Wow, that's a big generalization. And what specific surveys are you referring to? Just curious. :confused:

I don't have a problem with that at all. It's just a more fair point to stick with what you appear to know more about, creationism.

I don't see why. There is one scientist who I'll paraphrase as saying that a little knowledge leads a man away from God and a little more brings him back.

Cite please?

Except for the tourist areas, those were some of the least developed parts of the world over there.

As far as a little effort is concerned, shouldn't they give it a little effort as well? The only impact this tragedy has on America is on its pocket book because of all of the aid that is being sent over there and all of the personel being diverted over there.

Their government has a little responsibility as well.

My point was in referrence to your statement about his misfortune causing him to question the state of his faith. More specifically that you sould always be maintaining the strentgth of your faith.

I'd be willing to admit that some of the two groups may disagree, but there are those who don't dismiss the other option as well. There are evolutionists who believe in God.

It might do you some good to jump to the creation v evolution thread.

Brown Thrasher,

Your statement indicates that you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution, and a terribly limited view of religion. First and foremost, you would force everyone into a false dilemma of evolution vs. religion, as though evolution is the same as atheism. The real dilemma is that of evolution vs. some small subset of religion that mainstream sects, like Roman Catholicism and most Protestant groups totally reject. The fact is that evolution makes no statement about God, gods, or religion. Most people- especially in the United States- who accept evolution also believe in God. Evolution is a natural phenomenon, and thus occupies a completely separate domain from religion, which is perforce supernatural.

If you wish to discuss this sort of thing further, I cordially invite you to the Usenet newsgroup, talk.origins. For more information about evolution than you can shake a stick at, try www.talkorigins.org.

I thought that the bone of contention was not whether things evolve, but what the starting point was, the "Garden" or the "Ooze". :confused:

There are bones in the process as well, such as OnyxCougar's claim that evolution can't "create information".

I'd like to see a definition of what "creating information" is in the opinion of OC.

Hell- at least they were smart enough that they fired the Chief weather forecaster.
I'd hate to be in that sumbitch's shoes- physically and emotionally

I thought for a moment this was the philosophy thread.

Garnet,
Tell me you are unaware of that torrent, nay veritable tsunami, of highly scientific and accurate surveys which have issued forth from that prestigious bastion of erudition the University of Diamond Match.

I'm shocked. Shocked.
:eek:

I believe that OC's definition of "creating information" is in the same class as Athena springing fully formed from the head of Zeus. From the labyrinth I've explored on AiG [the wellspring of her belief] it looks like she would not accept the 'creation of information' unless the complete set of genes for a modern human brain were inserted into the genome of a squid, by the hand of God.

I have been to that thread and expressed my opinion. The point I was making was correlated into the thread concerning the tsunami. I feel that people continuing to argue the point of creation vs. evolution has been exhausting.
We all know there will not be a clearly factual consensus on that issue.
People will continue to argue there points concerning evolution vs. creationism
until the end of time. I disagree that the only way this disaster effected America was from their pocket book. I have been lead to believe that at least twenty Americans were killed in this tragedy. I may be being mislead but from what I've heard there countries have been doing eveything possible to withstand the devastatioin. Wilhelm Reich said: "Most intellectual people do not believe in God, but they fear him just the same."

Magilla, I may have a limited view of evolution. However, I studied world religions extensively in a formal setting. I do not think I am forcing anyone into any dilemmas concerning this argument. As a matter of fact, I try not to force anthing on anyone. I definetly Would not expess to anyone that the creation theory was right. I also would not express to anyone that the evolution theory is correct. I do become annoyed when people feel they do know the answer to the question. I am not qualified to answer the question as you or anyone else is not in my opinion. However, I do disagree concerning mainstream religions such as catholicism and protestants. I think my understanding of your statement was that these two major religions in America believe in evolution as the correct view of the world as we know it.
As you probably know, the "christians" believe the world was created in seven days by God. Thus, if they believe in evolution they must be having a hard time instilling this into their brains. It appears there would have to be some kind of enternal fight within their belief systems. I do not believe anthing is black or white; for lack of better words. I feel everyone should have their on beliefs and should not infringe them on others when it comes to religion. So, are you sure the belief in evolution, as an absolute truth is not a form of a lack of belief in a omnipotent being?

Brown Thrasher,

I am afraid I have to point out that you are indeed creating a false dilemma, in that you would have people choose between Christianity and evolution, when the choice is totally unecessary. You also seem to be presenting a logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman". If you aren't familiar with it, it runs something like this:

Angus: Laddie, what are ye doin'? No Scotsman puts cream in his porridge!
Ian: But Angus, there's Uncle William, and he's putting cream in HIS porridge!
Angus: Ladde, no TRUE Scotsman puts cream in his porridge!

Your statement that "Christians" believe in a 7-day creation smacks of this. In fact, the vast majority of the world's christians accept that Genesis is an allegory, rather than historical fact. (I won't even go into the fact that Genesis contains two contradictory creation stories.) Evolution is *not* an absolute truth- not the way you mean it. It is a real, natural process that has been studied, observed, documented, and recreated in controlled laboratory settings. The truth is that populations evolve- there cannot be argument there. The "theory" of evolution that causes all the problem is common descent- but bear in mind that all the problems are political problems, and there is no controversy in the scientific community when it comes to evolution (I feel safe saying that, since I am a biologist). As to "knowing the answer to the question"--well, scientists, generally don't deal in that kind of absolute. We collect and evaluate data, and parse out what constitutes valid evidence and what doesn't. I am sorry if this doesn't fit with your worldview, but all the evidence is on the side of evolution, and none on the part of science. In fact, large parts of Genesis (like the Noachian Deluge) have been conclusively disproven, by multiple fields.

But religion is not the province of science. Biology in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, poses some problems for some peoples' religious beliefs, but most people in the world seem to reconcile the two just fine. Most people don't believe in a trickster God- one who would plant false evidence of evolution all over the planet, in an attempt to fool us. I would suggest you look up Kenneth Miller on the web- he's a biology professor at Brown University who has written exhaustively on the topic. I think you'd find his thinking interesting.

Well put, magilla.

Wait, what if God exists... and he's a dick?