But say I didn’t WANT to believe the words written in a book thousands of years ago? THEN how would you go about proving that there is a God and that it is ‘He’? That is the question I was trying to get at: you have no proof outside of a book that was written by MEN!

And why would I become more convinced of the existence of this higher power when I am surrounded by thoroughly explained theories? (To restate Ron’s reply) You claim that there is proof, but you are not saying anything really. Looking at the world around me isn’t solid evidence; it’s called Inductive reasoning, which isn’t precise.

If you actually give me a completely solid theory that explains this, then I would humbly admit my mistake; until then, I will not buy into your frail arguments.

Prophets, eh? I’ve never been much of a believer in those, but I do not doubt that there is possiblity for the strange and intriguing…as for God’s predictions: how do you know that they are from an actual God? People wrote the bible, not God and how do you know that these men long since dead were not simply altering ‘God’s Message?’ You don’t know that and there is no way you can possibly prove it unless you were there yourself. You can believe it, I have no qualms with that…but facts are not based on Faith alone.

I am not yelling at you or calling you anything. I am not attacking you personally or your beliefs, just your lack of evidence and the way all religion forces itself into the minds of people who do not want it.

To repeat my earlier message: our scientists don’t go to your churches and preach about evolution so can you please keep your priests and creationism out of our classrooms?

PS Ron: You are indeed quite a skilled debater. Your Nostradamus example is very clever.

In the Hebrew Bible (and in translations to languages with a she/he dichotomy) God is referred to as “he”. God might be a ‘He’ in the Bible but non-Hebrew-literate individuals do not always know that in Hebrew language, grammatical gender is NOT an indicator of actual gender. Hebrew nouns have grammatical gender. Each object is masculine or feminine. There are no gender-neutral pronouns in Hebrew, i.e. there is no equivalent of the English “it”. Everything is a “he” or a “she”.

The spirit of God Ruach Elohim (Genesis 1:2) is a feminine noun. So is the Shekhinah — the Presence of God. Does that mean the Spirit of God and the Presence of God are female?

Take for example the word “animal” — hayyah in Hebrew. Hayyah is a feminine noun. Therefore, by the rules of Hebrew grammar, whenever people speak of a hayyah, they have to refer to it as “she”. This does not indicate that the animal in question is actually female.

Since the titles for God in the Hebrew Bible (Elohim, El, Adonai) are masculine nouns, God is called “he”. A book sefer is a masculine noun too. So a book is also called “he”. God is no more male than a book is male.

In Chinese, a language with gender-neutral pronouns, a special genderless pronoun is used in reference to Divinity (roughly equivalent to IT). When translating the Bible into Chinese, using “he” to reference God was out of the question because the Chinese character for “he” contained the character “human”. (Chinese characters are picture-words which may consist of other Chinese characters.) To bring God to the level of man was blasphemous.

Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

Too often, humans have projected their own image of oppressive manhood onto God. People in power (usually men) assume that God must think, act and feel the way they do, and less powerful minorities often respond by rejecting God when what they really have issue with is not God but the majority-sanctioned ideas of God. Insisting that God’s personality and preferences mirrors that of humans (or at least the men of more privileged classes), is at best, making the mistake that Luther believed Erasmus was making at the time he told Erasmus, “Your God is too human”, or worse, committing idolatry by casting God in man’s image.

As far as Nastradamus is concerned; he was proven to be a hoax long ago. Actually, he took some prophecies from the Bible and claimed they were from him.

We give the pronoun “He” to God because he is our Father, Jesus himself prayed to the Father and through Jesus we have access to the Father; hence, he also is given the masculine pronoun. Also, throughout the Bible the writers place the pronouns that refer to God in the masculine tense.

Actually, they don’t. The original Hebrew texts are ambiguous about God’s gender. Using “he” to refer to God is an invention of the English translators.

No, society does not govern our morals. Society has been influenced by a higher power in deciphering what is right and what is wrong; therefore we are alternatively being governed by a much greater being.

You need to support this claim. If you look at the development of societies throughout history, you will see that they pulled their moral codes from a variety of sources. There is no fountain stuck in the ground somewhere that spews forth moral wisdom from which every society on Earth has formed its laws.

Take a look at Genesis 3:21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” So you see, God ordained that the human should be clothed.

All that proves is that an ancient book of dubious provenance makes that claim. It doesn’t prove the claim.

There are many evidences that God exists.

This ought to be good.

First of all, look at the world around you, really look-the more you study science the more you will become convinced that there MUST be intelligent design.

The more people study science, the more they become convinced that there isn’t intelligent design.

If you can’t see this as enough evidence, then I’m afraid you won’t hear what I have to say next.

You just said “there are many evidences”, but you didn’t provide even one! The “look around” argument is just a touchy-feely excuse for a lack of critical thinking skills.

I would strongly suggest studying Bible prophecy.

I would strongly suggest not studying Bible prophecy.

This subject is not something many like to hear about because the fact is, IT IS PROOF that God exists.

No. It is merely proof that somebody can go into the Bible after the fact and data mine for sentences that they like and twist and conform the “evidence” into whatever shape they want.

Most people who believe in Bible prophecy do not believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus, but they are effectively identical. In both cases, supporters take ambiguous statements and pair them with ambiguous historical events and say it’s a match.

If you disbelieve Nostradamus, you must disbelieve Bible prophecy for the exact same reason!

Yes, I am a Christian, and you can yell as many names at me as you want, but I stand for truth and I stand for Creation.

The only “name” that applies to Christians is “deluded”.

We give the pronoun “He” to God because he is our Father, Jesus himself prayed to the Father and through Jesus we have access to the Father; hence, he also is given the masculine pronoun. Also, throughout the Bible the writers place the pronouns that refer to God in the masculine tense.

No, society does not govern our morals. Society has been influenced by a higher power in deciphering what is right and what is wrong; therefore we are alternatively being governed by a much greater being. Please see that you are not searching deep enough.

Take a look at Genesis 3:21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” So you see, God ordained that the human should be clothed.

There are many evidences that God exists. First of all, look at the world around you, really look-the more you study science the more you will become convinced that there MUST be intelligent design. If you can’t see this as enough evidence, then I’m afraid you won’t hear what I have to say next.

One thing that bewilders the human mind is the ability to foretell the future. God has that ability. I would strongly suggest studying Bible prophecy. This subject is not something many like to hear about because the fact is, IT IS PROOF that God exists. One prophecy, among the many, that I find very astounding is that of the nation of Israel returning to the land. Did you know that there has never been an ancient civilization that diminished and then returned again? Even more amazing is that they are returning to there original language, all of which was foretold by the Creator. That is just one of the many prophecies that God has revealed to man. Other countries that have done exactly as God said they would in the last fifty years are Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Lebanon, and many others. If you are afraid of being proven wrong, I wouldn’t suggest learning about these prophecies.

Sadly, there is a prophecy that I see being accomplished as I read each of these articles. It was told in Second Timothy 3:1-4. If you dare to read this passage, and then if you would read the ideas that the people of this country have fallen into (by the quotes above), you will (if you aren’t caught in the trap yourself) have to break your stubborn heart and bow down to the Lord who created you.

Yes, I am a Christian, and you can yell as many names at me as you want, but I stand for truth and I stand for Creation.

To Rissa

You claim you have proof of God’s existence (Of course, you never actually show this ‘evidence’ and instead beat around the bush by quoting and making cute analogies that really don’t prove any of your above statements)

…So I have a question for you.

What kind of evidence do you have to prove that this higher power is ‘male’?

You constantly refer to God as ‘He’ so I wish to know where your evidence for that particular gender lies?

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to tell you that it’s not ok to believe in what you wish.

Personally have been raised openly, granted the option of believeing whatever I wish to take faith in…however most of my family is Hebrew (More specifically, Orthodox) and do believe that there might be something out there…

But just because I personally choose to believe in that things existence doesn’t give me the right to force my ideals on school curriculm, slap a fancy label on it, and call it ‘educational material’.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, but putting it out in the public schools (or on the internet for that matter) and telling people that there is no other truth and that they should just accept it, that’s being closed-minded and altogether selfish.

Believe what you want, but unless there is REAL evidence to back up your claims you cannot state your religious beliefs as fact.
-Sarah

PS: Ron makes a fair point in his argument against yours. Society is what governs our morals, not a higher power. EX: ‘God’ did not tell people to wear clothing. We decided as a race that covering our privates was the way to go.

But the 10 commandments do have a say in what society does find as acceptable…unfortunately, they don’t entirely lay claim to it.

[T]wenty-first century school officials unfairly regulate the teaching ofevolution to the classroom as science and the teaching of creation to the church as religion.

That’s how I read it, anyway. I’d never seen the word “relegate” used in the manner you suggest, so I had to look it up and it does have the meaning of “sort into categories”, but it seemed almost archaic. ‘Course, I was home-schooled too, so maybe that’s it. Still, leaving out the implied “the teaching of” is not grammatically incorrect; regardless of whether a governmental body can realistically restrict natural selection to a classroom, the grammar makes sense. Furthermore, I don’t think defining “evolution” as a curriculum is remotely a stretch; if I said “I’ve taken mathematics” would you bicker that I left out “at least one course in”? Also, regardless of which verb you use, either evolution is a course of instruction or it’s the actual process; the government can neither regulate nor relegate the process (well, I suppose sex-ed does exactly that but I digress).

Leaving us with: can you regulate a course of instruction to someplace? I don’t think so—”relegate” makes more sense, though probably not in keeping with the original intent; if my understanding of her intent is correct I’d therefore say the sentence was poorly written.

Having spent probably too much space on that pedantry, I’ll move on to: “If you see a painting, you assume there was a painter don’t you?”

Well, no. If I see a painting, I look for specific evidence of a painter. Some paintings, such as Jesus/Mary/Elvis/Your Mom in a tree/oil stain/pastry/tasty sandwich are completely natural and do not have painters. Those paintings also tend to be of marginal quality, at best. Other paintings, such as the Mona Lisa, tend to be of much higher quality, suggesting an intelligent painter with intent.

However, without having watched a real person paint such a painting–not once, but many times—I wouldn’t be able to assume anything, and might believe that only gods can make paintings that realistic. However, I’ve never seen a god make a painting either, so that’s just as invalid of an assumption. If I were honest I’d have to say “I don’t know who made it, but it’s pretty.”

Likewise, I’ve not once seen a god make a person, so I don’t have any precedence to assume the gods did it, but I’ve seen many people created by natural causes. So when I see a person I assume they probably came from natural causes. On the subject of initial creation (not evolution, but the origin of life), it’s true that I’ve never seen even one life form arise spontaneously of natural causes, but it’s equally true that I’ve never seen a life form being created by a god. Furthermore, there’s a great deal of evidence that life *could* spontaneously arise of natural causes, so I will lean towards that thinking rather than assume some magical being poofed the original RNA or whatever into existence. As such, my honest statement is “I don’t know for sure, but life probably came from the chemical soup of ancient Earth”.

Next up: “I could prove God statistically! Take the human body alone. The chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity!”

The problem is that they did “just happen”. Doesn’t matter if some god did it, or more normal physics. You see, if there is a god who is capable of zapping such an elegant, complex thing into existance, he/she/it must be vastly more complex still. Christian doctrine states that their god just happened, which is statistically far less likely. Even if the gods evolved from some lesser form, it’s still something from nothing. So pick your poison, we do exist by mere “chance”.

Thanks for your comment. Your English is very good.

Most mainline churches have no conflict with evolution, because they moved beyond Biblical literalism decades ago. For some bizarre reason, here in the U.S., membership in mainline churches is dropping and is more than compensated for by rising membership of the anti-intellectual, right-wing extremist churches that preach Biblical literalism and end-times theology.

I don’t understand it. I’ve been trying to figure it out for a long time. I think part of it has to do with our Puritan roots. Many of the early settlers of this continent were booted out of Europe for being too extreme.

I think another reason is the poor educational system here. You can get a good education here. You can also get an extremely poor education here. It’s partly the luck up where you live and partly how determined you are to get educated despite the obstacles.

Since many of our people are poorly educated, they are more susceptible to the crazy teachings of the extremist churches. The churches get bigger and stronger and pressure the schools to dumb down the curriculum. It’s a positive-feedback loop.

Those of us who fight to keep evolution in the schools are doing so because we know what will happen to our country if we don’t.

The parents who demand that the schools teach creationism are actually making their children stupider. What parent wants that? Yet that’s exactly what they are doing. And in the process, they are making the entire nation stupider.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic family, attended religion classes at school and I have a rather strong scientific education. Within this context, there never were any conflict between the two. The priests who taught me religion when I was a teenager back in the seventies always said that you could not read the bible literally, that the universe was not really created in seven days and so on.

The French Roman Catholic Church is strongly against death punishment. So far as I understand them, so are the Reformist churches here. They (and we) believe that it is morally inacceptable. Quoting the bible to support it doesn’t work as we consider the bible as mostly allegorical. Otherwise, you would quote the bible supporting rape (easy to find), and would claim rape is moral.

There is overwhelming evidence that evolution did (and does) occur. The Christian Churches here do agree. Evolution (or science in general) neither proves nor disproves God, they are simply orthogonal.

This all sorry rage about creationism and evolution going on in the USA leaves us floored, and sad. This is simply totally unbelievable from here. It seems to me a lot of evolving needs to occur in your country, specifically among the likes of Rissa.

Please do excuse the flaws in my English, I hope they leave my testimony understandable.

Jean-Denis

Your argument from design for god à la Ray Comfort doesn’t really apply for life requiring a designer. A painting does not reproduce; it does not mutate; it is not subject to natural selection; the parts from which the painting is made (canvas, paint) do not have natural affinities for each other like the components of cells do; and I could go on. Life has all of these properties.

Your quote alluding to irreducible complexity has also been debunked. Creationists like to cite that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex: that if it were missing any one of the fourteen or so proteins that make it up, then it would not be a functioning flagellum. This is true, no scientist will argue that; however, we can see that removing proteins will leave a functioning structure that can fulfill other duties.

Your quote about the statistical probability of the human body having formed logically flawed. It is like dealing out a game of bridge and then noting how the cards are distributed and remarking “my, how improbable this outcome is!” Sure, there are many different ways that life could have evolved or have been created, so to pick one specific example and talk about the probability of that happening is missing the point.

As for why we don’t have a continuous fossil record of all intermediate forms that have evolved there are two reasons for this. First, the chances of an organism becoming fossilized after death is small, that’s why you don’t find a bunch of fossils every time you dig somewhere. Second, some evolutionary changes occur so quickly that there are few, relatively speaking, organisms that would qualify as intermediates, so there is a high chance for none of them to become fossils.

On to the topic of “macro-evolution,” this is really just another way of saying accumulated “micro-evolution.” There really is no difference; scientists don’t make a distinction. All that “macro-evolution” is is when the species has done enough small modifications, or “micro-evolution,” that it is no longer able or willing to reproduce with its ancestors, if there are examples similar to its ancestors still around. We have actually seen examples of speciation. For example, there is a fly that lives above ground and a segment of the population moved underground to the subways, and now the two populations can no longer interbreed.

It has been my observation that people who don’t accept evolution don’t actually have a clear understanding of evolution. If you are wanting to get a better understanding of the specifics of the mechanisms of evolution, take a look at the youtube videos from this user: http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 I recommend the videos titled ‘Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker’, ‘The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity’, ‘Why Creationists are WRONG about MacroEvolution’, and ‘The Evolution of the Flagellum’. The videos use computer simulation to explain certain aspects of evolution through randomly introduced mutations and natural selection.

Then replies:

“You are in error. She clearly means “regulate”,

Here, again, is the sentence: “[T]wenty-first century school officials unfairly regulate evolution to the classroom as science and creation to the church as religion.”

All I can say is – either way she’s wrong. Either she meant “relegate”, in which case this sentence would have been coherent, or she meant what she said, and it was not. You can’t “regulate evolution to the classroom”. You can set regulations that evolution will be taught in the classroom. You can regulate the curriculum to include evolution. You can’t regulate evolution. You CAN relegate it.

Unless you think she means to “regulate evolution to the classroom”, i.e. Natural Selection, from this day forward, can only take place in the classroom! I know I tried to contribute to evolution there! Failed that one.