What religion are you.. THE QUIZ.

[h2orowe]

Yeah, it's one of those lame quizzes, but I actually really liked this one, so I figured I'd make a thread.. IN GENERAL DISCUSSION ( =O ) about it.

I was a tie. Between Buddhism, Islam, and Paganism. I found that to be quite intresting, haha, and I think I will look further into all thre religions. I'm taking it again, a few more times, just to see if it's right, or if I just change my mind a lot.

Buddhism 71%

Islam 71%

Paganism 71%

agnosticism 54%

Judaism 50%

Hinduism 50%

Christianity 33%

Satanism 29%

atheism 13%


For my Tiebreaker question, I answered it, and got Buddhism, but for each of those questions.. they could've all been right or wrong to me.


Edit: Forgot the link >_>; http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907
here it is.

[Jetsetlemming]

Stupid. What the hell does "Sex is the woman's right, not the man's." mean?

[c-rex]

Stupid. What the hell does "Sex is the woman's right, not the man's." mean?
Which gender gets to start sexual encounters. The man or the woman.

[h2orowe]

Stupid. What the hell does "Sex is the woman's right, not the man's." mean?
I think it means like... women decide when/if they want sex. Men are supposed to just wait until she's ready.


I took the test a second time, pretty much the same results. Gonna take it a third, fourth, fifth, and possibly sixth time.

Buddhism 75%

Islam 75%

Paganism 63%

Hinduism 58%

Judaism 54%

agnosticism 54%

Christianity 33%

Satanism 25%

atheism 0%

[PopCulturePooka]

You scored as Satanism.



Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism 71%
atheism 63%
agnosticism 63%
Judaism 50%
Islam 42%
Paganism 38%
Christianity 33%
Buddhism 33%
Hinduism 4%

[Kwiz]

I started taking the quiz, but those questions were WAY too superficial. The quiz makers should have spent more time actually delving into the various religions' philosophies and posing more general lifestyle/worldview questions based on that.

[Jetsetlemming]

Christianity 67%
Islam 63%
Judaism 50%
Buddhism 46%
agnosticism 38%
Hinduism 33%
Paganism 25%
Satanism 21%
atheism 0%

[Jetsetlemming]

I started taking the quiz, but those questions were WAY too superficial. The quiz makers should have spent more time actually delving into the various religions' philosophies and posing more general lifestyle/worldview questions based on that.
Indeed .

[Jon885]

Since when is atheism a religion? I thought it was a philosophy.

[Duke Luke of Juke]

You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism 71%
agnosticism 67%
Islam 58%
Satanism 58%
Paganism 42%
Buddhism 38%
Christianity 29%
Judaism 21%
Hinduism 17%

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Whee!

You scored as Christianity.



Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian. Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins.

Christianity

79%
Judaism

71%
Buddhism

58%
Islam

42%
Paganism

21%
Satanism

21%
agnosticism

13%
Hinduism

8%
atheism

0%

[Black fist]

You scored as Satanism.



Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism

63%

agnosticism

46%

atheism

33%

Buddhism

25%

Hinduism

25%

Paganism

25%

Islam

21%

Judaism

17%

Christianity

0%

[Myrsilus]

agnosticism - 83%

Buddhism - 63%

Satanism - 50%

Islam - 42%

Paganism - 33%

Judaism - 21%

Christianity - 21%

Hinduism - 21%

atheism - 21%

Interesting enough.

[anver]

Satanism 83%
Agnosticism 79%
Islam 67%
Buddhism 63%
Atheism 58%
Paganism 50%
Judaism 46%
Christianidibblity 17%
Hinduism 17%

After taking it for the first time.
Seems quite right, but I reject organised religion.

[羽之助]

You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism 92%

Buddhism 67%

Islam 67%

[Kwiz]

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul.

*yawn* Ahh.. lamely joking bullshit...

[Yachiru]

You scored as Satanism.



Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism

71%
agnosticism

63%
atheism

63%
Buddhism

58%
Islam

58%
Hinduism

58%
Paganism

58%
Christianity

46%
Judaism

29%

[Duke Luke of Juke]

*yawn* Ahh.. lamely joking bullshit...
What are you talking about? Your sentence neither clarifies whether you're calling the quiz a lame joke, or myself, if it's the latter then that was pretty rude of you to say, as I was making no jokes.

[Beowulf]

Buddhism

71%

Islam

67%

Christianity

67%

Satanism

67%

agnosticism

58%

atheism

42%

Judaism

42%

Hinduism

21%

Paganism

21%

HA! I regret that they didn't have my Church Of I (my personal belief system, created by combining Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Taoism).

[Lateli]

You scored as agnosticism.



You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism

67%

Islam

63%

Judaism

50%

Buddhism

46%

Hinduism

42%

Paganism

38%

atheism

33%

Christianity

33%

Satanism

29%

[D-pad]

Satanism

83%

Paganism

54%

Christianity

54%

Buddhism

54%

Hinduism

46%

agnosticism

46%

Islam

33%

atheism

29%

Judaism

17%

[Stephy]

You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.


atheism-92%
agnosticism-83%
Satanism-67%
Buddhism-63%
Islam-46%
Paganism-42%
Judaism-29%
Christianity-25%
Hinduism-17%

[Tibs]

atheism 96%

agnosticism 71%

Satanism 58%

Paganism 50%

Judaism 33%

Buddhism 33%

Christianity 21%

Islam 17%

Hinduism 0%

Except I'm agnostic... and if I wasn't I'd be Buddhist.

Good quiz.

[haterllnation]

Buddhism
75%
agnosticism
75%
Islam
63%
Judaism
54%
Christianity
54%
Paganism
50%
Satanism
42%
atheism
42%
Hinduism
38%

You scored as agnosticism. You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof).

[Bliss]

Second time:
You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism - 75%


Islam - 71%


agnosticism - 71%


Judaism - 58%


Paganism - 50%


Satanism - 38%


Christianity - 25%


Buddhism - 25%


Hinduism - 13%

First time:
You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism 83%
atheism 71%
Islam 63%
Judaism 63%
Paganism 63%
Buddhism 46%
Christianity 46%
Satanism 38%
Hinduism 21%

[Nebosuke]

You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

Satanism - 67%
atheism - 67%
Buddhism - 50%
Judaism - 50%
Paganism - 50%
agnosticism - 42%
Islam - 25%
Christianity - 17%
Hinduism - 8%

Apparently the people behind the quiz have an exceedingly poor grasp of at least Buddhism and Atheism. Still, it was an amusing way to kill some time.

[CrazyAce86]

You scored as Buddhism.

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Buddhism. Do more research on Buddhism and possibly consider becoming Buddhist, if you are not already. In Buddhism, there are Four Noble Truths: (1) Life is suffering. (2) All suffering is caused by ignorance of the nature of reality and the craving, attachment, and grasping that result from such ignorance. (3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. (4) The path to the suppression of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation. These eight are usually divided into three categories that base the Buddhist faith: morality, wisdom, and samadhi, or concentration. In Buddhism, there is no hierarchy, nor caste system; the Buddha taught that one's spiritual worth is not based on birth.

Buddhism 75%
Hinduism 75%
Agnosticism 71%
Satanism 67%
Paganism 58%
Judaism 54%
Islam 46%
Christianity 38%
Atheism 33%


Odd, since I identify myself as a Pagan, though I follow no religion. (I respect them all, though.)

Eh, whatever. It's a stationary quiz and doesn't really delve in-depth. Find a quiz like that and I'll take the results much more seriously.

[D-pad]

I identify myself as a Pagan
*giggles*:box:

[Headwires]

You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

Atheism

92%

Buddhism

79%

Satanism

54%

Agnosticism

54%

Judaism

50%

Paganism

33%

Islam

29%

Christianity

13%

Hinduism

13%

I'd agree with that, although I was expecting to be a bit higher in agnosticism. But yeah, I'm generally an atheist.

[PopCulturePooka]

If anything I'm most shocked that Steph scored so higly in Satanism, considering the 'tenants' of that faith.

[Matt W]

The test picked right in my case

Judaism

58%

Islam

54%

Paganism

50%

Buddhism

46%

Hinduism

38%

agnosticism

38%

Christianity

25%

Satanism

25%

atheism

4%

[JebusHCripes]

You scored as Satanism.

Satanism 100%

atheism 50%

Buddhism 33%

Judaism 33%

agnosticism 33%

Islam 17%

Paganism 17%

Christianity 0%

Hinduism 0%

While amusing, this was probably one of the most weighted purity tests I've ever taken. Several (if not almost all) of the questions are barely even thought out, much less weighted to force the reader down a pre-selected intent. Not even counting that half the questions don't even apply to a yes/no agree/disagree answer. Most are also completely misinformed as to the result in that while I may agree/disagree strongly, they're most certainly for reasons other than what is intoned by the question (ie. "Evil" does/doesn't exist), thus giving a false positive/negative for what the creator's limited view would asses.

I do have to admit though, that it's validated my mother's belief that I'm the antichrist.

Jebus

[drdan]

Christianity

75%
Buddhism

50%
Judaism

38%
Islam

33%
Satanism

17%
Paganism

13%
Hinduism

8%
agnosticism

0%
atheism

0%

[erbiumfiber]

You scored as Christianity.



Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian. Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins.

Christianity 75%
Islam 63%
Buddhism 63%
Judaism 58%
agnosticism 38%
atheism 38%
Hinduism 29%
Paganism 13%
Satanism 8%

Umm, I think I cheated on the Jesus and Holy Trinity questions. And I am a little agnostic although a practicing christian (I go to church most Sundays, haven't been going much this summer because my daughter, who professes atheism, is in Tokyo and I want to spend as much time as I can with her). I think I scored high on Islam for saying that people should dress modestly...

My problem is, life after death. I don't want one. I want it all to end with death. Living for eternity is just a little bit too long for me.

[jindojim]

agnosticism

88%
Buddhism

63%
atheism

63%
Satanism

63%
Islam

58%
Paganism

46%
Hinduism

42%
Christianity

33%
Judaism

33%

I think I'd classify myself as a theist.
But...
WHERE IS SCIENTOLOGY??? :P

[Alphonse v.2]

Buddhism 67%
Satanism 54%
Paganism 46%
atheism 33%
Hinduism 29%
agnosticism 25%
Judaism 21%
Islam 13%
Christianity 4%

Peace and devil worshipping.

[Klilynkun]

You scored as Christianity.



Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian. Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins.

Christianity 92%
Judaism 58%
Islam 33%
Buddhism 25%
Paganism 17%
agnosticism 17%
Hinduism 0%
Satanism 0%
atheism 0%


Note: I took this with my brother. He says that their definition of christianity isn't 100% correct.

issue 1:
Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam.

islam does not follow christianity or judaism for that matter as it differs greatly from both of them.

issue 2:
Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit).

The Doctrine of the trinity is not 1 god "taking" three forms but a god that is comprised on three "persons". For example, time.... Past, Present, Future are all time. Each one of them has different qualities but it's still Time. If you were to take any thing away... say you took away Past. Past doesn't exist, you wouldn't have Time any more. That is what the Trinity is. The Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Each one has different roles, each on is seperate but at the same time together. If you take away 1 of them, then there is no God, or the god we say is god is not god.
(note: he told me some bible verses to look at examples but i couldn't be bothered :meh:)


interesting stuff this christianity.... i might become a christian...maybe.... my brother keeps giving me info since he's a christian.

just though i'd start a discussion with this as noone seems to be discussing anything really .......let the discussion commence

[dzee]

You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

Satanism - 71
agnosticism - 71
atheism - 71
Paganism - 63
Hinduism - 54
Islam - 50%
Buddhism - 38%
Judaism - 29%
Christianity - 21%

fits me well enough. :)

[RandomPasserby]

issue 1:
Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam.

islam does not follow christianity or judaism for that matter as it differs greatly from both of them.


From what I have understood and been taught about those three, they are far far more closer to each other than any other faith. AFter all, all have pretty same system, one god you must serve/worship, some group of similar rules you must follow, reward in afterlife. Also as they have been born in same region of world and by similar people.

Yeah there is some differencies between those faiths but far less and less significant than between them for example, hinduism or shamanism.

Btw. a christian, a muslim or a jew isn't best source for information how close these three faiths are as depending on personal faith, the person can consider the other faiths as tricks of the devil or even different branches of same faith are works of the devil (for example, many protestants think that of catholicism). Also person usually sees differencies as far bigger than similarities when talking about his religion and his religion's relatives.

[rameek]

Paganism
71%

Hinduism
71%

atheism
63%

Buddhism
63%

Islam
58%

agnosticism
46%

Judaism
42%

Satanism
33%

Christianity
25%

[Klilynkun]

From what I have understood and been taught about those three, they are far far more closer to each other than any other faith. AFter all, all have pretty same system, one god you must serve/worship, some group of similar rules you must follow, reward in afterlife. Also as they have been born in same region of world and by similar people.

Yeah there is some differencies between those faiths but far less and less significant than between them for example, hinduism or shamanism.

Btw. a christian, a muslim or a jew isn't best source for information how close these three faiths are as depending on personal faith, the person can consider the other faiths as tricks of the devil or even different branches of same faith are works of the devil (for example, many protestants think that of catholicism). Also person usually sees differencies as far bigger than similarities when talking about his religion and his religion's relatives.

yeah, they do have a lot more similarities than differences but the problem is that the differences which only show up in islam invalidates either judaism and christianity or invalidates islam (depending if you're a christian/jew or muslim)

so there for islam can't be a continuation of it. It's true, asking a person of whatever faith isn't all that good because they have personal beliefs. It's the book that they say they adhere to which should really be judged.

the whole devil issue is most likely an opinion i guess :meh:

But look at it this way.... catholicism is not christianity (hence the different names). My brother was also telling me about the whole split thingy....reformation... where the protestants began and all that.

But yeah, the bible says somewhere that you should only pray to God - i think this is supposed to fall under that law of something like we shouldn't have no gods other than god. Catholics pray to mary and dead "saints". the bible says that once you die then you are judged, and it's too late. But catholics pray "for" dead people. The bible says jesus is the only mediator but catholics have the pope as the mediator.

there are so much things that they do that goes against the book the say they follow.

I just found out tuesday in a newspaper that anglicans (are they an off-shoot of catholics?), i'm not sure what book they follow though, officially don't believe there is a being called the devil


you'd be very surprised the things which are in people's book that is blatantly against the things they practice or actually commands people to do things that most of the world think is evil (or not right at the least)

[yogi]

First of all this test is dumb.. anyway

I got Islam at 67%.. So it said I should check out the koran etc..

I also got Satanism at 67% hahaha.

I have no idea what agnosticism is. The test thoughts so aswell giving me 0%..

[Klilynkun]

what is agnosticism, and paganism anway?

i can't be bothered to look it up :meh:

[Xuande]

issue 1:
Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam.

islam does not follow christianity or judaism for that matter as it differs greatly from both of them.
I think "follows" was intended to mean "follows in chronological order." Judaism was the first major religion that recognized Abraham as an important prophet, Christianity the second, and Islam the third.

[Klilynkun]

I think "follows" was intended to mean "follows in chronological order." Judaism was the first major religion that recognized Abraham as an important prophet, Christianity the second, and Islam the third.


in that sense i guess it's true.

[Xuande]

what is agnosticism, and paganism anway?

i can't be bothered to look it up :meh:

Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot have knowledge of God, especially of whether or not he exists. Many atheists are also agnostics -- they believe one cannot know with certainty that God doesn't exist, but they don't find any reason to believe he exists.

Paganism is a miscellaneous catch-all category including everything from American Indian shamanism to various new age religious groups claiming descent from Druids, the ancient Egyptians, or what have you.

[Klilynkun]

excellent working definition.... thank you very much :clap:

[羽之助]

They don't have Shintoism or Korean Shamanism on here :( Or Zoroastrianism! The gods are probably mildly displeased.

[Klilynkun]

i thought that would have fallen into paganism

Edit: also.... where are the cults?

[RandomPasserby]

I'm pretty sure that the paganism meant by the quiz is the european druid/witch/wicca/new age and not in the sense which many christians think (= paganism= those faiths that aren't islam, judaism, christianity or buddhism). Egyptian faiths and european druids had less to do with each other than christianity and islam for example.

Btw. Klilynkun, it sounds like your brother has started teachign you by cutting out majority of christians (catholics and orthodox) by saying they aren't really christians. I would suggest seeking a better guide as "those guys aren't real christians" is a sure sign of too narrow religious views. It kind of explains your view that islam shouldn't be in the same group as judaism and christianity too.

[Jay]

You scored as Satanism.

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism 100%
atheism 83%
Islam 67%
Buddhism 67%
agnosticism 67%
Paganism 50%
Judaism 33%
Christianity 17%
Hinduism 0%

Believing in self, paganism, yeah, that sounds like me.

[Klilynkun]

I'm pretty sure that the paganism meant by the quiz is the european druid/witch/wicca/new age and not in the sense which many christians think (= paganism= those faiths that aren't islam, judaism, christianity or buddhism). Egyptian faiths and european druids had less to do with each other than christianity and islam for example.

Btw. Klilynkun, it sounds like your brother has started teachign you by cutting out majority of christians (catholics and orthodox) by saying they aren't really christians. I would suggest seeking a better guide as "those guys aren't real christians" is a sure sign of too narrow religious views. It kind of explains your view that islam shouldn't be in the same group as judaism and christianity too.

well actually... it's not that. He's been teaching me about christianity but i've been reading the koran, hadiths, the bible and other religious books of the sort. There's no such thing as narrow view when it comes to certain criteria of what makes a christian/jew/muslim. I'm going by what their books actually say and not by the general consensus. The christian bible (which is different than the catholic bible) says that you aren't to call yourself nothing other than christian. The koran says that muslims aren't supposed to quarrel with people of the injel/injil (sp?) and tora (well...it says that in the beginning and towards the middle... it starts changing after a bit). The tora, is really just the old testament arranged in a different way. I've read about wicca, hinduism, some new age stuff (cuz their is so many of it), and a few other things. I'm making my own judgements on these things.

So... me saying that catholics aren't christians is because according to what they do (the majority of them anyway) and what their book says - i can't actually call them christians. If a "muslim" believes that allah talks to them directly, they aren't muslim because the koran says differently. The general consensus of the religion and the book they say they follow is often time different. Which i believe is the reason why you are saying i'm taking a narrow view.

[sushi]

You scored as Satanism.



Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism

100%

atheism

79%

Paganism

75%

agnosticism

71%

Judaism

46%

Islam

42%

Buddhism

42%

Christianity

8%

Hinduism

0%

sounds about right

[羽之助]

The christian bible (which is different than the catholic bible)

What?

So... me saying that catholics aren't christians is because according to what they do (the majority of them anyway)

In case you're wondering, we get taught at school that non-Catholics are the real non-Christians. Stupidity works both ways.

[Unknown]

You scored as Satanism.

agnosticism 100%
Satanism 100%
Paganism 83%
atheism 79%
Buddhism 79%
Hinduism33%
Islam 29%
Christianity 21%
Judaism 13%

[RandomPasserby]

Hmm.. klilynkun, afaik only some of the cults have different bibles from the catholics and lutherans?

[El_CJ]

WOW. That was the greatest quiz EVER.

You scored as Satanism.
Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism
100%

agnosticism
96%

Islam
71%

atheism
67%

Buddhism
42%

Judaism
33%

Paganism
33%

Christianity
25%

Hinduism
17%

[Ichisan]

You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism 83%
agnosticism 58%
Buddhism 54%
Judaism 42%
Christianity 38%
Paganism 29%
Satanism 21%
Islam 21%
Hinduism 17%

Well even though I don't like the assumptions behind a lot of the questions it pegged me alright. I'm an atheist and I guess the agnosticism comes in from the residual emotional attachment I have to Christianity from my upbringing.

I was puzzled by why Buddhism is so far up there but I guess it's because I partially agreed that life is a struggle to overcome suffering (typical dumb question because you can agree that that's part of life without thinking it defines what life is (Buddhist view)). Maybe it's because atheists share with Buddhism a lack of belief in God? But surely not believing in reincarnation or meditation should make me less than 50% Buddhist at the least!

However Hinduism is definitely lowest on my list of religions in terms of respect or affinity for its beliefs. What a joke.

[Karthak]

You scored as atheism

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism 88%

agnosticism 88%

Islam 83%

Judaism 58%

Paganism 58%

Satanism 58%

Buddhism 46%

Christianity 13%

Hinduism 0%

No big surprise there. At least I now know that I am anathema to Hinduism.

[USERNAME]

You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

Agnosticism 88%
Buddhism 63%
Islam 63%
Atheism 58%
Satanism 54%
Hinduism 42%
Paganism 42%
Judaism 38%
Christianity 29%

Heh. I'm not surprised by the top two at all. I've definitely considered myself as an agnostic for some time now, and I've held a great respect for Buddhism. I always said that if I decided to really follow a religion, it would be that one. What I found most amusing is that Christianity, the religion I was born and raised in (I was a Roman Catholic) was dead last.

Anyway, this is just an online quiz, so it lacks legitimacy. Admittedly, it was one of the few interesting ones.

[Kyoushu]

You scored as atheism.

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

agnosticism 67%
atheism 67%
Paganism 63%
Satanism 54%
Buddhism 46%
Judaism 29%
Islam 17%
Christianity 17%
Hinduism 0%

I'd say it's about right.

[delen]

You scored as agnosticism.



You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism

71%

Satanism

71%

atheism

67%

Buddhism

63%

Christianity

33%

Paganism

25%

Judaism

17%

Islam

17%

Hinduism

0%

[Klilynkun]

i hate leaving a conversation over the weekend just to come back and see it on the 3rd page and stuff lol.......anyway.....

Hmm.. klilynkun, afaik only some of the cults have different bibles from the catholics and lutherans?

I don't know much about lutherans or anglicans or amish....there are some others too, can't remember. need to get a book on them lol. I don't even know where most of them come from :P[/QUOTE]

What?

the catholic bible has what's known as the apocrypha(sp?) in it. Which according to church/christian history (just read this over the weekend :D), before the reformation(when people either stayed catholic or became protestant) the canon (the "books" that they decided to put in the bible that they felt was god inspired) was already set. But the catholic people wanted to add more books which were in question of whether they were god inspired or not. When the reformation was done (or the split from catholicism by the protestants was done) the catholics decided to add these other books to the bible since there was no one there to contest them anymore. These other books are called the apocrypha. Therefore the catholic bible is different from the christian bible as the catholic bible has more books in it that were highly questionable. Christian scholars say that the apocrypha is ok to read because they can show you things about life, god, etc. But we shouldn't take them for direct truth because they have been known to have wrong historical references and other things wrong (which is why they weren't supposed to be in the bible in the first place).


In case you're wondering, we get taught at school that non-Catholics are the real non-Christians. Stupidity works both ways.

i'll say it again. i'm going by the book that they say they follow and not what people are taught, or the general consensus of the religion. the book that catholics follow says not to do, a lot of stuff that the catholics do. and because the book that they follow is supposed to be the guidelines for christians. I can't call catholics christian because they blatantly contradict the things their own book says. I'm aware however that all people that call themselves catholic do not actually follow all the things that the catholic church teaches - so they can be called christian (depending on what teachings of the catholic church they reject).

you have to remember to forget what people say about the religion and get what their own book says.

it's like i was talking to one of my muslim friends and he was like "you're not supposed to read the koran in english because it is pure only when it's in arabic" - but as i've said... i've read the koran and i noticed that the koran is just arabic, it has hebrew words which don't make sense in arabic. I asked him about this and he couldn't answer me.

I remember talking to these jehovah's witnesses once (they won't let me sleep :()

and they was all like... their bible is the best because it's the tru words blah blah blah. What they didn't know was that i had a jehovah's witness bible too...well... a few jehovah's witness bible. And the jehovah's witness' change/alter their bible on a regular basis. So i asked them if they have the the best bible why they alter it all the time. They denied that they did, so i showed them all of my jehovahs witness bible and in each the differences and they couldn't answer (got rid of them quick though lol)

i try not to study different religions with a biased mind-set. Sometimes it's hard but if i do have a biased mind set i get the wrong things about the religion. If you're looking for a mistake in anything, you will find it.

[Nebosuke]

The bible most Christians read today (the King James version) is also significantly altered from its source texts[1] according to the prevailing political climate at the time of its authorship. If being Christian is entirely dependant upon your adherance to the tenets set forth by the Christian bible, it's still rather unclear who is Christian and who is not, since there are so many different versions of the bible. While the Jehova's Witness' text is altered more frequently, the same question you asked them of their bible can be asked for the bibles in use by other sects (for lack of a better word) of Christianity as well.

From a certain point of view, you might even argue that the more frequent revisions of the Jehova's Witness' bible makes it more accurate than others.

[1] Which were, for the most part, heavily altered translations themselves (e.g., the Geneva version, one of the primary sources of the King James version, is itself an adaptation largely based on the Tyndale version, which was an even earlier translation). Basically, the versions of the bible in use today are the result of what amounts to a game of telephone played across hundreds of years, where each of the players has a vested interest in altering the contents of the message.

[Klilynkun]

Not necessarily - there are literal translations (word for word) that are straight from the hebrew, greek, and aramaic that the orginal bible used. And no, translation doesn't really differentiate the meaning too tough.

When I say the jehovah's witness bible is translated and changed i mean the actual meaning of their bible. For example, in their bible that have that Michael the Arch-Angel is Jesus. And in their same bible in another part of it it says that no angel has ever been called the son of god. That's a blatant contridiction. But that is only local to their bible. And it's not in all of the changes of their bible. So they did it on purpose, not because they were translating it from the hebrew/greek/or aramaic texts.

That Jehovah's Witness "translation" just altered the message that is in the other bibles. That's the difference. If i picked up a new international bible and an american standard bible (which i have both) and look up a sentence, although they might word it differently, the meaning is the same. That's not so with the jehovah witness one. The meaning is different. For example - almost every bible says that the holy spirit is god as you must be baptised in the name of the father,son, and holy spirit. The jehovah witness bible says the holy spirit is not god but just a force like the wind. The message just changed.

We can always go to the bibles that were made close to the original so the saying that it's been change doesn't really hold any water - for me anyway. My brother says that the bible we have today (whether it be king james, niv, blah blah blah) is supposed to be something like 98% the same as the original. the 2% would be the errors made from when people had to hand copy the bible before their was printing. The more i research about it the more convinced i am about it. I've even gone so far as to get the objections from muslims and investigate their objections to the whole "the bible has been changed" and their argument doesn't hold any water either.

but... for the sake of argument....since you say it's altered.....what has been altered in it?.... let me know so i can go look when i get home.... because if it's been altered then what was before it? do we have it in a museum like the other 1st century bibles/manuscripts? etc. etc. , there are alot of stuff to think about.

as i said before.... i have to read more about the other "sects" as i don't know much about them but their name. but still, as i've said before 1st century bibles do exist. and i'm assuming that there were actually christians that followed those bibles/manuscripts. and if that's the case then we have criteria for what a christian is and is not. and if those sects aren't in alignment with those criteria, then they aren't christian. they are something else. makes sense. if a man isn't doing the things a muslim does then he ain't muslim. simple. if a person doesn't follow christian tenets then the person isn't christian. simple. why do you think it would be hard to find who's christian. if they must believe a and b to be a christian and they only believe a but not b, then they aren't a christian. if they are supposed to do 2 3 4, and they only do 2 and 4, then they aren't christian. dude... that is seriously not hard.

yeah... so um... lol
i was rambling....sorry for that :box:

yeah, so tell me what has been altered so i can look it up. i'm interested because i wanna hear what my brother says, but i have to actually have proof not just someone saying it's altered.

and what do those other sects believe anyway... someone please tell me....what do lutherans, or calvinists, or (trying to remember some others)
yeah... what do they believe and what kind of bible do they read so i can do some research. I thought they were pretty much christian myself.

so yeah.... Lutherans anybody?

[RandomPasserby]

Lutherans are those who followed Martin Luther's reforms. Calvinists are followers of Jean Calvin and his reforms (mainly predestination and uh, five points of calvinism: TULIP). Both are protestants and finnish and english wikipedia says that reformed churchs follow Calvin's ideas.

Bibles are quite probably the same as yours, unless you mean which translations.

Btw. your brother's view of 98% right bible is his, loads of words in the original hebrew and greek texts can be translated to very different meanings. I have read quite few arguments in which two or more christians fight out which historical version has least errors and thus is real God's word (offtopic: funny how evolution/creationism conversations usually devolve into something quite different). And as the originals and xth generation translations get retranslated, the meanings change according to the translator's views.

[Klilynkun]

ok... i'll have to read up about martin luther and jean calvin

so then.... literal translations aren't really literal then? i know various words can have multiple meanings but generally words can be translated properly based on the context? (i remember this from spanish class.....i soo hated spanish class.... but the teacher was hot .... ::::droool::::) ahem......

yeah... so.... :D

ok... so which meanings are different? do you have an example? seriously cuz when i read them the only difference i see is that things are worded differently. I get the same meaning out of the sentence though....not that i have all translations but the ones i have seem to have the same meaning. The literal translation is hard to read though, because he didn't change sentences around from the hebrew way of saying things to the english way, he just translated it 1 word after another....it's annoying sometimes.

I've read that not all hebrew words are able to be translated perfectly to truley convey what they want to convey and the hebrew language doesn't have some sort of thing (can't remember what the thing is :P) that we have in the english language.

i haven't seen a debate/fight/argument live before.... only on forums so you don't really know when someone is getting angry until they start calling people names... and even then, you can't really be sure :meh:

don't know what they are arguing over though as none of them is really gods word as they put it. they're just copies. and according to all translations i've read, they shouldn't be arguing over something like that. maybe that part is taken out of their translation :meh:

i've never seen a creationist/evolutionist debate.... would like to though. sounds like it would be interesting :D

i would have thought that under close scrutiny certain translated words could be found to be the wrong translation. For example, the catholic church teaches that some where in the bible where it says that jesus' mother and his brothers were looking for him that the word brothers doesn't actually mean brother but relative/cousin etc. they say this to try and push that mary stayed a virgin after she gave birth to jesus( even though staying a virgin when you're married was against the law of their god). The word actually did mean relative/cousin/brother/sister/etc. but the context didn't seem to mean cousin or relative, but brother. They even named them. His brothers are mentioned more than twice as well. What i'm trying to say is that if you look closely you can translate it properly. and when it was translated wrongly people have to knowingly change more of the bible to fit things in. Which is how you get stuff like the jehovah's witness blatantly changing stuff to fit their own beliefs than what the text actually says. They even have to change their beliefs from time to time as well to fit the changes that they made to the bible.

And the things is as well. The bibles that change meanings seem to be well known among christians. Also, those bibles seem to only be used/come from a certain group of people. Like the jehovah witness ones. They only use their translation and their translation came from them. Catholics (well... the clergy) only use their bibles and their bibles (the one with the apocrypha added) came from them. Mormons don't even put the bible as the top one. It's importance is side by side with the book of mormons, which came, from, the, mormons :blank:

I'm gonna read up on the lutherans and calvins........should be interesting :D

[Nebosuke]

It's been years (over a decade, to be exact) since I studied the issue in-depth, and I have no interest in doing so again, so I cannot give you specific examples off the top of my head. Instead, I'll just point you here (http://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/trans.htm) which explains the point that RandomPasserby brought up in greater depth.

It's really an intractable problem. Natural (as opposed to artificial, e.g., programming) languages and their written forms are ambiguous and subjective. The information you derive from a passage is not entirely contained in the passage itself. That is to say that the precise meaning of a passage conveyed in a natural language (or its written form) depends, in part, on the person interpretting the passage. This is why there is often debate on the 'real' meaning behind literary works or statements by politicians. Knowledge of context is also extremely important. E.g., the passage, 'that man is radical', has very different meanings if found in an FBI report as opposed to a sufer magazine. Another even worse example would be, 'he is mad', which would commonly be understood as 'he is crazy' in the 1800s (or perhaps today in Britain), and 'he is angry' today in the US. Even if you were fluent in Aramaic, and could then read the original source texts directly, your interpretation is certain to differ greatly from someone who actually lived in those times, and thus shared common context with the author.

Translation further compounds the problem because there are rarely (i.e., basically never) any instances when there are precise 1:1 correlations even between single words in different languages. Connotations, and often even outright general definitions and usage can vary wildly between two languages even in the case of transliterations (e.g., compare Japanese usage of 'mansion' vs the English usage of the same word). Even where Hebrew words appear in the Koran, for instance, they do not necessarily have precisely the same meaning as that exact same word when used in an entirely Hebrew text. Mix in different grammatical structures, social protocols (e.g., try translating Japanese honorifics and modes of speech into colloquial English), and literary devices, and the best you can hope for is that you capture the same general idea.

A single stage translation process diagram would look like the following, where ->'s represent interpretations and further introduction of ambiguity.

Source -> translator's mind -> target language -> receiver's mind.

Simply translating from one language to another requires the original passage to undergo three interpretations. The King James Bible's diagram would look more like this:

Aramaic -> translator's mind -> Greek -> translator's mind -> Latin -> translator's mind -> English (Tyndale's) -> translator's mind -> English (Geneva) -> translator's mind -> King James Bible -> receiver's mind.

Or no less than 11 places where the passage is reinterpretted (actually many, many more if I had to list all sources from which each version drew material). Also, if you go and study the history behind the various English versions of the bible, you will note that almost all of them were primarily motivated by political considerations. That is, someone did not particularly agree with one existing version or another in its entirety, and so commissioned a more favorable interpretation. That is to say, the whole point behind the multiple English translations was to change the meaning.

As for your brother's claim, it's impossible precisely quantify how faithful a translation is to the original Aramaic for the reasons cited above. Even if we could say that they are 98% identical, however, keep in mind that humans and apes are 98% genetically identical as well. 2% in the right places is a hell of a lot of difference. You could change the story from 'Mary was a virgin' to 'Mary was a $2 crack whore' with less than 2% change in the overall text.

[Klilynkun]

'Mary was a virgin' to 'Mary was a $2 crack whore'

:rofl:

thanx for the site.

so really.... not just the bible... but anything that needs translation is suspect, at least once it is at the very least a century old - given what you said. For some reasons paintings come to mind :blank:

k... i can understand that stuff that you said. Here's a question though. Why then do people outrightly dismiss the bible as corrupt blah blah blah but don't have no problem with taking other century(ies) old translated text for face value?

yoda: question good you ask :blank:


i'm on lunch now so i'm gonna see if i can read some of that website.
thanx again..... (ammunition for shooting stuff at my brother.... Mwuahahahaha)


Edit: k... finished reading it. Wow... i didn't realise there was so much biases involved in translation....but now i know... and knowing is half the battle.... G.I. JOOOOEEEEE

j/k

he seems to be a christian though, not too sure cuz he doesn't say what he believes. instead of just saying the bible is false he seems to try to correct the translation errors he believes is there.

[Klilynkun]

ok.... my brother says about bible translation.

of course when translating the biblical text the people will be biased because they already have there theology in mind when translating. when an architect goes to design a building he is biased to not have certain things in the building because he already has something in mind.

whether you believe the bible is biased or not does not take away the fact that there was a historical man who walked on earth whose name was Yeshua (jesus in english). his birth can easily be shown in the fact that we live in 2006 A.D. this jesus claimed that he was the son of god, which would make him equal to god. not only this but he was able to gather a following almost everywhere he went. loads of atheists have even wrote books saying he bride his disciples to follow him. he was then crucified which can easily be proven by letters written from rome to other people which have been found throughout history. He then rose again from the dead and showed hisself to over 100 people at the least. Scientists and skeptics try to get people to think that all the people that saw jesus were haulucinating. Jesus then told his disciples to go out into the world and tell everybody about his coming, death, and ressurection. Many people not only listened. But converted to christianity. Even today, peoples whole entire lives are changed through the preaching of the gospel.

my brother starts talking about getting saved blah blah blah

then he gets back on topic

the bible is believed by faith, just like every other book in the world. school text books are believed by faith that they are correct and some times they are wrong and have to be corrected, especially science books. even if the translations are wrong - there is no one that can fix it because they're all biased. so you either have to believe that the core things in the bible are true or we all can live how-ever way we want.

on top of that - even if you don't want to believe that there is a god - there is so much stuff in this world that we can't explain and/or understand. the bible explains it but you don't want to believe what it says.

basically it comes down to you not wanting to believe there is a god, instead of there not actually being a god.


and he finally stopped.

[RandomPasserby]

Oh, you could tell your Bro that most christian scholars think that Jesus wasn't born on the year 0 (2006 years ago), but around 2-4 B.C. That's kind of basic knowledge :P

Also evolution vs. creationist debates aren't that fun to watch/read on the internet, creationists tend to use annoying tactics like ignoring that their evidence and points get proven false. So once you have read one, you have read all as creationists use the same (already proven false) arguments often.

[Klilynkun]

you should check out that link that nebosuke gave me it has a link to a website that pokes holes through the evolution theory that the guy supports

i heard about that 2-4 b.c. as well.... but does it really matter?
it's like saying that atomic bomb was created two after we think it was or something like that. it doesn't matter when it happened, just the fact that it happened.

i was searching for creationists and evolution debates and a found some forum ones... it looks like although it seems that a lot of creationists use the same thing like you said, they use other stuff that the evolutionists can't seem to answer.... as a matter of fact.... when it's a creationist that is or was a scientist in whatever field they evolutionist doesn't seem to have a come back

[Nebosuke]

even if the translations are wrong - there is no one that can fix it because they're all biased. so you either have to believe that the core things in the bible are true or we all can live how-ever way we want.
Once you realize that the bible's translations are not 100% accurate, however, you get room for radical variation, even if you sincerely believe in the bible. The catholic interpretation, from a purely technical standpoint, is then equally valid with the protestant interpretation. If we further accept the arguments that not everything in the bible is supposed to be taken as truth, but perhaps allegory and metaphor, things become even more muddled.

Which brings us back to the original topic: how do you define a 'true christian'? If you define it as someone who believes in and follows the guidelines laid forth in the new testament, then you are, in reality, saying that it's up to each individual person to decide whether or not they're a true christian because the bible will have different interpretations for everyone who reads it. Even the same person will have different interpretations depending on which version or translation of the bible is read.

on top of that - even if you don't want to believe that there is a god - there is so much stuff in this world that we can't explain and/or understand. the bible explains it but you don't want to believe what it says.
Science does not address 'want' at all, really. Einstein, for instance, sincerely wanted to understand god, which is why he endeavored so hard to understand what he felt must be god's works, but what he wanted did not impact his studies because he was an excellent scientist. One of the basic principles of the scientific method is that the desires of the scientist should not impact the results of his or her work. This is why peer review and reproducibility are essential parts of a scientific study. It is not generally accepted as scientific fact until anyone, regardless of his beliefs, can perform the same experiments and observe the same results. Thus, from a purely scientific standpoint, it simply doesn't matter whether or not god exists.

[Agent Vesago]

atheism - 96%
Satanism - 88%
agnosticism - 79%
Buddhism - 54%
Judaism - 50%
Paganism - 50%
Islam - 13%
Christianity - 8%
Hinduism - 0%

[MNJetter]

As an experiment, I filled out the quiz with all questions on the far right or far left side of the question box. No wussy middle ground for me today. ;)
Surprisingly, it came out far more accurate than I was expecting.

100% paganism
83% buddhist/agnostic
67% islamic/hindu
33% christian/jewish
17% satanism/atheism

That's pretty much me in a nutshell. Mainly nature-oriented with a healthy dose of certifiable fence-sitter, and a smattering of the rest of the well-known ones.

[Klilynkun]

Once you realize that the bible's translations are not 100% accurate, however, you get room for radical variation, even if you sincerely believe in the bible. The catholic interpretation, from a purely technical standpoint, is then equally valid with the protestant interpretation. If we further accept the arguments that not everything in the bible is supposed to be taken as truth, but perhaps allegory and metaphor, things become even more muddled.

Ok... that may be true, but even from the website that you gave me before the translations that don't seem to be accurate still doesn't affect what the bible is saying as the main message/theme. So the main tenents/doctrine whatever seems to still be intact even with the inaccuracies.

Ok... cut out the new testament and work with the old. The old testament in the bible is almost 100% accurate as the tora which the jewish people use (found that out last night on this jewish website) which is not translated at all but in hebrew. The same theme runs through the entire old testament. Every time when archealogists find scrolls of the old testament which are waaaaaaayyyyy before the new testament - they match up identically. So given that evidence i can at least say that the translation for the old testament is good, since the entire hebrew nation would say that it is.


Which brings us back to the original topic: how do you define a 'true christian'? If you define it as someone who believes in and follows the guidelines laid forth in the new testament, then you are, in reality, saying that it's up to each individual person to decide whether or not they're a true christian because the bible will have different interpretations for everyone who reads it. Even the same person will have different interpretations depending on which version or translation of the bible is read.

as stated above - i can count on accuracy in at least the original language of the old testament which has the same message, themes etc. as the new testament.


Science does not address 'want' at all, really. Einstein, for instance, sincerely wanted to understand god, which is why he endeavored so hard to understand what he felt must be god's works, but what he wanted did not impact his studies because he was an excellent scientist.

Einstein should know that he can't be able to full understand a being that is supposed to be ominpotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That makes no sense. Also, i'm sure that there were christians and stuff like that around his time - why didn't he believe what they said and listened to them (i'm totally ignorant of einstein just so you know :P)


One of the basic principles of the scientific method is that the desires of the scientist should not impact the results of his or her work. This is why peer review and reproducibility are essential parts of a scientific study.

True


It is not generally accepted as scientific fact until anyone, regardless of his beliefs, can perform the same experiments and observe the same results. Thus, from a purely scientific standpoint, it simply doesn't matter whether or not god exists.

False. This is not true as can easily be seen in the theory of evolution. It is dogmatically accepted as fact even though it's still a theory, and has been a theory for a very long time. The reason it's still a theory is because it can't be proven as you've stated. Which is why there are so many different types of dating methods. Which is also why there are so many holes on the theory. Which is also why the theory keeps changing every year (i keep an eye on it because it interests me). Almost any scientist that is against (and there are ones against the theory that are not religious) the theory of evolution or states the many flaws in it, are usually ostricized in the scientific community. A lot of times there funding is cut because their "belief" isn't the norm. Most science today is blatantly biased. A lot of things are accepted as fact before evidence is found. Take dark matter for example. You can't see it, sense it, even detect it and yet it is pushed by that guy in the wheel chair is being there. And because he's supposed to be the smartest guy in the world or something people believe him with little evidence. I've watched the mars probe information and the scientists kept changing their tune. Every single dinosaur is drawn by an artist using his imagination to draw what the dinosaur might have looked like. That image is then pushed into the media as if it is fact and that is exactly how the animal looks. Hell, scientists can't even be sure that animals are extinct as they keep finding them again after they have been extinct for supposed millions or years and it was taken as fact without no or little evidence. Most famous scientists actually went against the scientific "fact" of their day.

[RandomPasserby]

Klilynkun, in science, there is no such thing as just a theory, proved theories are closest thing to truth there is in science.

Btw. would be nice if you listed those many unreligious biologists that have proof that disproves evolution. Most antievolutionists like to claim there is many unreligious scientists that don't believe in evolution or even have proof that evolution is false, but usually these scientists are from unrelated areas of science and often closet religious.

Btw. most lutherans, who are protestant too, say htat old testament is for jews "only" and new testament is for christians. THat is why you are allowed to eat pig etc.

[Wiss]

I started taking the quiz, but those questions were WAY too superficial. The quiz makers should have spent more time actually delving into the various religions' philosophies and posing more general lifestyle/worldview questions based on that.

Agreed that it was way too specific, it is too easy to skew the results toward one belief or another based off of the phrasing or key words like God or Jesus. In order to eliminate bias it should have used more generic words that dealt more with the philosophy and worldview of the particular beliefset. Anyhow in the interest of fun here are my results:

agnosticism 79%
Satanism 71%
Buddhism 67%
atheism 58%
Judaism 50%
Islam 50%
Paganism 50%
Christianity 42%
Hinduism 25%

[Klilynkun]

Klilynkun, in science, there is no such thing as just a theory, proved theories are closest thing to truth there is in science.

Btw. would be nice if you listed those many unreligious biologists that have proof that disproves evolution. Most antievolutionists like to claim there is many unreligious scientists that don't believe in evolution or even have proof that evolution is false, but usually these scientists are from unrelated areas of science and often closet religious.

Btw. most lutherans, who are protestant too, say htat old testament is for jews "only" and new testament is for christians. THat is why you are allowed to eat pig etc.


proven theories yes, but if the theory has been proved to be false or the theory isn't complete it can not be truth. the theory of gravity became law because it has been proven. and can not be disproven. the reason the science has theories is because it's an idea it is not fact, therefor it is not truth. People have theories that a city of atlantis existed but every attempt has proven the theory wrong. Which means it's not fact, it's not true. Unless it can successfully be proven correct and can't be refuted afterwards then it is not truth/fact. a theory must not be able to be refuted by evidence for it to be truth. if it can be refuted by evidence then it is not true and a new theory must be made and examined.

I don't know the names of any scientists, whether they are evolutionist or creationist. But i do keep an eye on the science & technology section of yahoo (:D) every now and then there is something on evolution that puts in into question. Heck - just by thinking in laymen's terms i can refute evolution.
i'm not saying that there is a god but the big bang theory doesn't cut it, and i do know that there are other evolutionary theories besides the big bang but that's the only one that i know inside out (stinking ap science)

lutherans aren't right then, because the old testament says there were people that weren't jews that followed their god. abraham wasn't a jew, neither was moses, or adam for that matter. so their logic is flawed. all you have to do is think about it properly.

[Nebosuke]

False. This is not true as can easily be seen in the theory of evolution. It is dogmatically accepted as fact even though it's still a theory, and has been a theory for a very long time.
I think you misunderstand the nature of scientific theories[1]. Theories are simply abstract models that attempt to explain the mechanisms by which the world around us operate, and can be tested by empirical observation and experimentation. Theories are not facts, nor are they meant to be taken as such. Often it is well understood that a theory does not, in fact, exactly match up with reality (e.g., many of Newton's laws). Even so, they are useful because they allow us to extrapolate beyond empirical observation and make useful predictions. The theory of gravity is a good example.

We don't know exactly why gravity exists. We don't even know the mechanism by which gravity operates. What we do know, however, is that we are able to observe the fact that mass objects are attracted to eachother with a force proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of their distances. It could be that a pink mystical unicorn from Alpha Centauri are what pulls you towards other mass objects, while cyborg aliens from the 33rd dimension are causing me to be pulled towards the same, but in any case all mass objects seem to be pulled towards eachother following the same formula mentioned above. So we will conveniently assume[2] that the same thing is responsible for it all, and we call it the theory of gravity. Realizing that planets are probably mass objects as well, we try using the theory of gravity to predict the orbit of planets. Our predictions match up with reality, so it is useful and convenient to assume that gravity is also what causes the planets to orbit the sun. Taking our assumptions further, we use the theory of gravity to successfully (for the most part, anyway) undertake manned and unmanned missions beyond our planet, even though, e.g., we had no actual proof that, e.g., Neil Armstrong wouldn't suddenly be thrown into interstellar space when his personal unicorn supervising his mass attraction decided to take a break for a lunch of lunar cheese.

If we someday come to understand that the theory of gravity is, in fact, incorrect, we will revise it until it is correct or discard it in favor of a new theory that matches the observations. In the meantime, it is serving us quite well.

If you study the theory of evolution, it's rather difficult to argue that it is not a useful theory. It successfully predicts changes in organisms that we can and have observed directly. It's also key to the agricultural practice of selective breeding. At this time, there actually is no evidence that the theory of evolution is inaccurate.

What you may have trouble with, however, is trying to use the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life. That, however, is beyond the scope of, and largely irrelevant to, the theory of evolution in the same way that the actual mechanism by which objects are attracted to eachother does not impact the usefulness or observable accuracy of the theory of gravity. Besides, there are other avenues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment) of scientific inquiry that specifically deal with the origin of life.

Hell, scientists can't even be sure that animals are extinct as they keep finding them again after they have been extinct for supposed millions or years and it was taken as fact without no or little evidence.

While most scientist may believe that a given animal is extinct, you won't find any scientists who will say that they can scientifically prove that an animal is extinct. Scientists are people, and, like most people, do hold opinions and beliefs beyond what they can prove scientifically.

Most science today is blatantly biased.
The scientific method is specifically designed to remove bias, or render it irrelevant. Inaccurate beliefs were and are held by scientists and actively used to stifle the advancement of knowledge not because science fails humanity, but because humanity fails itself. When withdrawal of funding is used to hinder a scientist, it is not science, it's politics. Science is simply a powerful tool that we can use to understand the world around us and apply that understanding. Like any other tool, such as a gun, it is impossible for it to be biased, but its wielders might be.

[1] I will simply refer to scientific theories as 'theories' from here on.

[2] Scientists are lazy like that, but, since laziness sounds rather unscientific, they call it Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

[Klilynkun]

I think you misunderstand the nature of scientific theories[1]. Theories are simply abstract models that attempt to explain the mechanisms by which the world around us operate, and can be tested by empirical observation and experimentation. Theories are not facts, nor are they meant to be taken as such. Often it is well understood that a theory does not, in fact, exactly match up with reality (e.g., many of Newton's laws). Even so, they are useful because they allow us to extrapolate beyond empirical observation and make useful predictions. The theory of gravity is a good example.

We don't know exactly why gravity exists. We don't even know the mechanism by which gravity operates. What we do know, however, is that we are able to observe the fact that mass objects are attracted to eachother with a force proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of their distances. It could be that a pink mystical unicorn from Alpha Centauri are what pulls you towards other mass objects, while cyborg aliens from the 33rd dimension are causing me to be pulled towards the same, but in any case all mass objects seem to be pulled towards eachother following the same formula mentioned above. So we will conveniently assume[2] that the same thing is responsible for it all, and we call it the theory of gravity. Realizing that planets are probably mass objects as well, we try using the theory of gravity to predict the orbit of planets. Our predictions match up with reality, so it is useful and convenient to assume that gravity is also what causes the planets to orbit the sun. Taking our assumptions further, we use the theory of gravity to successfully (for the most part, anyway) undertake manned and unmanned missions beyond our planet, even though, e.g., we had no actual proof that, e.g., Neil Armstrong wouldn't suddenly be thrown into interstellar space when his personal unicorn supervising his mass attraction decided to take a break for a lunch of lunar cheese.

If we someday come to understand that the theory of gravity is, in fact, incorrect, we will revise it until it is correct or discard it in favor of a new theory that matches the observations. In the meantime, it is serving us quite well.

agreed


If you study the theory of evolution, it's rather difficult to argue that it is not a useful theory. It successfully predicts changes in organisms that we can and have observed directly. It's also key to the agricultural practice of selective breeding. At this time, there actually is no evidence that the theory of evolution is inaccurate.

That's not entirely true.... the theory of evolution (the big bang one) doesn't talk about the changes in organisms as such. it talks about changing from one species to a completely different species - this has never ever been observed directly. He talks about things appearing out of nothing - which we have never ever been observed directly.


What you may have trouble with, however, is trying to use the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life. That, however, is beyond the scope of, and largely irrelevant to, the theory of evolution in the same way that the actual mechanism by which objects are attracted to eachother does not impact the usefulness or observable accuracy of the theory of gravity. Besides, there are other avenues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment) of scientific inquiry that specifically deal with the origin of life.


if it was largely irrelevant there wouldn't be a problem with the evolutionary scientific community letting religious people put a disclaimer in science text books that says that evolution is a theory. it's quite obvious that it isn't irrelevant.

The Miller experiement is not the example of the big bang evolutionary theory. He created a controlled experient with, at the very least, one component that is theoried not to have been on earth with it formed...namely... water. The experiment showed that some organic molecules where formed....and?
it says next "far from a complete living biochemical system". I'm not talking about the wings of a dodo after generations of no use, not working anymore.

I'm talking about seeing that first organic molecule turn into Bill Clinton.


While most scientist may believe that a given animal is extinct, you won't find any scientists who will say that they can scientifically prove that an animal is extinct.

yes they do. i've read it myself. i've also read (many times i might add) how some scientist has found the skull of a relative of man and ape and that it's the missing link make evolution completely rock solid - only to be told a month or so later that it's just the skull of another type of monkey


Scientists are people, and, like most people, do hold opinions and beliefs beyond what they can prove scientifically.

agreed - which comes back to me saying that it's "blind faith" - the same charge that they lay against religious people.


The scientific method is specifically designed to remove bias, or render it irrelevant. Inaccurate beliefs were and are held by scientists and actively used to stifle the advancement of knowledge not because science fails humanity, but because humanity fails itself. When withdrawal of funding is used to hinder a scientist, it is not science, it's politics. Science is simply a powerful tool that we can use to understand the world around us and apply that understanding. Like any other tool, such as a gun, it is impossible for it to be biased, but its wielders might be.

[1] I will simply refer to scientific theories as 'theories' from here on.

[2] Scientists are lazy like that, but, since laziness sounds rather unscientific, they call it Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

true....but science is biased. there is not one scientist who isn't biased on the findings of their or others scientific or religious research. It's not possible for a human being to make un-biased decisions 100% of the time on any subject. To assume that is being more than just naive.

U rightly say that scientists are humans with their own beliefs etc. etc. You even say that humanity is flawed - and rightly so. but yet you still think science is not biased. even the results of experiments are a bit biased - because you have to take into consideration human error which is a % of some number or another (stupid ap chemistry....no wait... i actually liked that class :D) -

[Nebosuke]

the theory of evolution (the big bang one) doesn't talk about the changes in organisms as such.
The big bang theory is entirely unrelated to the theory of evolution.

it talks about changing from one species to a completely different species - this has never ever been observed directly.
That has no bearing on whether or not the theory of evolution is valid, because the theory makes no guarantees that speciation must occur, only that it is a possibility. The reason that evolution rather than intelligent design is taught in the class is the same as the reason that the theory of gravity rather than the theory of pink mystical ponies and extradimensional cyborgs wielding mass attraction sticks is taught. It, unlike the alternative, is useful. The theory of evolution allows you to effectively design, for instance, selective breeding programs, and to model and predict the development of resistances in bacteria and agricultural pests, etc.

He created a controlled experient with, at the very least, one component that is theoried not to have been on earth with it formed...namely... water.
Perhaps water was not present when the planet formed, but scientific theory does not date the beginnings of life as being simultaneous with the planet's formation, but, rather, quite some time later (hundreds of millions to a billion years later) when water is thought to have been present. Also, the intent of the experiment was not to prove that that is how life formed, but, rather, to test if it is possible that life formed that way. It turns out that yes, it is quite possible, and later experiments have reaffirmed this finding.

[Klilynkun]

The big bang theory is entirely unrelated to the theory of evolution.

no it's not. that's how i found out about evolution in school. through the big bang theory.

That has no bearing on whether or not the theory of evolution is valid, because the theory makes no guarantees that speciation must occur, only that it is a possibility. The reason that evolution rather than intelligent design is taught in the class is the same as the reason that the theory of gravity rather than the theory of pink mystical ponies and extradimensional cyborgs wielding mass attraction sticks is taught. It, unlike the alternative, is useful. The theory of evolution allows you to effectively design, for instance, selective breeding programs, and to model and predict the development of resistances in bacteria and agricultural pests, etc.

No... that's biology, chemistry, and other scientific fields. it's not evolution. doctor's don't go into a surgery thinking hmm, well this person evolved from such and such and so i must take care not to amputate his arm because if he has a child he has a chance not to have an arm because blah blah blah.

chemicals (or whatever they are called) aren't added to the periodic table by the scientists going in 5 million years from now this chemical will be this so it should have this atomic weight etc. etc. etc.

the only time the theory of evolution is used is when there is a discussion on evolution and the creation of animals and species.

every thing else can neatly be placed into it's own field without the evolution theory present. that's what was happening before the evolutionary theory was made mainstream thought to begin with. it wasn't part of the sciences. you had the odd handful of people that though about evolution but it wasn't no big thing. it was like the what if? marvel comic.

Perhaps water was not present when the planet formed, but scientific theory does not date the beginnings of life as being simultaneous with the planet's formation, but, rather, quite some time later (hundreds of millions to a billion years later) when water is thought to have been present. Also, the intent of the experiment was not to prove that that is how life formed, but, rather, to test if it is possible that life formed that way. It turns out that yes, it is quite possible, and later experiments have reaffirmed this finding.

true... i wasn't saying that the experiment was to date the beginnings of life as being simultaneous with the planet's formation. but you are coming close to my point. according to the big bang theory. something exploded when there was nothing there. this explosion had huge rocks planet sized. one of these rocks was bombarded by a bunch of comets - which weren't previously there before the big bang and created favorable conditions on the rock that would be called earth, to provide air, water, organic organisms. these organisms evolved somehow (still not understood how) into fish, which themselves evolved into some kind of air breathing creature. this creature not only was able to evolve into dinosaurs, cavemen, monkeys, and all sorts of other animals - but each evolution miraculously provided a good way for the new animal to live (unfortunatly scientists find it very very very very hard to duplicate this in a lab - and found out during their cloning spree that just the slightest error in any part of the animal provided drastic result which not only born dead animals, but animals which were disfigured and didn't live long anyway. the animals that did live couldn't have possible bred so well as to have a huge population of them as we have today.) I'm sorry, but that sounds like a fairy tale to me. Not saying that the idea of god creating people that he loves and we were rebelious blah blah blah doesn't sound like a fairy tale either (especially as it's in a lot of children's books), but there doesn't seem to be any hard undisputable fact for either side yet.

And as i've said before.... no - goo to you evolution has not been seen in experiments yet. it has never ever ever been observable - even in plants. i've never seen a cat hump a dog and produce a new species of a monkey evolve into a person creating a new species - and neither have the scientists for that matter.

[Xuande]

The bible most Christians read today (the King James version) is also significantly altered from its source texts...

The KJV is not the version of the Bible most Christians read. Some American Protestant sects prefer it, but nearly everyone else who reads the Bible in English uses a more up-to-date version. Even more American Protestants prefer the New International Version than the King James Version.

[RandomPasserby]

Hmm.. klilynkun, tbh, your points like cat humping a dog and evolution never been seen are quite similar to what many many creationists use. i'm starting to think your brother is a variation of "my friend"-cases.

For evolution proven and seen in effect, I can give you antibiotic resistant bacteria for example. Google ring species if you want proof of species being born.

Also your schools science education must suck totally if evolution is brought up with Big Bang... One is physics mainly, other is mainly biology after all.

[羽之助]

I really don't care all that much over whether evolution is "true" or not, as it has no impact on my personal beliefs, which is that the world was created by a god and goddess having sex on an island (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_mythology&section=2#Creation_myth).

[RandomPasserby]

So you are walking on babies, Hanenosuke?

[Jetsetlemming]

I know I am. :D

[Plekto]

The test is obviously written from a biased, Western, pro-Christian perspective based upon the language and way the questions are worded. so it's pretty useless. Most of the questions are put into categories not based upon the individual religions' ideals but instead on how you answer a question that the writer thinks is appropriate.

I pass.

P.S.
no it's not. that's how i found out about evolution in school. through the big bang theory.

Lol. What passes for teaching these days...

[Nebosuke]

no it's not. that's how i found out about evolution in school. through the big bang theory.
All that that suggests, if anything, is that either you misunderstood the lesson, your teacher has an exceedingly weak grasp of the subject matter, or your teacher is unable to clearly convey the concepts he/she is attempting to teach. Go out and study the two theories for yourself, and you will see why I said that they are unrelated.

No... that's biology, chemistry, and other scientific fields. it's not evolution.
Yes, the specific examples (selective breeding, pest resistance modelling) I cited are definitely reliant on the theory of evolution.

according to the big bang theory. something exploded when there was nothing there. this explosion had huge rocks planet sized. one of these rocks was bombarded by a bunch of comets - which weren't previously there before the big bang and created favorable conditions on the rock that would be called earth, to provide air, water, organic organisms.
That summary of the big bang theory ceases to be accurate after the word 'exploded'. Although you should not necessarily trust Wikipedia to be 100% accurate (primary sources are always best, if available), the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang) on this particular subject seems to be legitimate, and worth reading if you would like to gain a more accurate understanding of the theory.

these organisms evolved somehow (still not understood how) into fish, which themselves evolved into some kind of air breathing creature. this creature not only was able to evolve into dinosaurs, cavemen, monkeys, and all sorts of other animals - but each evolution miraculously provided a good way for the new animal to live (unfortunatly scientists find it very very very very hard to duplicate this in a lab - and found out during their cloning spree that just the slightest error in any part of the animal provided drastic result which not only born dead animals, but animals which were disfigured and didn't live long anyway.
Several points:
1) There are theories that explain very well how it would be possible, specifically without miracles being necessary. That's what the theory of evolution, the Miller-Urey experiment, etc., are. None of the prove that this is what occurred, nor do they claim to do so. They claim to prove that it is possible, and, for the time being, we are finding it highly useful and productive to assume that they are true.

2) It is trivially easy to observe evolution in the lab. We did it all the time at my old job at an ag research station. Even simple animal breeders have been doing it for hundreds of years, ever striving for fatter cows, more obedient dogs, and chickens that lay better eggs, among other things. Speciation, on the other hand, is not something that we would expect to see occurring (though there is plenty of evidence that it could have occurred in the past). If we did, that would, perhaps counterintuitively, cast quite a bit of doubt on the theory of evolution rather than reinforce it, as, if the theory of evolution holds correctly, we would expect to go through many thousands of generations under specific conditions before it is probable that it will occur. The scientific method, let alone the theory of evolution, hasn't been in widespread use long enough to be able to record an instance of speciation as it occurs.

3) Cloning is not evolution. If anything, it's the antithesis of evolution, as it's essentially attempting to halt evolution by trying to duplicate a previous generation. Also, in general, the fact that our techniques for applying theoretical knowledge are imperfect really says little, if anything, about the validity of the theories themselves.

I think it is becoming clear to me that you're very confused about what the theory of evolution actually is, since you are constantly conflating it with unrelated issues. Based on the contents of your posts, I would hazard a guess that someone with a limited grasp of science attempted to explain to you the origin of all existence/creation of the universe and told you that it was the theory of evolution.

I admire the fact that you're keeping an open mind, and seem to be legitimately interested in seeking out answers, but I think you are rapidly approaching the point where further discussion on a board won't really help you. Many of the concepts that you would need to absorb will require dedicated study to actually understand.

You are correct in some of your earlier assertions that many peoples' trust in science is no more substantial than others' beliefs in religion. The difference between science and religion is that the relationship between a scientific theory and reality is objectively testable and observable. Thus, if you are willing to make the effort, it is possible to gain a better understanding of how the connection between science and reality is more substantiated than that between religious belief and reality. That does nothing to prove that science is 'right' and religion is 'wrong', however. As I stated earlier, from a strictly scientific point of view, it doesn't matter whether or not religious beliefs are true[1], and science cannot attempt to prove or disprove religious beliefs in any case, because they aren't testable. It is, however, the reason that science is useful and leads to technological advancement while religion does not.

So right now it's like this: you can choose to believe what I say, but then you're just taking it on faith the same way your brother is asking you to just believe in christianity. Understanding the difference between faith and science requires hard work that no one, on this board or elsewhere, can do for you.

[1] Either the objects of religious beliefs have an impact on reality, and will be detected by scientists at some point, or they have no impact on reality either because they do not exist or choose not to exert any influence, and thus remain undetectable to scientists. In any case, scientists will simply continue to probe the nature of the universe in exactly the same manner. Science as a discipline has no vested interest either way. Scientists as individual human beings may have a vested interest in that they may have staked their careers on particular pet theories, but that is why we have peer review and the scientific method.

edit:
RE: Xuande

Thanks for the correction. Like I said earlier, it's been a long, long time since I studied the issue, so I guess my memory is not entirely intact :P.

[Jetsetlemming]

1) There are theories that explain very well how it would be possible, specifically without miracles being necessary. That's what the theory of evolution, the Miller-Urey experiment, etc., are. None of the prove that this is what occurred, nor do they claim to do so. They claim to prove that it is possible, and, for the time being, we are finding it highly useful and productive to assume that they are true.

The Miller-Urey experiment was to create amino acids from non-living ingredients in order to prove that life can come from non-life. However, the experiment was proved to be faulty: The design of the artificial atmosphere they used to create the proteins has since been shown to likely have nothing to do with how the earth's atmosphere was when it was new. They just assumed the earth was similar to Venus at the time. Not that I have an opinion one way or the other, just thought you might like to know. Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

[Xuande]

no it's not. that's how i found out about evolution in school. through the big bang theory.
The big bang theory and the theory of evolution have in common that they're both scientific explanations of how things got the way they are now. Other than that, they don't have much to do with one another.

No... that's biology, chemistry, and other scientific fields. it's not evolution. doctor's don't go into a surgery thinking hmm, well this person evolved from such and such and so i must take care not to amputate his arm because if he has a child he has a chance not to have an arm because blah blah blah.
One hopes no doctor ever thinks that, since Lamarckian inheritance for most traits was long ago debunked.

Practicing medical doctors do need to take into account evolution when prescribing antibiotics, to reduce the chances of unintentionally breeding antibiotic-resistant superbugs. People doing medical research often use evolutionary theory. Consider cancer researchers (http://www.wistar.org/research_facilities/maley/research.htm) who must account for natural selection among the cells of a tumor, or pharmaceutical researchers who test new drugs on other mammals before humans. They're relying on the fact that humans share common ancestry (and therefore much of our physiology) with other mammals, and we're closer to some than others.

the only time the theory of evolution is used is when there is a discussion on evolution and the creation of animals and species.

This is not the case. In addition to the specific uses to which medical researchers put evolutionary theory I mentioned above, there are many more. Just about every interesting feature of a living thing is there for an evolutionary reason. If you want to find out why, or predict what will happen if the feature is changed, you need to resort to the theory of evolution. The effects of evolution are surprisingly far-reaching. Cocks, for instance, need to go through a mating dance to interest a female in copulation. But cocks whose ancestors were artificially inseminated for generations have about a 50% chance of losing the gene for performing the dance to genetic drift, and are therefore are unable to coax a female into copulating using normal means. Frustrated, they end up spurring and killing the uncooperative hens. Farmers who don't take evolution into account thus end up having to carefully separate their cocks and hens or end up losing a great deal of the latter to sex-starved murderer-rapists. I'm oversimplifying a great deal here, but the basic point is valid. Evolution matters in more than just philosophical debates about where life came from.

I'm a computer scientist, but I still make use of evolution in my own work. The mechanism of evolution isn't restricted to the domain of living things. Any time you have an imperfect copying method and a kind of selection, evolution can happen. The field of evolutionary computation takes advantage of this fact. We try to solve a problem by randomly generating a population of potential solutions. Naturally, most of them don't work. But then we generate new solutions based on the best of the old ones, imitating selective reproduction and mutation. Eventually, we tend to find pretty good solutions to the problem at a much higher rate than if we just kept randomly generating new solutions without the evolutionary mechanism. There are many success stories of these kinds of computer programs, from pretty good checkers players (http://www.natural-selection.com/Library/1999/Evolving_NN_Checkers.pdf) to vibration-cancelling satellite booms (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8938/01/jsv.pdf). A professor at my university (http://www.cs.uga.edu/~khaled/) uses genetic algorithms to design air inlets for missile engines. These are all applications of the principles of evolution to things far afield of biology.

every thing else can neatly be placed into it's own field without the evolution theory present. that's what was happening before the evolutionary theory was made mainstream thought to begin with. it wasn't part of the sciences. you had the odd handful of people that though about evolution but it wasn't no big thing. it was like the what if? marvel comic.

Those were pretty arbitrary groupings, though. Nobody knew why these different kinds of animals shared some characteristics but not others. The theory of evolution turned zoology from a list-making activity to a real science that asked and answered Why? questions. It introduced causality into zoology, in other words. It opened up the field of genetics. It led us to draw links from the fossils we were discovering to the creatures alive today. Biology wasn't half as interesting before evolution entered the picture.

And as i've said before.... no - goo to you evolution has not been seen in experiments yet. it has never ever ever been observable - even in plants. i've never seen a cat hump a dog and produce a new species of a monkey evolve into a person creating a new species - and neither have the scientists for that matter.

You are mistaken. Evolution has been witnessed in action. A commonly cited example is the industrial melanism of peppered moths, but there are many more examples than that. We have observed the formation of several new species, such as the species of mosquito that evolved from Culex pipiens to adapt to human-built subways (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157). More are listed on this webpage (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html) (actually, that whole website is a great source of information about evolution, including an index of claims by creationists together with refutations). You will never see a cat mate with a dog and produce a monkey, because that's not the way evolution works. It's a very gradual process, one gene at a time.

So there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. It explains why living things are the way they are, it produces results in many fields of science, we can see the path evolution has taken over time through a great many transitional fossils (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html), and it has even been observed happening in the wild. You have to ignore a mountain of evidence to call it a mere fairy tale.

[羽之助]

So you are walking on babies, Hanenosuke?

Oh yeah! And when the ground shakes they are simply stirring. See, everything explained, with no need for your western 'science'!

[delen]

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution have in common that they're both scientific explanations of how things got the way they are now. Other than that, they don't have much to do with one another.

The big bang totally evolved into modern day cats.

[Ichisan]

It looks like this quiz produces pretty accurate results!

And that's despite the fact that a lot of us don't like the way the questions are posed.

[Klilynkun]

argh.... so much words to read...... brain....throbbing.....

[RandomPasserby]

Oh yeah! And when the ground shakes they are simply stirring. See, everything explained, with no need for your western 'science'!
So quakes mean you stepped on wrong people's toes?

[InSo]

You scored as agnosticism.



You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

----

For me, this proves that the quiz has some level of accuracy, because I've considered myself an agnostic for a while now.

Some of the questions made me laugh though - "Everyone should love each other." lol...

[Klilynkun]

Hmm.. klilynkun, tbh, your points like cat humping a dog and evolution never been seen are quite similar to what many many creationists use. i'm starting to think your brother is a variation of "my friend"-cases.

if you don't want to believe me about my brother, then that's your opinion. Also, i clearly said what type of evolution i'm talking about.

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution have in common that they're both scientific explanations of how things got the way they are now. Other than that, they don't have much to do with one another.

Well... that's what i was taught, and i've never ever heard evolution without the big bang theory.

For evolution proven and seen in effect, I can give you antibiotic resistant bacteria for example. Google ring species if you want proof of species being born.

did a search on your thing and put in christian answers ring species in google and through some forums and wotnot got to this website

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bird.asp

and any way - as i said before, i'm not talking about that type of evolution as they are all still salamander.

All that that suggests, if anything, is that either you misunderstood the lesson, your teacher has an exceedingly weak grasp of the subject matter, or your teacher is unable to clearly convey the concepts he/she is attempting to teach. Go out and study the two theories for yourself, and you will see why I said that they are unrelated.

very very possible :), i am trying to read about it but every time i read i read stuff about how bacteria adapts and cancer and blah blah blah, but the thing is they are still cancer and bacteria blah blah blah. They have evolved into a man, or a monkey or a cat which is what i'm looking for. I can't find a book showing this - can someone reccomend a website or book?

Yes, the specific examples (selective breeding, pest resistance modelling) I cited are definitely reliant on the theory of evolution.

selective breeding is not evolution and neither is pest resistance - to say that is to say that there are humans which are more evolved than others because they can adapt and change. Some people can take the heat much more than others. Some people get a certain disease while others don't. To say the statement you said and follow it through would mean that hitler was right all along and so was darwin (who was a racist and didn't believe black bpeople were evolved, which is obvious when you read his journals).

That summary of the big bang theory ceases to be accurate after the word 'exploded'. Although you should not necessarily trust Wikipedia to be 100% accurate (primary sources are always best, if available), the article on this particular subject seems to be legitimate, and worth reading if you would like to gain a more accurate understanding of the theory.

Well isn't that what the "BIG BANG" is about? That something exploded? Hellloooooo :eyepop:

I'm reading the wiki thing, k, i understood the big bang wrong... so.. i'm reading it... and the last sentence "Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics."
what!!!! what happened to all the theories being proved by the observation blah blah blah. obviously this theory with the universe evolving blah blah blah is not necessarily right if it is still one of the greatest "unsolved" problems.

so until it's not unsolved....

Several points:
1) There are theories that explain very well how it would be possible, specifically without miracles being necessary. That's what the theory of evolution, the Miller-Urey experiment, etc., are. None of the prove that this is what occurred, nor do they claim to do so. They claim to prove that it is possible, and, for the time being, we are finding it highly useful and productive to assume that they are true.

2) It is trivially easy to observe evolution in the lab. We did it all the time at my old job at an ag research station. Even simple animal breeders have been doing it for hundreds of years, ever striving for fatter cows, more obedient dogs, and chickens that lay better eggs, among other things. Speciation, on the other hand, is not something that we would expect to see occurring (though there is plenty of evidence that it could have occurred in the past). If we did, that would, perhaps counterintuitively, cast quite a bit of doubt on the theory of evolution rather than reinforce it, as, if the theory of evolution holds correctly, we would expect to go through many thousands of generations under specific conditions before it is probable that it will occur. The scientific method, let alone the theory of evolution, hasn't been in widespread use long enough to be able to record an instance of speciation as it occurs.

3) Cloning is not evolution. If anything, it's the antithesis of evolution, as it's essentially attempting to halt evolution by trying to duplicate a previous generation. Also, in general, the fact that our techniques for applying theoretical knowledge are imperfect really says little, if anything, about the validity of the theories themselves.

I think it is becoming clear to me that you're very confused about what the theory of evolution actually is, since you are constantly conflating it with unrelated issues. Based on the contents of your posts, I would hazard a guess that someone with a limited grasp of science attempted to explain to you the origin of all existence/creation of the universe and told you that it was the theory of evolution.

I admire the fact that you're keeping an open mind, and seem to be legitimately interested in seeking out answers, but I think you are rapidly approaching the point where further discussion on a board won't really help you. Many of the concepts that you would need to absorb will require dedicated study to actually understand.

You are correct in some of your earlier assertions that many peoples' trust in science is no more substantial than others' beliefs in religion. The difference between science and religion is that the relationship between a scientific theory and reality is objectively testable and observable. Thus, if you are willing to make the effort, it is possible to gain a better understanding of how the connection between science and reality is more substantiated than that between religious belief and reality. That does nothing to prove that science is 'right' and religion is 'wrong', however. As I stated earlier, from a strictly scientific point of view, it doesn't matter whether or not religious beliefs are true[1], and science cannot attempt to prove or disprove religious beliefs in any case, because they aren't testable. It is, however, the reason that science is useful and leads to technological advancement while religion does not.

So right now it's like this: you can choose to believe what I say, but then you're just taking it on faith the same way your brother is asking you to just believe in christianity. Understanding the difference between faith and science requires hard work that no one, on this board or elsewhere, can do for you.

[1] Either the objects of religious beliefs have an impact on reality, and will be detected by scientists at some point, or they have no impact on reality either because they do not exist or choose not to exert any influence, and thus remain undetectable to scientists. In any case, scientists will simply continue to probe the nature of the universe in exactly the same manner. Science as a discipline has no vested interest either way. Scientists as individual human beings may have a vested interest in that they may have staked their careers on particular pet theories, but that is why we have peer review and the scientific method

point 1 was sorted

point 2 - no it has not been observed in a lab. as i've before. i'm not talking about variations the same species.... i probably should use a different word instead of species...anyway.... it has not been observed that a dog has evolved into a cat. It has never been observed. It has been observed that a bacteria devoleps resistance to antibiotic - but it's still bacteria, it hasn't turned into a bird. i already said that i agree, using the dodo illustration that over time an animal/bug/bacteria/green unicorn can change what it looks like, some functions - but it's still a bug/bacteria/unicorn - that's the type of evolution i'm talking about not minor changes but huge changes which is the main thrust of the evolutionary theory. Who cares about salamanders not being able to breed, they're still salamanders. call me when they become alligators - or sharks

it's true, cloning isn't evolution. i most likely don't understand evolution very well. i can only quote what i've been taught and the very little material that i've read on the subject.


This is not the case. In addition to the specific uses to which medical researchers put evolutionary theory I mentioned above, there are many more. Just about every interesting feature of a living thing is there for an evolutionary reason. If you want to find out why, or predict what will happen if the feature is changed, you need to resort to the theory of evolution. The effects of evolution are surprisingly far-reaching. Cocks, for instance, need to go through a mating dance to interest a female in copulation. But cocks whose ancestors were artificially inseminated for generations have about a 50% chance of losing the gene for performing the dance to genetic drift, and are therefore are unable to coax a female into copulating using normal means. Frustrated, they end up spurring and killing the uncooperative hens. Farmers who don't take evolution into account thus end up having to carefully separate their cocks and hens or end up losing a great deal of the latter to sex-starved murderer-rapists. I'm oversimplifying a great deal here, but the basic point is valid. Evolution matters in more than just philosophical debates about where life came from.

I'm a computer scientist, but I still make use of evolution in my own work. The mechanism of evolution isn't restricted to the domain of living things. Any time you have an imperfect copying method and a kind of selection, evolution can happen. The field of evolutionary computation takes advantage of this fact. We try to solve a problem by randomly generating a population of potential solutions. Naturally, most of them don't work. But then we generate new solutions based on the best of the old ones, imitating selective reproduction and mutation. Eventually, we tend to find pretty good solutions to the problem at a much higher rate than if we just kept randomly generating new solutions without the evolutionary mechanism. There are many success stories of these kinds of computer programs, from pretty good checkers players to vibration-cancelling satellite booms. A professor at my university uses genetic algorithms to design air inlets for missile engines. These are all applications of the principles of evolution to things far afield of biology.


i didn't say anything about your cancer bit cuz i already stated what type of evolution i'm talking about

your cock illustration may and may not be evolution. Whose to say that the chickens are not taught the mating dance from another cock (:D).

also your other illustration is not evolution, if it was, it would have been called that when i learned it in math class. If that is evolution then hitler exterminating all those jews is evolution as well. Don't limit the scope of your definition because when it's enlarged it doesn't make sense. Me destroying a building and building a better one would be evolution, by your definition which u just gave me.

i mean come on. I program a computer to do something when playing against a human, and when it does it you call it evolution!?! it's not like the computer thought of it itself. It was programed to do it. If the computer grew a mouth and started speaking random words to you, then that's evolution. Those are not principals of evolution.

Those were pretty arbitrary groupings, though. Nobody knew why these different kinds of animals shared some characteristics but not others. The theory of evolution turned zoology from a list-making activity to a real science that asked and answered Why? questions. It introduced causality into zoology, in other words. It opened up the field of genetics. It led us to draw links from the fossils we were discovering to the creatures alive today. Biology wasn't half as interesting before evolution entered the picture.

that maybe true but every thing hangs on theory - not fact - not law. And we have not been able to draw links to all fossils and creatures alive to, like humans. All there is is theory, and speculation. Every time someone says they made a break through it's revealed to be false.

I don't know whether evolution opened up the field of genetics - but whose to say that it did? I wasn't there, you sure wasn't - that would make the beginnings of genetics extremely biased as well - or at least the possibilty of them being biased. You don't know how interesting biology was back then since you weren't there. And that's your opinion.

You are mistaken. Evolution has been witnessed in action. A commonly cited example is the industrial melanism of peppered moths, but there are many more examples than that. We have observed the formation of several new species, such as the species of mosquito that evolved from Culex pipiens to adapt to human-built subways. More are listed on this webpage (actually, that whole website is a great source of information about evolution, including an index of claims by creationists together with refutations). You will never see a cat mate with a dog and produce a monkey, because that's not the way evolution works. It's a very gradual process, one gene at a time.

So there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. It explains why living things are the way they are, it produces results in many fields of science, we can see the path evolution has taken over time through a great many transitional fossils, and it has even been observed happening in the wild. You have to ignore a mountain of evidence to call it a mere fairy tale.

evolution can't occur one gene at a time because (and this is especially for humans - love the discovery channel) there are a lot of things in the human body that must work at the same time. If not then there's no life. One gene at a time doesn't work. It has to be multiple genes at a time.

Typed in christian answers peppered moth in google and got this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/examination-of-error

I went to that answersingenesis page since i keep being sent to it and searched for mosquito and culex pipeis (sp)

i got this http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp
and this http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/evolution_train.asp
and this http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/RE2/chapter4.asp

actually... that talkorigins website was how i got to the answersingenesis website in the first place.... good thing i'm looking in the right place :)

dude... that transition fossil link quoted from a known cult :blank: smart
let's see what them genesis people say then

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=transitional%20fossil

all i did was type transitional fossil in their search thingy and though quote from well known magazines like Scientific American (never heard of em lol), Nature (them either lol), and even the New York Time.

I didn't understand some of the stuff they were talking about because it was in scienteese (at least to my mind), but there you go.

ok... you know, we can talk about evolution for ever, but the proof of evolution that i would need would be someone finding something that his half of one known animal/type of animal and one that is half another type of known animal/type of animal. Then there will not be a shadow of a doubt. They haven't found it so far - and everytime they say they have it's been revealed to be false. And again i'm talking about evolution from 1 dog to 1 cat, and it should be possible since fish can grow lungs and breath on air and grow legs and wot-not. And since apes/monkeys can stop growing excess hair, have so many changes to their physiology, and develop speech all by themselves.

[Nebosuke]

selective breeding is not evolution and neither is pest resistance - to say that is to say that there are humans which are more evolved than others because they can adapt and change. Some people can take the heat much more than others. Some people get a certain disease while others don't. To say the statement you said and follow it through would mean that hitler was right all along and so was darwin (who was a racist and didn't believe black bpeople were evolved, which is obvious when you read his journals).
If you're talking about eugenics, then yes, we now know that, in fact, it would work. If you're specifically talking Hitler's eugenics program, then no, it didn't work because it wasn't scientific. Hitler started with the false premise that tall blue-eyed blond people were inherently superior to all others in every way, and used this premise as the foundation of his idea of a master race. The only thing you are actually guaranteeing when you select for tall blue-eyed blond people, however, is that you will get babies who will eventually be tall blue-eyed blonds.

In Darwin's day, the mechanism for evolution was not known, and therefore his racism combined with his ignorance of the fact that the difference between, say, his DNA and the DNA of Africans is not meaningful in almost any qualitative sense is not terribly surprising.

The formation of new species actually fits the creation model very comfortably. The wolf, the dingo and the coyote are all regarded as separate species. However, they (perhaps along with several other species) almost certainly ‘split off from an original pair on the Ark—a species representing the surviving information of one created kind. Is there evidence that this can happen, and that it can happen without adding new information, that is, within the limits of the information already present at creation?
No. Absolutely not. The DNA of a single pair of animals does not encompass the breadth of the diversity found within even a specific breed of dog, let alone the entire genus canus. Why? Because a single dog, at best, contains two different alleles for each gene. Even if you could somehow find two dogs with absolutely no overlap in alleles, they would only contain, in total, 4 alleles per locus, which does not account for the amount of genetic diversity that exists.

The creation myth of a single man ancestor and single woman ancestor (Adam and Eve) is, for the same reasons outlined above, only within the realm of possibility because of evolution. If evolution did not occur, the genetic diversity found in humans would not be possible unless that creation myth is false, and humanity began with an initial population that was, at the very least, thousands in number. So there you have a catch-22 for creationists. The creation myth of Adam and Eve is provably false if you begin with the assertion that evolution does not occur. The same is true of the myth of Noah's Ark for the same reasons. You can either have 'Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are true' OR 'evolution does not exist', but not both[1].

To be honest, the author of the article is being willfully ignorant in order to justify his arguments. I could go through the rest of the articles and find the flaws in them too, but, as I touched on briefly in my last post, it won't really help you at this point (and would also take more time than I'm willing to spend). The fact that you linked the articles as responses demonstrates that you did not take the time to try to actually understand the arguments being presented. If you do not take the time, then whatever you decide will, by definition, be purely on faith, in which case your final conclusion will be entirely arbitrary.

As I said earlier, no one on this board can give you actual understanding. If you don't take the time to try to do it for yourself, it will always elude you. If you decide that it's not worth the effort, then that's really up to you.

all i did was type transitional fossil in their search thingy and though quote from well known magazines like Scientific American (never heard of em lol), Nature (them either lol), and even the New York Time.
Scientific American has a rather large readership, but Nature is considered one of the most (if not the most) prestigious peer-reviewed scientific publications. You probably wouldn't hear of them unless you studied science, and, especially in the case of Nature, you usually need at least some relevant scientific knowledge to understand the articles.

[1] Note that 'evolution is true' does not necessarily lead to 'Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark' are true, only that they are not immediately dismissable on the basis of our knowledge of genetics.

[Plekto]

Actually, I saw a show on Discovery Channel a while back about, of all things, supervolcanos and mass extinction events.(no, not the one about Yellowstone Park). And it pointed out that by examining the RNA in people, that there is a section of it that is passed down the line via the mother unchanged. So in that way, you can tell how many generations there are in the person/creature from the original if you have early enough samples to compare against.(or a lot of other samples to test diversity of the various groups).

I'm sure Nebosuke will come up with the exact term. :)

What they found is that there was a supervolcano event somewhere in the 30-35,000 year range in the past that killed a lot of animals. And evidently most humans as well. They said that all humans apparently come from no more than a couple of original parents, and evidence suggests that the timesframe is around this event.

So what does this mean in practical terms?
- It explains the origins myths. Big cataclysm and having to move away from the damaged areas - likely one family or small group(few cousins and whatnot)that had the sense to strive out on their own despite the perils. Given a typical clan structure, the elders that survived would have been considered the only important members. It's far more likely that all of Adam and Eve's "children" listed were actually part of the clan/group that escaped the area and not their offspring.(unless they were silly busy)

It also backs up evolution. If ALL people come from a couple of mothers thousands of years ago, that means the diversity of humans has to be through evolution - otherwise we'd all look the same. Also, it appears as if dark skin was the original type - various groups LOST their skin pigment to varying degrees.

[Xuande]

did a search on your thing and put in christian answers ring species in google and through some forums and wotnot got to this website

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bird.asp

The link you posted relies on the creationist canard that mutation can't introduce new information. It can (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html). That page lists several mutations that produced new proteins (what I assume creationists mean by increasing "information," since they don't really define the term). A particularly striking example is the enzyme that recently evolved to digest nylon (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm), a synthetic material that didn't exist until humans invented it in the 1930s.

selective breeding is not evolution and neither is pest resistance - to say that is to say that there are humans which are more evolved than others because they can adapt and change. Some people can take the heat much more than others. Some people get a certain disease while others don't. To say the statement you said and follow it through would mean that hitler was right all along and so was darwin (who was a racist and didn't believe black bpeople were evolved, which is obvious when you read his journals).

I think you're suffering from a misconception of what evolutionary fitness is. Evolutionary fitness is about being able to successfully reproduce in a certain environment. You can't say that some creature is "more evolved" than another except to say that it will tend to have better reproductive performance in a given environment. In that sense, yes, some humans are better adapted to live and reproduce in some environments than other humans. A human who carries exactly one copy of the sickle-cell anemia gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_anemia) will be more resistant to malaria than a human without it, and will therefore probably have more reproductive success in areas where malaria is prevalent. A human who carries genes that make him or her less likely to suffer from sun stroke or heat exhaustion would probably survive and reproduce better in hot climates, and so on. This is less the case nowadays, in our age of air conditioning, insecticide, and other technological devices that protect us from the ravages of natural environments, but it was more so in the past.

There is no necessary progress in evolution in the sense of becoming more intelligent or stronger, only in reproductive fitness in a given environment. But environments don't stay the same (part of an organism's environment are other organisms that are also evolving!), so there's no persistent progress in all the environments in which an organism might find itself. A mutation that results in increased fitness in one environment might quickly become a handicap if, say, a predator evolved to take advantage of it.

It's also important to note that evolutionary fitness is not the same as moral worth, which is the mistaken equivalence Herbert Spencer and the so-called "Social Darwinists" make. I don't know what arguments Hitler made for the extermination of Jews, gypsies, and other ethnic groups, but if he mentioned evolution he was following Spencer's ethics, not Darwin's theory. Evolutionary theory can be used to make predictions or explain what has already happened, but it is values-free. It doesn't assign or take away moral worth. All science is that way.

I'd think it highly unlikely that Darwin didn't think black people evolved, because he advocated evolution as an explanation for all diversity in life. On the other hand, it's very possible, even likely, that he was a racist. Most people in the 19th century were. That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

point 2 - no it has not been observed in a lab. as i've before. i'm not talking about variations the same species.... i probably should use a different word instead of species...anyway.... it has not been observed that a dog has evolved into a cat. It has never been observed. It has been observed that a bacteria devoleps resistance to antibiotic - but it's still bacteria, it hasn't turned into a bird. i already said that i agree, using the dodo illustration that over time an animal/bug/bacteria/green unicorn can change what it looks like, some functions - but it's still a bug/bacteria/unicorn - that's the type of evolution i'm talking about not minor changes but huge changes which is the main thrust of the evolutionary theory. Who cares about salamanders not being able to breed, they're still salamanders. call me when they become alligators - or sharks

The theory of evolution predicts we are extraordinarily unlikely to observe such radical changes in a population in our lifetimes. Looking back at the fossil record, we see they've taken millions of years in the past. We can and do witness populations splitting into groups that can no longer breed with one another, into new species, but they're not going to differ by as much as you seem to want. Indeed, if anyone observed a cat giving birth to a dog it would essentially disprove evolution, or at least throw the whole discipline of biology into turmoil. You're not asking for evidence for evolution, you're asking for evidence against evolution.

your cock illustration may and may not be evolution. Whose to say that the chickens are not taught the mating dance from another cock (:D).

It's not difficult to show that cocks don't learn the mating dance from their elders. Cocks raised in isolation since birth from older chickens still perform the dance given the chance, so long as they have the appropriate genes. This is why you can purchase and raise chicks or even eggs (if you incubate them artificially) from the right kind of stock and have them grow up without killing one another from sexual frustration.

also your other illustration is not evolution, if it was, it would have been called that when i learned it in math class. If that is evolution then hitler exterminating all those jews is evolution as well. Don't limit the scope of your definition because when it's enlarged it doesn't make sense. Me destroying a building and building a better one would be evolution, by your definition which u just gave me.

i mean come on. I program a computer to do something when playing against a human, and when it does it you call it evolution!?! it's not like the computer thought of it itself. It was programed to do it. If the computer grew a mouth and started speaking random words to you, then that's evolution. Those are not principals of evolution.

The computer was not programmed with any checkers strategy, and yet it played very well, much better than most humans and on a par with some very skilled humans. The computer was programmed to look at all possible moves from a given position on a checkers board and rate them according to an evaluation function, but the function was not specified by humans. Instead, a population of evaluation functions was created randomly. Because they were completely random, they probably all sucked at first, rating good moves poorly and bad moves well. But the computer was programmed to pit the different evaluation functions against each other by playing games using them to evaluate the next move to make, and the ones that won more often were considered to be more fit. The unfit functions were discarded and replaced by new functions similar to the fit ones, and the process was repeated. After a few thousand generations, the program started playing checkers very well in spite of never being programmed with any strategy by a human. It evolved an effective way to figure out which moves were good and which moves weren't.

It's true this isn't biological evolution. Much of the complexity of biological evolution is ignored so the computer can find good solutions in a reasonable amount of time. But the core forces of selection pressure and imperfect reproduction are present, and they're all that's needed for new tricks to be discovered, and fit individuals to take over a population.

that maybe true but every thing hangs on theory - not fact - not law. And we have not been able to draw links to all fossils and creatures alive to, like humans. All there is is theory, and speculation. Every time someone says they made a break through it's revealed to be false.

I don't know whether evolution opened up the field of genetics - but whose to say that it did? I wasn't there, you sure wasn't - that would make the beginnings of genetics extremely biased as well - or at least the possibilty of them being biased. You don't know how interesting biology was back then since you weren't there. And that's your opinion.

You still seem to be hung up on the "mere theory" thing. Theory doesn't mean what you think it means. The theory of evolution is the body of knowledge explaining the facts of evolution. Law doesn't mean what you think it means, either. Physical laws are simple equations with well-established truth. Evolution is far too complex be reduced to a law, although there are laws that are a part of the theory of evolution, such as Allee's Law (http://www.ecology.info/laws-population-ecology.htm#Allees%20Law), or the Allee Principle, which codifies the relationship between evolutionary fitness and population size.

I said evolution opened up genetics, but really it worked out both ways. When DNA was discovered, we suddenly got the ability to look at the chemical structure of the genetic material of different species and see what they had in common -- a whole lot. Paleontologists had come up with their guesses at a tree of descent for plants and animals, and this motivated geneticists to check it against the chemical evidence. A lot was confirmed, and a few surprises threw out old ideas. That's how science works, though, constantly revising old ideas in the face of new evidence. The same kind of revolution is going on in biology again now, as scientists are starting to really study the links between development and evolution, or evo-devo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo-devo) as it's often abbreviated.

evolution can't occur one gene at a time because (and this is especially for humans - love the discovery channel) there are a lot of things in the human body that must work at the same time. If not then there's no life. One gene at a time doesn't work. It has to be multiple genes at a time.

You are referring to what Michael Behe calls Irreducible Complexity (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html). As the link explains, IC makes a straw man of the theory of evolution by assuming that the only way changes in organisms can happen is to add single parts with no change of function. But evolution is much more robust than that. A mutation can create a copy of a gene without disturbing the phenotype. Evolution is then free to act upon that copy without messing up whatever the original gene coded. There are many pseudogenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene) in our genome, which either used to code for proteins we no longer need and were lost to selection or drift, or were copied from functioning genes and then damaged. Further mutations to these pseudogenes can cause them to function again, but perhaps in a completely different way. There are other mechanisms, as well, but this is the easiest to understand.

We have observed this happening in nature. The DNA for the nylon-digesting enzyme I mentioned earlier mutated from a previously-existing (and well-documented) stretch of non-coding DNA. If this mutation happened before the 30s, it would have been selected against because bacteria that had it would be wasting resources producing proteins that don't do anything helpful. But now that nylon is so widespread, natural selection sometimes favors it as giving bacteria access to a whole new food source with little competition.

Typed in christian answers peppered moth in google and got this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/examination-of-error

The criticisms of the original peppered-moth study are not very strong. (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html) Even if the original study were fatally flawed (which hasn't been shown), the same conclusions have been reached by many other studies since then using data from different sites on different continents. Reproducible results like these are the currency of science.

I went to that answersingenesis page since i keep being sent to it and searched for mosquito and culex pipeis (sp)

i got this http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp
and this http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/evolution_train.asp
and this http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/RE2/chapter4.asp

I don't have the time to read and respond to all of these, but glancing at them it looks like the charges are pretty weak. I linked to a debunking of the "no new information" thing earlier. The speciation of the mosquito is a textbook example of evolution in action. A population is isolated and has different selection pressures applied to it. In cases where the isolation is sudden (building a subway takes a few years, but islands drifting apart take many, many more) and changes in pressure are great (warm all year long), speciation can occur quickly.

By the way, I wouldn't much trust Answers in Genesis. They are at best deluded and at worst dishonest. They often take quotes out of context and distort what experts say. They also hold some very strange and anti-scientific beliefs, such as that the earth, and indeed the universe, is only around 6 thousand years old.

dude... that transition fossil link quoted from a known cult :blank: smart
let's see what them genesis people say then

What cult and quote is this? Do you mean the Watchtower mention in the beginning? That is an example of a creationist making the claim that there are no transitional fossils, not the source of the lists of transitional fossils provided.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=transitional%20fossil

Again, I don't have the time to read through this and respond, but you should be able to look these cases up on Talk Origins and other scientific resources and make your own decisions.

ok... you know, we can talk about evolution for ever, but the proof of evolution that i would need would be someone finding something that his half of one known animal/type of animal and one that is half another type of known animal/type of animal. Then there will not be a shadow of a doubt. They haven't found it so far - and everytime they say they have it's been revealed to be false. And again i'm talking about evolution from 1 dog to 1 cat, and it should be possible since fish can grow lungs and breath on air and grow legs and wot-not. And since apes/monkeys can stop growing excess hair, have so many changes to their physiology, and develop speech all by themselves.

I already provided you with a list of some intermediate forms we know of. There is more detail here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates). I must warn you to avoid falling into the creationist trap of always requiring new missing links. Whenever a form (let's call it A) intermediate between humans and apes is found, creationists begin demanding a form intermediate between apes and A, and A and humans. When we find B between the first two and C between the last two, we must find new intermediate forms between apes and B, B and A, A and C, and C and humans. Their demands quickly become unreasonable.

[Jetsetlemming]

Klilynkun, you really can't prove genetic info and the developement of special traits over time. :P What you CAN show is that that change has a 1 in a googolplex chance of happening randomly on it's own in the right order and timing and positioning to function correctly.

[Plekto]

The computer was not programmed with any checkers strategy, and yet it played very well, much better than most humans and on a par with some very skilled humans. The computer was programmed to look at all possible moves from a given position on a checkers board and rate them according to an evaluation function, but the function was not specified by humans. Instead, a population of evaluation functions was created randomly. Because they were completely random, they probably all sucked at first, rating good moves poorly and bad moves well. But the computer was programmed to pit the different evaluation functions against each other by playing games using them to evaluate the next move to make, and the ones that won more often were considered to be more fit. The unfit functions were discarded and replaced by new functions similar to the fit ones, and the process was repeated. After a few thousand generations, the program started playing checkers very well in spite of never being programmed with any strategy by a human. It evolved an effective way to figure out which moves were good and which moves weren't.

***
This , btw, is exactly how the computer in War Games was programmed. Nice to see it coming into fruition. And that's exactly how our brains work as well - we try random stuff as babies and learn what works and what doesn't over many years. I bet if they adapted this to chess, it would whomp on humans after a while.

***
there are a lot of things in the human body that must work at the same time. If not then there's no life. One gene at a time doesn't work. It has to be multiple genes at a time.

No, this unfortunately happens all the time. There are very large numbers of people born with various genetic abnormalities, diseases, and things that need to be corrected at birth. But for every one we can see, there are ust as many that are invisible.

Myself? I'm immune to the protiens that fleas give off when they bite you. No reaction at all. OTOH, I also have bad alergies to most synthetic compounds, and food additives. I also found out that my body uses water at about half the rate of my peers when I am out hiking or exercising. They go through two canteens and I maybe finish off one. I also wear glasses - poor eyes. So we all have good and bad mutations in our code.

So, yes, it is one gene at a time. Or a whole group at once. You never know what you'll get. My son had a 37.5% chance of having blue eyes and blond hair, based upon my mother and father and his mother. Then again, I have a sister who has half brown, half blue eyes. Inner is blue, outer is brown - looks like those colored contacts but all real. Obvious mutation, but an attractive one :)

There are everywhere - you just have to look twice to notice them.

[I Like Shinny!]

I jumped on the bandwagon. *jumps on*

You scored as Atheism

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily on your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious", Atheists strongly believe in lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

Atheism: 100%
Satanism: 96%
Paganism: 50%
Agnosticism: 50%
Judaism: 42%
Buddhism: 42%
Islam: 33%
Hinduism: 13%
Christianity: 4%

Why do I always get Atheism and Satanism as a top score?

[Xuande]

This , btw, is exactly how the computer in War Games was programmed. Nice to see it coming into fruition. And that's exactly how our brains work as well - we try random stuff as babies and learn what works and what doesn't over many years. I bet if they adapted this to chess, it would whomp on humans after a while.

For technical reasons, the particular approach they used wouldn't work as well for chess. The functions they evolved were forward-feeding artificial neural networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network), which can grow greatly more complicated as more inputs are introduced. The inputs with checkers are pretty simple, since each square on the board can only either be empty or have a friendly or hostile piece or king. There are several times as many possibilities with chess. As the networks grow more complicated, the genome gets exponentially larger, it takes longer to evaluate all the possible moves, and so on.

The idea has been around for a while, though. John Holland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Holland), often regarded as the father of genetic algorithms, had been messing around with them since at least the 60s, and there were some precursors even to his early work.

Edit: I'm oversimplifying things here a bit, btw. The actual checkers-playing program they created took as inputs not just what piece was on each square, but what pieces were in different parts of the board. That just makes moving up to chess even more complicated, though.

[Xuande]

Why do I always get Atheism and Satanism as a top score?

As far as I can tell, what the quiz maker meant by "Satanism" is basically Atheism with a very permissive ethic.

[Nebosuke]

Actually, I saw a show on Discovery Channel a while back about, of all things, supervolcanos and mass extinction events.(no, not the one about Yellowstone Park). And it pointed out that by examining the RNA in people, that there is a section of it that is passed down the line via the mother unchanged. So in that way, you can tell how many generations there are in the person/creature from the original if you have early enough samples to compare against.(or a lot of other samples to test diversity of the various groups).

I'm sure Nebosuke will come up with the exact term.

What they found is that there was a supervolcano event somewhere in the 30-35,000 year range in the past that killed a lot of animals. And evidently most humans as well. They said that all humans apparently come from no more than a couple of original parents, and evidence suggests that the timesframe is around this event.
Ah, sorry I missed your post earlier :). The terms used most often are the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA), Last Common Ancestor (LCA), and variations thereof. Without context to indicate otherwise, the term is usually used to refer to the theorized common ancestor of all living things rather than just humans, but is used in discussions specific to humans as well, where it is understood to mean the last human that is a common ancestor to all humanity.

The LUA doesn't mean the very first human, but, rather, the very last human that all modern humans can trace a direct line of descent from. As such, the LUA would probably be many generations removed from the first human. The same is true for the LUA of all organisms. It wouldn't mean the very first organism, or necessarily a member of the first species to exist.

[Ichisan]

I jumped on the bandwagon. *jumps on*

You scored as Atheism

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily on your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious", Atheists strongly believe in lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

Atheism: 100%
Satanism: 96%
Paganism: 50%
Agnosticism: 50%
Judaism: 42%
Buddhism: 42%
Islam: 33%
Hinduism: 13%
Christianity: 4%

Why do I always get Atheism and Satanism as a top score?

Because you are evil.

Is there an evolution debate going on in this thread? I'm too lazy to read all those long posts. :hat:

[Idlethought]

You scored as atheism.



You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism
79%
agnosticism
67%
Judaism
63%
Buddhism
50%
Satanism
46%
Islam
42%
Paganism
38%
Christianity
13%
Hinduism
0%

I was moreso expecting it to be Athiest -> Agnostic -> Buddhist but whatever it got the primary thing right.

[Plekto]

The LUA doesn't mean the very first human, but, rather, the very last human that all modern humans can trace a direct line of descent from. As such, the LUA would probably be many generations removed from the first human. The same is true for the LUA of all organisms. It wouldn't mean the very first organism, or necessarily a member of the first species to exist.

Naturally. But they did find evidence that the gene-pool shrunk to literally a handful of people back around the time of the event in question. And everyone that is alive today is from that original tiny group of survivors.

They didn't go into the implications, though - but it's pretty obvious. You don't get genetic diversity of the scale that you see in humans today without evolution creating it over the last 30,000 years or so.

Edit: I'm oversimplifying things here a bit, btw. The actual checkers-playing program they created took as inputs not just what piece was on each square, but what pieces were in different parts of the board. That just makes moving up to chess even more complicated, though.

I bet it would play a mean game of Go, though. Chess would merely take more time, of course. If it can calculate how "advanced/King/etc" checkers work, that's pretty close to how bishops move. I can see it happening in time.

[RandomPasserby]

Because you are evil.

Is there an evolution debate going on in this thread? I'm too lazy to read all those long posts. :hat:
More like klilynkun finding out that he is a bible literally taking christian of american protestant type it seems? As it has gone from catholics not being christians at all and Islam not related what so ever to judaism and christianity to evolution not being real etc.

[Jetsetlemming]

bible literally taking christian of american protestant type
Goddamn, but that's one awkward ass phrase. You need to proof read.

[I Like Shinny!]

More like klilynkun finding out that he is a bible literally taking christian of american protestant type it seems? As it has gone from catholics not being christians at all and Islam not related what so ever to judaism and christianity to evolution not being real etc.
You make no sense. :boggled:

[4letterwords]

Surprisingly I was one of the few who scored Islam as highest.
Neat.

[Peej]

You scored as Paganism.

Your beliefs are most closely aligned with those of paganism, Wicca, or a similar earth-based religion. You may also follow a Native American religion.

Paganism 63%
Buddhism 58%
Hinduism 50%
Satanism 46%
Islam 33%
Christianity 29%
agnosticism 25%
atheism 13%
Judaism 13%

Hmmm, what a strange combo :)

[Ichisan]

What do pagans believe then? I don't get how anyone can take paganism seriously.

[Xuande]

What do pagans believe then? I don't get how anyone can take paganism seriously.

To be honest, I don't, either. I suspect most Pagans are not necessarily very convinced of the truth of their religions so much as they believe that the supernatural exists but they find established religion too constraining. They look to pick and choose the trappings of religion from various sources not because there is any reason to believe them true, but because they sound interesting or rebellious or feel empowering.

[Peej]

To be honest, I don't, either. I suspect most Pagans are not necessarily very convinced of the truth of their religions so much as they believe that the supernatural exists but they find established religion too constraining. They look to pick and choose the trappings of religion from various sources not because there is any reason to believe them true, but because they sound interesting or rebellious or feel empowering.

Well, I used to be Wiccan a long, long time ago. The only reason I stopped being Wiccan is beacause of a girl I was in love with who made me question my beliefs. I figured if love could make me question my beliefs then it was time to stop being Wiccan.

I found though that there are two different types of people who practice Paganism/Wicca. There are those who do it for shock value and put it on display for people to see and wear dark creepy clothes and rock a pentagram like its their job and say stupid things like "I'll cast a hex/curse/spell on you!". They would be the ones who do it because they feel rebellious or empowered by claiming to practice. Then there are those who practice and keep to themselves about it. For the most part you wont be able to pick these people out of a crowd and would only find out that they are Pagan/Wiccan when you ask them. Those are the people who take it seriously.

[Ichisan]

I always want to ask them if the spells work. "Go on. Do a spell on me! You can't, can you?" :-)

[Plekto]

Lol. :)

Now, real spells, such as they are practiced, are more inline with Voodoo or simmilar. Some peolpe believe in their effectiveness, most don't. But it's kind of that same - you have real believers and the other 90%.

[Ichisan]

More like klilynkun finding out that he is a bible literally taking christian of american protestant type it seems? As it has gone from catholics not being christians at all and Islam not related what so ever to judaism and christianity to evolution not being real etc.

*I* understand you RP! Hell, I can understand 12 kinds of incomprehensible gibberish from my students before breakfast so your post is, comparatively, a beacon of clarity.

It's funny to me that someone can score sooo highly as a fundie-leaning christian but not have realised until now where they stand. Maybe the purpose of the quiz is to lead us into the folds to which we already belonged.

So Klilynkun do you feel this quiz has led you to see a little light?