Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[DerelictJunction]

Are you saying that there is no difference between a suicide bomber and the Coptic Christians who were beheaded for not denouncing their faith in Christ?

Are you saying that a person who has a gun, put to their head, and then asked to denounce their faith or die, doesn't denounce their faith and is shot to death, is no different than a person who straps a bomb to their body and explodes it in a crowd of innocent people???????

If you are correct, a suicide bomber could go into a classroom of kindergarten kids of a different faith or belief and blow their self and everyone else up and they would ALL be martyrs.

That is one twisted view of martyrdom....

I'm saying nothing of the kind. Just pointing out that the definition of martyr includes people whose tactics and principles both you and I despise.
However, I also despise the bombing of Dresden in WWII, for which the only goal was to demoralize the German people.
I regret the taking of "innocent" lives, but it is done all the time in war. It's called collateral damage.
For the suicide bomber, the goal is to win the war. All lives, including his own, are subordinate to that goal. Those kindergarten children are collateral damage to him and those on his side.

As for those martyrs who purposely do not strike back at those who are killing them, their sacrifice is assuredly greater and more deserving of admiration.

 

[Astrophile]

there are a number of reasons.
third is the charade and nonsense associated with this topic.
piltdownman is a classic example of this.
it took the scientific community 40 years to expose this hoax.

You may not have noticed, but those 40 years included 1914-18 and 1939-45, when European scientists had more immediate worries than investigating the credentials of 'Piltdown Man'. Also, several of Charles Dawson's other hoaxes, such as the Beauport statuette, the Pevensey brick and the Maresfield map, were not exposed until more than 60 years after they were 'discovered'. Isn't it curious that we don't hear much about the folly and credulity of the archaeologists and cartographers who accepted these examples of ''charade and nonsense', and that we don't hear people saying that the fact that these fakes were accepted for so long proves that the whole of archaeology and cartography are lies?

 

[crjmurray]

You may not have noticed, but those 40 years included 1914-18 and 1939-45, when European scientists had more immediate worries than investigating the credentials of 'Piltdown Man'. Also, several of Charles Dawson's other hoaxes, such as the Beauport statuette, the Pevensey brick and the Maresfield map, were not exposed until more than 60 years after they were 'discovered'. Isn't it curious that we don't hear much about the folly and credulity of the archaeologists and cartographers who accepted these examples of ''charade and nonsense', and that we don't hear people saying that the fact that these fakes were accepted for so long proves that the whole of archaeology and cartography are lies?

Bah! Those cartographers are all shysters!!!!! I mean has anyone actually SEEN Hawaii?!?!?! I thought so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Posted 10/6/99. A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science -- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light -- 300 million meters per second -- is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once traveled much faster than it does today, he believes. Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to back up his belief. For instance, theories of the origin of the universe -- the "Big Bang"- suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have traveled in that time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.
Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. "It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen." His theory could also help explain astronomers' discovery last year that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Moffat's paper, co-authored with former U of T researcher Michael Clayton, appeared in a recent edition of the journal Physics Letters.
A University of Toronto Release. CONTACT: Bruce Rolston, U of T Public Affairs, (416) 978-6974

Moffat is proposing that the speed of light was faster over 13 billion years ago during the very, very early universe. Is that the theory you accept?

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't forget to add that in a very real sense, that outside of Christ we are pretty much invisible to God.

I always find it amusing when humans pretend to speak for a deity.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have traveled in that time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.
Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. ...

(bolding mine)

I don't think this is anything new. I think it's accepted amongst Physicists that the normal physical laws did not apply in the very early stages of the big bang.

I was watching a lecture by Lawrence Krauss,and that's what he said. But that is in the first 10^-40 of a second or something, which is what the quote you gave seems to be saying (see bolded part).

 

[PsychoSarah]

there are a number of reasons.
first is HOX genes.
any mutation of these genes quickly lead to a non viable organism.
this implies each organism has a unique origin, it didn't mutate from something else.
second is, there is no evidence that inanimate matter becomes alive.
third is the charade and nonsense associated with this topic.
piltdownman is a classic example of this.
it took the scientific community 40 years to expose this hoax.

Ok, so you cannot prove that any gene has to stay EXACTLY the same to remain viable. And even if there were genes provably like that, there are plenty more that aren't, so who cares? And the latter thing is rendered completely invalid if those HOX genes aren't unique on the species level in every instance that they occur.

second thing isn't evolution, so irrelevant. Abiogenesis could be disproven, and evolutionary theory would not be disproven along with it.

there is a lot of nonsense, much of it being misinformation spread by apologist sites.

piltdown man was always questioned, and the penalties for forging evidence are severe and often career ending.

 

[HKS]

As a Christian: What's the problem with this theory anyway?

 

[Loudmouth]

As a Christian: What's the problem with this theory anyway?

Some people prefer human traditions to reason and logic. The church had a similar problem with the idea that the Earth moved about the Sun.

"First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I always find it amusing when humans pretend to speak for a deity.

It's got nothing to do with pretending to speak for a deity, it's more along the lines of offering a gentle warning to someone who seems quite incapable of telling the difference between said deity and comic strip heroes/supernatural entities.
That being said, do you know the difference between the God of the Bible and said comic strip heroes/supernatural entities? Care to enlighten our readers.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's got nothing to do with pretending to speak for a deity, it's more along the lines of offering a gentle warning to someone who seems quite incapable of telling the difference between said deity and comic strip heroes/supernatural entities.
That being said, do you know the difference between the God of the Bible and said comic strip heroes/supernatural entities? Care to enlighten our readers.

One book has more pictures?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

One book has more pictures?

Except for Peanuts. Is that all you've got?

 

[Loudmouth]

Except for Peanuts. Is that all you've got?

Is that all you got?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Is that all you got?

Snoopy rules! Loudmouth!

 

[Loudmouth]

Snoopy rules! Loudmouth!

So you can't tell us what the difference is between comic book superheroes and God?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

So you can't tell us what the difference is between comic book superheroes and God?

Sure, I can tell the difference between comic strip heroes/supernatural entities and the God of the Bible. Can you? ( my initial question to you )

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure, I can tell the difference between comic strip heroes/supernatural entities and the God of the Bible. Can you? ( my initial question to you )

I can: the Bible was written before the comics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, I can tell the difference between comic strip heroes/supernatural entities and the God of the Bible. Can you? ( my initial question to you )

Apparently not. Can you?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Apparently not. Can you?

Perhaps. Sure.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I can: the Bible was written before the comics.

That would be the difference between comics and the Bible, but that is not the question. What is the difference between a comic strip hero/supernatural entity and the God of the Bible? (reading back to Davian's reply to AV -- link to follow: here)