[_ Old Earth _] Are there consequences to believeing in evolution?

[lordkalvan]

I believe in Robert Strecker's theory. Robert Strecker's theory is that HIV was formed from visna and BLV (Bovine Leukemia Virus) by the US in the 1970's after 30-40 years of work. The virus was supposedly tested on populations in Africa and was deliberately introduced into the US homosexual community through the hepatitis B vaccination program.

On the other hand we have the evidence that leads to this conclusion:

In January 2000, the results of a new study suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1931 in West Africa. This estimate (which had a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complex computer model of HIV's evolution.

Source: http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

 

[coelacanth]

ToE = HIV? i do not believe that. HIV was manufactured.

What in the world would make you think it is manufactured?

I do not wish to derail too much, A new thread can be created if this drags on.

I believe in Robert Strecker's theory. Robert Strecker's theory is that HIV was formed from visna and BLV (Bovine Leukemia Virus) by the US in the 1970's after 30-40 years of work. The virus was supposedly tested on populations in Africa and was deliberately introduced into the US homosexual community through the hepatitis B vaccination program.

http://www.righto.com/theories/strecker.html

That would truly be one of the most morally abhorrent and recklessly negligent things anyone could ever do, but I guess they stopped even mentioning that idea by the time I took a semester long course on AIDS. Genetically, BLV and OLV can't splice together to make HIV, not to mention the technology to do something like that didn't exist then and we would be very hard-pressed to attempt something similar now. They hadn't discovered SIV yet at the time of Strecker's hypothesis, and there is a blood sample from someone (from the Congo?) with HIV from 1959. Complex computer epidemiology traces it back to at least the early 1900's and it almost certainly came to the homosexual population through Haiti, originally from Africa. It wasn't until after it became present in the U.S. at that time was AIDS noticed by doctors and the cause traced to HIV.

On a happy side note, though, for anyone interested in AIDS it is interesting to note that there are some people with a natural immunity to it (do a google search for "CCR5" ) When people have a mutated form of this gene the virus can't enter their cells and can't harm them... Ahh, here's a NOVA video, but I'm not sure if you would have to be an educator/member to view it:

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ ... vimmunity/

 

[Aero_Hudson]

A thought on the original thread topic...

Not sure why there would be consequences in believing in evolution? I think many Christians can reconcile their belief and God and also believe in Evolution. I do not see it as a conflict. At the same time, I do think some look at it as factual when it truly is not. It is one theory of many that does have some scientific backing but not to the point where it is indisputable.

In my mind, there are no consequences.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe in Robert Strecker's theory. Robert Strecker's theory is that HIV was formed from visna and BLV (Bovine Leukemia virus) by the US in the 1970's after 30-40 years of work.

Dr. David Ho and colleagues from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York told a conference they traced the very first case of HIV infection to a man living in what was then the Belgian Congo in 1959.

The scientists found HIV in a blood sample taken from the man, who was a member of the Bantu tribe. The HIV in the sample looks like an ancestor of several subtypes of HIV now found around the world, suggesting that HIV "evolved from a single introduction into the African population in a time frame not long before 1959," the researchers said.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/03/earliest.aids/

 

[Barbarian]

Finally, evolutionism has popularized such racist clich'es as"survival of the fittest." In The Decent of Man, Darwin speculated " at some future period ,not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate,and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

Darwin was complaining about the situation, not approving it. And he was merely observing what Europeans, most of whom professed to be Christian, were doing to exterminate other peoples. He asserted that all men are entitled to life and freedom, and was pleased that Britain finally outlawed slavery.

On the other hand, creationist leaders like Henry Morris continued to blather about the supposed spiritual and intellectual inferiority of black people into the 1990s. This is an important difference between science and creationism.

In addition, Darwin subtitled his magnum opus The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

That book said nothing at all about humans. "Races" in the 1800s, was the term used for what we now call "species."

Indeed, for evolution to succeed, it as crucial that the unfit die as that of the fittest survive. Nowhere were the far-reaching consequences of such cosmogenic mythology more evident than in the pseudoscience of eugenics. Eugenics hypothesized that the gene pool was being corrupted by the less fit genes of inferior people.

Creationists like Morris eagerly accepted eugenic ideas. But Darwin called the goal of eugenics to be an "overwhelming evil." And later Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan showed that it was pseudoscience, not even feasible.

As a result,segments of our society-including jews and blacks-were subjected to state-sanctioned strrilization. Thankfully eugenics has faded into the shadowy recesses of history for now. The tragic consequences of the evolutionary dogma that birthed it, however, are yet with us today.

And now you know the truth. It's no surprise that racism persisted longest in the US, where creationism is strongest. Henry Morris isn't typical of creationists, but racists are almost of necessity, creationists.

 

[coelacanth]

SIV is an immensely more suspicious candidate for the origins of HIV, supported even further since the published date of the link The Barbarian just posted.

 

[coelacanth]

Finally, evolutionism has popularized such racist clich'es as"survival of the fittest." In The Decent of Man, Darwin speculated " at some future period ,not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate,and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

Darwin was complaining about the situation, not approving it. And he was merely observing what Europeans, most of whom professed to be Christian, were doing to exterminate other peoples. He asserted that all men are entitled to life and freedom, and was pleased that Britain finally outlawed slavery.

On the other hand, creationist leaders like Henry Morris continued to blather about the supposed spiritual and intellectual inferiority of black people into the 1990s. This is an important difference between science and creationism.

[quote:1g4so9rp]In addition, Darwin subtitled his magnum opus The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

That book said nothing at all about humans. "Races" in the 1800s, was the term used for what we now call "species."

Indeed, for evolution to succeed, it as crucial that the unfit die as that of the fittest survive. Nowhere were the far-reaching consequences of such cosmogenic mythology more evident than in the pseudoscience of eugenics. Eugenics hypothesized that the gene pool was being corrupted by the less fit genes of inferior people.

Creationists like Morris eagerly accepted eugenic ideas. But Darwin called the goal of eugenics to be an "overwhelming evil." And later Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan showed that it was pseudoscience, not even feasible.

As a result,segments of our society-including jews and blacks-were subjected to state-sanctioned strrilization. Thankfully eugenics has faded into the shadowy recesses of history for now. The tragic consequences of the evolutionary dogma that birthed it, however, are yet with us today.

And now you know the truth. It's no surprise that racism persisted longest in the US, where creationism is strongest. Henry Morris isn't typical of creationists, but racists are almost of necessity, creationists.[/quote:1g4so9rp]

On top of that, defining what a "race" is (regarding human ethnic populations) has shown itself to be virtually impossible for any practical purposes from a biological perspective.

When discussing what a "species" is, there is not really any consensus on that, either. Rather, there are many different definitions, perhaps a dozen, each applicable to particular situations but not to others.

Both are really just human attempts to put things in categories and simplify the world for easier understanding. This is a useful trait of human cognition in many situations, but not in others. It generally leads to categorization, especially in areas of racism and politics.

Given that, an understanding of evolution, biology, and genetics, tends to lead to LESS racism IMO.

 

[coelacanth]

For clarity, I should point out that there are many instances where species are clearly discrete units and do exist, but that there are many other areas where it gets confusing such as ring species, asexually reproducing species, groups of organisms that are technically capable of interbreeding but DON'T, etc.

 

[zer0das]

Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)

% who have been divorced
Non-denominational ** 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Care to cite your exact source? I went to their website and searched for divorce, and their latest article that I could find shows atheists with a much higher divorce rate. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/a...-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released Not saying you're being deceitful, just would like to see what year you are using.

 

[Barbarian]

I reported Barna's findings from 1999. Apparently, he took a huge amount of abuse from born-again churches over it, and the report is no longer available on the net. Such churches are Barna's market, BTW. It seems you are citing Barna's resurvey that suggests born-again Christians are only slightly more likely to be divorced than atheists.

divorce rate amongst born-again Christians is significantly higher than that for atheist/agnostics[4]. A more recent 2008 Barna report shows a closer divorce rate gap between born-again Christians (32% had been divorced) and atheist/agnostics (30% had been divorced). [5].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Barna

 

[coelacanth]

The American Religious Identification Survey is online. If you look at the pdf file, you can see some stats on that:

http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

 

[Fembot]

A thought on the original thread topic...

Not sure why there would be consequences in believing in evolution? I think many Christians can reconcile their belief and God and also believe in Evolution. I do not see it as a conflict. At the same time, I do think some look at it as factual when it truly is not. It is one theory of many that does have some scientific backing but not to the point where it is indisputable.

In my mind, there are no consequences.

I agree.

 

[Fembot]

I believe in Robert Strecker's theory. Robert Strecker's theory is that HIV was formed from visna and BLV (Bovine Leukemia virus) by the US in the 1970's after 30-40 years of work.

Dr. David Ho and colleagues from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York told a conference they traced the very first case of HIV infection to a man living in what was then the Belgian Congo in 1959.

The scientists found HIV in a blood sample taken from the man, who was a member of the Bantu tribe. The HIV in the sample looks like an ancestor of several subtypes of HIV now found around the world, suggesting that HIV "evolved from a single introduction into the African population in a time frame not long before 1959," the researchers said.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/03/earliest.aids/

Don't believe everything you read.

In response to coelcanth:

Genetically, BLV and OLV can't splice together to make HIV, not to mention the technology to do something like that didn't exist then and we would be very hard-pressed to attempt something similar now.

Just because someone says the technology wasn't available, doesn't mean the test run was not kept hidden prior to it's press release.

 

[Fembot]

Perhaps Christians don't stand for sin in their marriages. Such as adultery. Atheists are perhaps more tolerant of sin and deceit. Staying together for the wrong reasons.

I would not stay with someone who commits adultery.

On another note, many researchers tend to use bad sample sets and sway results for their argument. More slander on Christians it sounds like to me. I like seeing the full research demographics so I can use my own discernment. Many women's magazines include bad research quotes. Such as allure mag.


This one cracks me up:

"eggs are bad for you, ok they're good...now they're bad for you again. Oh! and milk, as well.

Gimme a break.

 

[Barbarian]

Don't believe everything you read.

When I have the choice between peer-reviewed literature and an internet rumor, there really isn't much of a contest, is there?

 

[Fembot]

You can do some research on that "rumor" and decide for yourself. Your choice, after all.

 

[Barbarian]

I have a degree in microbiololgy. I've done graduate work in immunology.

I'm no HIV expert, but I do know what the evidence is in this case.

 

[coelacanth]

In response to coelcanth:

Genetically, BLV and OLV can't splice together to make HIV, not to mention the technology to do something like that didn't exist then and we would be very hard-pressed to attempt something similar now.

Just because someone says the technology wasn't available, doesn't mean the test run was not kept hidden prior to it's press release.

When do you suppose the technology for genetic recombination of viruses was secretly developed? According to this hypothesis it would have to have been done within 6 years of the discovery of the DNA double helix.

 

[Fembot]

In response to coelcanth:

Genetically, BLV and OLV can't splice together to make HIV, not to mention the technology to do something like that didn't exist then and we would be very hard-pressed to attempt something similar now.

Just because someone says the technology wasn't available, doesn't mean the test run was not kept hidden prior to it's press release.

When do you suppose the technology for genetic recombination of viruses was secretly developed? According to this hypothesis it would have to have been done within 6 years of the discovery of the DNA double helix.

My point is that one shouldn't believe everything one reads. Unless it's in the Bible, ofcourse :yes

Meanie! (takes ball and leaves)

 

[GojuBrian]

I see that intellectual bullying is alive and well in the theistic evolutionary belief system.