Although Ptolemy thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, he also concluded that the Earth should be treated as a mathematical point in the Universe. Now, since a mathematical point is infinitely smaller than a “pale blue dot,” do we conclude that Ptolemy must have been humbler and wiser than modern astronomers? Well, maybe I’m being nasty and objective, when I should be misty-eyed and subjective. I might be a candidate for sensitivity training.

Unlike Pale-Blue-Dot astronomers, I don’t try to feel-the-pain of the robbed (nor do I try to feel-the-pleasure of the robbers). To pretend to know the pain of others is to belittle the pain of others.

From a comfortable armchair or a speaker’s podium, all human trials (pains, pleasures, joys, loves, etc.) can only be reduced to a “pale blue dot” by exceptional pride – not insightful thinking. Trying to synthesize people with their planet is called Pantheism – not Astronomy.

Best Regards,

Frank Hatch

The people involved with this post are merely saying that they prefer to “SEE” the evidence rather then “BELEIVE” in the absence of evidence. Your arguement is simply “I believe and that is my proof.” Creationist’s place their belief in God based on a book written by God and given to man . A book that says there is a God. Isn’t that convenient. Well, I guess your entitled to that opinion as we are entitled to ours.

Also, If God is the creator, does that mean you believe in aliens?

Wouldn’t that make a great bumpersticker!

Marpet

Mr. Murphy: please read M. Scott Peck’s book “Further Along the Road Less Traveled” where he discusses Stages of Spiritual Growth. He was a christian, btw.

this is an abridged summary (not well-written, but has the general ideas): http://www.factnet.org/Stages_Of_Spiritual_Growth.html

good day

In some way, this is how many religious people justify their belief system. Attempting to approach such from a matter of intelligent thought is meaningless, since no intelligent thought is involved. It is simply a matter of, “I like this idea [some deity and its plans, or whatever], so it must be true.” Introducing any possible fallacy about the idea automatically breeds resentment.

But then again, there’s a certain amount of fun in asking very simple questions and watching the person so questioned start to wail and fling holy water. Just don’t expect much else.

Anyone who has a nice little scam for taking money from fatuous religious folk is likely salivating like Pavlov’s dogs by now, though…

Now, evolution is science. So, when you call something of science “garbage”, with only your faith as your evidence, then of course people are going to be critical.

I can’t believe such nonsense comments No further comments from me. Make of it what you will. Its hopeless. No understanding. An unfriendly audience.

Is that all you want, to say what you think is right and not have anyone find flaws in your arguments? How will you ever grow and become stronger if you’re never subjected to controversy?

I suppose this comment will also be misconstrued, misunderstood and tortured beyond belief. A devastating experience!

There’s more proof that Jack planted some beans, watched them grow & then climbed up his beanstalk to meet god – I mean a giant, than that resurrection nonsense.

As it been said before; go & preach your fundamentalist mumbo jumbo bollox somewhere else & leave the rest of us to just enjoy amazing things like the above video.

Well said Irishman btw!

>Carl Sagan wrote The Constitution????

Uh, while the U.S. Constitution is an important set of words, I don’t know if they particularly are beautiful. I don’t know many people sitting around reading the Constitution aloud to each other just to enjoy the majic of the words. And even if I’m not fully informed about the peculiarities of some people, I don’t think the original quote excludes the Constitution as being important or beautiful. It does say “some” of the most…

Hmm, so are you saying that Christians cannot accept Evolution. Because the wording of your statement links the two in an explicit manner. I know a bunch of Christians (several posting in this thread) who would disagree.

> Further, I’m not a “Creationist”, passing off religious beliefs as “science”.

Interesting that you say that. Yet what you say below belies that statement.

> I believe the Bible. It does provide for the Earth being perhaps 5 Billion years old, yet God placed Adam & Eve here only about 6,000 years ago.

This statement is explicitly “passing off” religious beliefs as science. You just stated that humans (i.e. Adam and Eve) originated about 6,000 years ago. Further, you imply that they arose from empty air, created out of the dust by God directly rather than changing from earlier life forms. These are explicit statements that contradict scientific evidence.

Furthermore, the term “Creationist” has a couple of meanings depending upon the user. I’m not sure what you intend it to mean. From a science perspective, one would definitely describe your views as “Creationist” – humans created out of dust directly by God. Independent origination from the chain of life on Earth. That sounds like Creationism to me.

> God obviously is a higher life form, and we are descendent from Him. God has a purpose and a plan for placing us here. Else, why did He place us here? He has a plan for our future.

Amusing argument from ignorance. You assume there has to be a purpose, by virtue of our existence itself. Therefore, you ascribe the purpose to God, because he’s the only candidate. Philosophically, that’s one position, but it’s not the only one. Why does our existence require a purpose? Does dust require a purpose? Does Dutch Elm Disease require a purpose?

> Contrast, evolution has no plan, we are just the product of random chance, no future. Give me a break, please.

So you reject evolution as a correct explanation because you do not like the philosophical ramifications you deduce from evolution? There are other ways to think of it. One can easily view Evolution as God’s mechanism for bringing life about, of shaping us to exist. If so, then there’s no need to reject evolution for being pointless, because it’s still God that has the point for our lives.

> To quote the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:7 “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be”. “Carnal mind” translates to “meat heads”.

So Paul is saying that human mental processes are enmity against God? Thinking is Evil? That puts us all in a decidedly poor position, given that the existence of our “self” is thought (consciousness). I mean, how are we to come to know and understand Jesus if our thought processes exclude him? Be that as it may, you are rejecting Evolution as the product of human thought. But the same argument applies to electromagnetism. The theory of electromagnetism, with its included principles and laws, is every bit a creation of the human mind as the theory of Evolution, with its inherent principles and laws. There’s no essence distinction between the two, except that one deals with biological systems and the other does not. Oh, and the Bible never bothers to state anything about magnets or electricity, so there’s no Faith issue in conflict.

> The bottom line is that evolution has no plan for our future. We could quibble about the minutia of evolution forever, proving nothing. God has a plan for our future benefit, and His too. He didn’t place us here for nothing. If you want to believe the evolution nonsense, be my guest.

You are welcome to your own religious beliefs about God, his role in creation, his purpose for our existence and our individual lives, whatever. You are welcome to accept or reject Evolution. You have the right to your beliefs, and the right to express them as you see fit. But I have to wonder why you came here and posted this. You had to know your beliefs are contentious here, and that you would stir up a lot of response and criticism. You had to know your statements would not be accepted, but would be scrutinized. I don’t see what you hoped to accomplish. Is this some need to foster a persecution complex, “Those mean evolutionists are supressing me again!” ? Do you genuinely think someone here is going to say, “Hey, now that you put it that way, it just makes perfect sense that evolution is false. I mean, how can it be true coming from a ‘meat head’?” Or are you just having fun prodding us with a stick to see how much we flinch?

“The laws of physics were ordained by God. Evolution is the creation of men. God has nothing to do with it.”

This statement is completely unambiguous. Who are you to tell God that he did not ordain evolution, that he did not use that mechanism?

And you don’t have to answer my question about how human civilization predates Adam and Eve if you don’t want to. But unless you provide an answer we will have no choice but to assume that you do not have one. Not being able to answer such a basic question would indicate that you have not really thought your position through, and people here will not take you seriously if you refuse to deal with even the most fundamental issues.

I must say, your position is odd. I have never encountered someone who rejects all of genesis except the part about the creation of man. Every creationist I have encountered is either young-earth creationists or an old-earth (and old life) creationist. You are an old-earth but young-life, a combination I have never encountered before.

James, you said what you said. If meant to say something else, then you ought to have said something else.

Another thought…in order for Adam and Eve to have led to all the current human diversity, that seems to require faster evolution than proposed by the scientific theory of evolution itself. (and yes, adaptation is part of evolution)