"...would that be okay with you...? ...Kirk?" heh heh, love that response! - Edward Zwart from Bookmarklet

Our cute little friend is back. ...and the girl too. - Edward Zwart

That's a great shot of him. Really conveys the pleading of his conscience to stop this madness. - Lucas Parker

I want that special edition of 'The Origin of Species'. If any of you get the opportunity, please grab one for me. - Eivind

I know, that'll be a collector some day! - Edward Zwart

I found the 50 page introduction on their page: http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf... - Eivind

From the intro: "Consider for a moment whether you could ever believe this publication happened by accident. Here’s the argument: There was nothing. Then paper appeared, and ink fell from nowhere onto the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of the English alphabet. Initially, the letters said something like this: “fgsn&k cn1clxc dumbh cckvkduh vstupidm ncncx.” As you can see, random letters rarely produce words that make sense. But in time, mindless chance formed them into the order of meaningful words with spaces between them. Periods, commas, capitals, italics, quotes, paragraphs, margins, etc., also came into being in the correct placements. The sentences then grouped themselves to relate to each other, giving them coherence. Page numbers fell in sequence at the right places, and headers, footers, and footnotes appeared from nowhere on the pages, matching the portions of text to which they related. The paper trimmed itself and bound itself into a Bible. The ink for the cover fell from different directions, being careful not to incorrectly mingle with the other colors, forming itself into the graphics and title." - Eivind

Yes, yes I see... - Edward Zwart

"Here are some interesting questions for the thinking evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why? Did the heart in all these different species of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals evolve before there were blood vessels throughout their bodies? When did the blood evolve? Was it before the vessels evolved or after they evolved? If it was before, what was it that carried the blood to the heart, if there were no vessels? Did the heart beat before the blood evolved? Why was it beating if there was no blood to pump? If it wasn’t beating, why did it start when it didn’t know anything about blood? If the blood vessels evolved before there was blood, why did they evolve if there was no such thing as blood? And if the blood evolved before the heart evolved, what was it that kept it circulating around the body? The only reasonable answer to these questions is that God made the human body (and the bodies of all the other creatures) with a heart, lungs (to oxygenate the blood), kidneys (to filter wastes from the blood), blood vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to hold it all in), etc., at one moment in time, as the Bible states." - Eivind

This one I haven't heard before :) - Eivind

So because Kirk is too stupid to figure out how the cardio-pulmonary system evolved that invalidates the theory of evolution? Funny, if I had known that was how science works, I would have skipped all that dang learnin' and just started disproving stuff. - Alex Scoble

"Do you believe that nothing created everything? If you do, then your “nothing” isn’t nothing. It is something because it had the amazing ability to create everything. So do you then believe that something created everything, although you are not sure what that something was?51 Keeping in mind that the most intelligent of human beings can’t create a grain of sand from nothing, do you think that that “something” that made everything was intelligent? It obviously is; and if you do believe the “force” that made the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars was intelligent, you then believe that there was an intelligent designer. You have just become an unscientific knuckle-dragger in the eyes of our learning institutions that embrace Darwinism. But you are not alone if you believe in God. Many of our greatest scientists believed in the existence of a Creator: Galileo, Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Kepler, just to name a few. Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” He also said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” The incredible harmony in creation proves beyond a doubt to any thinking mind that there is a Creator. Now you just have to figure out if this Creator requires moral responsibility from you." - Eivind

Did they just quote-mine Albert Einstein? - Lucas Parker

"Many of our greatest scientists believed in the existence of a Creator: Galileo, Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Kepler, just to name a few." Nice. Can we also point out that Galileo was almost burnt at the stake by the church for improving upon and promoting Copernicus' work...which Copernicus DIDN'T promote more because he was afraid of the church? Or that most of the listed scientists lived before the advent of electricity? Or that the argument from authority doesn't actually constitute evidence? - Dan C

Hehe, you seem disappointed they didn't provide a balanced an fair bio on these scientists, Dan. Well, that's just not "the way of the master" :) - Eivind

I loved the response video. - Shannon Jiménez

Eivind, you asked about getting a copy... http://www.livingwaters.com/index... - Edward Zwart

Canadians can look for the handouts at these Universities: Ottawa University, Carleton University, Queen's University, University of Toronto, York University, McMaster University, Guelph University, Brock University, U of Western Ontario, Concordia University, McGill University, U of New Brunswick, Memorial U of Newfoundland, Dalhousie University, University of Manitoba, U of Saskatchewan, University of Alberta, University of Calgary, Simon Fraser University, U of British Columbia, University of Victoria - Victor Kamutzki

The response video was awesome! Who is that girl? - Gordon Herd

Nov 19 @ UVic. It's on the calendar. ...gonna try to save Eivind $5. - Edward Zwart

I want one too! - David (slumrig)

++ Alex - man, I don't understand how ships in a bottle are made. Does that mean they're against god? (also - yeah, I want one of those books; they're going to be collectors items pretty soon, I think.) - Jennifer Dittrich

@Sustained - I look at it this way - I am religious, but I very, very much believe in the scientific method. Religious beliefs don't preclude rigorous science, in the same way that I don't believe you need religious beliefs to be a moral/ethical person. People are always trying to tie those things together. - Jennifer Dittrich

Yes, but obviously, rational thought precludes you being Kirk Cameron. - Alex Scoble

I'm with you Sustained. Science and religion are incompatible, if by religion you mean accepting things on faith, ie, without evidence. - Edward Zwart

Er, why? If I believe in god, why does that make me bad at conducting a double-blind study or filling pipettes? There's no good evidentiary support for that. That, in and of itself, is bad science. With that, I'm pretty much checking out of this conversation. - Jennifer Dittrich

Is there good evidence for believing in god? - Edward Zwart

@Edward - no, and (unlike Kirk) I'm not making that argument. Is there good evidence that scientists who are religious are bad at their jobs? - Jennifer Dittrich

I suppose if you said, I am scientific at all times other than when I am being religious, I'd nod, but that's my point, they're incompatible. - Edward Zwart

Fair enough, I think we agree. I'm fine with saying that scientists who are religious are not (necessarily as a result of being religious) bad at their jobs. But that's not inconsistent with saying the two are incompatible. They're simply no longer religious when they're doing (good, anyway) science. - Edward Zwart

Well, no matter what, I think we can agree that this altered book is a great example of bat-shit craziness run amok. - Jennifer Dittrich

Thanks for trying to get me a copy, Ed. You will of course get your reward in heaven ;) - Eivind

Agreed Jennifer. And soon to be a collector's item!! (I hope) :) - Edward Zwart

Have you seen the "atheist nightmare" video, Dave? These guys have been infamous on atheist websites for a while now. http://www.youtube.com/watch... - Eivind

The video on their site is hilarious!!! "Did you know that every day, 150,000 people die?!!!" No shit, you're just learning this now? Later... "...the secret is, to bypass the intellect.." uh huh, more for the same shitless category... - Edward Zwart

Just wanted to say that I second pretty much everything Jennifer said. Also, as a scientist and a believer in God, I have absolutely no problem reconciling my beliefs with the Theory of Evolution. I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that you have to either be 100% science or 100% religious. If there were no middle ground, it would be a sad, sad world indeed! The fact that I can have faith in something which may not have supporting "evidence" does not make me less rigorous of a scientist. - Jenny R.

I simply fear The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief - ‘-.-’ Tutivillus Grift

What's middle ground here, Jenny? Are you 50% god and 50% science (whatever that means)? I guess the belief that a supreme being created the universe and the laws of nature (deism) and then stepped back is compatible with science, but I don't think Christianity (or other forms of theim) is. Believing in the bible means believing the laws of nature doesn't always apply. - Eivind

And how do you decide when to be "scientific" (rely on evidence) and when to be religious (rely on faith)? Is there ever a time when it "really matters" that you choose door #2? - Edward Zwart

I don't consult God when using the scientific method. Religion does not factor into my interpretation of my results. I believe in a divine creator, but that doesn't change the fact that I completely value and accept scientific findings. It's not about "choosing" to be either scientific or religious at any given moment. I follow and use science. Just because science has not provided supporting evidence for any particular God, does not mean that God does not exist. There is much that science has yet to show. That's all. - Jenny R.

And there are plenty of religious scholars, philosophers, etc. who pursue their questioning of religion as objectively, thoroughly and as skeptically as any scientist. They just aren't on TV...much. - Alex Scoble

Just as a side note, I caution people who "believe" in science like it's infallible. Science is done by people and people make mistakes. I couldn't tell you how many papers I have read with some earth-shattering idea, only to be contradicted in future studies. I think as long as one is mindful of the limitations of science, they're okay. There's a lot going on out there that we just can't understand or explain, despite our best, most earnest efforts. :-/ - Jenny R.

Of course people make mistakes! Science is full of that! Another mistake people could be cautioned about is believing in a divine creator even though there's no evidence for one. - Edward Zwart

Jenny, in which gods do you believe? - Dan C

Yep, the idea that we can't understand everything about the universe is actually scientific theory backed by rigorous evidence. - Alex Scoble

So "god of the gaps" is the solution then? - Eivind

I believe in a creator and a judge, God. I was raised as a Christian, but left the "fold" a long time ago. My spiritual philosophy comes from a mixture of Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity. - Jenny R.

What are the criteria for the judgment? The bible, parts of the bible, the golden rule? - Eivind

DAMIT EIVIND! I was JUST about to post this: So does that mean you simply pick and choose the tidbits you like from each of those religions? What are your criteria for choosing? - Dan C

Come on Eivind, quit stealing my ideas! lol - Dan C

Great minds think alike, eh? :-p - Eivind

Another related question... similar to the one I asked above, when is it okay to pick and choose what you like, and when do you have to rely on science? When is picking not enough? - Edward Zwart

I mean, why bother with science at all if you can pick and choose? - Edward Zwart

(Sorry, don't mean to bombard you with questions, but I hope you answer.) - Edward Zwart

My question to you is: Why do you care what I believe or the origins of my belief? Do you really care or are you trying to undermine someone's faith? I have already stated that my faith does not affect how I use the scientific method. As someone who is 100% in support of the Theory of Evolution, I assure you, I am not the "enemy." I have never been able to figure out why people without faith have a problem with people like me. I am all about trying to understand more about the natural world and explain how things work (i.e. I am an ecologist). Having faith in a creator does not make me want to understand ecology any less. I am not one of those people who can shrug their shoulders when it comes to natural phenomenon and chalk thing's up to "God's glory." You are never going to see me cruising around with a bumper sticker on my car that says, "I do my best and leave the rest to God." I think it's extremely important to understand the natural world so that we can continue to live on this planet for a long, long time. I am not sitting around waiting for the rapture. I guess you could say that both science and God give me purpose. I hope I am not coming off as rude. I am just tired of being attacked for believing in something that cannot be explained. - Jenny R.

To answer your question, Jenny: I am very fascinated by and interested in how people customize and adapt their religion to the society at large. How they tend to stick with the religion they happen to be born into, and how religious believes are also influenced by fashion (like the trendiness of eastern religions/philosophy atm.). Your particular blend is a very interesting (and maybe typical in the US today) blend, where tradition and trends are mixed while at the same time it is made to fit with the secular, scientific ideas of the western world. - Eivind

@Eivind- I had a pretty extreme religious upbringing that nearly resulted in me losing my faith completely. It was only through a period of intense prayer/meditation that my answers came to me. I am definitely aware of the trendiness of Eastern religions at the moment. ;-) I don't like labeling myself as any particular thing because I don't really "fit" anything. Someone mentioned the golden rule earlier...that is my "religion" in a nutshell. I suppose I am sort of unusual in my blending of beliefs and the fact that I am a scientist. I can remember being in an introductory biology course and being one of those evolution haters who refused to "believe" that evolution exists. After learning about how natural selection works and the simplicity and beauty of Darwin's Theory, I was an instant convert. It's been my "mission" ever since to teach others about these concepts so they can see for themselves that there really is no controversy and the Theory of Evolution makes perfect sense. :-) - Jenny R.

Good for you, Jenny, you've come a long way :) Sure you don't want to take that final step? Remember: we atheists do it unsupervised ;) - Eivind

Jenny, we're not trying to attack you, although I can see how our "barrage" of questions could give that impression. Also, I'm sure I also speak for Eivind and Ed when I say that I know quite well how it feels to be repeatedly made to explain and defend your worldview, so I understand how our questions might annoy you. But like Eivind said, it's honest curiosity. If you're right and I'm wrong, I want to know! I'm genuinely confused, and I hope you can help clear up some of that. You said, "I am not one of those people who can shrug their shoulders when it comes to natural phenomenon and chalk thing's up to 'God's glory.'" Then you said, "It was only through a period of intense prayer/meditation that my answers came to me." To me, that sounds like a contradiction. To you, it probably makes sense. To me, it sounds like you're looking at a natural, neurological phenomenon (having a spiritual experience through prayer/meditation) and chalking it up to divine inspiration. If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me. - Dan C

I'll go one further.. Yes, I'm genuinely curious about the phenomenon of belief in something that cannot be explained by someone who is obviously a scientist. But yes, I also want to undermine your beliefs. You see, I think believing something when there's no evidence for it is something we should shed rather than respect. There are all sorts of behaviors that once were considered normal or useful that we now see as useless or harmful. From spanking to slavery, male-centric pronouns to awarding a bride to the top warrior. Why is belief without evidence any different. I'm sure the scientist in you sees the value of studying this "belief in belief" and yet... you answer my question with a defensive one of your own. - Edward Zwart

So.. please read this when your being a scientist: how do you chose between scientific and being religious? (And yes, I've played my hand by saying I do want to undermine your beliefs, but I also have the goal of making the world a better place.) - Edward Zwart

Yes, I am sure I don't want to take that final step. :-) Dan, there is no way for me to say I am right and you are wrong. I don't judge people for being Bible-thumpers or for being atheists. It is their choice and I respect that. The problem for me is that I get flack from both sides. More often than not, I am trying to convince a die-hard Christian that evolution makes sense, just let me explain it to you. I try to use myself as an example that you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. i.e. There is no reason that they can't reconcile their own Christianity *with* the Theory of Evolution. What it does take is an open mind and to steer people away from making literal word-for-word interpretations of the Bible. Interestingly enough, that's easier for me to do than try to explain to an athiest how can I can be a scientist who is absolutely in love with evolution and yet believe in something that has no scientific evidence. I do try, but I am definitely not the most articulate person on the planet and my beliefs, especially, are hard for me to translate to others. The nice thing for both sides is that I am not trying to convince you to believe as I believe; I just want there to be a consensus that evolution is a naturally occurring process on this planet. - Jenny R.

@Edward I am not sure I see the argument against belief that you are trying to make. Certainly we learn over time that certain traditions are not beneficial to us as humans. Having faith in a power larger than ourselves does not seem to relate well to your examples. People have been paying homage to Gods and higher powers on this planet for millennia. The faces and names have changed but a basic belief in something more powerful than us hasn't. Of course, modern science has come a long way in allowing us to see that some things we once thought devine are simply naturally occurring phenomenon. And it's absolutely possible that in the future, there may be evidence to show that everything we thought to be divine is not. It's also possible that in the future we find evidence of divine beings or higher powers. I acknowledge that both possibilities exist. I choose to believe in the here and now that I am the result of a higher power. When science shows me otherwise, I'll take that final step. Maybe that is the answer you are looking for? - Jenny R.

For the sake of "texture" I'd like to say that having a belief in something greater out there may be the only thing that keeps some of us going day after day. I, for one, could not imagine a more dismal existence than believing this life on Earth is a complete fluke, nothing more than coincidence or luck. That being said, to each his/her own. :-) - Jenny R.

Jenny, I just want to point out that I don't see it as my choice to be an atheist. I can't really make a choice to believe or not to believe something. I can choose (to a certain degree) to trust different sources or not to trust them, but being an atheist is a result of a rejection of several ancient sources while accepting/taking inspiration from the works of some great men. It's not like I can just choose to "switch sides" now (although I can pretend). - Eivind

I am definitely not missing the utter beauty of life as it exists on earth, whether blooming for a day or persisting hundreds of thousands of years (although I don't find cockroaches beautiful, I marvel at their staying power). There is no doubt that I feel most spiritual when surrounded by the raw, natural beauty on this planet and decidedly uncomfortable sitting in a church. I am moved by biodiversity and interactions between and among species on this planet. I believe that life and evolution was set into motion by a higher power. Perhaps so that I might someday sit in wonder and awe at the beauty of life on this planet. :-) Thank you also for the civil discussion and not hitting below the belt. With that, I am off. (My son swallowed a battery tonight and he needs my attention more than does this discussion.) - Jenny R.

Jenny, your reduction of life on Earth to mere coincidence severely misrepresents both abiogenesis and evolution. Could you clarify that statement? - Mark

Eeep! Hope your son is ok! - Mark

Jenny, the answer I'm looking for is the one to the question that I have put to you now several times: How do you decide when to apply scientific principles versus religious ones? When do you require evidence, and when faith? For instance, when you are studying ecology, I doubt that you would argue one theory's merits over another's by saying that many ecologists believe it and have done so for a long time, and that therefore it is most likely the correct one. That type of reasoning is rejected by scientists, because it's a fallacy that the truth of any matter is related to the number of people who believe it. But you, a scientist, just used that very logic in response to my suggestion that belief in a higher power is an aspect of our evolution that, though once useful, can now be shed because it has by now been exposed to be a belief unsupported by any evidence, and therefore highly suspect as an untrue belief. It's true that it's difficult to compare the god hypothesis to any actual (so called) scientific hypothesis, since the scientific ones that have no supporting evidence tend to get discarded more quickly than the millennia of religious belief you refer to. But we could put String Theory up as an example (and it's a tough sell for that very reason: no evidence!), or older sciences like Astrology, as better comparisons for the god hypothesis. Again, we would attack those theories with evidence. What is it about the so called higher power that gets a pass? And, again, how do you decide when to apply that rule? - Edward Zwart

More questions.... If evolution is true, and it was set in motion by a divine creator, at what point to species get souls? Does a salmon have one? Do they have ten commandments? Four only (one for each fin)? As Dave asks, as a scientist, what do you do with the hypothesis that the human brain, and its evolution, is responsible for the invention of the belief in a higher power? Does that hypothesis have ANY merit worth considering? - Edward Zwart

LOL You guys are a tough crowd! Suffice it to say, a higher power gets a pass from me because it's *my* spirituality, *my* beliefs, and I am not trying to sell them to a single, solitary person, not even my own children. I leave it up to every individual to live their life the way they want to. I am never going to be able to explain in a way that satisfies you how I can be a scientist and a believer in God. My reasoning will always fall short of your logic. There's nothing I can do about that. Believe it or not, I understand why you are frustrated by me. I am sorry that it bothers you that I give God a "pass" when it comes to scientific evidence. That's just the way it is for me. As for the hypothesis that the human brain invented belief in a higher power? Belief in something is one thing, its existence is something else entirely. I believe that God put evolution into motion, which may have included us developing a brain capable of "inventing" belief in its grand design. Just so we're clear, I understand that there are dozens of hypotheses worth considering when it comes to evolution and religion. I have my own beliefs, however, and choose to spend my time pursuing other answers regarding life on earth. - Jenny R.

I think you've explained it fully. You simply do not apply scientific principles while having faith. We started there. The two are incompatible. My question is how you decide which to apply and when. Saying that goddidit, and then encountering evolution, and replying, goddidit, and then when we discover that maybe we invented god, you just replied: goddidthattoo. :) This sort of reasoning simply does not get you anywhere except when explaining your otherwise unexplainable beliefs! How you reconcile that for yourself, never mind whether you try to convince anyone else, is stunning! (You're not the only one who does, but you ARE the only one willing to discuss the matter here and now!) :) - Edward Zwart

Sorry, Jenny, I just have to ask one more thing (for now). How can you not try and "sell" your believes to your children when you believe in a judging god? Won't that put them in risk of going to hell? Won't you even warn them? - Eivind

@Eivind We're going to have to start a new discussion elsewhere so I don't have to look at Kirk Cameron's creepy-looking mug any more. ;-) I can get away with not selling my personal beliefs to my children and not worrying about their eternal souls by teaching them to be good people. The Golden Rule is, well, golden at our house. I don't think that someone has to pray to or worship a certain God or risk going to hell. I think that being the best person you can be, helping others in need, and loving your fellow human beings are the keys to "salvation," if you want to call it that. - Jenny R.

BTW, I believe you when you say that you consider dozens of hypotheses, and that you choose to spend your time pursuing other answers, and I completely respect that. But, I *would* like to point out that considering how you decide between being religious or scientific is not *that* tough a question... and you still haven't answered it! ;) - Edward Zwart

@Edward Seeing as how I don't belong to any particular religion, I am hesitant to even use the term "religious," but I will for the sake of this discussion. I am "religious" when it comes to my belief in a higher power. I am "religious" when I pray at night. I am "religious" when I marvel in awe at the beauty in this world that I believe to be the ultimate creation of God. I am scientific in my understanding of the way life operates on this planet. I don't believe that science and "religion" or spirituality need to be mutually exclusive from one another. For instance, I don't think God is mad at me for using science to understand more about his creation. Does that make sense? The fact the science allows me to understand more about evolution, biodiversity, and ecological relationships does not affect my spirituality. They co-exist quite peacefully in my life. (Apparently not in others.) ;-) - Jenny R.

Jenny, you say, "it's *my* spirituality, *my* beliefs, and I am not trying to sell them to a single, solitary person," and yet you ARE trying to stop other people from having their equally valid beliefs about creationism! What's different about *their* spirituality and *your* spirituality, and why do they have to give up theirs and accept evolution when you get to keep your irrational beliefs about the origin of life? - Dan C

...and I agree that it's annoying having to see Kirk every time I come to check this conversation. - Dan C

Officially done with this discussion. Thanks to all who were civil. - Jenny R.

Are you implying that I'm not being civil? I'm just trying to understand what appears to me to be a contradiction. You say it's wrong for people to have irrational beliefs about the origin of species, but that it's ok for you to have your own irrational beliefs about the origin of life. That's all. What part of that is not civil? - Dan C

I'll answer you with Jenny's exact words: "After learning about how natural selection works and the simplicity and beauty of Darwin's Theory, I was an instant convert. It's been my "mission" ever since to teach others about these concepts so they can see for themselves that there really is no controversy and the Theory of Evolution makes perfect sense." So I'm just trying to figure out why Jenny thinks it's wrong for creationists to hold their irrational beliefs about the origin of species, but ok for her to hold her irrational beliefs about the origin of life. I'm not trying to be accusatory, I'm just trying to see it from her perspective. - Dan C

The fact that the two belief systems co-exist peacefully in Jenny's life is precisely what I've been questioning all along! I happen to believe one half of that co-existence is completely fabricated. I guess, wink wink, if I just tried a little harder... Still curious when souls appeared... - Edward Zwart