Letters to the Editor
Creation tale
October 6, 2008
Advertisement
To the editor:
Columnist Leonard Pitts got something right in his one weak subject - religion - then, under pressure from indignant literalists, backpedaled and apologized for his "arrogance," rescuing foolishness again from the jaws of reason.
I'll reaffirm what his now-humbled intelligence tried to tell him in the first place. Any sane adult who literally believes the Adam and Eve story, given access to overwhelming evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors and the immense time scales involved, the flat absurdity of details regarding what Adam and Eve experienced (spontaneous generation, interspecies dialogues, magic trees producing knowledge and sin), the dubious sources for this hearsay account and its obvious derivation from earlier myths not having anything to do with the Judeo-Christian Bible - any modern American literally accepting this First Couple fantasy is indeed willfully, disgracefully ignorant and a "fool" by any reasonable definition. Let's at least get that much right.
If Sarah Palin is among such believers, Pitts was intuitively correct to harbor questions about her fitness to hold high office in supposedly enlightened times. To pretend otherwise is to disgrace every triumph of reason and notion of progress that has moved us out of darkness. We've been dragged backward by these truly arrogant, endlessly offended fools for much too long, and it is time to call this nonsense by its proper name. Pitts failed us, and himself, again - just at the moment when his light peeked from under the bushel.
Bruce S. Springsteen,
Lawrence
6 October 2008
at 12:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hujiko (Anonymous) says…
I cannot believe the public actually elects such candidates who limit rights of others so that they can be seen as the party based on morals. If you want to be a true “American” you must accept all differences and not let them affect how you treat a person.
6 October 2008
at 6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
And so, Mr. Springsteen, by your vaunted logic and knowledge you single handedly declare all religiouis belief to be sophomoric, juvenile, the product of delusion, and the practioners of same to be ignorant, stupid, uneducated, cultists who deserve no place in the public square and who, in your opinion, should be banished to “re-education camps” for their and society's good?
6 October 2008
at 6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rtwngr (Anonymous) says…
“….overwhelming evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors…”
You mock the story of creation from the bible and call it a tale. Then you have the nerve to make a monumental blunder with this statement. I, and the rest of the scientific community, would like to see the “overwhelming evidence” that I hope includes just ONE transitional fossil.
6 October 2008
at 7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
rtwinger, google “transitional fossil” and you will find the “overwheliming evidence” that there are indeed transitional fossils.
As for Mr. Springsteen, obviously he is passionate(?) about this topic but he fails to recognize his own self in Mr. Pitts' column. In it Mr. Pitts spoke of not about the arrogance of those who do believe in the Creation story but of the arrogance of those who do not. Mr. Springsteen falls victim to such arrogance. Mr. Springsteen denounces anyone who does believe in the Creation story as fools as if, he himself, has all the answers.
I don't believe in the Creation story either but I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have all the answers as some individuals do.
Mr. Springsteen should perhaps go back and re-read the coloumn, he might see himself in it.
Dena
6 October 2008
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tonythetiger (Anonymous) says…
I still believe in the tooth fairy too don't you?
I think it is all a cult that is actually into human sacrifice and blaming others for what you do.
“…he died for my sins of the flesh.”
Whew, now think about what you say.
Doesn't sound much different than when people were hurled into the volcano in Hawaii or cut open and had their hearts eaten in the Yucatan. I guess there just was not one story of one celestially worshipped virgin male hurled into a volcano to be sacrificed to the rain gods that they wrote down about and the history of Hawaii and the rest of the world was founded on.
Instead of the Papacy we could call it the Papayacy.
6 October 2008
at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Brucey seems to be speaking from a irrational belief point of view.
rtwngr, you should be careful about asking for “transitional fossils” without defining what you really mean. The believers will spin it so anything is a transitional fossil just as they do with “evolution”. For example, there is a fish, an alligator, a horse. No feet in water, four feet in water, four feet on land. “Therefore”, they conclude in a whirl, an alligator is a transitional fossil to a horse.
However, just asking for “overwhelming evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors” would be interesting for them to create. Scientists who think would not use “overwhelming”. Y2Krs and global warmists, would.
6 October 2008
at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Good letter Bruce, you'll always be “The Boss”…
6 October 2008
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
bkgardner: “who, in your opinion, should be banished to “re-education camps” for their and society's good?”
I think you just made this up.
6 October 2008
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“Doesn't sound much different than when people were hurled into the volcano in Hawaii or cut open and had their hearts eaten in the Yucatan.”
Tony, if there was such a thing as satan, don't you think he would be trying to pervert what God created, mess with people's minds, cause them to do what they should not?
And since you will probably respond you don't believe in satan, is that why you don't believe in God? How do you know neither exists? Are you one to say, 'better safe than sorry' concerning global warming? But yet, why would you object to the same mentality concerning God? What would you need to learn to know that they exist? How much do you currently know of all known knowledge in the universe to be able to say they don't exist? How much known knowledge is there in comparison to unknown knowledge? Is that even possible to define? Do we know everything there is to know? Can you detail in a reasonable manner how you know there is no God?
6 October 2008
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Seems Bruce got “stuck” somewhere around Neaderthal. It would have been alot easier and a much shorter letter if Bruce had just said, “I don't believe in a higher power, don't want a Christian president and wish to impose my shrill, dark, and soul-less will upon everyone else”.
I guess he won't vote for Obama either then? Also, I missed it where Palin said forthrightly she was going to shove Christianity down each and every Americans' throat as VP. More assumption leading to panic and foolish notions, from the left.
6 October 2008
at 9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
orikal (Chris Redford) says…
“Can you detail in a reasonable manner how you know there is no God?”
Can you detail in a reasonable manner how you know we aren't in a cycle of reincarnation?
If you believe in reincarnation, why not heaven instead?
Can you detail in a reasonable manner why we shouldn't be worshiping Hindu deities?
Can you detail in a reasonable manner why we shouldn't be trying to find the right Voodoo Iwa's (spirits) to match our lives?
The difference between all these concepts (including God) and global warming is evidence. If you could not put the temperatures on a graph and show me the trend of global warming, I can tell you: I would not believe in it.
The evidence comes first and then the beliefs. Not the other way around. Otherwise, you end up with an infinite amount of religious concepts to disprove.
6 October 2008
at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“I, and the rest of the scientific community, would like to see the “overwhelming evidence” that I hope includes just ONE transitional fossil.”
See above. Now, I, and the rest of us who don't mind what you believe but don't want to be demeaned for our beliefs, would like to see a single scintilla of evidence of the Creation story….
I'll wait.
6 October 2008
at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
Wouldn't all the Ramapithicenes and Australopithicene and Homo habilis fossils count as transitional fossils? Kind of demonstrates a bit of a pattern doesn't it?
6 October 2008
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Art (Anonymous) says…
Oh, Bruce, Bruce.
I fear for your soul. Heathen ignorance has blinded you to the spiritual power that surrounds you. I pray the FSM will touch you with his noodly appendage and restore your faith.
6 October 2008
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
orikal (Chris Redford) says…
“I guess he won't vote for Obama either then? Also, I missed it where Palin said forthrightly she was going to shove Christianity down each and every Americans' throat as VP.”
I think you missed Bruce's point. His point was: if someone ignores the vast amount of evidence against the Biblical creation story and goes on believing it as literal truth anyway, how do you know they won't ignore evidence on other matters in order to support their own personal beliefs?
What about the mortgage crisis? Palin seems to want to think it had a few simple causes. What if it is more complicated than that and requires some examination of *evidence* to figure it out. If Palin approaches policy decisions like she approaches her religious beliefs, we can't necessarily count on her doing that necessary investigation.
Bruce's point was, if someone is willing to ignore evidence to support a religious belief, they are willing to ignore evidence to support political and economic belief and make drastic uninformed decisions about our future.
6 October 2008
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
orikal (Chris Redford) says…
“Now, I, and the rest of us who don't mind what you believe but don't want to be demeaned for our beliefs, would like to see a single scintilla of evidence of the Creation story:.
I'll wait.”
VERY well said :) I often forget to make that point. All these people demanding better physical evidence for evolution don't have an ounce of physical evidence for creationism.
So you have a book that says its true? Fine: we'll write a book too. Now we are even. Except for the vast amount of physical evidence for our position, which puts us quite a bit ahead.
6 October 2008
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Peaty (Anonymous) says…
“I hope includes just ONE transitional fossil.”
Here you go:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
6 October 2008
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
2002 (Anonymous) says…
While I'm not a fan of the religious far right in America, I am down right sickened by the close minded secular far left in America. Based on Bruce's comments, I assume that he counts as his heroes Pol Pot and Hitler and others that despised the freedom of others. Regardless of political views, how about real tolerance on all sides?
6 October 2008
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Regardless of political views, how about real tolerance on all sides?”
Uh huh. Exactly where are the “close minded secular far left” candidates? Where is it that these “crazies” are campaigning to make you gay and stop yer religion?
Oh, right - there aren't any candidates like that. Sorry.
6 October 2008
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
2002 (Anonymous) says:
I assume that he counts as his heroes Pol Pot and Hitler and others that despised the freedom of others. Regardless of political views, how about real tolerance on all sides?
***************************
Why don't you start with yourself? Throwing around comparisons to Hitler aren't exactly the best way to show your “real tolerance.”
6 October 2008
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“by your vaunted logic and knowledge you single handedly declare all religiouis belief to be sophomoric, juvenile, the product of delusion, and the practioners of same to be ignorant, stupid, uneducated, cultists”
–––––-
Actually, the letter writer was not condemning all religious belief. His issue was with people who believe the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There is a great deal of distance between belief in a God or some other higher power and belief that the Earth is literally 6000 years old and that the heavens and Earth were created in 6 days.
Read the letter again—Mr. Springsteen was quite specific in his problem with literal belief in myths, not in religious belief in general.
6 October 2008
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
This is the best LTE in a long time. Bruce, don't worry about the religious folks freaking out in these posts. They'll never see reality when they live in a fantasy.
6 October 2008
at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
Anyone else seen Religulous BTW? Pretty amusing, but scary as well.
6 October 2008
at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
This is what is amusing, isnt it called “darwins THEORY?” implying that it is just that, a theory?? Which would leave one to believe that there is no proof positive evidence that evolution exists?? Now I believe in your right to choose to believe that you come from monkeys, you have every right to believe that, but I also have every right to believe whatever it is that I am going to believe, and if its the creation story then so be it! Who cares if Palin believes it or not, its not like the republicans are going to hold church every sunday and require every American to tune in! But its funny how “christians, and religion” bring out the most of defensive people, debating a topic for the gospel truth that is just a theory…..
6 October 2008
at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat—you are sentenced to two semesters of biology for showing extreme ignorance regarding what a scientific theory is.
6 October 2008
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“If you could not put the temperatures on a graph and show me the trend of global warming, I can tell you: I would not believe in it.”
orikal, one difference being is that I am not going around saying there absolutely a God.
As far as “trend” goes, how about I show you a trend from last year to this year showing a decrease in temperature. You just said if I could show you there wasn't a trend of global warming, you wouldn't believe in it. But now you are saying, one day, one year isn't enough. You are already qualifying your “trend”. So, how did you arbitrarily come up with a certain number of years - because it fits with your previously conceived beliefs?
“All these people demanding better physical evidence for evolution don't have an ounce of physical evidence for creationism.”
But didn't you just say, “The evidence comes first and then the beliefs”?
6 October 2008
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
12345 (Anonymous) says…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgZKKw…
Sarah Palin receives a blessing from a witch doctor. Nice.
6 October 2008
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
2002 (Anonymous) says…
Hey Kansas778
you say: Why don't you start with yourself? Throwing around comparisons to Hitler aren't exactly the best way to show your “real tolerance.”
––––––––
What do you mean throwing around comparisons to Hitler? I wasn't thwowing it around I was directly linking Bruce's comment to the thought process of Hitler and Pol Pot. Bruce wants to silence any view that he doesn't judge to be valid. That is exactly what Hitler and Pol Pot did.
Bruce and now you and some of the other left nut jobs here are exactly like those that you oppose-the right wing nut jobs. You honestly feel that anyone that doesn't hold to your view is wrong and should be silenced.
6 October 2008
at 12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
no thanks kansas, out of the dictionary the defination of theory is:” An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture”
6 October 2008
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Which would leave one to believe that there is no proof positive evidence that evolution exists??”
––––
The only person who would be led to believe that based on the use of the term “theory” is ignorant regarding the difference between “Theory (disambiguation)” and “Scientific Theory”
A scientific theory by definition, requires evidence. A theory can only be formed once a hypothesis has been through myriad tests from various approaches and angles and still has yet to be disproven.
Please educate yourself. Especially if you are going to stubbornly argue once someone has pointed out your ignorance.
6 October 2008
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
logicsound…play nice, just because you wanna prove that your a monkeys uncle doesnt mean you have to be ugly:P
6 October 2008
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
2002,
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Nowhere does Bruce call for the censorship or silencing of people who believe a certain way.
He is calling into question the ability of someone to lead who obviously can't distinguish between a parable and literal reality.
Furthermore, there are an abundance of ways to make a point criticizing censorship without resorting to a Hitler comparison. Using Hitler as your reference nullifies your argument because whatever comparion exists between him and your subject gets overshadowed by the level of atrocity committed in Hitler's name.
According to Godwin's Law, resorting to a Hitler comparison causes you to forfeit the argument, as it shows that you are incapable of making your point without resorting to the sensationalism of invoking WWII Germany and the Holocaust.
6 October 2008
at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
I am playing nice. I don't use “ignorance” as a insult. It merely means that you are uninformed. You can correct your ignorance by learning what is meant by Scientific Theory.
I'm not trying to prove that my Uncle is a monkey. You, however, seem insistent on acting like a monkey's uncle.
6 October 2008
at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
well let me ask you this logic……
How will believing in evolution affect you when you die??
6 October 2008
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
1) evolution doesn't require “belief” as you are using it. The underlying driver behind evolution, has been demonstrated countless times in a laboratory. It requires comprehension, nothing more.
2) your question is a non-sequitur, as the effect that evolution will have upon me at my death is irrelevant to whether or not it is factually correct or not. That's like asking how gravity will affect me when I die.
3) Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and the Bible account of creation taken literally are mutually exclusive. I know a great number of practicing Christians who are able to reconcile their faith with their understanding that science is an effective methodology for understanding/explaining the world around us.
6 October 2008
at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
“How will believing in evolution affect you when you die??”
About as much, likely, as believing in god. As in, not one bit.
Welcome to potential non-existence. No need to fear it at all.
6 October 2008
at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says:
“No thanks kansas, out of the dictionary the defination of theory is:” An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture”“
Are you truly ignorant to the fact that there is a fundamental difference between that definition and the established definition of the word according to the scientific community?
6 October 2008
at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
2002: “You honestly feel that anyone that doesn't hold to your view is wrong and should be silenced.”
From this thread at least, it doesn't appear that you can actually support that statement. Are you going to try to, or just admit that you made it up because it's what you want to believe?
6 October 2008
at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
gr (Anonymous) says:
“Brucey seems to be speaking from a irrational belief point of view.”
No, gr. Again (and again and again), stating that the Biblical story doesn't hold water in any literal sense is not the same as advocating Evolution. You've defined it that way for your own convenience, but there's no need to label it a one-way-or-the-other phenomenon.
6 October 2008
at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
2002 (Anonymous) says:
Bruce and now you and some of the other left nut jobs here are exactly like those that you oppose-the right wing nut jobs. You honestly feel that anyone that doesn't hold to your view is wrong and should be silenced.
************************
Religion has nothing to do with being left or right. It's funny that you group me with those on the left, when as anyone could tell you, I am as right-wing as they come. It just so happens I don't believe in fairy tales, that's all. Bruce doesn't want to silence anyone, he wants to expose someone. Making accusations about people's intelligence is hardly equivilant to advocating for a tyrannical form of government that silences opposition.
6 October 2008
at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“non-sequitur”
The underlying basis for vehicles is/was steel. Therefore steel spontaneously became cars.
Knowing a great number of practicing “Christians” who sell out for anything, does not mean anything. Likewise, I know a number of scientists who believe in creation.
6 October 2008
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says:
no thanks kansas, out of the dictionary the defination of theory is:” An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture”
***************************************
Now you get a third semester, this time of Geology, for picking a definition that is favorable to your ignorant position—which refers to common usage instead of one that correlates to the field in question.
“As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”
6 October 2008
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“It's funny that you group me with those on the left, when as anyone could tell you, I am as right-wing as they come.”
–––––—
I was getting a nice little chuckle out of that one…
6 October 2008
at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Knowing a great number of practicing “Christians” who sell out for anything, does not mean anything. Likewise, I know a number of scientists who believe in creation.”
–––-
Um, that was my point, that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
If these scientists to which you refer refute evolution, then perhaps they should re-think their career choice.
Saying “organism structure X is 'too complex' to be explained by evolution” is not a scientifically-based explanation.
6 October 2008
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Dang Kansas…I hate class!!!
Ok Jonas, I must respectfully disagree with your statement, actually I must profoundly disagree with your statement….Please keep in mind I said “respectfully” as I do respect the opinions of others…
I just dont see what the big deal is, if you choose to believe in evolution then kudos to you, Im not gonna insult you or knock you for your beliefs, why do you insult me for mine??
thats not nice………………
6 October 2008
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gogoplata (Anonymous) says…
What difference does it make in national politics? Has there ever been a president who didn't believe in creation? I am a Christian and I would Vote for Jesse Ventura who I don't think is a believer before I would vote for McCain. Too many Christians have been duped into an unholy alliance with the Big Government Republican party. Abortion, gay marriage, and evolution are all issues that should be handled at the state level. A quick study of the Bible should lead Christians to adopt non-interventionist foriegn policy, balanced budget economics, and small government positions. You will not find those positions with either Obama or McCain. Top down, wide sweeping laws are not the best way to govern a country as large and Diverse as the USA.
6 October 2008
at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
optimator (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat,
“Im not gonna insult you or knock you for your beliefs, why do you insult me for mine??”
I don't think anyone is insulting you. I just think they are looking for a rational/logical answer.
6 October 2008
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
kdk,
You can't “respectfully disagree” or “profoundly disagree” that there is a difference between the generic definition of the word “theory” and scientific definition.
There is a difference between the two definitions, just as there is a plain-as-day difference between the meanings of “law” in generic and scientific terms.
6 October 2008
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
ksdivikat: You are, of course, free to disagree. There's no particular reason for any outside observer to believe either of our viewpoints, as they are both based in ignorance, not knowledge. That is not meant to be insulting, I hope you notice, but simply true. Nobody knows for certain, so we are free to make up our own theories. But not, I opine, to presume that they are True.
It is not, however, debatable to say that organisms change over time and over generations. This is simple, observable fact, and has been very well-documented. This provides a much better-founded method of inquiry into how we came to be here, at least that's what I believe. That's why one's a scientific theory (using the scientific definition of the word) and one is a mythological theory, using the definition of mythology.
“The word mythology (from the Greek î¼ïî,î¿î»î¿î³Îiα mythologÃ-a, meaning “a story-telling, a legendary lore”) refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.”
They should be taught as such.
6 October 2008
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
logicsound: I think they were referring to the other statement.
6 October 2008
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Ah, I see.
6 October 2008
at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says:
I just dont see what the big deal is,
*************************************
Your beliefs are harmful.
“What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak: Christianity.”
“With or without religion, 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.”
“You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate.”
“Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. “
“What has been Christianity's fruits? Superstition, Bigotry and Persecution.”
6 October 2008
at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
My point is that to the non-believer, once you die, you just die, so what you think really doesnt matter one way or another, however to a believer, death is not the end for us. And we believe the bible to be true based on faith.
And there is not 50 different definaitions of faith, it is believing yet not seeing, that is what keeps christians going. So my point is that this should be a non issue since those of you who do not believe, know that death is the end for you.
It saddens me that no believers think that death is the end, but again, I dont think that darwins theory holds any water to unbelievers other then the fact that they like to argue because in their end thats it, the end…..
You are not going to convince people who have been believing the same thing for over 2000 yrs that the story of adam and eve isnt true, no matter what kind of evidence you put in front of them, 2000 years is a long time, thats how long the creation story has been around, how long has darwins theory been around??
Im just saying, I think the point is mute, as nonbelievers dont believe it in the first place, and they are also not going to be convinced.
Thats what makes the world go round, different opinions, I respect what you think and you believe, Im just asking for the same in return.
6 October 2008
at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
If 60% of Americans are fundamentalist Christians they should be represented in high office, this is a democracy. Democracy is more important than the left or right's ideologies.
6 October 2008
at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
invictus, democracy is a terrible form of government that is prone to tyranny. Thankfully, we live in a Constitutional Republic.
6 October 2008
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
60% of Americans are not fundamentalist Christians.
I guarantee you that a majority of Americans understand and agree that evolution is correct. Many of those same Americans are also Christians.
They just don't let their valid faith in God and Jesus blind them to the reality of the world around them.
You can believe that the Bible is true and not believe that every word contained therein is to be taken at it's literal truth.
6 October 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BuffyloGal (Anonymous) says…
Since 60% aren't I guess we're safe.
6 October 2008
at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
2002 (Anonymous) says…
Kansas778, Sorry, but I'm going to call you on this one. I don't know about you, but this is what Bruce wrote:
If Sarah Palin is among such believers, Pitts was intuitively correct to harbor questions about her fitness to hold high office in supposedly enlightened times. To pretend otherwise is to disgrace every triumph of reason and notion of progress that has moved us out of darkness. We've been dragged backward by these truly arrogant, endlessly offended fools for much too long, and it is time to call this nonsense by its proper name.
The topic line is belief in creation and, in general, a specific religeous belief. Bruce calls that belief “unenlightened, a disgrace, darkness and calls those that beleive in creation fools. And he doesn't want that view silenced?
There are millions of people that believe some for of evolution to be accurate that have no problem with the creation belief being taught in public schools at all levels. There are also millions of creationists that have no problem with evolution being taught. These two groups are the tolerant, logical majority.
6 October 2008
at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
optimator (Anonymous) says…
I love this country and this state, but the creationists are a serious embarrassment. Do they understand that the rest of the world is laughing at us, or do they simply not care?
6 October 2008
at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Donnuts (Anonymous) says…
Well gr… and I hope that is not the start of a growl, girl. I met with much resistance in church growing up. I cannot say what I do not know but by the same token I can say what I do know. I know that Dinosaurs existed for many millions of years. I can say that I have tried and tried to contact God. I can say that I have been to more churches searching for help from a homeless situation and spent many hours in Libraries searching through religious books including the Baghagavita and the Joseph Campbell series and some mythos from Eygptian stories. I read many things about Theosophy and even read some Aliester Crowley to make sure what he was about. I find my “religion” these days to rest more in the hands of philosophy and applied science.
Yes, I can say I do not really believe in a God. Especially the ones that many ministers preach about. I find it more of a social arrangement. I started re-searching for help from Christians in my early twenties and found a minister at the ECM that is still there shortly after the first Persian Gulf crisis in 1991. I gave up on him and his congregation because all he wanted to do was force me into situation after situation that was uncomfortable and talk about me to others about my unorthodox ways that thinking. I was not as educated as they were they had nearly twice as many years on the planet as I did but I can still tell when somebody is yanking my chain and he sure was and so were his little minons. So I broke from the church once again. Many years later I tried it one more time and then I came back to the same conclusion after traveling many miles I tried nearly every church in Lawrence. Mind you I was brought up in the Presbyterian church and learned the Bible well enough to defend myself against other “Christians” in their tirade to convert me and my unorthodox ways. I respect your wish to believe and practice as you do though.
6 October 2008
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
2002, where does he say that the government should outlaw people espousing creationism? No where. He is complaining about those people, he calls Palin's fitness into question, but no where does he advocate using the police power of the state to silence them. You are reading something into it that isn't there.
6 October 2008
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Donnuts (Anonymous) says…
Oh by the way, gr…
I thought at the time I had found God in my garden as the birds were singing to me and I electrically attached to the ground as I was planting my crops. It felt like I was a puppet and I wanted to serve the being. I am not sure if that means I was meant to come to discredit all humanity and the established church but it was a really strong feeling and I thought the birds were talking to me.
I might have been too high as well though.
6 October 2008
at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BuffyloGal (Anonymous) says…
John Wesley started a church on heartburn. Anything's possible.
6 October 2008
at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
“Bruce's point was, if someone is willing to ignore evidence to support a religious belief, they are willing to ignore evidence to support political and economic belief and make drastic uninformed decisions about our future”
If that was his point, then I would have to say that he is wrong, but only from the standpoint that it's a logical-abyss leap of faith (pardon the pun). Adjoining someone's basis for faith with how they operate in other spectrums is not valid, it's saying 1 = 1 so therefore 1 = 2. All poodles are dogs, all dogs are not poodles.
logicsound: “You can believe that the Bible is true and not believe that every word contained therein is to be taken at it's literal truth”
Thank you.
6 October 2008
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“And he doesn't want that view silenced?”
–––––-
Well, if he does want that view silenced, he doesn't say so in this letter.
He does, however, wonder if that view is appropriate for a person who must make decisions based the facts they have available to them. Especially one whose decisions could potentially carry so much weight for so many people.
I agree with kansas778 on this one, which is not a terribly common occurrence.
6 October 2008
at 6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hzcummi (Anonymous) says…
Unfortunately, this is another example of people speaking from ignorance about Genesis. There's only one Genesis expert, and everyone else is just passing misinformation.
Adam and Eve were only the first of modern mankind, who were made after 7200 BC, along with the modern animals. But they were not the first humans God created on Earth. There have been five previous dispatches of mankind made by God, and were removed from the Earth at the end of their geologic age.
The male and female in Genesis chapter one are from 64 Million BC, and are not Adam and Eve. They were the first to be made “in God's image”. The seven days of Moses (Observations of Moses) convey seven geologic ages of mankind on Earth, and not Creation Week, which was over 4 billion years ago.
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
6 October 2008
at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pusscanthropus (Anonymous) says…
Satan created all the Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthal fossils to fool all of us humans. He started planning this trickery at least 4 million years ago, carefully placing the fossils in locations where scientists would find them.
6 October 2008
at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
“You are not going to convince people who have been believing the same thing for over 2000 yrs that the story of adam and eve isnt true, no matter what kind of evidence you put in front of them, 2000 years is a long time, thats how long the creation story has been around, how long has darwins theory been around??”
Less time than that, of course. How long did people believe that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun rotated around us. But you're right, I see no reason to believe that very many people in each generation are going to be convinced. They're not. There's a great quote floating around that says something to the effect of, such changes are rarely embraced by people as a change in their way of thinking. What happens is people holding to the the old paradigm dies off, and the younger generations are the ones who eventually and incrementally have their views shifted. It's pretty obvious that such is happening to a literal view of Christianity, and has been for a few centuries at least.
“Im just saying, I think the point is mute, as nonbelievers dont believe it in the first place, and they are also not going to be convinced.”
That's true too. Which makes me wonder why we're sticking on creation or what happens after this life in our arguments as if they're somehow relevant.
“Thats what makes the world go round, different opinions, I respect what you think and you believe, Im just asking for the same in return.”
I'll agree to some point. That point being, different opinions make the world go around, because inquiry, questioning, and observation are what make many ideas into, eventually, the right one. Free and unrestricted analysis will allow ideas to stand on their own merit, and others to die for a lack of their own merit. My view is that will cause the fundamental and literal interpretation of the Bible to fall, because it breaks down too easily, too quickly, and has too much evidence stacked against it.
As for respect, it's not particularly clear what you mean by that. If you mean I will respect your right to hold an opinion, there's no problem. If it means that I have to coddle that opinion or pamper you by saying it has merit as a science when it doesn't, well that's not going to happen.
6 October 2008
at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
hzcummi: With no textual support drawn from the religious text, and with no supportable references, I'm left with little choice but to believe that either you made that up, or are passing along information that someone else made up at some point.
6 October 2008
at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
optimator (Anonymous) says…
You mean hzcummi's post wasn't tongue in cheek?
6 October 2008
at 8:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
“… regarding what Adam and Eve experienced….”
Ohhh…. Adam and *Eve*…
And all this time, we've been behaving like it was Adam and Ewe!
What a relief! This changes everything!
( I'm not a sheep… I'm not a sheep…. )
6 October 2008
at 9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
optimizer: It's a possibility, of course. Hard to tell.
6 October 2008
at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
optimizer, jonas… I think a great deal of confusion could be alleviated
with a properly placed tongue-in-cheek smiley…
,:-^)
[ for proper placement, see above ]
6 October 2008
at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
tangent: I've made, I think, a better.
>B^)>
7 October 2008
at 12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
hzcummi is tongue-in-cheek possibly… No Christian theology that I'm familiar with.
7 October 2008
at 12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink