You totally miss the point. Totally.

I'm saying we don't have the *slightest idea* whether anything started the process. All we know is that it did start, and everyone who's not a religious kook has a pretty good general idea of how the process works. If it's not quite right, it's a very good working model that explains a lot of it.

We understand a lot about the composition of the early universe a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, how it clumped together, that it was probably hot rather than cold, and so on. We also have plausible theories about how life started in ponds, although unless we're able to duplicate that - which may happen - it's all just educated guessing. A lot of this is just surmising, of course, but the point is that the guessing is educated.

To me it's hopelessly naive and defeatist just to end the discussion by saying that since it's all too complicated to understand, God created it. Sure that's a possibility, but it's only one of any number of possibilities. It's mythology, not science. Now, it happens to be mythology that was invented a few thousand years ago, that had a profound effect on our history, but it's still a very difficult argument that the automatic alternative to evolution is that a god created evolution.

And once again, what is God? TLiX pictures being whose primary interest is that he be worshipped by man. Jeremy and I see forces of the universe. I presume everyone else sees something else again. Some people are atheistic.

Listen, I want to emphasize what I wrote above about ID: you have to look beneath the surface of what's going on here, or you're liable to turn this around and assume that these are simply two equally valid ideas and people like me are closed-minded about alternative viewpoints.

Well, there's nothing wrong with discussing anything. What's wrong is the political agenda behind this crap! It's not just wrong, it's positively sinister to indoctrinate kids in such an underhanded way!

Do not let these creeps fool you: they are closed-minded ****s who want to impose their values on this country. This is nothing but a cynical power grab. They are framing the debate in a very limited way, and they want to force kids to have their discussion.

And the sad thing is how that obscures all the incredible teachings in all the world's great religions, and more specifically all the great values that are in Christianity. As a matter of fact, conservatism is totally the opposite of that as an ideology!

And Dover county sees it the other way. The school board has been replaced by Democrats , who support the teaching of ID only in comparative religion class, where it belongs, and not in science class, where it doesn't.

The thing that I hate about these discussion forums is that they move so quickly; I can never keep up. Don't any of you have jobs?

Audiorigami - where do you come up with this stuff? Are you just a master Googler? I admit you've won my respect - above that of my college anthropology professor. Believe it or not, I was not aware of Darwin's quotation regarding the evolution of the eye. Now, regarding Nilsson and Pelger's calculations, they show that the evolution of a camera eye could occur with their defined parameters within a half million years. That's it. A linear pathway such as this over a 500,000 year span could only occur with some divine hand-holding. Sure, multiply by X, it'll increase your already miniscule odds, but it doesn't change the fact that the line is straight as an arrow. The huge amount of beneficial random mutations is just that - huge.

In addition, all of these articles focus only on the eye - which ignores my point. My problem isn't simply (well, not very simple) the evolution of an organ, but the evolution of that organ and it's support system - and that they must occur at the same time. Also, as far as our eyes having to exist in their current form - I get the point. But if not in this form, then another one that is equivalent. It is the form that makes it incredible and worth studying. However, I'll give it a bit more plausability in my mind.

You seem to have this stuff readily available. Maybe you could steer me towards a source to deal with the most unbelievable of evolutionary steps?--
1. The formation of the first cell - I've read lots on this - but nothing good so far
2. The jump from single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms
3. The jump from asexual to sexual reproduction
4. The evolution of the cardiovascular and nervous systems
5. And related to 4, the evolution of the spine / spinal cord


Jeremy - I'm with you brother. The only difference is that I've named my entity.


Now Nick, your insulting style towards TLIX is most of the reason I jumped into this debate. Also, your lack of patience for other points of view makes you easy to dismiss. Of course you had to hear this from another one of those judgemental Christian dudes, and that'll make it easy for you to dismiss me.

Your insistence that other points of view are mythology is just closing the debate. What are you afraid of? It seems that you intentionally simplify and then dismiss them. And then you yell - pretty soon you're going to have to go all CAPS. Its just a point of view. Notice, I didn't say an equal point of view, or (gasp) even a greater point of view. Do you not give ID a chance because your intuition tells you that it's just too incredible? Political agenda? Do think people believe this stuff because it will somehow advance them politically?

One last point for thought - evolution is a faith. Think about it - depending upon which side of the aisle you are on, you are scrambling to defend it - not truly question it - to the point of determining plausability inside of statistically impossible odds. Very few of us have been on both sides of the aisle. Those that are most closed-minded are those with the most to lose as far as their world-view is concerned. Isn't science about objectively seeking the truth?

I'm insulting to TLiX because his ideas - not his, the ones he's been fed - are frustratingly ludicrous. You're right that I don't have much patience for points of view like that; you're wrong that I don't have patience for all points of view that are different from my own. It's only the ones that are obviously wrong that I dismiss offhand.

And I and others have already explained why you're simply wrong to say that evolution is only a different faith. Just because there are two sides to a discussion doesn't mean both are equally valid. And in this case they're not. You can go convince 3 billion people that my ass is green, but that doesn't make it so, nor does it make that point of view worthy of respect.

Note that I'm not putting down anyone's religious beliefs, nor am I putting down people who believe God created evolution; all I've done is say why I believe that "God" (again, a word that means different things to different people) is an integral part of it all rather than a being who created it. I could be wrong, of course, in which case my life wouldn't change at all - this is just my opinion.

And I've dismissed the idea that the earth is 6000 years ago for one simple reason: it's horse****. I know it, you know it, and I dare say that somewhere not very deep down TLiX knows it.

As to those poor chumps in Kansas, yes, they are indeed being manipulated for political gain. I'm sorry for you if you don't see that, because it would mean you're very gullible. One of the members of that school board said that they're the laughing stock of the nation (she was one of the four out of ten with some sense). She was right.

I'm glad to see that you reject the idea of relative truth.

I missed your explanation proving evolution. Sure I've heard you state that it's true, but that's it.

I also missed where you showed that evolution is not a faith. Yes, there is observable evidence that can be interpreted as backing up evolution; there are also observable evolutionary events that occur now. There is, however, disagreement that these events are evidence that evolution is the source of life's origins.

I'd disagree when you say that you're not putting down anyone's religious beliefs; you most certainly are.

If it's a religious belief that the earth is 6000 years old, then I guess you're right, because that's just silly.

And I certainly don't reject the idea of relative truth in the fundamentalist Christian sense, dorkus, in fact I reject the idea of there being only one correct religion and all the others being wrong! What's more, everyone makes it all up as they go along - even fundamentalist Christians. We're all moral relativists.

There are many religious orientations, and one is absolutely not more "correct" than the others; it's all a matter of which one makes the most sense for your life - if any of them do.

We're talking about how man got here (I think), and you can be as religious or spiritual as you want and still believe in evolution.

And dorkus, for your benefit: the gene pool changes over time. That means species evolve.

Irrefutable proof that even TLiX agrees with.

But you're just being nasty, and I'm getting tired of you.

Evolution is a fact, Dork! Regardless of what or who put the enertia in place. Hopefully you'll evolve someday. Perhaps an opposable thumb!

Now who's being nasty?

As far as relative truth, would you agree that if there are two contrary belief systems, one or both of them is wrong? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arrogant enough to say which is absolutely true. As we've seen, even within Christianity, there are differing viewpoints. However, my world has been rocked enough in my life that I won't take an absolutist stand on anything, really. There's TLIX's view of creation as opposed to mine as opposed to yours as opposed to etc. Of course this sounds like a cop-out, and in many ways it is, but for such an absolutely huge topic my mind is open to ANYTHING. I used to believe like TLIX, and there are valid observations that even Stephen Hawking doesn't have answers for. So for now, I take it in and am digesting it with the other information that is out there.

With all of this said, life happened somehow. I think there is value in seeking, and being open to all possibilities - divine or not. Maybe someday we'll be able to put our finger on it better than we can now. Some believe that they've got it figured out now, they're just missing details - thus faith. TLIX has a version he stands on, you have a version that you stand on. I think you've got me wrong - I'm just trying to knock over those that are standing - and you stand up the tallest - and thus you've kind of become my biggest target.

I also agree with your point about moral relativism, though I try to resist it. I'm still stuck on the concept of right and wrong.

I also agree that my previous post was nasty - sorry.

Can anyone from either side of this debate answer these questions?
What existed prior to the big bang and how did that come to exist in the first place?
Exactly how did god come into existence?( And please no "in the beginning was the word". I want to know what was before the beginning)

I'm just curious. None of it changes my mission.