Even well known evolutionists at prominent medical schools have admitted publicly that there must be something more than just evolution as we know it now and that creationism is a valid hypothesis (even though none of them ever believe in it)..

Sure. There are religious peoples everywhere. *ALL* hypotheses are valid - some are more valid than others as is shown in each individual hypothesis' quest to become a theory.

Still, the overwhelming majority find the evidence that species evolve irrefutable. I have not read all of this evidence, but I've read enough to be convinced of exactly what I have said. That evolution is a fact, and the exact mechanism still isn't, but lack of proof of the exact mechanism does not give one the intellectual right to plug in god as an answer. You can make god a hypothesis for an answer and try to escalate that into theory by virtue of the scientific method. I don't know if anyone has bothered to try that, because at face value, it seems impossible to empirically prove something that, for a human, is beyond the scope of definition.

Regarding addiction, there is nothing positive about it no matter what the target of the addiction is. A workaholic may make lots of money, and some minds may look at this and because of their love for money may validate the workaholic's behavior. In fact, American society, by and large, rewards workaholism. That doesn't make it a healthy way to be. And we're back to square one again - just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't, by itself, make it true.

This is some of a page I just googled using "religious addiction" as keywords so you can find it yourself should you wish (or anyone). I can't speak to the authority of it, but I'll post it here. It's up to you to decide if any of this fits you. I can tell you that I think at least some of it does. Maybe I'm wrong, so it doesn't really matter what I think. Others might comment if they see it in you, too. That's their prerogative.

Loss of Objectivity Their ability to reason logically can become impaired. An inability to think, doubt, or question religious information and/or authority; and unwillingness to understand the opinions and interpretations of others. A concrete and rigid thinking style develops that does not allow for consideration of extenuating circumstances in a person's life. Black/white, good/bad, either/or simplistic thinking: one way or the other with very little room for grey areas. A tendency toward magical thinking that God will fix you/ do it all, without serious work on your part. Confusion and doubts lead to mental, physical or emotional breakdown. They develop a fear-based belief system.. believing/following a religion out of fear, not understanding and love. They also tend to have a shame-based belief system that they are not good enough or are not doing it right. They believe in a punishing and angry God. Reactivity: Anger and Defensiveness If sincere faith in God is supposed to bring peace and contentment, a religious person who is paranoid and confrontational about it may have a larger mental problem. They tend to have increased conflict and argumentation with science, medicine, and education. They tend to become argumentative and defensive in dialog. They have a limited ability to explain their beliefs. Since their belief system about themselves and the world is fear-based, they seldom understand religion, but follow it out of a dependent need for strength and power. Force is their farce. Judgmental and Critical Hyper-religiosity may be revealed in someone as unusual self-importance, as if that person were much closer to God, making others around him seem inferior. They develop an uncompromising judgmental attitudes, with a readiness to find fault or evil out there. An attitude of self-righteousness or superiority: "we versus the world," including the denial of one's human-ness. They tend to be blind to their own behaviors, denying their projections on to the idol 'god' they have created.

The site itself seems to be Muslim based, but it hardly matters to me. Religion is religion, and addiction is addiction, so I think these statements have some value.

oh please! Addiction to God?

How about addiction to mocking? I think you've got that one covered Ock.



That's it exactly. I can't blame you for not reading ALL the evidence but let me ask you this....have you read how the evidence is interpreted from the "other side?" Who is the one not thinking outside the box Ock? Have you read the side of the Christian Scientists who have the same evidence? Have you ever checked out Answers In Genesis? WWW Link



Why not? They plug in no-god as their answer. In fact, a Scientist who may be a Christian is NOT allowed to even mention God or anything that comes close in the scientific journals even if there seems to be a connection. There is science in the bible you know. God help the scientist if they dare to bring that up. If the journals get even a hint that this scientist could be Christian, good luck trying to even get a paper published. That's why Answers in Genesis got started in the first place. There are hundreds of Ph.D's backing this site. They are well known and respected Scientists in their own fields and you can even get a listing of them. There is no room for God in the journals at all so there is no surprise all that you have read has brought you to the conclusion you speak of.

My challenge to you is to read BOTH sides. I have. Have you?

I have been. I've highlighted those that were his. So why do you think I'm not?



So everytime I ask a question now, I'm assuming? Well that can work both ways....didn't you just assume my son is making my points?



You know when you start to get nasty or accusatory that's when I say. ...enough. You are getting defensive. Why? I'm just trying to have a discussion here. I'm not flinging any stones.

I'm done discussing this with you asaxygirl.

Ock,

This IS from my son when I told him what you said. He said this:

It is impossible to have irrefutable evidence for evolution or any other hypothesis (including creation, aliens theory, etc) since origins science is a historical science. Whether you believe in God or believe in molecules to man evolution, neither can be tested by the scientific method. this makes both ideas purely religious in nature. Each "evidence"that exists for evolution is the same "evidence" that exists for creationism, because there is not any evidence at all but merely data that is interpreted according to the presupposed worldview held by the observer.

In order to irrefutably proove evolution (or creation for that matter), one would have to observe the process. for creationists, that would include observing God's creative acts. This, of course, is impossible since he created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days 10,000 years ago (variation or change within the already created kinds does not constitute God's creative acts any more than it constitutes the molecules to man evolutionary process). For evolutionists, that would include observing the formation of new life independant of human intervention; this would include the generation and addition of new genetic information giving rise to new functional features by means of mutation. since neither can be observed, evolutionism and creationism are both hypothesis that are equal from a purely scientific point of view. furthermore, because neither can be properly tested by the scientific method, they are both religious in nature in that they are ideas (or hypotheses) of the origin of life and must be accepted based on faith as they are not testable in any way.

As a side note:

Modern genetics and biochemistry has proven to be a very difficult hurdle of evolutionary theory in that the evolutionist must create very elaborate theories to describe how life originated. An example of this would include the endosymbiant hypothesis which does not make sense from a biochemical/ molecular biological point of view and is one idea that causes even the strongest believers in evolution from
top medical universities to entertain the idea that there might be more than mere molecules to man evolution.

point them out to me please. Asking a question is not nasty. So far, you and Ock have mocked my faith, mocked my intelligence, said I have an addiction problem and now that I'm a stone flinger as well as assuming things about you. None of this is true.

Also, show me where I've ever cut anyone off from a good discussion even if it's contradictory to mine? I welcome good discussions but not when they turn from attacking the issue to attacking the person. I'm not interested in that game.

The only time I ever say "enough" (and it's rare) is when the discussion gets over heated. Light is good, excessive heat is not.

I wasn't really discussing the origin of life. I was discussing the evolution of it aka the way it has changed and how natural selection is the vehicle for that change. If you'd like to state that God originated life and evolution as well, I won't argue because my percent chance of disproving the existence of god is exactly equal to your ability to prove the existence of him/her/it - which is to say - zero percent.

For what it's worth, scientific evidence says the earth is older than 10,000 years old. Fossil records show that birds didn't exist 250,000,000 years ago on a planet estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. Scientific evidence shows that it takes light, at the least, 10,000 years from it's creation at the center of the sun to get to us so you can read this without an artificial light source. Any one of these scientific facts alone refutes your fundamentalism.

I have no problem with folks believing in a personal god. It doesn't matter to me. I have a problem with a faith that states that all of the above things I mentioned are figments of everyone's imagination. You said "The Christians do NOT have a problem with provable well tested out scientific FACTS." so I suppose none of these make the grade, either. If I have a belief, it is that any...I mean ANY "scientific fact" that would refute your fundamentalism (and I imagine there are lots more of the above variety, though those were just the ones that came to mind) would also not pass your test. As Dana Carvey, the "church lady," was wont to say "How convenient."

Really?...I mean, freakin' really? All the genentics I know seems to support it very well. That is how we classify life these days, you know. People seem to accept it when we use DNA evidence to convict someone of a crime or use it to determine relationships. Somehow it doesn't apply when we use it for evolution? I fail to see why that is the case.

Eh, but I suppose it doesn't matter. I could take you in a time machine with a window and show you how a population evolves over time and you still wouldn't accept it.

~Zoo

and I would love to go with you Zoo so you could witness first hand the fingers of God as he created the universe and all that is in it.

Besides we wouldn't have to go back that far you know...  

Um, what about what the article originally asked? "What if Jesus Was Never Born?"

Well, we'd all be Jewish, or still worshiping the Greek, Roman, or Egyptian gods. Or if you're from South America, the Mayan gods. That's the what if, right there.

Ock,

If you define evolution as merely change that occurs over time by natural selection, than your definition of evolution is not at odds with a young earth creationist model. Creationists also believe that change occurs over time by natural selection. Much scientific evidence supports this view, and one would be ignorant to say otherwise. If you define evolution as change over time that gives rise to new genetic information and new functional features and eventually new organisms, then you are at odds with a creationist model. There is no evidence, irrefutable or not, that supports that view.

The statement about the speed of light are very valid scientific truths based on principles of basic physics that are not in any way at odds with a young earth creationist model. While some scientists "estimate" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, others "estimate" that it is 6 to 10,000 years old. believing in either estimate is a statement that is made on faith. It can't be known for sure by any scientific means which is true.

Fossil records do not show anything. Bones from a dead bird can't demonstrate whether or not it was or was not present 250 million years ago. at one time there was a bird. it died. we know that, because here are its bones. when did it live? well, if its fossilized and deep in the earth, then probably a long time ago. How long? It's impossible to know. To say anything more than this is merely speculation.

One of your main arguments for evolution is that the majority of scientists believe in molecules to man evolution, so it must be valid. This is very faulty reasoning, because having more people believe that something is true does not make it true.

Case in point: A majority of the people at one time believed in a flat earth. Thank you Christopher Columbus. Furthermore, a Biblical worldview would tell you that the oldest book of the Bible states that the earth is as round as a ball. Also the majority of Nobel prize winning research findings were first rejected by their peers and denied grant funding based on an inability to demonstrate the scientific merit of the project. Good thing those people did not just say "well the majority thinks I'm wrong so I should not believe this to be true!"

Your very statements about this topic demonstrate your bias towards evolution being true.

One of your main arguments for evolution is that the majority of scientists believe in molecules to man evolution, so it must be valid.

It is? Can you show me where I said that or at least where you thought I said it? My only argument, regardless of the subject, is that objective evidence is required to substantiate any hypothesis. Scientists attempt to obtain such evidence. Faith-ers just use God as a short cut, filling him into whatever blank exists in unexplained matters - always quick to declare that if scientists can't explain it, the default explanation is therefore God. Uh no, it isn't.

My statement about light isn't about the speed of it. Try again. If the earth were only 10k years old or less, light would just NOW be reaching us. The only way you can refute that is to take the short cut I mentioned and say "Well, God created the universe with light already here. It's the same kind of argument about God placing fossils which is to say "silly."

I'm going to assume you have a gold wedding band. You have to use your same God short cut to explain where the gold came from. "It was just planted here in the ground. Every atom of it."

Yet astronomers have proven (proven as far as I'm concerned) that our locale in the universe was once the site of a supernova from which our solar system formed. A Supernova is the only phenomenon known which can create the heavier elements from lighter ones. These events are happening all over the galaxy (and one could feasibly extrapolate, therefore, the universe). We have photos. We have photos of stars being formed. We have photos of nebulae - the dust cloud remnants of past supernovae. That's all three macro steps of the process. Star goes supernova, nebulae is left over, new stars born from it. Again, to explain it all and retain fundamentalism, you must take a short cut to knowledge - faith - and say "Well all that stuff was created as is, just how it is, and put there mid-process." You have to deliberately ignore that we watch new nebulae form. New supernovas occur. You have to suspend the reason that would lead a reflective person, a piece of gold weighting down their palm, to explain elegantly where it came from.

The universe is a very elegant place with many mysteries to be explored and understood. Turning a blind eye to things people find out about it makes a fundamentalist god smaller and smaller. And the size of this god is inversely proportional to the amount of things scientists discover. That's why fundamentalists have such a long list of scientific facts that they say are not facts at all - the more science uncovers about the mysteries of the universe, the less room is there to plug in God to explain it. I would think that someone bent on believing in God would see this and declare "Wow...God was even greater than I thought! Look at all this cool stuff the scientists discovered that He did!" But nope, instead of attributing these stunning processes to the creator they find to be the cat's meow, they refute it. Some very reputable Christians even suggest that curiosity is a disease. That trying to explain things in nature is bad. As a young Christian, I would often tell people "my way of worshiping God is to try my best, every single day, to understand as much of this wonderful creation as I can - because how else can I properly worship the wonderful thing He did if I don't even understand what that was?"

Which is to say, God created the Universe; science attempts to discover and explain how He did it. Therefore, there should be no real conflict between creationists and scientists, except for one smasll problem. The creationists want to verify the bibical stories as literal. Drop the literalist impulse, no problem.

Be well.

Which is to say, God created the Universe; science attempts to discover and explain how He did it. Therefore, there should be no real conflict between creationists and scientists, except for one smasll problem. The creationists want to verify the bibical stories as literal. Drop the literalist impulse, no problem.

Certainly less problems.

What you described there is one possibility among several. I don't know for sure which is right, and I probably never will. In the interim, I will speculate based on shades of probability and data. I speculate on lots of things regarding humans and religions - including why people see the virgin mary's face in a grilled cheese sandwich. Looks like Greta Garbo to me.

No, this is false....yet again LW. You really are struggling here. My son HAS NOT been exiled. My son has no time, nor interest in blogging on this site. He works approx 70 hours a week mostly in the lab and writing grants. He wrote a few answers to science questions way back on my blog, probably a year or so ago giving some really great answers until Karma revealed his identity and he said he'd never come on again. He didn't like that and thought it was unprofessional.



I don't speculate nor do I look for God under every rock or in every sandwich. I'm not into sensationalism. In fact when I hears such things, I just shake my head. I'm more like Gideon who keeps throwing out the fleece to make sure it's truly God.



Yes, this is true Sodaiho. I find it interesting the two books of the bible most attacked are Genesis and Revelation. Why? Because the first book speaks of Satan's end and the promise of a Messiah. The last book show's Satan's end by the conquering Messiah, Lord of Lord and King of Kings. I've heard one guy include Jonah saying these three are most attacked because the first book predicts the incarnation of Christ, Jonah predicts his resurrection and the last book of the bible predicts his second coming.



Well that's not me...nor is it biblical. Nature is used throughout scripture. I think Paul made an interesting statement that cannot be refuted by Science when he said:

"But God gives it a body as it has pleased him and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestrial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

Now Paul was smart, granted but how did he know all this? He wrote this in 55 AD. How did Isaiah know about the circle of the earth way back in 750 BC? How did Job, who penned his words before Moses know that the earth was suspended in the universe? There is a ton of scripture regarding nature, all well within the boundaries of modern science.

Inquiring of God is ok. Even asking God to prove himself to you is ok as well. He's done that with me many times. I've told you before, I am skeptical by nature. I am such a visible learner it's hard for me to just take another's word for anything.

We are to "test the spirits" John says. Thomas who is known as the doubter was not spurned by Christ was he? John the Baptist in prison, who was the greatest born on earth even had his doubts when discouragment set in. He asked if Christ was indeed the much anticipated Messiah. Christ gave his testimony of evidence to support he was indeed the promised one. He said go back and tell John what you see.

hmmmmm so you're making an assumption asaxygirl? Hmmmmm isn't that what you accuse me of doing? Hmmmmm it's NOT true. Don't believe everything LW tells you. Wallace Stevens is NOT the one and the same as my son the scientist. You can see the explanation above.

As far as your vegan lifestyle, please note that I'm not mocking it at all. In fact it doesn't bother me at all neither do I think it's right or wrong to do so. You made a comment and I was genuinely curious so that's why I asked the question. Tone is hard to convey here on the net, and I admittedly am not very good at it. I need to use more smiley faces I think.   

I think we need to agree to disagree, get off this bunny trail and get back to the subject at hand anyhow. Let's not attack each other but the subject at hand.

Sodiaho:

Did you change your name? Do I not call you that anymore?