Religion… What do you think?

I think you are twisting what it means to be Christian to fit your agenda... if the KKK believes in Jesus truly then they would accept him as Lord and Savior... there is no evidence in world history that the KKK was anything other than Christian in their belief base. You can try to wiggle around it and say well they believe in Jesus but was not really Christian in nature. History would say you are a Liar as their base shows that they did believe in Jesus and accept him as Lord just as many White Americans in the 1700 - 1800's did and shared very similar views to the KKK who was also Christian in nature. Christianity does not require more than Faith. It's by faith that ye are saved by GOD and brought into his fold. You keep thinking because the KKK was of the Christian Faith and continued to do Evil that they was no longer considered Christian but that's what they believed and accepted as their GOD. The KKK didn't accept any other faiths than Christianity so you have no place to go with this.

I am done typing in circles with you... you don't want to accept history of the reality of what faith that the KKK clings to. History says you are a Liar so does the Bible in some regards as it is by faith that ye accept Jesus and become one of GOD's elect just as the KKK believe... though from a very warped perspective.

@king_saturn:

White Americans in the 1700 - 1800's did and shared very similar views to the KKK who was also Christian in nature.

This is why I think religion did not give us our morality. Morality evolves over time depending on the conditions. In the early 20th Century; black people were lynched for BS reasons for crimes they did not commit and reasons which are silly --- at these lynchings, people cheered. In this case (also, the jury which convicted him is massively suspect), a black man was tortured and this was cheered by 16,000 ''ordinary'' folk of that time. The average American back then was akin to Hitler in ideology.

Fast forward to 2015 and while there are still problems, America on a whole is far more moral than it was back then. Most people don't hate an entire race so much that they want to kill them and racism is met with massive amounts of backlash.

Even in 1981, the last ever lynching was when the KKK kidnapped a 20 year old black man (Michael Donald) and hung him. An all white jury found the KKK members guilty and subsequently the KKK was fined $7 million bankrupting them. The KKK rogues were put on death row and executed for senselessly killing a black man. An ideology that was so common (KKK) became a fringe isolated minority.

Sorry for this rant, but I felt I needed to get this out there --- you don't need religion to be moral. History has proven that.

Sure, and I'm not saying that your views are based on superstition. I know we've discussed this before, and our differences mostly seem to come down to philosophical ones. On the other hand, it's difficult to properly and fully discuss this subject on a forum like this. It may be that we'd agree more (or less) if it was an in-person discussion.

As far as the "falsifiable" thing, yes I'm saying that science is a way of thinking that relies on falsification as a requirement. If a statement is not falsifiable through some means, then it may be an interesting question worth thinking about, but at the end of the day it's not a scientific one.

The nice thing about science is that pretty much the core assumptions boil down to a single assumption... that logic is always valid and nothing can violate it. From there you work your way up to mathematics and with observation you get your laws of nature. Anything can be questioned and re-analyzed as long as your reasoning follows logic, which is why the supernatural fails as a coherent explanation for anything... as soon as logic is out the door you can even start to make a convincing argument. People who believe and make arguments without logic are generally called "crazy people".

As far as materialism, it starts getting hard to discuss because there are different types of materialism and all that. Personally I dont care about stuff like that because it starts getting too much into philosophy exclusively, which is think is pointless. My view on philosophy is that it's interesting to discuss, but you cant get anywhere purely with philosophy. Logic and observation is what I care about, and that's where I believe all knowledge ultimately comes from.

I'm not twisting anything; every Pastor of every Christian denomination would largely agree with what I'm saying; you're trying to extrapolate a cause out of your interpretation of Christianity out of some bitter crusade against Christianity that has become quite transparent; the facts about Christianity just do not support your efforts; I'm pretty sure that very few Christian theologians would agree with your position, which should tell you something about my position versus your position. The white supremacist attitude shared by Caucasian Americans had nothing to do with Christianity and didn't evolve because of Christianity. As I said before, a lot of people were headed for a rude awakening, when Jesus separated the sheep from the goats; the Caucasian Americans harboring white supremacist views, where it lead to an actual hatred of African Americans, and followed those views up with unethical acts did not actually accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior or was mislead in their beliefs in so doing. That faith brings you into God's fold is a separate matter; it doesn't happen, unless your motives match your claims to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Christian means being Christ like.

I've been going in circles with you just to demonstrate that your crusade is obvious to me, but, I'm pointing out that your claims are hollow, at best, and unsupported, in reality.

You are twisting everything... you are trying to fit Christianity into a box that most Christians themselves don't fit in. Most Christians don't follow the protocol of the New Testament fully... they just believe and accept Jesus as their Savior as the Ku Klux Klan members do as well as the White Americans of that era who had ideologies like the KKK. I am sure you could find several Christians who would say the KKK are not Christian... but that's because no ones want to be associated with horrible racists in this day and age who hung black people and hated people so harshly. These Christians will do just like You are doing here trying to twist the core of Christianity to fit an agenda that excludes these Evil White Men of Yesterday. The reality is that based on what the KKK believed in and their own faith they professed... they was apart of Christianity. I don't care how many Christians would agree with my position... if they disagree... then they disagree with History. It's that simple. I am not on some bitter crusade against Christianity... You Came At Me After Something You Read In A Post That Was Directed At Muslims and Christians In General... Not Just Christianity. If anything, you are a Thick Headed Man who just likes to twist and turn Christian Theology to fit your own agenda.

My crusade ? Again, you came at me after you read something I had posted dealing with Islam. This is not some Crusade... it's a discussion about what is True and what is False. My claims are hollow huh ? Well take a look at this then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm

http://guardianlv.com/2014/07/ku-klux-klan-what-do-they-believe/

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_kukluxklan.htm

Hmmmm... now isn't that something. Supposedly my claims are unsupported by reality yet reality has sources that show that the KKK has core beliefs and values of Christianity... multiple sources at that. Not so hollow anymore eh ?

Of course I got involved; I can't let you defame Christianity to people who are not Christian and, as such, cannot know if your claims are valid or not. Those sources you present are only a little less fringe than you, in trying to make a connection to Christianity; as I said, every Christian denomination disagrees with your position. I don't know why you keep missing this point, but people calling themselves Christians and going about acts of evil and terror does not mean that their cause originated because of Christianity or even have a basis in Christianity; they were just people who committed evil acts; that they labeled themselves as Christian is completely immaterial to the Christian faith itself. Yes, it did start off as a discussion about Islam too, and another point was I compared an actual extremist Christian group, the Westboro Baptist Church, with an actual extremist Islam group, ISIS; based on their self-proclaimed status, the KKK could just as well call themselves a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or Buddhist organization; actually, in proclaiming white supremacy, they're more appropriately classified as an atheist organization; white supremacy is a survival of the fittest concept; the examples in your references could make the same claims, as well.

Well I gave you multiple sources that explain that the Ku Klux Klan is a Christian Organization and started out as a Christian Organization. You can continue to be in denial of the truth about the history of what the Ku Klux Klan believe and have faith in all you want.... you are essentially lying to try to cover up the black eyes of what some Christians have put on Christianity by their Evil Actions. You act as if there have never been Christians who committed atrocities ever. This is your flaw as history shows otherwise... especially in the case of the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK was not people who just committed evil acts... they was bound by Christianity. That is their committed belief system... Radical Reformation Christianity to be exact. It's not that they label themselves as Christian they believe in the stuff too. Watch some videos on the KKK and their beliefs about Jesus and such. You will see it for yourself. The KKK can't call themselves any other Organization other than Christian as that's what their founding religious principles are and what they practice today. The examples I reference prove the point of the KKK being a Christian Organization not Atheist...

Why is this still being argued? The KKK was definitely a Christian organization (Protestant mainly IIRC), which is why they burned crosses to show their faith.

Saying that KKK members were not true Christians is just silly. Anyone who believes in Jesus and the main teachings of Christianity is a Christian. Saying that "they dont do this or that" or "they dont believe in X part of Christian doctrine" as a reason why they're not is also silly, because no two Christians believe in the exact same thing or interpret the Bible in the same way. Being religious is all about cherry-picking what parts of the religion you want to believe in and which part to conveniently ignore.

Praise the lord!

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

It's just bad ideology.

I'm indifferent.

Organized religion is not for me. I kinda like to form my own beliefs from picking various things from various religions. I wrote a paper in college about my 'religion', explaining things like my idea of the afterlife, reincarnation, my practices, etc. Idk, my professor really loved it. I'll just say that the Earth plays a big part in my belief system, as well as a source of power and eternal life.

Oh hail lord trigon

I looked through your links and the Klan is more appropriately grouped with the Anglo-Israelism movement not Christianity, see The Negro Beast by Charles Carroll. The Klan want to believe that Jesus was the first Klansman. Contrary to their beliefs, true Christianity is Christ centered and focused on love, forgiveness, and patience, while Anglo-Israelism is focused on racism and antisemitism.

People of the Anglo-Israelism mindset extract from the Bible to create an ideology that is separate from the Bible (e.g. they extract from the Bible to create a different religion altogether). More specifically, this group extracts it's tenants from the Old Testament or Judaism; to be Christian inspired, their main ideology would necessarily have to derive from the New Testament of the Bible; more specifically, to be a Jewish or Christian belief, they would have to actually be interpreting Biblical scripture, not extracting from Biblical scripture to create something that the Bible does not actually state. They could just as easily have done this to the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions; however, their foundation is more founded in atheism (e.g. think of the belief in the Lost Continent of Atlantis). It's confusing, because, later on, as this belief system spread to the United States, it was erroneously redefined as Christian Identity, than used by others to than refer to it as a form of Christianity, when it is a separate religion, altogether.

In being apart of the Anglo-Israelism mindset, the Klan believe that Caucasians are the true people of Israel, the true inhibitors of the promises made to Abraham and his descendants, or the 10 lost tribes of ancient Israel; thus, Caucasians represent God's chosen people; yet, the Jewish/Hebrew Bible/scripture teaches that the nation of Israel will be made up of the same ethnic group that was responsible for Christ's death, namely, the Jews, see Zechariah 12:10; additionally, the Jewish/Hebrew Bible/scripture does not support the idea that the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel were “lost” when they were conquered by Assyria; the northern kingdom was destroyed, but a remnant of the people of Israel were preserved, see Amos 9:9; some Israelites fled into the southern kingdom of Judah before and at the time of the Assyrian onslaught, a fact confirmed by archaeological excavations showing that Jerusalem’s population swelled at the end of the eighth century B.C; other Israelites returned to the land years later, either to Judah or the north, see Zechariah 10:10; in the New Testament period the people of Israel, not only of the ten tribes but of all twelve, were scattered, but they were not “lost” or missing in unknown parts of the world; thus, James could address his epistle “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad”, see James 1:1; Paul could refer to the resurrection from the dead as “the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God day and night”, see Acts 26:6-7); Anna, the prophetess at the Jerusalem temple who recognized the infant Jesus as the Messiah, was “of the tribe of Asher”, Luke 2:36; obviously, the tribe of Asher was not lost, nor was it to be found across the continent. The Klan believe that Caucasians are the true descendants of Adam and people of other races are descendant from human beings created before Adam; yet, Genesis states, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”, Genesis 1:27; it was “man” as such (that is, mankind, including both “male and female”), not the White man, that God created in his image; that this includes people of all races and nations is clearly affirmed by Paul: “The God who made the world and all things in it He made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth”, see Acts 17:24, 26; the theory that the non-white races are referred to in Genesis as “the beasts of the earth”, see Gen. 1:24-25 is, therefore, utterly false; the term refers generally to land animals and is never used in the Bible to refer to humans of any race. The Klan believe that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan; according to this “two seed lines” doctrine, as it is also known, Cain and his descendants intermarried with the pre-Adamites, resulting in a “mongrel” race now known as the Jews; the idea that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent, or Satan, or that the serpent was in any way responsible for the conception and birth of Cain, is totally foreign to the Bible: “And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord”, see Genesis 4:1; here the Holy Spirit explicitly identifies Adam as the biological father of Cain, and makes it clear that Eve regarded Cain’s birth as a blessing from God; of course, race is completely irrelevant to a person’s standing with God; for example, “For you are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus....There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, see Galatians 3:26-28; also, “after this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands”, see Revelation 7:9 and Revelation 5:9. The Klan points out God’s warning that there would be enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed, see Genesis 3:15, is interpreted as forecasting conflict between Whites and non-Whites, especially the Jews; according to Klan belief, there is a centuries-old Jewish conspiracy to control the world; the United States government, the United Nations, and all major social entities are regarded as Jewish puppet organizations; the Klan claims that resistance by Whites to this global conspiracy will eventually result in Armageddon; they typically view America as a kind of new Promised Land and as the place where the Whites’ final stand against the Jews and other races will take place very soon; in the Book of Revelation, however, Armageddon represents the gathering of the demonically inspired powers of the nations of the earth, where God brings his wrath on them, see Rev. 16:14-21; nowhere in the Bible is the final judgment of the wicked presented as a battle between peoples of different races.

The message of Christianity is that God graciously extends salvation to people irrespective of anything which they might imagine would make them superior to other people. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, see Romans 3:23. The ultimate conflict in this world is not between Whites and non-Whites, but between God and Satan, between righteousness and sin. Our fight is not with “flesh and blood”—with human beings, of any race—but with the spiritual forces of evil that wage war against our souls, see Ephesians 6:12. The Klan doctrine perverts Christianity from a redemptive theology into a racist ideology. It is therefore not truly Christian.

The KKK is not a Christian organization; it is a separate religion derived from the principles of Anglo-Israelism. The principles of Anglo-Israelism extracts from Judaism to create a new, separate religion. Every known Christian denomination denies that the Klan are true Christians, so, it's not silly, since their opinion is derived from theologian scholarship after deep study of what it should mean to be Christian. Christianity requires you to believe in Jesus and the main teachings of Christianity, and practice those teachings; faith without works is dead. The reality is that the Klan is not following Christianity, but a separate religion that it extracted from Judaism. The thing is that the Klan is not directly interpretation scripture, their interpreting scripture that they extracted and perverted from Judaism; multiple Christians form denominations that may not interpret the Bible the same, but the important part is that they are actually interpreting the Bible, where the Klan is not. A derivative textual belief system is totally different from cherry-picking from the Bible itself; it appears to you that Christians are cherry picking, because you obviously are unwilling or unable to understand that Christians follow the New Testament, but rely on the Old Testament for context. The important part is that the effort is a sincere one, although the effort may be in error; Christians should be following New Testament scripture, usually through interpreting New Testament scripture where necessary. It's not conveniently ignoring anything, it's about understanding that Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament of the Bible ; if you don't fully understand this concept, than it appears that Christians are cherry picking scripture; you don't understand that some Christians are properly following the faith, while others are mistaken in the way they try to follow the faith.

You are trying everything you can to try to disassociate the Ku Klux Klan with Christianity... it's not working. You are essentially making up your own position of what you think the KKK was in contrast to what History actually shows of the Ku Klux Klan and what they believed and what they had faith in. I posted four different links, all of them have the Ku Klux Klan as a Christian Organization... even in the video I posted the guy proved that the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian Organization... if you wanted to join the Ku Klux Klan... you could not do it unless you was two things... White and a believer in Jesus Christ and acceptance that Jesus was Lord and Savior. You could not be Anglo - Israelism and joined the Klan. They would not even know what you was taking about if you said you was something like that... they only accepted White Christians those who believed in Jesus and accepted him as Lord. It's that simple. The KKK followed the faith and beliefs of the bulk of White America in the 1700 and 1800's... these Whites was of a Christian Faith with warped beliefs about Blacks and Jews... this mentality was not just for the KKK but for most of the Whites in America in the 18th and 19th century.

All of this other stuff you posted is Useless... you are essentially trying to fit the KKK in a group that they don't. The KKK is a Christian Organization... a Radical One but still they are a Christian Organization. All Four Links prove that this is true. You are basically speaking hollow points as nothing you say prove that they was anything other than a Christian Organization. You don't understand still Christianity as a whole still has a problem with following the New Testament Protocol... this goes for any Christian... I have said this several times now that there are Christians who are Bigots, Racists and Evil who are apart of the Faith. When is this going to sink into your skull ? Stop being so blind to the reality of the Faith you are apart of.

The Ku Klux Klan have a basis of they believe and have faith in Jesus Christ and they accept him as Lord and Savior = The Ku Klux Klan is a Christian Organization. PERIOD. I am done talking to you about this. You are way too Thick Headed to even see the History of the Ku Klux Klan and how they are a Christian Organization... you need to accept history for what it is and move forward.

You need to look up Anglo-Israelism so that you can get an idea that I just gave you the history of the KKK; Anglo is a group of the Caucasian group of people; they believe that Caucasians are the true Israelites; that belief is their remote connection to the Bible and Christianity. The Klan believes in a variation of Christianity that the Anglo-Israelism group invented. They believe that Jesus' sacrifice was for this invented term for Israel, and they also derive this to mean that Jesus Himself was a Klansman, so that Jesus only saved the white race; this Jesus is someone different from the one actually discussed in the New Testament. As pointed out in my previous post, this limited definition cannot be correct and the error is created because they extracted from the Bible instead of interpreting the Bible. I keep telling you that your broader interpretation of what it means to be Christian to include the Klan is not correct. And, again, I must point out that every Christian denomination agrees with me that the Klan are not true Christians; I had to include the history of the Klan in my last post to clarify my point, and that history shows that what they believe, in detail, is not something that is apart of the Bible, but, particularly, not apart of the New Testament. The guy in the video does not prove that the Klan are true Christians; I proved for you in my last post my position that the Klan are not true Christians, citing sources and scripture to back my position; everyone else, except people inside Anglo-Israelism agree that the Klan are not true Christian because they are not even interpreting Biblical scripture (e.g. at least the Westboro Baptist Church is interpreting information straight from the Bible, than making erroneous conclusions). It is you who needs to get it through your thick skull that your interpretation of what it takes to be Christian is just simply wrong. Being Christian implies that you are saved and that can't be if you're teaching that Christianity is a religion of division instead of inclusion.

@dshipp17: You did not give the history of the Ku Klux Klan through talking about Anglo Israelism. Anglo Israelism also known as British Israelism originated in Europe in the 1860's - 1870's and eventually spread to the United States later on. The problem is that the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Southern Baptists in the 1860's. How can the Ku Klux Klan be directly linked to a belief system that started around the same time as the KKK started yet that belief system started across the waters in Europe ? The KKK was founded on Southern Baptist Christian Principles... it may have adapted doctrines that later appeared to converge with the ideals of British Israelism... but ultimately, the KKK was believers in Jesus and accepted him as Lord. In a very warped and demented way obviously... but true nonetheless. Yes you are right, many denominations would denounce the KKK as being Christian... but there are many denominations that would denounce Westboro Baptist Church and what they do. So just because the KKK are disregarded by other Christians don't mean anything. Christians war with Christians all the time over various doctrines and ideas... that's why we have so many denominations in the first place.

In any case, you are still wrong about your conclusion on the Ku Klux Klan not being a Christian Organization.. the KKK was founded by Southern Baptists with warped ideas about the World... who did believe in Jesus and accepted him as Lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

This tells me you don't understand evolution and are strawmanning the scientific theory. Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.

Again taken from Talk Origins website which by the way you should check out, the evidence for evolution is vast;

1. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.
2. There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). "Still fruit flies" covers a wide range.
3. Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.

Evolution: It happened get over it.

Just a quick question since I'm not as versed on this subject as everyone else. Putting your beliefs (or disbeliefs) aside. COULD it be possible that God made evolution happen? I'm just spitballing because evolution has never been something that I really looked into.

Same here. I don't care how we got here. But Yes, God COULD have started evolution. But that would mean a couple things:

1) The religious accounts of Christianity and Islam are lies because they speak of man being created as we are now, not evolving.

2) God left proof of evolution but left no proof that he exist.

3) Just so you know because i was misled for years. According to Evolution, man did NOT evolve from apes/monkeys. I didn't know that until the last couple years

Just to be clear, evolution is not the origin of life but the origin of speciation. What you are referring to is Abiogenesis and it is currently only a hypothesis even though current evidence is in favor of it, scientists are still testing this hypothesis. As for your god question, I don't know. I don't find a god having a hand in evolution since there isn't much to support it, but abiogenesis? It's possible.

I couldn't have any faith in anything Metaphysical sans Evolutiuon.

and specialisation.

and the the artful poetry of the tree of life running from Kingdom down to Subspecies.

But as I said, "--couldn't have any faith in --"

Not religion.

Not codified demand for obedience and bigotry too weak to stand on its own, thus hiding behind loud voice in a tent demanding tithes.

So to answer the title, which is the question, of the thread:

I think religion is unnecessary, that the very concept of it is abused, misused, and often turned into refuse.

IMO I don't see a problem with someone who is a believer of a deity also believing in evolution. After all many popes supported evolution.

Well first you'd have to define what you mean by "God". How can we properly answer your question if we dont know what you mean?

But, really, the answer is... the question isnt really meaningful because as far as we know "God" or any god is just a fantasy. So, the question is no more meaningful than if I asked "is it possible that unicorns made evolution?" The answer is the same. Yes, anything is possible, if you first throw out logic and the known laws of physics. Then, yes, anything is possible, but then what? Where does that get you? Nowhere!

On a more practical note, evolution works without any need for any supernatural powers. So if some god did "make" evolution, then he/she/it made it and then had no idea what would evolve, OR, made it and then guided it to evolve us (cause we're so special). In the first case, how is that god different from no god at all? In the second, that god is trying to trick us by creating things in such a way that it appears there's no god whatsoever. THIS is basically what most mono-theists believe today... that their God made the universe, the laws of physics, evolution, and humans, all in such a way so that all the evidence points to no supernatural powers or gods existing at all.

The only thing i have to say about the subject of evolution is this:

A human DNA molecule is completely different from the DNA molecule of another animal. The same goes for other animals. They are two completely different molecules no matter how similar they may be.

Differences within the human come from the fact that each of us have certain genes emphasize or deemphasized more than the other along with some genetic errors and misprints through our reproduction over the generations.

Its all about logic. To define something properly you must know what it is and what it is not. Part of knowing what somethin is is knowing what it isn't.

For example: 2 and 3 are not the same. Why? because 3 is one more than 2. The number two may be within the number 3, giving the numbers some commonality or similarity but that does not make them the same.

A hydrogen atom and helium atom have similarity with each other. A helium atom can be made by fusing two hydrogens. Does that make them the same atom? No!

All things have commonality whether it be numbers, atom, or life forms. That does not make them all the same! The life forms of earth share the same planet so they are probably bound to have some commonality. We are all made of atom, which make up molecules so we must be the same. Wrong!

I believe the study of biology, study the function of all a life-forms parts and how it came to be is valuable but acting like humans are born something inhuman is stupid. All things came from something that wasn't themselves, the infinite force and nonstop forces of the universe and the creator of it.

Evolution when looked as some form of improvement or suggestion that humans are produced from inhuman life forms justified by referring to the commonality between the lifeforms is stupid, meaningless and a waste of everyone's brain.

And life-forms are not a special thing anyway. All lifeforms do is take in energy and release it which is the same as anything whether its has a mind a preserve self or not. Living and non-living things do the same thing but it seems the nature of creation is expressed through both and not just one.

The debate over what evolution is and what the term means in regards to biology is just proof of the corruption of truth and confusion that persists in certain subjects within the scientific community.

(P.S.):A person or a genetic mutation kicking you in the testes and thus stopping you from reproducing with your own kind does not mean you have become another species. In fact classifying species by reproduction is good but not entirley accurate. The best way is the see if the two lifeforms have the same type of DNA molecule.

@ccraft I was brought up believing in a Creator. So i still do. I know the concept doesn't make sense but........ Regardless, i don't believe in any religion. i'm kind of a deist

@pooty: I was raised the same way, idk how the world was created, I woke up and it's there.

well well well...

@dum529001: human DNA is not completely different than animal DNA. We are only 1% different in comparison to chimpanzee's.... Get your facts straight bro.

A person kicking you in the nuts keeping you from reproducing doesn't change you into another specie, you are right, evolution doesn't say it does make you another specie. The way evolution works is let's say every male was kicked in the nuts. The ones that could reproduce would reproduce having babies with thier strong nuts, while the ones with the weaker nuts wouldn't reproduce. Over time those changes in accordance with our invironment can seperate traits and over millions of years form new species.

Pot meet kettle

The irony in this thread is overwhelming! Now, I'm no advocate of Christianity; but I cannot help be laugh at the irony from the atheists in this thread that hold to a form of moral nihilism while berating Christians as a whole for the few who have associated with the Klu Klux Klan, and little do they know that under moral nihilism there would be nothing wrong with associating with the Klu Klux Klan. At least under Christianity, I would have a foundation (not a very good one) for claiming that associating with the Klu Klux Klan is wrong, whereas, the nihilist can only say to each its own.

Can I get some clarification on what your referring too and mean by that?

There is a typo in my original response. What I meant was that there are atheists in this thread who are moral nihilist. A moral nihilist is someone who believes that there is no objective standard in which we evaluate right or wrong, which makes it ironic that they are berating Christianity for the involvement that a few people had with the Klan since there is nothing objectively wrong with supporting the Klan on their view.

Sorry for my delay. My intended post did not show and it was more detailed, but here's the shorter version. There is no evidence for evolution in the sense that Charles Darwin was proposing. You've created a lot of confusion around the word "evolution" to propose something that does not exist. According to these below papers, there's no evidence for evolution and no evidence for changes in organisms over time.

I start with fruit flies:

100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution and No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations.

Similarly, 40,000 generations of E. Coli bacteria did not demonstrate any evolution, see Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247.

Nature does not demonstrate natural selection either, see Calsbeek, R. and R. M. Cox. 2010. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature. 465 (7298): 613-616 and Natural Selection Is Not 'Nature's Design Process'.

The videos below helps smooth things out:

@lordraiden: Yeah they are inventions, man loves a good story, what story do you live by?

@dshipp17: If there was no evidence, science institutes from around the world would not be studying it. I've created confusion around the word evolution? Ok, taken from National Human Genome Research Institute

Evolution is the process by which organisms change over time. Mutations produce genetic variation in populations, and the environment interacts with this variation to select those individuals best adapted to their surroundings. The best-adapted individuals leave behind more offspring than less well-adapted individuals. Given enough time, one species may evolve into many others.

Taken from UC Berkeley;

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Let me ask you something, if life is so complex and it does need a designer, who or what created your god?

Live by? I don't live by any particular story. I'm not sure what you mean?

Some interesting words from Bart Eherman regarding the destruction of mummy masks in order to uncover New Testament papyri:

Would a First-Century Fragment of Mark Matter?

24 JAN 2015

As you know, there is a good deal of discussion going on about the destruction of mummy masks in order to uncover New Testament papyri. One point that I am not seeing discussed strikes me as the most important of all, and I want to address that here.

But before doing so, I want to ask two questions, that maybe someone on the Blog can answer for me. The first is actuallyseveral questions: exactly how many masks are we talking about here? How many have been destroyed? And how many have been singled out for destruction? Don’t we as a reading public have the right to know?

And second: am I right that the only way to know if a New Testament papyrus was used as part of the “paper mache” in the mask, that first the mask has to be destroyed? That is to say, this one mask – or these many masks? – is/are being destroyed not because it / they are known to house NT papyri, but in the hopes that they are. Right? So I return to my first set of questions: what is the yield here? How many masks are being obliterated from the earth before something of value emerges from them?

But now on to the point that I want to explore at length that seems to me to be the really important one. I personally think that there are no shananigans going on when Dan Wallace and Craig Evans tell us that a fragment of the Gospel of Mark has been found and that it can, with reasonable certainty, be dated to the late first century. I’m not saying that I know they are right. Far from it. In fact, one of the most disconcerting things about this claim is that they are not making the papyrus available so real experts can study it and let us know what it really is and to what period it can be dated. But let’s suppose that once it is published – now the date is no longer 2012, as originally stated, or 2015 as stated last week, but 2017 or later, for reasons no one will explain – it turns out to be a very early fragment of the Gospel of Mark. The question no one seems to be asking is: What difference will it make?

There seems to be a widely held sense that it will be one of the greatest finds of modern times and will somehow revolutionize our understanding of the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. Will it?

My sense from everything that has been said is that it is a small fragment with portions of some verses on it. It will need at least to be that, because otherwise it would be impossible for the discoverers to have determined that it comes from Mark, as opposed, say, to Matthew or Luke (since they often have the same stories as Mark, often with the same wording). There must be something characteristic of Mark’s Gospel – for example, a verse found only there, or the wording of a verse only there – that makes it clear that it comes from Mark.

Now, let’s say that scholars – once they are given the inestimable privilege of actually seeing the thing, in two years, or twenty years, or whenever – come to agree that it is from Mark and that it dates from, say, somewhere between 80-130 CE. They will not be able to get any *closer* to that either by dating the manuscript on the basis of its handwriting or by Carbon 14. You need at least a fifty year window. But suppose that’s the window, and suppose the wording of the verses on the fragment are very close indeed to what we have already reconstructed based on other surviving evidence to be the oldest known form of the Gospel of Mark. Let me stress that if the wording were widely *different* from what we already think was the oldest form of Mark that (a) these evangelical scholars would not be excited about the find but, just the contrary, would be upset about it and (b) they would in that case argue that it is in fact not from Mark but from some non-canonical Gospel!

So let’s suppose it is a small fragment with some verses that are virtually identical with the form of Mark as we already have constructed it. What will it tell us, then, that we do not already know?

I can’t say, since I haven’t been allowed to see the thing, but if how I’m imagining the case to be is right, then so far as I can tell, when it comes to helping us know the “original” text of Mark, or anything else about the text of Mark, it wouldn’t actually help us a bit. That’s because it would not be telling us anything that we don’t already know, or think we know.

Let me explain. Just about every reasonably sentient and sober scholar of Mark’s Gospel thinks that it was written around 70 CE –maybe a few years before, or a few years after, but around then. Moreover, every scholar on the face of the earth thinks that Mark’s Gospel was copied soon after it was first put in circulation. Moreover, almost everyone agrees that some copies were better than others. I think everyone would agree that some of the early copies were all in all reasonably accurate, with a few mistakes here and there on a given page or in a given passage. Others may have changed a lot more things here and there, either by accident or on purpose. Others may have been way off base. I suppose you could argue that both Matthew and Luke produced “copies” of Mark – but theirs are really new editions with additional information added. So on one end of the copying spectrum of you would have copies that are just about like the original, with mistakes here and there, and on the other end of the spectrum complete re-editions of Mark.

Suppose a fragment of a reasonably accurate copy of Mark showed up. Suppose in fact that it contains, say, most of 3-5 verses, which are almost exactly like what we already think is the oldest form of Mark. What would it tell us? It would tell us we are right in how we imagine Mark was being copied. But we already think we’re right. So what is the breakthrough? (As I will stress in a later post, I myself am ecstatic about the idea of a first-century copy of Mark showing up. But NOT for the reasons people typically assume. That is, it will NOT revolutionize our knowledge. How could it do that??)

Suppose the fragment has some differences from what we think is the oldest form of Mark. What would that tell us? It would tell us we are right – there were indeed copies with some variants early on in the transmission process.

Suppose it has lots and lots of differences. What would that tell us? It would again tell us we are right – there were indeed copies with lots of variants. (Although, I repeat, if this fragment is like *that*, our evangelical friends who are interested in destroying masks would not be all that excited about the discovery and would insist it actually is not a copy of Mark but of some other Gospel).

So what will the fragment do, once it is allowed to be published in two years or two hundred years? I am having trouble imagining a scenario other than the one that I have sketched out. It will tell us we’re right. (As I will stress in a later post, I myself am ecstatic about the idea of a first-century copy of Mark showing up. But NOT for the reasons people typically assume.)

What would a first-century copy of Mark look like if it were to tell us we were *wrong*? It would have to be a very long copy of Mark (say, a number of chapters instead of a few verses), it would have to be shown incontrovertibly to be Mark, and it would have to be either *exactly* word for word what we already think was in Mark (that would show that very early cribes were being precise over long stretches of text, which seems to us now, based on what we know now, to be implausible) OR it would have to be *really* different from what we already think was in Mark (that would show that scribes exercised more license than we currently think).

http://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/20/scientists-claim-the-hidden-papyrus-uncovered-inside-this-mummy-mask-could-end-up-being-the-oldest-copy-of-a-christian-gospel-ever/

@lordraiden: Thanks for that, when I saw that discovery of a piece of Mark, I asked myself how or why is this such a huge "win" for Christianity?

This article helps put things in perspective.

Ok, I don't disagree with you about what scientists intend the term evolution to mean. My comment was intended to distinguish this definition from the evolution that Charles Darwin had intended, although there are some similarities. I have some more articles on the mutation situation, also.

Basically, part of what I intended to point out was that scientific observation is not supporting evolution so far; so far, scientific observation seems to be pointing to creationism, although going out on a limp to state these observation is proving damaging to respected scientists' careers. I wanted to point out that evolution is not such a sound theory that it can be classified as a scientific fact. My background is mostly in chemistry and physics and when you tell us that something is sound, we think of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Special Theory of Relativity, although continued discoveries in modern astronomy is breaking down the soundness of the Special Theory of Relativity (e.g. of most interest to me, achieving faster than light travel). Evolution is a fun and interesting concept to explore in science; it teaches us a lot about science. I like evolution because I can experiment with it to either prove or disprove the theory (e.g. actually, not really; biology not particularly being my field of expertise, I have to see experiments designed to prove evolution and than look at what the results show and go 'I see what they were trying to do'). During this process, we have indirectly found circumstantial evidence for creationism, when, before trying to validate evolution, creationism just had to be accepted completely by faith. There is still a degree of faith that has to go into creationism, but studying evolution has taken us a long way in the direction of establishing creationism. Part of learning science is creating theories and postulates like evolution and experimenting to see whether observation confirms the theories and postulates; evolution has last so long because we could only recently try to create experiments to try to validate the theory; in chemistry and physics, we do this when we create scientific equations or propose chemical structures (e.g. creating pharmaceutical products). Usually, biologists do their science in reverse order, because biology is so complicated to take the approach of a chemist (e.g. my personal perspective as a chemist); in evolution, Charles Darwin partly took the approach of chemists and physicists and partly just made the wrong conclusions about his observations; evolution was dominant for a very long time, in a way comparable to Newtonian mechanics, until Einstein came along; Einstein's equations dominated physics for a similar period as evolution dominated biology, but cosmology is showing us that Einstein's equations may be flawed (e.g. need an update, just like the Newtonian equations needed an update from Einstein); this is also helping Christian scientists in the pursuit to validate creationism.

In reality, I was prepared to accept evolution, like some Christians, but, the more I looked at the real data, I had to back away from being resigned to the more popular scientific theories about the origins of the Earth and fall back to Creationism and the Bible. I see these discoveries as God speaking out and helping us to avoid reaching the wrong conclusions. As a scientists, I had to give everything an open mind, but that required both sides; I probably learned this approach from delving into the legal field, getting a perspective outside the scientific field; so, I can understand how scientists are slow and resistant to considering the explanations from the other side, the Christian scientists.

To go with your question, nothing created God. God exists on the other side of eternity, or in a space outside of time. Humanity is not supposed to be able to understand this, because we are not designed to fully comprehend God; to scientifically explain God would be to fully understand God or very nearly so; as time progresses, a better explanation will come along, but a scientific explanation to explain God will probably elude humanity. Aspects of God came on this side of eternity in the form of Jesus. To understand Jesus's resurrection will begin the process of understanding God. Currently, all humanity can understand is that signs show that God exists and created the reality that humanity exists within.

Man likes to view their life in a story format, so are you sure?

Why do people keep saying you don't need Religion to be moral, of course you don't. Your parents teach you morals, doesn't matter if they are religious or not.

#

I have noticed that Christians love trying to pull trump cards where ever and however they can, regardless if it's true or not (like the Exodus and supposedly finding Ramases army and chariots at the bottom of the red sea?) And no worries, I love reading up on these kind of stories and biblical material myself. Bart's generally a great scholarly read when he rights things, as he's neither for or against, he's for what ever the truth is, which im happy to relate to. The truth gets so twisted when the Christian side of the story gets involved, that you can see how people like Dshipp sound so indoctrinated with his responses when you read and watch his videos/websites he posts, you can't help but feel sorry!

Right! I take it this is a generalization? So, does this apply to women as well? I come from an ethnic background, and when talking to my mother over the last few years about the paper thin concept of mans gods and why do the things we still do given that we (me & her) really don't believe in a god, why go to the church for christenings, or Easter/xmas.........her answer was remarkably simple......tradition, it's what she/we've always done! It's what she know's, it's more or less what she was brought up with and finds it uncomfortable straying from tradition?

I told her that I'm not bothering with getting my next child christened, and she gave me this strange look, like I was f$%*ing with her, somewhat mortified that I wasn't going to have my next child baptized, not because of some omnipotent being that she doesn't believe in, but, the fact that I'm breaking tradition, and, most of all, what will the community think? what will the rest of the maco's think?? that's the way she and most in her era were brought up and how they think, what will everyone think? Sure, there's story involved, but for me and my family, it's mostly about tradition, the way things have always been done, and bucking that trend, well, it's not as easy and simple for some as it is for me :-)

@lordraiden: People like to think of their life in a story format, think about that for a moment, what does that mean? Humans crave stories, it's why the bible and other religious books are so powerful and why we follow tradition. Stories are a form of patterns and our brains are pattern recognition machines we see patterns everywhere and we assign them with meaning, like seeing your mom's face, you become familiar with the pattern of her face.

Theirs nothing wrong with tradition as long as it's not hurting nobody, and though it is your child you are responsible for it, what's the harm in keeping a tradition going that your mom wants you to be apart of?

You've raised a lot of interesting points. I'm not rebellious in the sense of tradition, I don't discard it for the sake of it, it just depends on where it falls in line with me and my immediate (wife and son) family. What's the harm as far as my mum is concerned, well, I don't think it's too healthy doing something for someone else's sake purely for those reasons regarding something like a baptism! If I were to do it, and I haven't ruled it out, I certainly wouldn't do it to please her, that would be dishonest to her, myself and my family. There in lies the problem, doing things in life to please others. To turn the tables, what's the harm in her letting me create my own traditions?? Do I have to be a follower?? Because there will be people that you piss off when you don't, so, rocking the boat is inevitable if you want to stand your ground and be your own person and create your own story and you don't have to throw everyone out of the boat to do that, but, it goes both ways, understanding each other and traditions isn't a one way street. You will never create your own story, own way, own traditions if your not aloud to be anything but a follower.

When you say "what's the harm in keeping a tradition going that your mom wants me to be a part of", do I not have a say in it myself if I want to be a part of that tradition? If not, do I have to go a long with it because my mother has trouble accepting me growing into what I choose? I don't push things onto her she has trouble accepting (and there's a lot she has trouble accepting). For one, it costs enough money to do something like that, talking at least a few hundred dollars, between church/ceremony and meals after that, so, I'd basically not only be appeasing people by doing this but spending money I normally wouldn't on their behalf doing a religious ceremony that has no relevance to me, which I think I can honour and do something more meaningful to me and my family without going through church and ceremony.

Not sure if any of that helps you out as to where I'm coming from?

@lordraiden: Thank you, I try to understand religion from a psychological perspective, believe it or not, but our brains are hardwired to believe.

That makes sense, I generally put myself before others around me, I like helping people when I can and I generally don't want to upset anyone. But wanting to be your own person is admirable, not that you can't do that without finding a middle ground with your family on the topic of religion.

I'm not sure what your culture and tradition is, but what about going to church sunday with your mom? If you live close you know.

@dshipp17: I'm left wondering why you always go back to Darwin? There are other biological scientists who have made great contributions in evolution. Darwin is not the end all be all. You keep stating that Dawrin's theory is different, mind telling me what his theory states?

Creationism is actually a hypothesis of abiogenesis. So it's possible that creationism is the answer to abiogenesis, evolution is not the origin of life, it is the origin of speciation. Why creationists try so hard to refute evolution is beyond me, the 150 years of constant observations and experiments prove evolution.

So why is it that complex life needs a complex designer but your complex designer does not need a complex designer? This is called special pleading. So were not able to fully comprehend god but somehow you can? That is absurd. Frankly, him existing outside of time and space means he doesn't exist at all.