that the whale species is the most “complete” fossil transition since by luck their remains fossilized much more readily than other species. Not all animals fossilize well. It takes the right environment and set of conditions for it to happen and the species must have a massive enough population for there to be some that are subject to fossilization as well. Biological remains are very good at being “recycled” back into the earth! This is the same reason that mummification is so exceedingly difficult. Even bones, although hardier than soft tissue, will eventually decompose into dust!
May 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Whale species should read “whale family” or perhaps “whale genus.” As obviously there are more than one species of whale.
Sarah might know of some good links too, since apparently this was all freshly taught to her. I’m a bit rusty on a lot of biology. But ask me how to secure an Active Directory domain, I’m your man. 
May 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Amy:
Here are a few links about transitional fossils. All of these are from the TalkOrigins archive, which should always be your first stop when investigating the evolution/creationism disagreement.
This section titled “Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors” gives five different examples. (That section is part of a larger article titled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent”.)
You can also check section “CC200: Transitional fossils“, which explains fossilization and addresses the claim that there are no transitional fossils. It’s part of the larger “Index to Creationist Claims“, which is a mother lode of information about how the creationists are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the facts.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Parrot-Thanks for the info, don’t really have a specific species in mind. I’ll check out the links Ron is sending me to first. Might get back to you later.
Ron-Thanks for the links. I’ll check ‘em out. Appreciate your time and effort.
Sometimes when you “google” a subject, you get waaaaay too much info. and not really what you are looking for.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Parrot-As I understand it, “Active Directory Domain” automates software distribution, right?
JK!!
Wiki. (YES, I had to look it up!) said this was a “COMMON MISCONCEPTION”…I’m trying to be funny…
May 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Amy, I just read a post this morning about a brand new transitional fossil today called Gerobatrachus hottoni.
Very cool.
The problem with transitional fossils is that creationists always want evidence of every single transition. So, if there’s a fossil for the transition from a to c, they want the transition from a to b. Then that’s found, so they want a transition from a to a.5. And it keeps going in smaller and smaller increments. Sometimes, those fossils do end up existing, but sometimes they don’t (someone else explained the problem with fossilization and how unreliable it can be). Thankfully, evolutionary theory does not rely on fossils alone, so one missing fossil transition doesn’t destroy the whole theory. There are numerous other factors that combine to create the whole picture, and they fill in for each other and augment each other. Scientists aren’t just finding fossils and getting excited. They’re excited b/c the fossils they find are exactly what the other evidence has led them to predict.
Re: Japanese. I live in Japan now, and I’m starting to learn. It’s surprisingly easy. Of course the kanji is nasty, but the actual pronunciation and rules aren’t all that bad. I come from a background of learning Spanish from first grade on without ever becoming perfectly fluent, but I can get by ok in Japanese. At least I can make myself understood when I travel, even if I make prodigious use of sign language
May 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
sus really hit the nail on the head there. It’s the fact that when new fossils are found that they fit into what was predicted by evoluionary science which is what is truly exciting. Science is only as good as what it predicts.
I might have to try to pick up Japanese someday. I’d love to live in Japan for a year two. Maybe when I win the lottery.
Amy – Software distribution is actually one function (of very many) of a domain. Good job.
I’m glad this thread has morphed into something educational. It’s nice to see situations where it can be demonstrated that evolution is not scary and does not have to destroy religious beliefs. The Ben Steins of the world try to phrase it in that way, but it doesn’t have to be. You can believe that the hand of God sparked life and it evolved to what it is today based on a “plan” and that’s not incompatible with what we know. Those of us that are on the more atheist/agnostic side may disagree, but it’s just a Gentleman’s disagreement (we agree to disagree) and everybody is happy. And most importantly, the next generation of kids growing up learn the truth.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Parrot: Actually, the hiragana and katakana are simple as pie. (Switching back and forth between them is a bitch) but kanji…another story. The only good thing about Japanese though is that it is ALWAYS spelled the same way it sounds. If there is a pause in the word, it is written as a small ‘tsu’ and if there is an extended vowel, then it’s written in (Or as with katakana, it’s shown with a little dash) etc, etc. Kanji is difficult because there are around 60000 of them and most people only learn so many in their lifetime…but they are used so frequently that it still makes the language a challenge for anyone. The particles are also difficult because if you mess up and say ‘ni’ instead of ‘ga’ you end up saying something entirely different. I suggest you take a class and see for yourself if you like it. If you wanna get down hiragana and katakana, just a good set of flash cards will do. (Although you’d probably want to learn which stroke order each symbol goes in. Usually they go ‘left-right to top-bottom, but not always)
Amy: I only know a couple of phrases so far thanks to some of my friends who used to take it…but
I just hope it’s not that hard. I’m guessing by your comment that you took it in high school…got any pointers?
May 26th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Whoa…just found this site off of a Facebook group:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/public_schools_are_evil.htm
How much do you want to bet that this is the Duggar mentality on public schooling?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Sarah-I only took two years of French in high school. I can only remember a few phrases, words, count to twenty, etc. I took it for fun and because it looked good on a college application. French is the only language I attempted, so I can’t really say if it was a “difficult” one to learn or not, since I have nothing to campare it with. It is an “elegant” language and my silly reasons for taking it instead of Spanish was that I thought it sounded “pretty”. (Also, my best friend was going to take it and we would be in the same class…lofty reasons, I know)
It is definately a language you have to learn by listening and repeating. My teacher would say “ecouter et repeter” (listen and repeat) and we would spend the majority of class learning this way. Unfortunately, french words ARE NOT spelled the way they sound and the rules often inexplicably change. I WOULD NOT WORRY IF I WERE YOU. Language seems to be a passion of yours and I’m sure if you can handle JAPENESE!!!, French will be no problem at all. Also, being familiar with Spanish will help. There are similarities between Sp. and Fr. Sometimes I can piece together what someone is saying in Spanish because of what I learned in French class.
Anyway, I think you mentioned you were starting today. Good luck with it. I had a lot of fun learning French, the little I learned, I hope you do as well.
Sometimes I tell my husband, “Je vous aime mon petit chou” Which means, “I love you my little cabbage”. At Christmas, I show off by singing, “Frosty the Snowman”. That’s about all I have to show for my two years of study!
May 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Parrot-I am thankful that this has morphed into something educational as well. I really appreciate what I’ve learned and the understanding I’ve gained of others with different worldviews and beliefs other that my own.
I am a wife, mother of four, full-time teacher, and part-time custodian, I can’t really explain this new passion for the evolution vs. creation debate. My free time, as of late, has been spent researching. I have read a lot of agnostic, athiest, evolution (upward evolution from simplicity to complexity) authors, but since I was secure in what I believed, I never researched the whole debate.
It’s been interesting so far. I would like to agree with you about “the next generation growing up and learning the truth”, but I know this debate will go on. There as many sites that support creation as there are that support evolution. You may be in a cirlcle of peers that agree with the consences of modern scientists, but I am not. There are vast numbers of people who believe in God and believe He is the Creator.
One thing I read said it this way. “Both sides have the same evidence, the same facts. We have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars–the facts are all the same. The difference is how we interpret the facts. The reason we interpret facts differently is because we start with different presuppositions–things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. All reasoning is based on presuppositions.”
The fact is, neither model, creation or evolution, has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why I stated earlier that, in my opinion, both sides require “a leap of faith”.
I don’t think either side has to be scary, but I do think the evolution side needs to acknowledge that there is an opposing theory. This opposing theory is not held by crazy, brainwashed, zombies. There are also scientists (not just creation scientists) out there that deny evolutionary theory. (simplicity to complexity)
I read on TOA, the site that Ron sent me to, that “a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It is a well substantiated, well supported, well documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In Science, a theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.” Well, it seems to me that both sides can use this defintion of theory correctly.
Another defintion I found was for logic. “Logic is the science of the relations between propositions. Logic can tell us what can be inferred from a given proposition.” The difference is, we have different sources of those propositions. Creationists use the propositions made in the “Bible”, and evolutionists use the propositions made in the “Origin of Species”. (sorry for adding the “ist”)
Anyway, like I said, I would like to agree with your hope for truth in the next generation. Not to be contentious, but I think you are sorely mistaken if you think the tide will turn easily towards evolutionary theory. Though it has been widely accepted in public schools for many years, even written in textbooks, it still has a strong resistance. An example would be what Sarah has said. Though she goes to a “pretty progressive” school, she is the only outward athiest. Though God has been completely removed from public school, she is still experiencing believers.
I still believe that we can “agree to disagree” and civility should remain between both sides. Arguing and being hostile is pointless. Well, unless arguing and being hostile is something you enjoy
, but it does not promote education, understanding, or compassion. You have very strong feelings and opinions. I completely understand why and completely respect your conclusions. My conclusion is that there is a God and he is the Creator of all things.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 (the first verse in the Bible.)
May 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Well, I guess the honeymoon is over, because we are back in disagreement. Although from a philosophical standpoint, one’s “truth” is based on presuppositions, only one of the two arguments (creationism or evolution) can actually be expressed without presupposing that the laws of the universe that we now know have not changed. Creationism implies that a “supernatural entity” created and/or guided life. Scientific abiogenesis and evolution presuppose that the universe has been constant (well, with the exception of shortly after the big bang, but that’s billions of years before Earth and out of context with our discussion) and the laws we know are in work today were in work yesterday and a billion years ago. Based on that, only one “theory” fits into “reason.” Sure, one can believe that God did it all divinely 6000 years ago and put all the contradictory evidence out there to “test our faith.” Certainly that “fits” with what we observe. However, this presupposes facts NOT in evidence. Namely, that a guided hand created everything and is trying to fool us. There is zero evidence for this. Even you admitted it. It’s a “feeling,” if you will (I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth). Basically, a relationship/understanding with a feeling is what gave you that answer — not a line of verifiable facts. Certainly you are free to believe this. I question whether it is ethical to teach this to the younger generation.
Also, evolution has empirical evidence dating much further back than Darwin’s text. And to be frank: I’ve never read OoS. I have read modern articles/papers and biology textbooks that reference Darwin in a history perspective, but it is hardly my source for modern evolutionary knowledge. It’s important to realize that evolution is not dogmatic. It explains observations. It requires no “leap of faith” to believe it, because the logical “leap” (if you will) is essentially non-existent between observation and explanation. Similar to how Newton so cleverly came up with formulas for classical physics. No leap was required because it fit with empirical evidence (eg, the apple falling) and was able to predict.
Again you are free to believe what you want. But there is a very big difference between a scientific theory which is verifiable and the Bible which is dogmatic.
Dissent is encouraged in science. Dissent is heretical in religion.
My (again) two cents. I’m positive you disagree as passionately as I argue. And to that I concede back to the “agree to disagree” stance we were at not too long ago.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I need to make a correction. I said that the theory definition in my last post was from TOA. It is actually from the “Creationism Debunked” site. Also, just want to say that I’m still interested in looking at different sites and researching scientific finds. (ex. the frogamander…interesting and something to be considered)
May 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Parrot-Yes, you are correct. A “feeling” cannot be considered evidence. I was answering Sarah (I think it was Sarah) about why I believed. It was simply stated, but not because it’s so simple. I also mentioned that I’ve experienced the “power of prayer”, but did not go into it. That would require what we Fundies call “a testimony”.
There are stories of transformed lives and “miracles”. Again, something that can’t be explained scientifically, but not everything can….doesn’t mean it’s not real.
I was referring to the claimed “evidence” on creation/I.D. sites–the study of Genesis/floodology/etc. Not so much the “feely” thing. Also, only my (again) two cents.
I like what you have to say. You are a smart guy and I surely appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me. You make sense…I don’t deny that.
I liked your “honeymoon is over” statement. You crack me up.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Science can’t explain love. Love usually makes no sense at all, but it’s real.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The feeling of love is guided by a chemical known as PEA.I’m sure you might have heard of chocolate containing it.(in lower levels,I would presume).It produces a feeling of euphoria,among other things.Hence the “love is blind” phrase.It tends to make a person see whatever they want to in the other person,at the time,and ignore bad qualities.”Survival of the Species” sort of thing,IMO.(Not that it wasn’t created by God!)
It’s pretty powerful;it’s thought to be addictive to some,thus the person who goes from lover to lover,and leaves as soon as the passion wears off…is possibly addicted to PEA.
If you’re familiar with any of Dr Dobson’s (family author,I’m guessing you might be?) books,this is something he says as well.Having affairs can become an addictive problem for some people.Thus the other spouse needs to know how to respond,to stop the cycle,if he/she wants to stay married.
As an example of how powerful PEA is,I have a relative with bipolar disorder.When he had an affair,he literally went NUTS and had to be hospitalized because of it.What started it? PEA.(yes,that’s true!).
btw,thanks for answering the homeschooling questions,I’llhave to get back to you later on it,but in the meantime I wan to say I certainly respect your reasons for doing it;even so,I agree with Parrot when I say that I would never push to make it illegal.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
What about the belief that “life comes from life”. Any thoughts on that,anyone? Has life,even in a single cell,ever been artificially created in a laboratory?(without coming from a life-containing source itself,either dead or alive?).
May 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
S.-So what I feel for my husband and children is caused by a chemical…Hmmm… That really bums me out, S.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:01 am
sus-thanks for the post. It’s late so I have to make this short. I have to say that I agree with the “show me A,1,2,3,4…B thing”. It’s kind of a big debate and it would be helpful to have the undeniable proof that simple things evolved into complex beings.
The Smithsonian site said that they alone have over 40 million fossils. That’s just one collection. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that fossils are rare.
You know that classic illustration of the primate evolving into man…the gradual ascent picture? Even if fossils are hard to come by, you would think we would be able to find THOSE transitional fossils. We need fossils from the layers of rock strata that plainly show each transiton from one species to another. Primate fossils have been found. Human fossils have been found. Why not the undeniable in-between? It’s an awfully big leap (like A,B,C, to……Z) that scientists are asking people to make.
As far as the “frogamander”, I have not checked that out yet. However, variation within a “kind” is not unusual. It’s that proof we need that says it is upward evolution and superficial similarities alone do not imply genetic relationship. It could be a weird looking frog or a weird looking salamander. Not to throw cold water on the discovery, I’m just saying it’s possible.
This is only my conclusion/opinion based on the information I’ve gathered and I am not an expert. I agree that the fossil finds are exciting and certainly get one wondering, but they are not enough, so far, to verify simplicity to complexity evolution. (again, in my opinion)
(I know you were not implying that the “frogamander” was proof that primates evolved into man. You were simply saying it’s an exciting and intriguing discovery that may verify what has been predicted by scientists.)
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am
no,that’s not what I’m saying at all.I’m only saying the feeling of romantic love starts in part, by being fueled by PEA…and of course there are other things,like testosterone,that fuel sex drive,etc.Perhaps this is the Creator’s way of making sure things get off to a good start…
There are other hormones,like oxytocin,that help with breastfeeding and infant bonding.Remember the bible says that when women breastfeed,they shall feel ‘peace like a river’.That hormone has shown to do just that.It’s a relaxing,tranquil,peaceful-feeling promoting hormone.Again,the Creator’s way of making sure we bond with our babies,and to ensure things go smoothly?
Throw in estrogen and progesterone…estrogen,the motherly,maternal-feeling hormone,and progesterone,literally the pregnancy hormone,hence ‘pro-gestation’ ..it’s another relaxing,tranquil producing hormone made by the ovaries during the second half of the cycle,and during pregnancy,made by the placenta,when the pregnancy is far enough along.It’s also called the ‘nesting hormone’.Literally what makes us prepare for the new arrival.
But overall,by and large these are just ‘helpers’,God did give us brains to think with and use…I think I would have to agree with Joyce Meyer when she says ‘love is a decision’.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Amy,we are human,in the physical form right now…why would we not need chemical helper hormones to ensure survival? God made them and put them in place for a reason.
Would a man be interested in sex and able to perform without testosterone? (BTW,that goes for women,too,who also produce the hormone,although in a far lower amount).In that respect,it’s not just a thinking decision.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Lol I aim to please, Amy. You are definitely my favorite “fundie.” Absolutely the most open minded I’ve ever met, for sure. We may disagree frequently, but the arguments are fun and I think neither of us has resorted (at least not that I remember) to ad hominen attacks, which is ALWAYS a good thing.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:14 am
It really shouldn’t. Love is a fantastic and amazing experience, whether by chemical processes or as a gift from God (or, really, the former can be caused by the latter, so it’s not mutually exclusive).
Understanding “why” should not make anything less amazing. Less magical, perhaps, but certainly no less amazing.
Personally, I think love having evolved at all is absolutely amazing. And it is something we share across many species. Your dog (or Parrot!) looks so lovingly in your eyes because he/she does, indeed, love you! It’s a great thing.
We understand childbirth better than probably any other complex biochemical process. That doesn’t make it any less amazing to a new parent, does it? It shouldn’t…
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard childbirth called a miracle. And since I’m childfree, it annoys me, so I keep track.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Amy – it’s a matter of scale. There are currently 6 billion humans alive right now. There are literally hundreds of billions of animals alive right now (maybe thousands, I’m not sure). Going back a billion years, that’s a lot of animals!! 40 million is a drop in the bucket there. Also consider that certain species fossilize better than others, depending on scavengers in the area, bacteria, and so forth, that will consume the remains of the animal.
I understand that 40 million is an overwhelming number for one collection. Well, it is for this reason that we have as many transitional fossils that we do. But over billions of years, that’s not a whole lot!
May 28th, 2008 at 6:28 am
They HAVE! The problem is that for every transitional scientists find, creationists ask for two more (one on either side of the new transitional). That’s not always possible, but new ones are, indeed, found eventually.
Human transitional fossils…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
And some other transtionals on wikipedia (kind of a crappy list, but it’s something)…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
May 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Sus: Knew it was a chemical, but that is a pretty neat explaination for it.
Amy: Oy…first two classes were hell (I think I’ll go back to Japanese!) It’s like a guessing game with the pronunciation…other than that it’s easy (Pretty much Spanish format) but this is just nuts!
May 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
S. and Parrot- OK, between the two of you, I get what you were saying about the love chemical/hormone thing. I guess I believe God has a little more to do with it than just providing us the right hormones. I would use the word “supernatural” instead of “magic”. (Wow, you guys did kind of take the romance out of things, you know)
There is another kind of love. I Corinthians 13:3b-7 suggests:
“No matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I’m bankrupt without love. Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have.
Love doesn’t strut,
doesn’t have a swelled head,
doesn’t force itself on others,
isn’t always “me first”,
doesn’t fly off the handle,
doesn’t keep a score of the sins (suffered wrongs) of others,
doesn’t revel when others grovel,
takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
puts up with anything,
trusts God always,
always looks for the best,
never looks back, but keeps going to the end.”
The Message (Bible version)
This is a kind of love that goes against our natural inclinations. It requires us to set aside our own desires and instincts, so that we can give love, expecting nothing in return. It is a love that is directed outward instead of inward.
(Even if you don’t recognize the Bible as “truth”, I think you can still appreciate what these verses say…maybe not the “trust God” part. It’s a nice definition and idea, though.)
Whoa!…Not sure we should get into the S-E-X….(blush, giggle) conversation just yet. I mean…(gulp!) we barely know eachother!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
LOL Amy.
Love is still a choice and a decision,it’s just that hormones help guide that process along.No amount of PEA can make us fall in love with someone we don’t like or want to fall in love with,say,for example,a hardened criminal,child molester,murderer…etc.Or someone we’re not really attracted to,to begin with.It just causes a euphoric,passionate feeling when we do find the right person.
But the brain,body,and feelings and emotions are guided by hormones..the hormone leptin that causes hunger,and the hormone melatonin, that sets our sleep/wake cycle.Without those,were would we be..never hungry,never sleeping on any kind of set schedule…etc.
I remember seeing one new mother on tv,and she was diagnosed with post-partum depression.She said that she looks at her husband and new baby,and she knows she loves them..she just doesn’t feel anything.So in that respect,once her body chemistry is restored,those feelings will come back for her.I hope that makes sense.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Parrot-OK, OK, OK! I went to the links you posted. I can’t really understand what I’m looking at, to tell you the truth. I just WISH they were more clear, more complete, is all I’m saying. I understand (now) that those fossils are hard to come by. Please remember where I’m coming from and know it would to take a lot to make me concede. The links are interesting, I’m not an expert, and I’ll try to go back and study them more. This is a new point of view I’m experiencing, ya know…..so chill.
I know what you mean about parents and the whole “childbirth is a miracle” statements. All parents (even those who swear they never will) melt, gush, and get sappy over their babies. I have a pretty good story.
WARNING: My story starts out bad and is personal. I hope it doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable.
My mother was in the process of divorcing my father because he mentally and physically abused her. She was 20 and they had been married a little over 2 years. She had a restraining order against him, but one night he broke into their house, beat her, and raped her. This is the story of my conception. Many people, even her doctor, told her that she should have an abortion. Though it was a huge no-no to be a divorced, unmarried, single mother, (not to mention the constant reminder of the horrible thing that had happened to her) she chose to have me.
I’d like to say everything was rosy after that, but it wasn’t. Despite her honorable decision to keep me, depression plagued her. She was an alcoholic (not the “fun” kind) the entire time I lived at home. Later in her life, it was discovered that she was Bi-Polar. Once that was diagnosed, she recovered from her alcoholism. (We have a very good relationship now)
When I was in the sixth grade I started to suffer from a number of things. I would have the Flu, then Mono, then Chicken Pox, etc. I kept going to the doctor and he would treat whatever I had, but then I would just get sick again with the same thing or catch something new. At one point, he even discovered that my spleen was swollen. This went on from about February until the end of school. Summer was spent mostly in bed and going to the doctor. I had no energy, I had no color, and even my equilibrium was off. I kept thinking I was going to fall out of bed because it felt like it was tipping over. I’d even hold onto the edge. Weird.
Well, it’s obvious to see now that something was going on with my immune system. I was also anemic. It doesn’t really make sense that the doctor didn’t see this. He was a good, well educated, and respected doctor.
One day in August, I was scheduled for ANOTHER appointment with this doctor. By this time I was really sick. I hadn’t been out of bed for a few days. I couldn’t walk without falling over or feeling like I was going to pass out. My mom was talking to my grandma on the phone about how I was doing. (They talked everyday so this wasn’t unusual) My grandma had a feeling of “urgency” and said that she was going to get in her car and drive right over. (She lived in a town about 45 minutes away) When she arrived, they both strongly felt that same “urgency” and decided to take me to the emergency room. Though I was really sick, there was nothing different or out of the ordinary that would suggest a trip to the emergency room. (Especially since I had an appointment at 4pm and by the time we got to the emergency room, it was already 2pm…Why not just wait?)
They didn’t wait. They took me in and the doctor “on-call” was new. He had just arrived in town and was a cancer specialist from Idaho. He took one look at me, one look at my charts, and promptly ordered a bone marrow test. The next day, I woke up in the hospital and was told that I had Accute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. My first question was, “Am I going to die?”
The doctor who diagnosed me sent me immediately to his teacher and mentor at Doernbecher’s Children’s Hospital in Portland, OR. The Portland doctor had just returned from a sabbatacle in Germany where he was studying a new treatment for Accute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. I was the first patient he put on the new treatment. I was in remission 28 days later; However, I did have to endure almost 3 more years of treatment. It wasn’t mild and it threatened my life. I felt even worse once treatment started, but I eventually made it through and I’ve been Cancer free for almost 18 years.
Now about my “childbirth is a miracle” story. (I told you all of that so I could tell you this
) Since Leukemia and chemotherapy had ravaged my body from the age of 12 to 15, I was told that I would never have children. Even though I was young, this devastated me. I knew I would have to tell my husband-to-be that I may never be able to have children with him. (not to mention, my leukemia could relapse and I could die) This thought plagued me for years and I began to plan and think of a life without children…and possibly without a husband.
Well, you already know my husband and I have FOUR children…we found out we were expecting on our first wedding anniversary. So, all this to say, MY CHILDBIRTH STORIES ARE MIRACLES!! I shouldn’t be here, (twice over) let alone my four perfectly healthy children.
I should also mention this. Later, my doctor told me that at the time of the emergency room visit, I had about two weeks left to live. My heart skips a beat when I think about it. What if my grandmother and mother didn’t heed that sense of urgency? What if they didn’t drag me out of that bed and make me go? (I had protested because I didn’t feel good enough to get up and get dressed. I wanted them to cancel and make a new appointment for another day.) What if they had reasoned taking me in at 4pm instead of 2pm? It costs a lot more to go to the emergency room than to go to a scheduled appointment….BUT, I would have seen that same doctor, he would have given me another antibiotic, and he would have sent me home. Yikes!
Wow, I know this post is soooo long. Sorry. I hope you don’t mind reading MY WHOLE LIFE STORY!!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Amy – Yes, I’m familiar with that verse. It is a sweet poem, certainly. I do take exception to the “against our instincts” statement. I believe that type of selfless love is so prevelant in humanity (and other animals) that I find it hard to imagine it’s actually against our nature to be that way. Again with the parent-child analogy, which is quite odd for me since I really can’t stand children lol… But I have yet to meet a parent that wouldn’t do anything and everything for their offspring. And, it just so happens, that is also evolutionarily beneficial for our species, since our offspring are entirely defenseless for quite a few years after birth.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Amy – That’s a completely fair statement to make. A lot of what I write although directed toward you, is not necessarily meant to have you change your mind on anything, but is put out there to (1) expand your knowledge in the sense that you have the correct phrasing for the arguments being made (ie, no more “particle to people” Answers in Genesis phrasing of arguments) and (2) to provide a good counterargument from the humanist point of view for the “lurkers” reading the blog that really are on the fence about what they believe because I want to make sure they have all the knowledge available before deciding one way or the other.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:50 am
That was a very personal story, but I’m glad it had a happy ending. I could present non-supernatural hypotheses of why your grandmother and mother felt the “urgency” but I won’t because I’m sure you’ve heard it all before! That’s fine. You know, your story (the medical part) would be perfect for one of those medical mystery shows on TLC or Dicovery Health (love those).
I never take a single doctor’s opinion for gospel and in a case like yours, I would certainly have sought a second or third opinion. But that’s only because I’ve ALSO experienced first-hand how a single doctor can be so incredibly wrong (short story: inexperienced neurologist was in over her head treating my father’s Parkinson’s Disease and quality of life was AWFUL until we found a Parkinson’s specialist — now he’s doing pretty well). I don’t think your doctor nor my father’s neurologist were necessarily negligent or had any malicious intent, but people make mistakes. And sometimes they get in over their head without realizing it. I’m glad you found an oncologist that recognized your disease for what it was before it was too late.
I also had a friend with leukemia who became pregnant despite the same warning, so it’s apparently not 100% impossible. I’m sure they are mainly just preparing you for the “worst.” As for no husband because of lack of fertility… That’s practically an entry requirement for guys like me!
As for gushing over children… LOL. I don’t know why, but I was apparently born with zero paternal feelings toward human children. Now, put a parrot chick in front of me, watch out! The gushing will pour forth!
Not exactly a strong trait that I have from an evolutionary perspective, mind you. Which is why I am the end of my line. Nature is funny that way.
Incidentally, my wife is the same way and her family tree is VERY sparse, so this is a trait on her side of the family that’s lasted at least a few generations. She’s an only child and many child-free relatives. My theory is the ones on her side that had kids either did so as an accident or to appease their spouse. Not that they don’t love their kids, I’m just looking at it from a higher level of they would have been happy with or without children. Incidentally, my aunt also had no desire to have kids and one of my older brothers so far hasn’t felt the biological clock either. From anecdotal evidence, this seems to be possibly a genetic trait, but how would you test, considering that the subjects don’t want to reproduce? lol.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Parrot-You know, I had wondered where “Parrotlover77″ came from. Now I realize that you are being literal. You LOVE PARROTS! Wait a minute…You don’t have 77 parrots do you? If you do, TLC will have to do show on you! Ha!
I’ll have to get back to you later. The fam is going to watch a movie. (National Treasure 2….My 10 year old son says it’s going to be AWESOME….Hmmm….we’ll see.
)
May 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Amy: Any other films your son was wrong about?
May 30th, 2008 at 5:48 am
LOL no… not quite! I have 12 currently. Still a noisy household. 77 is my birth year. I’d just be “Parrotlover” as my handle, but some time back, on some other website, that was taken, so I became Parrotlover77.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Bob-Well, he’s 10…so, he did think it was AWESOME! He’s really into adventure movies. I introduced him to “The Goonies”, and to his credit, it is now his favorite movie…GOONIES IS AWESOME! (National Treasure 2…not so much
)
May 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Parrot-Glad to read the number 12 instead of 77. Not that someone can’t have 77 parrots…just thought we might have more to discuss than the evolution/creation debate. (like forming unhealthy attachments to feathered creatures!
)
No, I think that’s cool. I love birds. I don’t have a pet bird, (we have 3 cats, 2 dogs!) but I collect “bird things”. (stationary, pictures, figurines, etc.) In fact, if we ever have another baby girl we are going to name her “Birdy”.
Anyway, I’m rambling and what I just said about birds makes me sound really lame. My sister-in-law had a baby boy early this morning (12:52 am) and I have been up almost all night. (yawn) Better go.
I’ve been looking at the topic of “mutation” lately. Was going to ask you about it later. Not now, too sleepy.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Amy: May I also suggest naming your next children “Soda Pop” or “Pony Boy”.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Bob-I’ve recognized your desire for contention. I’m just not sure you picked the right person. I’m really not interested in the fight you are trying pick with me. If your goal is to hurt my feelings or make me feel stupid, then you accomplished it. I’m not embarrassed to say that. I know this is a site for “slinging crap” at others…but still. Though you are a complete stranger with differing ideas than mine, I really do wish you the best. I do have a basic human respect for you, but I’m just not going to respond to your ornery remarks. I know you could probably care less…I’m just saying.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:07 am
Parrot-I have just a minute to write. You mentioned getting a second opinion when I was sick. My illnesses were explained. I actually had Mono, Chicken Pox, etc. and I responded to the treatment for them. I eventually took a turn for the worse, but it all happened rather quickly. It all occured over a six month period. My parents were really concerned, but people just can’t imagine “Leukemia” happening to their family. They knew things were bad, but couldn’t imagine it being THAT bad.
Concerning mutation. I came across this statement the other day (admittingly on a creation site) that made me think. It said, “Genetic variation depends on the process of mutation, and mutations are rare events. Any particular new DNA mutation will occur only once in about 100 million gamets. Moreover, when a single mutation occurs on a single newborn, even if it is a favorable mutation, there is a fair probability that it will not be represented in the next generation because its single carrier may not, by chance, pass it on to new offspring. Practically no mutations are ever really favorable, and many millions of favorable mutations would be required to generate a new baramin or even a new genus.”
So, my thought is that if evolution depends on mutation and natural selection to produce a new species, let alone, a new phyla, then not even a billion years would suffice. What do you think?
June 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
excellent,Amy.
It explains why those 3-eyed fish who come about because of nuclear waste don’t turn future generations of their own into having 3 eyes.And wouldn’t 3 eyes,in the eyes of evolution,be a good thing in a fish?
June 1st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
S-Not quite sure what you are saying? I’m not talking about mutations brought on by nuclear waste, I’m talking about an increase in genetic information leading to a large “vertical” change. A change that would have to occur naturally, over time, such as the evolutionary theory suggests. (simplicity to complexity) Any change that has been observable, has been minor and “horizontal” in nature. (Within it’s own kind)
Even those 3-eyed fish are still fish.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Amy,sure,but,no matter *what brings on the mutation,I’m simply saying it doesn’t pass on to the next generation because it’s ‘beneficial’ to the offspring.God made fish to have 2 eyes,and 2 eyes they will continue to have,just as it’s normal for humans to have 5 fingers on each hand,and 5 toes on each foot,it is the way we are made.(in spite of ppl with polydactyl conditions;as we all know that’s not the norm).
June 1st, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Also,you have to think about what causes mutations,in any form..natural toxins certainly existed in the environment long before nuclear waste came about.But even so,the norm in any species as a whole continued to be the same,the way it was originally created.
I’ve often wondered if evolution is fact and is so wonderful,then why didn’t us moms end up with eyes in the back of our head???LOL.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Well, actually, mutation is not a rare event. I’m not sure where you got that information. Mutation is actually very common. Yes, most mutations don’t do anything beneficial or harmful, but I’m not sure about the 1 in 100 million gametes figure. What I read (link below) indicates an average of 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation (most mutations tend to occur in the sperm for humans).
The beneficial/harmful mutations are the ones that drive natural selection. They are the random noise generators that cause a species to become more or less “fit” with respect to their ability to survive in their environment. As for the neutral mutations, these drive other aspects of evolution, such as genetic drift (which is highly reliant on probability and not selection).
Some links…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297
http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~rwinning/genetics/mutat.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIDGeneticdrift.shtml
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Actually, I did a quick search and it turns out the genetic mutation rate IS, indeed, higher around Chernobyl (honestly, I wasn’t sure how the mutations caused by nuclear waste would affect population genetics). Interesting stuff!
Anyway, S, the mutations we are talking about are not influenced by radiation from nuclear waste. We are discussing the mutations that happen all the time just by, well, living. There are many causes. Usually it’s due to copying errors when cells divide (cell division is not perfect!), but sometimes it’s due to radiation from the sun knocking things around, free radicals in your system, or other biochemical processes. It happens all the time. It’s the reason we get cancer.
Finally, S, evolution is not a “species always get better” game. Species just change. That’s it. Natural selection describes how being better at something can sometimes help your population grow, but it definitely doesn’t garauntee it! Nor does it promise that something you personally would find useful (eyes in the back of your head) would ever come about simply because it is useful.
Besides, I thought moms DID have eyes in the back of their head? My mom always seemed to…
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
Amy – My reply to your question on mutation is stuck in moderation. I didn’t skip those questions.
I just included a lot of links, so that triggered BoF’s spam filter. 
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Parrot-I went to the links you sent me to concerning mutation. There was a lot to read, but what I gathered from them was the topic of mutation “rate”. Is that where you were directing me? One article will say 1 in a million gamets, one will say 175 mutations per diploid per generation. I guess it depends on where you get your information and who you trust, either way.
I still feel my point can be made. Mutations, whether considered common or rare, exist horizontally. My thought is that evolutionary theory DEPENDS on massive UPWARD mutations, even if it is only one link in the chain. (along with genetic drift, natural selection) These upward mutations have not been observed and fossil records, even in the Cambrian, do not show “simplicity to complexity” changes. One article I read on The Creation Institute site said, “Some gaps that should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolutionary scenario. But there are no transitional fossils, no hint of ancestors. These missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing.”
I’m going to have to end with that. My in-laws are coming over for dinner and will be here any minute. Sorry, my thoughts here are a little incomplete. I’ll get back to ya later.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
S.-I’m not ignoring you.
I’ll get back to you later when I have a moment.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Well, Amy, I will agree that yes those sources seem to be in conflict. The source I was quoting from was an analysis done fairly recently (I believe 2004), so I would be interested to know about your source and validity of the findings.
And just in case any lurkers don’t think we are talking apples and oranges, Amy’s source at a creationism site is saying that out of a million gametes (sperm or egg cells), only ONE mutation ocurrs in one cell in all of them. I’m asserting (based on a biology website) that, on average, 175 mutations occur per organism per generation (essentially 175 differences in the child genome that are not a part of the either parent genome). Now, Amy’s figure is talking about the sex cells before they combine into a new organism. Unfortuantely, my source does not necessarily indicate where the mutations occur, as it was more of a statistical analysis, not a process analysis.
I suppose it’s possible for the mutation rate to accelerate during the rapid development from a single fertilized egg into a viable embryo. I just don’t know that. It’s also possible that the one in a million figure is low or my figure is high. However, since science tends to back my position, well, we know where I stand.
I would agree that IF only one out of a million offspring, a mutation occurs, that would seem entirely too slow for evolutionary purposes. Indeed, it would be too slow even for “microevolution” which creationists do presume exists (otherwise we wouldn’t have been able to get all the wonderful breds of dogs and cats, etc.). How can so many different color variations, sizes, and other characteristics possibly come about if it takes a million tries to get even the smallest variation? So that figure seems very low to me. But that’s only presuming that if one in a million gametes contains a mutation, that there is no other mutagenic process between gamete and embryo stages of life.
Again, the article I quoted puts the rate of mutation at a MUCH higher figure per generation. Also, again, this is all an average. It is entirely possible for some organisms to produce offspring with little or no mutations and others with a lot of mutations.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Amy,no problem. I’m enjoying reading yours and Parrotlover’s thoughts.(I realize I got off track there).But keep going,both of you,we’re all learning something.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 am
Parrot-The article I referenced was titled, “The Microwave of Evolution”, by Henry Morris, Ph.D, but the particular reference I extracted from the article was a reference itself. It was from Richard Lewontin, The Triple Helix. (Cambridge Massachusettes: Harvard University Press, 2000) pg. 91.
I googled “Richard Lewontin” and noted that he is a highly regarded evolutionary biologist. Since “we know where you stand”
, I thought this would interest you.
Having said that, I take everything I read on the internet with a grain of salt. Even the talk.origins site says “that the essays and FAQ’s appearing in the archive have generally not undergone rigorous peer review procedures by scientific experts. Rather they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.orogins newsgroup.” Now, I’m fine with this and I understand. The site simply suggests not to rely too heavily on these “articles”. It’s best to find the primary source.
I would have to actually go buy the book to see if Lewontin was quoted correctly. I am “assuming” he was. Anyway, the rate doesn’t matter as much to me (not say it’s not important). The quote itself just made me think. I took a step back and looked at what would have to occur for one species to completely change into a genetically different species. This has not been observed and seems, to me, very unlikely.
I recognize horizontal change (microevolution) within a “kind” or “family”, but not verticle change (macroevolution) because it hasn’t been observed and because there seems to be no definitive fossil records that wholly support the idea. I know you say there is, but in my search, I have not found the “evidence”. Most sites I’ve been sent to simply list fossils by name, or show drawn illustrations. I WANT TO SEE THE PICTURES! The pictures I have seen are incomplete. Most of them are incompete skulls without jaws. I can’t seem to find “why” these half skulls are considered transitional “proof”. The sites simply state that they are. Now, I have seen pictures of whole fossilized skeletons before, just not whole transtional fossilized skeletons, so to say fossilized skeletons are “rare”, in my opinion, is inaccurate.
So, again, from what I have uncovered personally, “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical systems, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Quote taken from biochemist Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) pg. 205) Yes, no evidence of “simplicity to complexity” evolution. I can imagine this is going to frustrate you. I just don’t see the “evidence” you see. From what I’ve gathered, it takes “faith” to believe evolutionary theory as explanation for EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS!
“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:1-3)
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
S.-I think we have been in agreement, just misunderstanding eachother. I believe God is the Creator and that the reason fish have 2 eyes is because God made them that way. That’s what you were saying, right?
Ha! Would be nice to have those extra set of eyes! An extra set of hands would be great too!
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 am
Parrot-I’m suffering from insomnia
so I’m back. I was thinking of something you posted awhile ago. You mentioned that you believe the Bible is factually incorrect and implausible. Can you please give me specific examples of false and implausible scripture?
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 am
Parrot-Also, need to correct myself. I said I’ve seen “whole” fossilized skeletons. I should have said “more complete” fossilized skeletons than the half skulls. I can’t claim that every bone was accounted for in the pictures I’ve seen in books, on T.V., and on the internet.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 am
yes!
oh yea…that too!
Parrot,I thought survival of the species meant that if a mutation brings about a change that’s beneficial,then the mutations tend to stay. (?)
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 am
I don’t think anyone ever answered this question,so if someone could,then that would be great…has life ever been created artificially in a lab? I don’t mean from other forms of life,dead or alive.(We all know life comes from life…which is a basic fundamental flaw in evolution).I mean life coming from nothing that ever started out as living to begin with.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 am
Indeed, it does. I will certainly have to research this more myself as although our figures seem to contradict, they may, in fact, not contradict as yours was focusing only on an analysis of the gametes themselves and mine was focusing on the genome of the child when compared to parents. So there’s a bit of a time disconnect. I admit I do not know precisely where the rest of the mutations come from. I want to find that out, certainly. So our figures may not, in fact, disagree. I don’t know the process well enough to debate this yet. Maybe some biologist lurker can fill in the blanks for me.
Well, actually speciation has been observed and reproduced in a laboratory with controlled external pressures. One of the nice things about animals with incredibly short life spans (like the fruit fly) is that you can get hundreds of generations very quickly. So these experiments have been done. Additionally, modern cows, sheep, and chickens are incredibly different from their ancestors. In fact, many cannot breed with animals they were derived from (if the ancestral wild animal currently exists) which is pretty interesting. Also keep in mind we’ve done this only in the past few thousand years. When you take into account the amount of time requried to go from, say, a land dwelling creature to a whale, millions of years are involved. It’s not hard to imagine how these small changes add up over time. At least not for me.
The rest of your message. Well, I feel I’ve answered it all before and we’re going in circles.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 am
Factually incorrect parts of the bible…
Let’s start with the age of the universe. All evidence points to 10 billion or so years. The bible says like 6000. Big disconnect.
The bible says that all humans are decendants of two people. Were Adam and Eve’s offspring incestuous? One male and female of any animal cannot populate an entire species because there is not enough genetic diversity.
Regarding the flood: There is not enough water or water vapor or ice to cause all the land to be flooded. And again with the lack of genetic diversity… 2×2 and 5×5 is simply not enough to repopulate the planet. And what about the carnivorous creatures? Did they bring extra of certain species as food? What about the plants? Most cannot live in a flooded planet. How did water become fresh again so quickly? A flooded planet would be salty from the oceans. Wouldn’t the MASSIVE hurricanes from all that extra water vapor ravage the lands for centuries? Where did it drain so quickly? The specs of noah’s ship is also not large enough (nor strong enough) to hold that many animals.
Lord I could go on and on. But here’s a link instead.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:51 am
Okay, you are very close. The world is not black and white. It is many shades of grey. That is the first hurdle you have to jump when understanding the processes of evolution. There is a chance that a great adaptation will not survive simply because the animal never procreates. Here’s a great article by Ron that includes a wonderfully simple youtube video (at the bottom) that explain how natural selection works and a video (at the top) that exposes a logical fallacy of ID.
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/331/intelligent-design-creationism-duh
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
OK,thx;I think the bible says animals didn’t become carniverous until after the flood? someone correct me if I’m wrong.(btw,we would actually all be decendents of Noah,if indeed the bible is correct).OK, but I realize he was a decendent of Adam n Eve.
I admit I had to laugh when my dad told my kids that dinosaurs disappeared because of the flood. LOL.No way.Not even the same time frame.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Parrot-Wow! The site you sent me to was something else. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I have to say I thought you would know better than to believe everything you read on the interenet!
The site has an obvious bias. It is not an intelligent review of scripture. The site owner, whoever he/she is, says that he/she is not a Bible scholar a has no Bible training. He/she claims to have a B.S. in Botany and 50+ hours of graduate credit in Chemistry. Whoa! Guess we should all throw away our Bibles because this Botany major says its full of lies. The truth is, the site flatly misquotes the Bible, twists facts, and takes verses out of context. This is ONE example:
“God saw everything He had made, and, it was very good.” (no verse cited) Owner adds this comment, “God purposefully designed systems that ensure the suffering and death of all his creatures”.
Where did that come from? How is that an accurate translation? The “verse” he/she was using was from the Genesis 1:31 when God created the heavens and the earth. The site owner is talking about the suffering and death that was brought on by the fall of man, Genesis 3:17-23)
I can’t help myself. Here’s another one:
Site owner says, “God worries that people could build a tower high enough to reach him in heaven, and by so doing, they will become omnipotent”. He cites Genesis 11:4-6 as proof of this.
I’m going to back up a little so the verses are in context.
Gen. 9:1 says, “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.”
Gen. 11:4-6 says, “Then they said, “Come let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”
A commentary from a NIV translation Life Application Bible, says this about Gen. 11:4-6: “The tower fo Babel was most likely a ziggurat, a common structure on Babylonia time. Most often built as temples, ziggurats stood as high as 300 feet and were often just as wide; thus they were the focal point of the city. The people in this story built their tower as a monument to their own greatness, something for the whole world to see. The tower of Babel was a great human achievement, but it was a monument to the people themselves rather than to God. We may build monuments ourselves (expensive clothes, big house, fancy car, important job) to call attention to our achievements. These things are not wrong in themselves, but when we use them to give us identity and self worth, they take God’s place in our lives. We are free to develop in many areas, but we are not free to think we can replace God.” (this is spoken to a believer, everyone has the free will to accept or reject Christ’s salvation gift)
Also, remember the command given to Noah and his sons in Gen. 9:1. A Hebrew-Greek Key Word Bible commentary says, “Babel was a delibereate rejection of God’s instruction to “fill the earth”, a flagrant example of the corporate pride of man.
This is why God confused their language and scattered them across the earth.
The preface of any Bible will give you vast references for Bible translators and scholars. (Not just one site owner, with a B.S. in Botany) I would list them here, but that would make this my longest post yet.
You didn’t give me specific verses that YOU have a problem with (are you saying you agree with everything the SAB site owner claims?) and you are thinking of God as finite being. The God that I and vast numbers of other people believe in, is infinite. He is not bound by the “laws” of science. If He is the Creator of all things, He can flood the earth bring together the right number of people and animals to re-populate it.
It is interesting to me that to have a naturalist point of view you have to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciosness produces conciousness and non-reason produces reason, but you have a hard time believing an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God could fit all the animals needed into the ark.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I left out a few words and commas in my last post. I was typing quickly. Hope it still makes sense.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Amy,I’m so glad you mentioned fine tuning! I was just watching this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zidVyQe7NCo&feature=related
any explanation,anyone??
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Amy, are we looking at the same site???
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
You wrote: “‘God saw everything He had made, and, it was very good.’ (no verse cited) Owner adds this comment, ‘God purposefully designed systems that ensure the suffering and death of all his creatures’.”
I read under Genesis 1 on that site:
“1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
plus the author’s commentary:
“In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.” I couldn’t find your reference. Where was it?
Regarding the author, it is true that he has a BS in Botany. He also has 50+ graduate hours in Chemistry AND Mathematics plus 15 years as an industrial statistician. He also states that although he is not a Bible scholar, he has spent many years studying the Bible, and relies on and cites the work of scholars (I would assume he means bible scholars among others), updating the SAB (his website) with “the most recent and best information available”. Just because one is not a scholar in a particular subject does NOT mean one is not highly knowledgeable in it.
And this: “omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God” you believe because the bible tells you so?
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Bunkie-The category I went to on the SAB site was “science and history”. This is where I found the comments stated in my last post. I did forget to mention he was an Industrial Statistian for 15 years…not sure why THAT qualifies him as a Bible expert either. He doesn’t mention what kind of scholars he depends upon, so I chose not to assume. It doesn’t seem to me that he depends upon Bible scholars since I was able to pick up on some of his errors right away and I am no way a Bible scholar or theologian. I didn’t hang out there very long, I only skimmed through the “science and history” category and only through the first part of Genesis. Even so, I found several errors and blanket statements.
For example, the statement he makes about Gen. 1:31, in your post, is a blanket statement and is the site owners OPINION based on what he believes is evidence. There is no conclusive proof that the earth is 13.7 billion years old. Some say the earth is 7-10 billion years old, some say 14 billion plus, SOME say 6 thousand. Also, his response doesn’t even address why the earth couldn’t be created in 6 days.
This is his site, he can say and believe whatever he wants. It is MY OPINION that it should not be taken as an informed and factual review of the Bible. You may choose to accept the site as an accurate Bible reference, I do not.
You said, “Just because one is not a scholar in a particular subject does NOT mean one is not highly Knowlegeable in it.” Well, he may know a lot about what he believes to be true, but he lacks even a basic (from the comments I saw) Biblical knowledge that would give him credibility, IN MY OPINION.
If you REALLY want to know some reasons why I believe in God, you can scroll up and read my earlier posts.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Amy:
You are completely wrong on this. The universe (not the Earth) is approximately 13.7 billion years old. That is not opinion. It is established fact. No reputable scientists claim the Earth or the universe is 7-10 billion years old. I don’t know what crack you pulled that out of. Nor does any, and I mean any, reputable (let me repeat that—reputable) scientist claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Every single piece of geological data contradicts the 6000 year claim.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Bunkie:
You’re too late, by several decades. There’s a little rhyme that’s drummed into their heads at a young age:
All critical thought is extinguished right there.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
S.-I have seen this video. It’s a good one. In my opinion, the coincidences are simply TOO AMAZING to have been the result of happenstance.
If you like this video, you might like the allaboutscience.org site. They have this and many other interesting videos.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Ron-What exactly makes a scientist reputable? Who sets the standards?
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Reality. Facts. Things that can be directly measured and observed and not denied.
The problem we have is not a simple matter of disagreeing over interpretation of facts. That’s miles above where you’re at. You don’t even accept the facts.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Ron-I am not the only person in the world who believes in creation. Isn’t that a fact and reality? MANY people and scientists do not buy into the so called “facts” that you speak of. This is the only reason these scientists are not considered reputable. It has nothing to do with their educational qualifications.
I have read a lot of views and arguments by both sides. The creationists make valid scientific arguments. For example, the video link S. provided.
How can the age of the universe be measured, observed and not denied?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
This is the Argumentum ad populum fallacy (appeal to the majority). Was the Earth flat for millennia, only to pop into its current globular shape once we figured out that it was round?
Yes, it’s a fact and reality that people believe it. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.
As I said. You are rejecting reality. These are all things that can be measured. If you choose to call the day night, I can not help you.
They are not considered reputable, because they are unable to provide any evidence for their batshit ideas. Not one creation scientist has ever produced any hypothesis that has stood up to independent verification. That is how you know whether somebody is qualified. Would you go to a surgeon who lost every single one of his patients? Creation scientists have failed in everything they’ve done. Deny that fact!
No they do not. You do not have a science education. You are not qualified to make that statement. All you know is that something sounds plausible. Sounding plausible and actually being plausible aren’t even on the same planet.
I don’t have the time to debunk that, and you wouldn’t believe me if I did. Maybe somebody else has more patience.
If you had a science education, you’d know that. We’ve tried to give you one, but you reject all of our attempts. Anything that doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions of what must be you reject without thought.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
thx,Amy.
I recall reading that the atmosphere would be far too dense if earth were really more than a few thousand yrs old.
To the evolutionists..I was thinking about the rods and cones in our eyes…they are for seeing color.They were designed that way.
And earth is colorful,no doubt..so which came first,the color ..or the rods and cones?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Bunkie-Ron is now making a blanket statement about me. He says that the “Jesus Loves Me” hymn has brainwashed me and all Christians. Therefore, we have no capacity for critical thought.
This seems like a convenient excuse to simply disregard anything I may say. Why bother? She’s just one of those brainwashed zombies.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
*snickers*
Poor Amy. She seems to live by that Mythbusters adage: “I reject your reality and substitute my own!” Really, all the Fundies seem to live by this.
(BTW, not dissing Mythbusters. I love that show.;) )
Dunno if anyone else has seen this, or posted it, but I thought I’d toss the link here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/19/notes101905.DTL
A bit dated, but a hilarious article.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
It’s not a blanket statement. You’re the one who has amply demonstrated your incapacity for critical thought. I was just explaining the process that got you there.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Ron-What attempts have I rejected? I’ve gone to the sites you claim have all the answers. I don’t see the answers. I see lists of fossil names. I see statements, but no proof. I see speculation based on conjecture. I don’t reject your attempts; I reject what those sites state as absolute fact.
I guess if I had a science education I would easily be able to see that the entire universe is the result of an accidental explosion of nothing. The design and complexity of all living systems is the result of random chance. Everything is an accident, so there’s no reason to figure anything out. Everything is futile and purpose is an imaginary concept.
This is “reality” and these are the “facts”?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Ron-What process? Someone sang a song and I became hypnotized. Is that how it went? Wouldn’t you have “observe” this happening before you could state it as fact?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I reject a theory, therefore I prove that I have no capacity for critical thought.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
You’ve just proven everything I said about you.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Ron-Whatever you say. TOA has all the answers to life on earth and in the universe and all the reputable evidence to back it up.
Everyone should go there and find all the answers. Also, don’t forget to go to the SAB site. Life’s questions answered and Christianity debunked! Amen!
June 4th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Sorry Amy, I’m not a good person to come crying to about Ron’s statement. Those songs ARE drummed into little kids’ heads and they do brainwash, whether intended by their parents or not. The parents were probably brainwashed the same way as children. I was on the receiving end of that. But one doesn’t have to stay brainwashed. Everyone has be capacity for critical thought, if used. You have a capacity for critical thought so use it.
Ron’s remark wasn’t being used as a “convenient excuse” to disregard anything you say. Yes, it was a blanket statement but I didn’t see him say it was a blanket statement about you specifically. You said that. You took it as a personal statement about you.
People, including Ron, have been attempting to educate you, to help you to understand evolution etc. They (Ron and ParrotLover77 in particular) haven’t said “why bother?”. If they had, they wouldn’t have kept on trying to help. That’s the way they are but, even they will eventually run out of patience.
I suspect you really do not wish to find contradictory evidence to your beliefs. And that being so, you will turn a blind eye to that evidence and the science behind it and nothing will change for you. Too bad. Your loss.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:47 am
S: Sorry, but that comments of yours is hardly what I call educational.
Just because something is complex doesn’t make it designed, hon. As Parrot said (I think on this site but a different article) A feather that floats off a building has the chance of landing anywhere…but it all has the same probability of it landing in the space that it did and for it landing in any other space.
And the whole rods and cones argument…sorry, but color always has a reason. Actually every aspect of life does! If you look at every single natural thing in this world, there is a reason for it and it all links back to survival (Now you might find that vestigial organs still exist in many species like ourselves: appendixes for example, but they were all useful once…nothing happens just ‘because’)
Look at plants if you do not believe me. The reason they are green is because they use blue and red light to collect sunlight and the color that is not vair effective for this is reflected out onto their leafs (I.e. green)
Think of skin pigment, which is a defense against the sun’s UV rays.
Hell, let’s make it even more obvious: think of camouflage and color attraction used by flowers. The color is not there to be pretty (Well…for flowers it is, but that goes back to attracting pollinators, etc, etc) it has a reason, just like the eye (rods and cones included)
This all links back into evolution because it is more advantageous to have things like sight and color differentiation than it is to not have it (Although that depends on the environment itself, it’s pressures, and the mutations within a select population)
As for eyes themselves, many creatures have lived without eyesight or light itself even up to now. Why do they not get color?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEM.
A tubeworm living at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is going to find eyesight as useful as a toothbrush. Being seven miles down and having its entire colony feeding off nutrients spewing out of hydrothermal vents prevents it from having and needing sunlight. They have their food source; they can’t move (cause they don’t need to) and thrive.
(Coughs) As for the ‘If Earth was older, the atmosphere would be thicker’ I have never heard of this argument and I’ve met quite a few creationists…explain it to me and I will probably debunk it using some basic 10th grade science.
Amy: If creationism had really been proven, than evolution, abiogenesis, etc would have been tossed out decades ago. The reason we still have them is because they have been backed up by tons of evidence (Fossil records, mutations, speciation, DNA replication, basic geology, Endogenous Retroviruses, etc)
Now maybe if in the future (with the development of new technology, more funding, etc), we found out that all of this (Which is vair unlikely…this would be like overturning the theory of gravity and relativity even after all the evidence and facts we have compiled over the years) was in fact wrong…then scientists would STILL not turn to creationism for the answer. They would keep searching for the answers (That is the whole goal of science: improve) but unless that fact that disproved evolution and abiogenesis happened to strongly support creationism…the idea would still be rejected.
There is no scientific proof for it.
I have read a lot of so-called articles proving a young Earth (Even had a kid say that he made a fossil on dA and that he got a scientist at a museum to check it for him…even though said man’s field was not geology or paleontology whatsoever…) and yet…strangely those finds have never broken through.
It isn’t the media…I assure you that if a fact was found, all the creationist celebs like Pat whatshisface would be jumping up and down and drooling at the cameras at it.
They never disproved (or proved) anything. They almost never even know the basics of the field that they claim to specialize in.
If any real proof was found, it would be blasted everywhere and EVERYONE would know and want to know that evolution was wrong and creationism was right. But no…the only people who even bother with those kinds of articles are people already biased towards that particular view…or people like me who are the opposite and were directed there by a smart-ass who thought that he could actually prove a point with a single article. (Which never saw peer-review, never did a follow-up study, never held the attention of any other scientists other than the creationists, and is never backed by previously held knowledge, never sites sources, and overall cannot be upheld by the scientific method)
This is like a college student who wrote an incredibly shoddy thesis trying to build it up with randomly plucked words from his desktop thesaurus so that it looks good.
To those who don’t know shit about writing (or reading if they cannot spot it for themselves) this makes the writer look like they are intelligent…that they are smart and know what they are talking about…after all they use big words!
But the writing behind those words is crap and the words themselves look so out of place that it shocks anyone who does know right out of the paper because they KNOW that it’s crap…and everyone else is buying it.
A more illustrated example would be like comparing this book. (Read the snippet…it will make your eyeballs bleed out of your sockets) and something more refined like…hmmm LoTRs perhaps?
Unfortunately for me (Grammar-Nazi), the articles like the thesis, are usually horrible typed as well…the Internet, while being a wonderful tool, allows people to get away with chat-speak, bad punctuation, and misspellings (At least they had to try with the type-writer ;P)
I’ll tell you one thing, scientists always edit their papers because no one wants to have hundreds of others find easily missed mistakes in an article that could potentially revolutionize the entire field. It’s sloppy and it doesn’t make for a good first impression (And every time you introduce a theory, no matter how many other theories you’d created and proven, you get a first impression for each and every one…your reputation is always on the line. However, most consider it a good risk to take in the name of science)
(Sighs) Ok…sorry if I seemed a bit grumpy in this, but I was kinda surprised by both of your replies to Parrot and Ron after all the articles and countless sites that linked you to real studies.
That and I just spent the last two hours plunging a toilet…
June 4th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Bunkie-I wasn’t at all crying to you. I was giving you another example of a blanket statement. I understand evolutionary theory and I understand that they were trying to “educate” me. I just SIMPLY don’t agree with them.
This is a quote from a rebuttle on the TOA site. “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrationg evolution to be more that an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific bias.” T. Wallace
Too bad? My loss? There is “nothing” to lose. We live and then we die, right?
June 4th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Which one? There are thousands of translations. He was using a different one you were. And what relevance does a skeptic’s profession in botany have to do with anything? I’m a network engineer and I argue out of my field every day. lol. So do you!!!!!
June 4th, 2008 at 6:19 am
You know, Amy, I really do like you because you certainly come up with more creative arguments than most fundies. But I have already explained my beliefs in fairly good detail and I never said most of what you said above. About the only thing I believe is that out of non-life (so-called biological building blocks) came life. How? I don’t yet know and, quite frankly, don’t really care that much. I read about new scientific discoveries in various fields every day (hobby of mine) and I can’t imagine that someday we will NOT know how it was done.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:31 am
No. The magentic field surrounding the earth due to the earth’s core deflects much of the solar wind (and is also the reason for the northern/southern lights) which prevents the atmosphere from disappearing within that time frame. Mars, on the other hand, has a very weak magentic field and, as a result, has lost most of its atmosphere.
That’s a really strange argument. I haven’t heard that one before. It may surprise you to find out that our perception of color is infinitesimal compared to the full electromagnetic spectrum. Some animals can see well into the infrared and other well into the ultraviolet. So, “color” (as in, what an animal can see and perceive as color) is very subjective based on species. Some animals see no color.
As for rods and cones, they differ in that one (rods) senses a broad spectrum of EM waves and reports light intensity back to the brain, producing what we perceive as a “gray-scale” image. And the other (cones), are fine tuned to a specific wave-length (red, green, or blue) and report the light intensity of only that smaller wavelength to the brain. A mixture of red, green, and blue produces all the other colors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
So, to answer your actual question: color came first. EM waves have been radiating through the interstellar medium since shortly after the big bang. Human “visible” light since at least the first star existed.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:33 am
And therein lies the problem. Mountains of evidence to the contrary cannot change how you interpret the world, but one mistranslated book can. There is no further way we can argue this.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Amy you are straw-manning. That is not what any of our arguments are.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Rather than repeating my arguments ad naseum, I’ll take the simpler approach of what esdlib and Amy are doing and just say…
I GET THE LAST WORD!!!111oneoneone!!!
I’m spent. I’ll argue something new and answer new questions, but I’m tired of repeating myself on this thread. Time to go onto my guest column at BoF and talk about godless heathen space aliens!
June 4th, 2008 at 7:15 am
edilsb:
You have a preconceived notion of my background. I have examined creationist claims in detail. I have given them every fair chance. In no case has a creationist ever produced anything, whether argument or data, that stood up to any thorough examination.
No there isn’t. I’ve seen all the arguments. I’ve seen all of the major websites. There is no opposing scientific data, just opposing creative writing.
Creationists have had 150 years to disprove evolution. They’ve come up with nothing. They’ve had even longer than that to prove a young Earth. They’ve come up with nothing.
It has nothing to do with me. The people who count are the ones who put scientific ideas to the test every single day. The ideas that work are kept. The ideas that don’t are discarded. Your creationism doesn’t work. It was discarded long ago.
Since when is demanding evidence for a claim “brainwashed”? Every established scientific theory has solid data behind it. I guess you mean my brain is clean. Yours is the one that needs washing. It’s filled with too much creationist garbage.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Amy:
The only reason there’s a monopoly of scientific knowledge is because the creationists are unwilling to learn any. It’s available everywhere. I can’t help it if you stick your head in the sand.
Who ever said that evolution was “ever changing”? The basics of evolution were nailed down 150 years ago. It has been fleshed out greatly since then. All theories undergo refinement. Nothing in evolutionary theory has been picked up and moved across town to a nicer apartment, like you seem to suggest. Until you understand the scientific process, you’ll never understand the conclusions. Give up on reading about evolution. Go back to remedial school and learn how science is done. Only when you complete that can we possibly have a conversation with you.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am
To quote ParrotLover:
And that’s what has become of this thread. It has long since deviated from discussing the article it’s attached to. It’s no longer even providing a source of information to people who would like to learn more about evolution. It’s just a place for creationists to whine about their beliefs not being supported by evidence. The thread is now closed.