Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

[Flail]

Question for debate:
Can one be a true Christian and still have doubts and uncertainty about some or all of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the forgiveness of sin, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, the inerrancy of scripture etc?

[Abraxas]

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

Why is it a tragedy? Why should I follow a liberal / symbolic / non-literal form of Christianity and worship a nonexistent, non-literal God? How would treating God as a "symbol" for higher aspirations improve my life? I still believe in the higher aspirations, I just have no need for the outmoded symbol of them.

Indeed, I can agree with you there, how could an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist/insert-non-traditionalist-title feel that a "Liberal" perspective of the religion is any better than the Fundamentalist/Literalist/Traditionalist/etc? Wouldn't it just be seen as a watered down version of the same thing that is meant to appear more appealing to the secular mainstream?

Sometimes the water helps. Fundamentalists etc. have an unfortunate tendency to undermine things like science and social progress in favor of clinging rigidly to ideas that have not moved in thousands of years. Liberal theism leaves room for growth, for interpreting new information, for changing their point of view should they need to. It allows one to take the valuable lessons and the deeper meaning of the stories without insisting they absolutely had to have happened word for word, even in cases where they clearly didn't. At the base of it, I suspect the root of it lies in a common sentiment among nontheists that fundamentalists are holding back society.

What superior "pull" would it have in this regard as opposed to say Buddhism?

Buddhism has a tendency to be more introspective where as liberal Christianity has greater social focus. Buddhism emphasizes looking inside ones self for wisdom and advancement, Christianity doing good works, helping the poor, etc.

Perhaps there's a reason why the "Liberal mainstream" has failed to present a real alternative, because it's basically a series of revisionist perspectives (i.e. a reaction more than a system itself) that don't handily add up into anything cohesive perhaps?

I don't think I agree with your premise. While it isn't frequently acknowledged as such by practicioners, from the attitudes expressed by modern society, more liberal versions are consistantly gaining ground over more fundamentalist stripes. Look at the attitudes on same sex marriage over the past few decades for case and point.

I'd say Marxism has a greater "pull" of self-sacrifice for a perceived greater cause, why would the "Liberal" interpretation of "Christianity" be perceived as a system one would want to follow over others?

Because they like the values it emphasizes and the source material is what moves them? Why does one choose to adopt any philosophy or political position over any other?

[Flail]

Abraxas wrote:

...Buddhism has a tendency to be more introspective where as liberal Christianity has greater social focus. Buddhism emphasizes looking inside ones self for wisdom and advancement, Christianity doing good works, helping the poor, etc.

In my view, contemporary theology is gradually resulting in a vast improvement in Christian thinking; problem is, it just isn't getting to the US bible belt and millions of traditional and fundamentalist Christians. My hope is that eventually Christianity will morph completely away from selfish ideas and supernatural beings and be replaced by a total focus on philosophy and moral teachings, charity and the plight and struggles of other people. Maybe someone will be able to bring the best of all religions into a new one that deals with the real world and without worship requirements, tax exempt riches, rituals or guessing at Gods.

[Shermana]

Sometimes the water helps. Fundamentalists etc. have an unfortunate tendency to undermine things like science and social progress in favor of clinging rigidly to ideas that have not moved in thousands of years.

Social progress is a very relative concept. As for undermining "science", I disagree. It's been quite a while since the CATHOLICS held up Galileo and such, are you referring to their opposition to Evolution? Evolution has not been proven, and there is plenty of reasons to question and doubt such a concept. Are you referring to concepts of Global Warming and trying to force government to curtail industry to stop "it"? Can you name any other "science" that you feel Fundamentalists are undermining than those two?

Liberal theism leaves room for growth, for interpreting new information, for changing their point of view should they need to.

Growth to what exactly? What kind of view points do you think it would allow them to change their view to? I don't exactly disagree, since I personally would like to deconstruct "Christianity" back into its Jewish-sect roots and expose all of the false doctrines and interpolations, as well as showing Paul to be a false apostle, but what kind of "Growth" do you think "Liberal" Christianity will encourage among "Christians"? Do you think it will cause more Atheists to become "Christians"? Or is it more about getting "Christians" to agree with the Secularists?

It allows one to take the valuable lessons and the deeper meaning of the stories without insisting they absolutely had to have happened word for word

,

Can you provide some examples of this so-called "Deeper meaning"? I often see reference to the "deeper meaning", without any actual specifics for some reason. I guess they're just too deep for those who claim such things or something?

even in cases where they clearly didn't.

Nothing is really that "clear" in this regard. I can say that the destruction of Jericho "Clearly" coincides with the Biblical time frame, including the way the walls fell, but someone might say that the carbon dating proves otherwise, as if being off by 100 years (according to the one and only set of results) somehow makes it so it "clearly" didn't happen. It's not as cut and dry as the "Liberals" would like to think.

At the base of it, I suspect the root of it lies in a common sentiment among nontheists that fundamentalists are holding back society.

And I'd imagine that "Fundamentalists" have a sentiment that nontheists are trying to goad society into a direction which will lead to its ultimate destruction and deteroiration, but that's another story.

I don't think I agree with your premise. While it isn't frequently acknowledged as such by practicioners, from the attitudes expressed by modern society, more liberal versions are consistantly gaining ground over more fundamentalist stripes.

What do you mean by "gaining ground"? Are you referring to being dominant at the Seminaries?

Look at the attitudes on same sex marriage over the past few decades for case and point.

California of all places still voted 52% against, and it required Judicial Fiat to go against it. The polls indicating support for it I'd suspect of a bit of bias, and the numbers in various polls vary widely, and I don't think the attitudes are all TOO much different these days, if anything if the numbers are changing I would say its because much of "Christianity" is going against what it directly teaches, as opposed to "conforming to what it originally taught". Thus, as I say, "Liberal Christianity" is more about getting "Christianity" to go against what it originally intended while trying to act like it was always intended that way. But can you name some other examples of this "social progress" that you think Fundamentalists are holding back? Name some, I often notice such arguments go straight to sexual issues and rarely much else.

Because they like the values it emphasizes and the source material is what moves them? Why does one choose to adopt any philosophy or political position over any other?

Isn't that the question I asked? What type of values does it emphasize that they like which isn't meant to be interpreted in the Fundamentalist form? Would I be wrong to say that the "Source material" never intended such a "liberal" interpretation?

[Haven]

are you referring to their opposition to Evolution? Evolution has not been proven, and there is plenty of reasons to question and doubt such a concept.

Evolution is a proven fact backed up by a mountain of evidence, for instance, genome structures, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and endogenous retroviruses, just to name a few of the many, many evolution-supporting evidences. There is absolutely no scientific reason to doubt the theory of evolution -- absolutely none. From a scientific perspective, it is more well-established than the theory of gravity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=46
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

California of all places still voted 52% against, and it required Judicial Fiat to go against it. The polls indicating support for it I'd suspect of a bit of bias, and the numbers in various polls vary widely, and I don't think the attitudes are all TOO much different these days, if anything if the numbers are changing I would say its because much of "Christianity" is going against what it directly teaches, as opposed to "conforming to what it originally taught".

It doesn't matter if 99% of people oppose same-sex marriage, marriage is a civil right and it is incumbent upon the state to extend this right to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Civil rights do not get decided by popular opinion.

[Shermana]

are you referring to their opposition to Evolution? Evolution has not been proven, and there is plenty of reasons to question and doubt such a concept.

Evolution is a proven fact backed up by a mountain of evidence, for instance, genome structures, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and endogenous retroviruses, just to name a few of the many, many evolution-supporting evidences. There is absolutely no scientific reason to doubt the theory of evolution -- absolutely none. From a scientific perspective, it is more well-established than the theory of gravity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=46
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

California of all places still voted 52% against, and it required Judicial Fiat to go against it. The polls indicating support for it I'd suspect of a bit of bias, and the numbers in various polls vary widely, and I don't think the attitudes are all TOO much different these days, if anything if the numbers are changing I would say its because much of "Christianity" is going against what it directly teaches, as opposed to "conforming to what it originally taught".

It doesn't matter if 99% of people oppose same-sex marriage, marriage is a civil right and it is incumbent upon the state to extend this right to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Civil rights do not get decided by popular opinion.

Macro-Evolution is not a "proven fact", and none of your links conclusively "prove it", I'm sorry, if that was the case, there'd be no need for a Science Vs. Religion board. I'm not going to turn this into a thread discussing all the gaping holes in the theory of Macro-evolution. I've seen those links posted MANY times when such assertions are made, none of them actually prove anything that it happened. I will fully see you eye to eye with Micro-evolution nonetheless, but perhaps you'd like to actually quote from your links where it decisively proves that the Bat got its wings by flapping its arms enough, or how it got its wing to begin with. And I've seen most of the papers on Bat Wing evolution, I usually notice those who post them haven't actually read them. To discount all the unresolved questions and gaps in the theory is tantamount to dishonesty. As is shuffling around the issue between Macro and Micro or saying that "Macro is just the natural succession to a series of Micro", but again, (hint: Almost all mutations are either neutral or deleterious, the odds of it forming a superior DNA change is basically nil) I will not turn this thread into an evolution debate and I don't think it should be, as the "Order of Creation" thread turned into when I merely asserted that Genesis was INTENDED to be read literally and not purely metaphorically. But I am prepared to discuss it either way if it does.

More importantly, and in relevance to what I actually said, I asked if there are any OTHER cases where the claim is that Fundamentalists are "holding back Science". Any takers?

As for gay-marriage being a "civil right", that's purely subjective. I've noticed that most Black people do NOT like their struggle compared to gay marriage whatsoever, and many of them disagree with the concept, so it's purely subjective. And similarly, the ban on Polygamy was not voted on either and was a Federal mandate geared against the Mormon church. The question of what is a "Civil right" is not as black and white as some Liberals and Secularists would like to think.

More importantly, and in relevance to what I actually said, I asked if there are any OTHER cases where the claim is that Fundamentalists are "holding back Society" or along those lines, any takers?

[TheJackelantern]

Macro-Evolution is not a "proven fact", and none of your links conclusively "prove it"

Just because you can make a denial argument will not make it any less of a proven fact. Let's make this clear, anything against your religious belief will automatically be denied for the sake of holding on to your belief..

I'm sorry, if that was the case, there'd be no need for a Science Vs. Religion board.

Sure there is, because there are people here that will deny anything for the sake of denying it... The world is flat to, and Gravity is GOD pushing you down..So be-careful in the shower cause he could kill you.. Heck, you can even make GOD kill you by jumping off a 100 story building according to the logic I've seen come from theists.

I'm not going to turn this into a thread discussing all the gaping holes in the theory of Macro-evolution.

That would be a wise choice because the gaps you will cling to won't be nearly as huge of the gaps in that argument regarding religion.

Bat got its wings by flapping its arms enough.

That's now how evolution works.. But hey, it's far more plausible than "Magic"..

I've seen most of the papers on Bat Wing evolution, I usually notice those who post them haven't actually read them.

Really.. Do post them here.

As for gay-marriage being a "civil right", that's purely subjective. I've noticed that most Black people do NOT like their struggle compared to gay marriage whatsoever, and many of them disagree with the concept, so it's purely subjective. And similarly, the ban on Polygamy was not voted on either and was a Federal mandate geared against the Mormon church. The question of what is a "Civil right" is not as black and white as some Liberals and Secularists would like to think.

You are mixing different issues as an excuse for bigotry... And why not let people marry more than one wife or husband? Humans are technically not a monogamous species no matter how you religiously view it, or want it to be.. People are not like Penguins... And if you have to try and force everyone to be, it seems like you are in denial of reality.

[Shermana]

Just because you can make a denial argument will not make it any less of a proven fact. Let's make this clear, anything against your religious belief will automatically be denied for the sake of holding on to your belief..

Just because you deny my denial doesn't make it a proven fact, like I said, why not petition to close down the Science vs Religion board if it's such a done deal? Let's make this clear, anything that goes against your Macro-evolution belief will automatically be denied for the sake of holding on to your belief.

Sure there is, because there are people here that will deny anything for the sake of denying it... The world is flat to.

Yeah, compare it to flat-earthers, that definitely works.

That would be a wise choice because the gaps you will cling to won't be nearly as huge of the gaps in that argument regarding religion.

Changing the subject are you? That's what I thought.

That's now how evolution works.. But hey, it's far more plausible than "Magic"..

Please explain how the bat got its wings in one paragraph or less. And please explain why there's so much difficulty in trying to figure this out.

Really.. Do post them here.

Start with these.

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/22/2/121.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/17/6581.abstract
http://www.sierracollege.edu/ejournals/ ... /bats.html

Nothing in them actually says anything substantial, unless you'd like to prove otherwise. You will find that they say things like "We will never know how exactly", what's that supposed to mean? Feel free to quote anything from those that you feel proves how the Bat got its wings. Otherwise, kindly admit that there's a big gaping hole here.

You are mixing different issues as an excuse for bigotry...

But of course, if you disagree with my views condescendingly and call me a bigot for believing in Democratic solutions, you're not a bigot either.

And why not let people marry more than one wife or husband?

I'm all for that (well, maybe not multiple husbands), I'd love to be able to legally marry 4 consenting wives. My point is that the Mandated allowance of gay-marriage is like the mandated forbiddance of polygamy.

Humans are technically not a monogamous species no matter how you religiously view it,

We're also technically cannibalistic. Almost all cultures ate other humans throughout history, including Europeans and Asians. Why stop? Why not put all those aging feller's to use feeding the populace? Soylent green anyone? And most of the articles denouncing monogamy would only apply to a society that is in full compliance with protection, otherwise, STDs shoot down that argument quite handily. Women overwhelmingly seek a husband especially to take care of their offspring, even in societies where there are options to be self-sufficient. Men should be allowed to have more than one wife however, that's just how it is.

or want it to be.. People are not like Penguins... And if you have to try and force everyone to be, it seems like you are in denial of reality.

How do we know people aren't meant to be like Penguins? Why are there STD's? It's one thing to be polyamarous, it's another thing to be designed for it, which STD's kinda disprove. Are humans meant to have STD's? If humans are meant to be polyamarous, then humans are meant to be STD-stricken, right? Or are humans also meant to develop protection and wear them 100% consistently?

Now I repeat for the second time, the point here I was making, is that I notice there are NO OTHER objections, NO OTHER claims that Religious people/Fundamentalists are "holding back science/society", am I wrong when I say that the ONLY OBJECTIONS here are Gay marriage and Macro-evolution?

[gnuman05]

In my opinion all a person has to do to become a Christian is to be born again. To become born again you have to accept the fact that you are a sinner, repent of your sin, and accept Christ as your savior. "Accepting Christ" means to believe His sacrifice has paid for your sin.

You do not have to believe any other part of the Bible in order to be a Christian.

Once you are born again, you can never be unborn again. If you once called yourself a "Christian" and have now "left the faith", you were never born again.

This is the New International Version, John 10;

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Fathers hand. 30 I and the Father are one.

Note it says God's children shall never perish, nor can anyone snatch them out of God's hand.

The assertion of born again Christians, who renounce their faith, as never being born again in the first place is the most arrogant statement I have ever heard. That is arguing the validity of someone's personal experience. To state that someone was never born again is to claim that they were predetermined to never be born again, thus stating that those who are born again are predetermined by God. You are stating that if someone believed divine intervention played a role at some point of their life, yet later questioned it and renounced it, then it never happened. This argues what is divine intervention? An analogy for this is to say that an American soldier, who served many years, fought for their country and was a loyal citizen, but later renounced his/her country because of political and moral disagreements was never a true soldier or American citizen? To make such an assertion is claiming that some of us have it and some of us don't, making the born again concept predetermined and a fundamentalist view. So behind all of your elaborate words an agreement that yes, certainty is required of all Christians.

[TheJackelantern]

Just because you deny my denial doesn't make it a proven fact, like I said, why not petition to close down the Science vs Religion board if it's such a done deal? Let's make this clear, anything that goes against your Macro-evolution belief will automatically be denied for the sake of holding on to your belief.

No, because your position has the ultimate missing link, and no explanation of how things are made or done. And your position literally requires ignoring everything we've learned over the last 150 years.. Hence, your argument is based entirely on the lack there of any evidence what-so-ever.... Your position is denied because there is literally nothing to consider. Especially when consciousness can't exist without cause.. Perhaps you can explain the evolution of that? ... Lastly, you are easily dismissed just by pointing to reality itself.. Pantheism alone enough to dismiss your argument :/ Hence, our denial of your position is based purely on evidence. Why? Well, I don't deny the Pantheist's GOD's existence do I?.. Why is that? And more importantly, do you deny the existence of the Pantheist GOD?

I wonder how much honesty we will get here..

Yeah, compare it to flat-earthers, that definitely works.

Your position is entirely comparable to flat Earthers. Many of which are Christians.. And the bible actually has verses on this issue. So how much of your religion do you actually believe in?

Changing the subject are you? That's what I thought.

It's not changing the subject, it's stating a fact. It's like asking you to show me GOD hand crafting snowflakes..

Please explain how the bat got its wings in one paragraph or less. And please explain why there's so much difficulty in trying to figure this out.

Please explain to me in one paragraph or less of how consciousness works, and then explain to me why it's so complex and can't exist without cause.. But of course your argument ignores observed instances of macro-evolution because you require intentionally not understanding what macro-evolution is in order to deny it..

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

And I could go on and list man examples.. However, I have another question. What practical applications in terms of science comes from Creationist pseudoscience vs evolutionary science in the medical arena?

http://evmedreview.com/

Evolution Theory in modern medicine:

There is literally a boat load of evolutionary science in medicine.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... -medicine/
http://evmedreview.com/
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.htmlv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicinev

Evolutionary medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. It provides a complementary scientific approach to the present mechanistic explanations that dominate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_science]medical science, and particularly modern medical education. Researchers in the field of evolutionary medicine have suggested that evolutionary biology should not simply be an optional topic in medical school, but instead should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences.

Such adaptations concern:

The evolution of pathogens in terms of their virulence, resistance to antibiotics, and subversion of an individuals immune system.
The processes, constraints and trade-offs of human evolution.
The evolved responses that enable individuals to protect, heal and recuperate themselves from infections and injuries such as immunity, fever, and sickness behavior, and the processes that regulate their deployment to maximize fitness.
How past adaptation of early humans to their ancestral environment now affects contemporary humans with their different diet, life expectancy, degree of physical exercise, and hygiene.

We also have this:

Antibiotic resistance

Microorganisms evolve resistance through natural selection acting upon random mutation. Once a gene conferring resistance arises to counteract an antibiotic, not only can that bacteria thrive, but it can spread that gene to other types of bacteria through horizontal gene transfer of genetic information by plasmid exchange. It is unclear whether the genetic information responsible for antibiotic resistance typically arises from an actual mutation, or is already present in the gene pool of the population of the organism in question.

For more details on this topic, see antibiotic resistance

Virulence

The effect of organisms upon their host can vary from being symbioticcommensals that are beneficial, to pathogens that reduce fitness. Many pathogens produce virulence factors that directly cause disease, or manipulate their host to allow them to thrive and spread. Since a pathogens fitness is determined by its success in transmitting offspring to other hosts, it was thought at one time, that virulence moderated and it evolved toward commensality. However, this view is now questioned by Ewald.

For more details on this topic, see virulence, virulence factors and optimal virulence

Immune evasion

The success of any pathogen depends upon its ability to evade host immunity. Therefore, pathogens evolve methods that enable them to infect a host, and then evade detection and destruction by its immune system. These include hiding within host cells, within a protective capsule (as with M. tuberculosis), secreting compounds that misdirect the host's immune response, binding its antibodies, rapidly changing surface markers, or masking them with the hosts own molecules.

For more details on this topic, see manipulation of the immune system by pathogens, andevasion of the innate immune system

You can also reference this post:

ref:If%20you%20accept%20microevolution

The evidence we have far exceeds any thing you have in your corner... If fact, everything we have learned from self-organizing systems and complex adaptive systems has come primarily from life. Yes lots comes from processes in dealing with non life.. But you would be desperate at grasping for straws when trying to play on the same field.. You may as well scream conspiracy theory like the flat earthers do... Yeah, cause all these people are out to attack your religion! :


And here is a lot of things we learned from self-organizing organisms, Genes, DNA, and the processes we find in the evolution of life:

CalResCo, an extensive website about complexity, self-organization and related subjects, including a self-organizing systems FAQ
PCC- Complexity Theory Resources, including Lecture notes on "Complexity: A New Science For A Postmodern World "
Complex Adaptive Systems and Artificial Life: an extensive list of links including conferences
Phil Goetz's complexity page, including a [url=http://www.cs.buffalo.edu/%7Egoetz/dict.html]complexity dictionary
Yaneer Bar Yam's Guide to Complex Systems
the Complexity Digest: a weekly list of summaries of articles related to complexity that appeared in various journals, a most useful service provided by G. Mayer-Kress
Evolution of Complex Systems: Umur Ozkul's collection of thoughts, essay and links
T. Tolman's Complexity of the Universe page
Complexity Online: a quite elaborate server with Hypermedia papers and pointers to other places
Complexity International: refereed electronic journal on Complex Systems Research
Information on Complex Adaptive Systems in different parts of the Internet
Bruce Edmonds's extensive Bibliography on Measures of Complexity
Santa Fe Institute for the Sciences of Complexity (ftp-server)
Science on the Edge of Chaos: an interactive multimedia service on complexity and chaos including a series of TV programmes
Nonlinearity and Complexity home page at Democritus University of Thrace
Center for Complex Systems Research
Australian National University Bioinformatics
Non-linear Science E-print archive with papers and conference announcements on chaos, adaptation, self-organization etc.
Complex Systems Links on the Web
Complexity, Complex Systems and Chaos: [at] Brint (Business & Technology Research)
resources relevant to the journal "Complexity"
Self-organizing systems Home page (mostly about cybernetic philosophy)
Self-Organizing Systems: a tutorial on the processes and patterns of organization and complexity in natural systems, by Ethan H. Decker
Complexity discussions from the point of view of constructivism and Robert Rosen's theories
Complex Systems research: an extensive list of links
Parameterized Complexity Home Page -- Todd Wareham, U Victoria
Complexity Home Page at Virginia Commonwealth University
[url=http://bayes.wustl.edu/]Bayesian Theory As Extended Logic -- Ed Jaynes
An Introduction to Synergetics
Chaos, Complexity, and Everything Else: a long list of links on chaos, complexity, artificial inteligence, genetic algorithms, and fractals
New England Complex Systems Institute, including the self-organizing, peer-reviewed Interjournal
Complex Adaptive Systems in Finance and strategy, by Mark White

Alife, Evolutionary Systems and Simulations

Artificial Life Online service with lots of info (news, bibliography, journals, ...)
The New Alife Database: Searchable Database of Alife-Related Sites Gathered by a Search Bot
T.S. Ray: An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology (paper on artificial life)
Evolutionary and Adaptive Systems research at the University of Sussex
Illinois Genetic Algorithms Lab
Interactive genetic art (evolves according to user preferences)
Genetically programmed music
FAQ's on Genetic Algorithms
[url=ftp://ftp.cognet.ucla.edu/pub/alife]Artificial Life[/url] ftp server
Karl Sims' Virtual Creatures: 3D, animated "life forms", developed through simulated evolution
Intelligent Systems: Brendan Kitts's reflections on life, AI, and their future developments, with many useful references
CWRU Autonomous Agents Research Group
MIT Media Lab Autonomous Agents Group, headed by Pattie Maes
Intelligent Software Agents
Web resources on Intelligent Software Agents
University of Vienna Dep. of Theoretical Biology, with research on systems theory of evolution, alife, constructivism, cognition and evolutionary epistemology
Boids , Flocks, Herds, and Schools: a Distributed Behavioral Model
The Swarm simulation system: a software system for complex system simulation devloped at SFI
Liverpool Biocomputation Group (Announcements)
Brian Keely's bibliography on Artificial Life
Boston University's Center for Adaptive Systems
Evolutionary Systems and Artificial Life: lecture notes by Luis Rocha
Bibliography of Alife publications: a very rich collection of online papers, maintained by Ezequiel Di Paolo, covering topics such as complexity, self-organization, evolution, social behavior, robotics, etc.
Biota.org: an organization stimulating the development of digital tools and environments for the study of living systems, with impressive visual and virtual reality examples of digital organisms
Nicholas Gessler's site on artificial culture and computational anthropology

---

We can also address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... rFact.html

Support Evolution by Natural Selection (statements posted on respected websites):

Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Commission on Science Education
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Physical Society
American Psychological Association
American Society for Microbology
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Society of Parasitologists
American Sociological Association
Association for Women Geoscientists
Association of Southeastern Biologists
Australian Academy of Science
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology and Computing
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education
Illinois Federation of Teachers
InterAcademy Panel
Iowa Academy of Science
Kansas Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences

National Association of Biology Teachers

New Mexico Academy of Sciences
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Pennsylvania Academy of Science
Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists
Philosophy of Science Association
Reaearch!America
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre
Royal Society
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society of Neuroscience
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society for Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertabrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Tallahassee Scientific Society
Tennessee Academy of Science
Tenessee Darwin Coalition
The Paleontological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science

American Society of Plant Taxonomists
American Statistical Association
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science
Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester (UK)
Science Museum of Minnesota
Union for Reform Judaism
Association of Science-Technology Centers
European Network of Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite)
International Committee for Museums and Collections of Natural History (NATHIST)
Australian Museum
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Museum of the Earth (Ithaca, New York)
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
New York State Museum

...and a recent updated, reaffirmation -

http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92

And this is by far more than what you can provide us..

But of course, if you disagree with my views condescendingly and call me a bigot for believing in Democratic solutions, you're not a bigot either.

Nope, because I am saying you have a right to hold your view even if it rests in bigotry. The issue here is that nobody is making you gay, or be a polygamist.. And you don't see them trying to prevent you from being a Christian. I am not trying condescending, I am just making a point.. I could care less if another man gives another man a mutually agreed upon ride in the privacy of his own home.. It doesn't effect my life at all.. It would be different if they tried to make me gay via legislation ect like Christian's trying to make them straight via legislation.. Worse yet, Christians in America, many but not all, actually think they own marriage, or the right to deny people to get married... People making a big deal over nothing..

I'm all for that (well, maybe not multiple husbands), I'd love to be able to legally marry 4 consenting wives. My point is that the Mandated allowance of gay-marriage is like the mandated forbiddance of polygamy.

Who cares how many wives or husbands there are.. Doesn't bother me any.. And you govern your own life to your own beliefs to which are subject to secular common law. And Mandated allowance argument of complaint about not being able to control someone's life in accordance to your religious beliefs ect.

We're also technically cannibalistic.

Many animals are to some extent when under pressure.. But naturally speaking this isn't a common thing... Humans were technically herbivores prior to becoming omnivores. However, your statement here really didn't address the issue and is just drifting the subject of human breeding. Heck the divorce rate over 60 percent, and many more remain in unhappy marriages for several reasons... Such as financial support, being afraid of being a lone, or many other reasons. But yes there are those whom end up happy till the end, and that seems to be what people want.. However, the animal nature overrides what you want. Christians think they can control natural instincts.. So it's interesting when you see Christian families struggle with that issue, or have a teenage daughter that is pregnant, or a son that is gay ect.. That monkey wrench is a good dose of reality..

Almost all cultures ate other humans throughout history, including Europeans and Asians. Why stop?

Humans also almost went extinct.. do the math.. And why stop? It's called agriculture, and the fact you can get your food at your local grocery store. Yeah, we evolved.. And notice cannibalism is still present in areas of the world where food is scarce, or in undeveloped 3rd world countries ect. It's easy to sit there from a position of being well fed to make that argument.. Survival instincts are not exactly weak... Anyways, here is an interesting article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... evolution/

And here is something interesting:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... e-disease/

Why not put all those aging feller's to use feeding the populace? Soylent green anyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/scien ... wanted=all

Toads do lol ... seriously, you are going off on unrelated topics of discussion from what was being discussed.

How do we know people aren't meant to be like Penguins?

Stop and take a good look at the world around you..

Why are there STD's? It's one thing to be polyamarous, it's another thing to be designed for it, which STD's kinda disprove.

STD's are a risk no matter what. And non-monogamousity in the human species would greatly hurt genetic diversity to which could make humans more prone to disease and genetic defects. If you think humans were designed to be monogamous, you are severely lacking evidence for that. And that would take every bit of effort to ignore the real world out there. This doesn't mean it's not something you shouldn't stride for, or desire to have. A monogamous relationship does have it's benefits. So you never know, we might some day evolve into a monogamous species.

am I wrong when I say that the ONLY OBJECTIONS here are Gay marriage and Macro-evolution?[/b]

Your objections are noted. However, it's interesting that creationists have to ignore it. Ignore such things as practical applications we derive from evolutionary science. practical applications such as:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... -2013.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17058066

Or:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

[TheJackelantern]

In regards to bat wings.. You are basing your argument entirely on the GOD of the GAPS argument. Hence, trying to replace a missing space in data with the ultimate missing link and then assuming magic man done it.. That's dishonest and really states that you are not interested in actually figuring it out.. So your logic likes to say "it's hard to believe bat wings formed by flapping arms" as if that is sole focus of what evolution is based on... this is just intellectual laziness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_wing_development
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Did- ... 1804.shtml

This suggests that the evolution of bat wings was due not to changes in the bone genes themselves but to a change in the gene that regulates the expression of these bone genes. To find what gene might have been involved, the team monitored the development of the bat embryo and compared this development to the development of the mouse embryo.

This would thus be likely an example of micro-evolution and not macro-evolution.. However, that has yet to be determined. We can see another example in twitching lizards in dealing with natural selection where they also started growing longer legs rather quickly.. This is because, believe it or not, micro-evolution can often cause a greater physical variance than macro-evolution.. This by which tells me that you don't fully understand evolutionary theory.

Other examples of wing evolution:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/songb ... shape.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ution.html

And nowhere are we seeing GOD come down and play with his animals like a 3d puzzle.. No evidence what-so-ever of magic, or deity..