Comments on: My God-Damn Darwin Fish is Gone:

By: John1241

John1241 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:35:40 +0000

Very nice site!

By: Robert M. Barga

Robert M. Barga — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:32:25 +0000

I hate it when people do that
i voted obama but would hate to see peopel take a mccain sticker, ron paul sticker, or anything like that

By: Eternal Lizdom

Eternal Lizdom — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:21:56 +0000

I won’t toss in my opinions on Darwinism or evolution and so on…

But I just had to say that I think it totally sucks that someone stole your sticker. Someone stole my Obama bumper sticker during the campaign season. I was in a restaurant for a business lunch. When I went in the restaurant, my Obama sticker was there. Came out and it was gone. I was pretty ticked. So I feel your pain.

By: Robert M. Barga

Robert M. Barga — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:13:07 +0000

my fish wasn’t a magnate, but a stick on, and they had to pull to get it off

By: hopelds

hopelds — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:19:41 +0000

Being somewhat a fan of bumper statements (I currently have 138 on my truck), I tried a couple of the removable magnet ones (not that I have any intention of using them overall – my truck is thoroughly and completed destroyed for any sort of re-sale value).

The magnetic ones quickly disappeared, but not from protest, I think. I aim to keep all my statements as far from the political and religious arena as possible (a few exceptions – “What If God Is Asking Us For A Sign?” and “If You Don’t Believe God Exists, How Do You Explain Chocolate-Chip Mint Ice Cream?”).

I like to believe they got quickly stuck on the thief’s car(s).

Just my thought.

By: barga

barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:46:31 +0000

Oh, i know that, but in terms of the begening and all of that

By: barga

barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:45:49 +0000

Moses of course says that it is literall

Issach mentions that there is a message in the story (not the word story) and more of an allegory

Peter quotes issach and discusses the allegory a bit more, as well as mentioning animals from outside of the garden

By: malone.236

malone.236 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:44:11 +0000

Well, I guess you could say that Barga, but Beth does admit God has personal regulation over our actions and spiritual lives. That’s a pretty big difference, lol.

By: malone.236

malone.236 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:41:48 +0000

What different views? I’m no Old Testament scholar. I go with Moses on this one, in Genesis.

By: barga

barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:35:44 +0000

Christian, doesn’t Beth’s responce make you think of my philosophy?
pretty creepy

By: barga

barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:34:46 +0000

i also recomend reading that book, really good

By: barga

barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:34:14 +0000

the propblem is that Genisis is not exactly the most reliable thing out there. When Moses references the creation he has a different view of it, as does Issach and Peter. So, which is it?

By: C. Beth

C. Beth — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:33:37 +0000

Malone–I guess it depends what you mean by “creation followed by evolution.” Evolution doesn’t have anything to say about how life began (abiogenesis.) So there’s nothing in evolution to prevent one from believing that God was the originator of life. That’s not even ID. ID has to do with some intelligence being involved in certain aspects of life’s development (not just the original creation of the first life.)

As someone who believes in God, I don’t disallow the possibility that he’s stepped in at various points of evolution. But I don’t think that him stepping in is REQUIRED, and if He did “tweak” things at all, there’s no way to prove that. So my acceptance of evolution doesn’t require God having been personally involved in the process, though I do believe he was the original Creator of matter and energy, and maybe the laws of the universe.

This isn’t to say I’m a deist–I do believe that God still steps in and relates to us personally in various spiritual and even physical ways. I just think that when it comes to life’s development (from the very first, simple life; to what we have now), evolution is sufficient. I consider God to be the one who set things up so that evolution could happen, and it was a pretty cool way to do it.

By: barga

barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:33:25 +0000

well then, just consider this the next logical step in that line. Darwin is merely that things change and species alter on a large scale

By: malone.236

malone.236 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:22:22 +0000

I will concede that I am no scientist, or biblical scholar. If ID is true, I have no problem with that. ID, here being defined as creation followed by evolution. I’m just not terribly worried about how the world was created, in the physical sense, because it makes very little difference whether you assume creation or ID. I’ll let the scientists worry about the ramifications.
I guess it is in theory possible that the days in Genesis are really indefinite periods of time. That doesn’t bother me. God works how he works…

By: C. Beth

C. Beth — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:08:26 +0000

I’m an evangelical Christian, and I accept evolution. I will freely admit that one cannot be a strict textualist (assuming you mean taking Genesis 1-3 literally) and accept common descent.

However, for those who may want to read more about how some Christians manage to believe in God and also accept evolution, I can recommend a fantastic book–”Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. It is an EXCELLENT introduction to evolution and also addresses various Creationist arguments. Miller is a Catholic and also talks about how he sees God reflected in evolution. He goes into a lot more depth about evolution than about theology, as science is his expertise, not theology. So I will admit I am still seeking answers to some of my theological questions. But this book is a great starting point.

By: malone.236

malone.236 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:02:19 +0000

I admit microevolution. A person would have to have never taken science class not to.

By: Robert M. Barga

Robert M. Barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:23:29 +0000

we have seen it at a micro level, so you must acknowledge that it exists at that level. Darwin is merely the ability of a creature to change to fit its habitat and thus be more likely to survive, evolution is what you have an issue with

and, well, not really, as creationism is abiogenisis and evolution is not

By: malone.236

malone.236 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:14:32 +0000

Okay, maybe Darwin works with ID, but I don’t do ID. I’m a strict textualist.

By: Robert M. Barga

Robert M. Barga — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:32:53 +0000

See my above reply to figure out why i think it was him

don’t for a second think that darwin does not work with creation