User Tag List

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 171

Thread: The evolution game is up!!!

  1. #91
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    Your link argued against one model. This article describes several.
    My link had 7 parts which was devoted to the models mentioned in wikipedia with Matzke's being the most recent.


    How do you determine somethings purpose? Evolution shows that things can have more than one use, but purpose presupposes design- something no biologic process or specimen has demonstrated.
    That is, the arrowhead was made for purpose where as the pebble may look designed, but it has no purpose and is therefore more likely to have been done by chance. Specified complexity my friend and irreducible complexity go hand in hand. I heard IDers say that even though IC is used so much, they got a lot more comprehensive arguments than that. I just have no idea what they're even referring to though... :shrug: Just sharing my experience.

    Evolution just says it could have more than one use not that it proves that it can have another purpose. Story-telling as I said in science.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  2. #92
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    To refute your links...
    Yeah- I gathered that. My link was done specifically for the eye bits.

    Incredulity is not a fallacious argument for crying out loud!!! It all depends on the form of argument...and it's arguing from what we know. This seems to be the frequent objection or should I say, escape route for the evolutionist.
    It is not acceptable in science.
    Whether it's good is not the point...It doesn't matter whether it is a good argument or not but that it asserts that there is no function because they don't know of any. To me, that would be fine since if it does have function, science would one day figure it out. You brought it up in the first place and many think it is science. My point is that if this, what you would call "argument from incredulity" can be science, why can't IC be science?
    Incredulity is not science. Saying "I can't think of any other possibility" is not good enough.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  3. #93
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    It is not acceptable in science.
    It is, since Junk DNA is used as having no function and especially vestigial organs! At least some evolutionists have stated that they can't see how vestigial organs can have functions. Science uses philosophy by the way. Such a fact is inescapable and you're begging the question since you're using philosophy! It's as if one was saying that Logic can be used but not in science. I wasn't necessarily saying that the argument from ignorance can always be used, but that in certain cases it can unlike what most people say. Most philosophy textbooks don't really get into the details of what makes the argument from ignorance a fallacy.

    Incredulity is not science. Saying "I can't think of any other possibility" is not good enough.
    Neither are IDers saying that they don't think there can be any other possibility. They have encouraged evolutionists to research it...If they are arguing from incredulity, then evolutionists are arguing from imaginations. There could be possibilities but so far you haven't demonstrated any example of IC being refuted.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  4. #94
    Over 500 post club Evoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    This seems to be the frequent objection or should I say, escape route for the evolutionist.
    Indeed, it is a way of telling you that you don't have enough faith that naturedidit. It is a cop out.


    Evo

  5. #95
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    10820
    Hey,
    If I fill up my bath tub and let the water sit, how long do I have to wait for nature to evolve me a pet gold fish?
    From whence came hydrogen?

    "Not everyone who runs around in a red coat is a solider in King Georgeís army."

    Respect for God is the begining of wisdom and pride comes before a fall.

    "Let all the babies be born; then let us drown the ones we do not like" - G.K. Chesterton

  6. #96
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    There could be possibilities but so far you haven't demonstrated any example of IC being refuted.
    A possibility IS irreducible complexity being refuted.

    What is IC? IC is the claim that there is no possibility that a certain feature could have come about by succesive, gradual changes. One possibliy renders that claim null and void.

  7. #97
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
    A possibility IS irreducible complexity being refuted.
    I said that there COULD but so far, there is no explanation for the flagellum. Talk about taking my words out of context. Again, there is always the possibility that IC could be refuted which is perfectly fine but it seems rather unlikely at the moment. The reason why I said possibility is that I am not that type of guy who likes taking absolutes since I'm open to alternative theories. It's just at the moment, naturalism is very improbable therefore I take theism. I could be a theistic evolutionists, but there's no reason for me to be one due to the evidence against it that I've been reading up on lately.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  8. #98
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Evoken View Post
    Indeed, it is a way of telling you that you don't have enough faith that naturedidit. It is a cop out.

    Evo
    ???

    What is so wrong with not knowing how something happened?

    If you disagree with the reasonableness of naturedidit, fine. But to jump from "we don't know how it happened" to "it is impossible/improbable that naturedidit" and therefore some form of "godidit" - is completely unwarranted. Why not just say you don't know? You are left with the same number of unknowns as godidit, yet with one fewer entity to not know anything about...

  9. #99
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Husband&Father View Post
    Hey,
    If I fill up my bath tub and let the water sit, how long do I have to wait for nature to evolve me a pet gold fish?
    If there's a thread on evolution how long do I have to wait for someone to post something incredibly stupid and meaningless? I don't think anyone ever claimed that fish evolved from bath water.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  10. #100
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    It is, since Junk DNA is used as having no function and especially vestigial organs! At least some evolutionists have stated that they can't see how vestigial organs can have functions. Science uses philosophy by the way. Such a fact is inescapable and you're begging the question since you're using philosophy! It's as if one was saying that Logic can be used but not in science. I wasn't necessarily saying that the argument from ignorance can always be used, but that in certain cases it can unlike what most people say. Most philosophy textbooks don't really get into the details of what makes the argument from ignorance a fallacy.
    Science is based on deduction and observation. Ignorance and incredulity run completely counter to the entire process. You can't trot out some theory and support it by saying "Well, for all we know it COULD be true" or "You know, I just can't think of anything else, so this must be it".

    Neither are IDers saying that they don't think there can be any other possibility. They have encouraged evolutionists to research it...If they are arguing from incredulity, then evolutionists are arguing from imaginations. There could be possibilities but so far you haven't demonstrated any example of IC being refuted.
    I'm honestly not at all sure how you can say that. All that is needed is to show a possible way in which these systems could have occurred naturally- it doesn't even have to be the "right" way. IC claims that there can be no such thing and it is shown to be flawed. You want more examples? Here's two.
    http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
    http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  11. #101
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
    What is so wrong with not knowing how something happened?
    Because if the cell is really irreducibly complex, then there is no other sane possibility except that God did it. We are getting to the point where we cannot reduce the cell to anything else but complex. You don't know? How then, are you justified in saying that God did it is not an explanation when you don't know? In the naturalistic world-view there can't be a God therefore there must be a natural explanation yet what if there is simply no way to account for the origin of life without a designer? Perhaps we should call your argument, nature of the gaps or mystery of the gaps. Why would it be irrational to say God did it? Yes, of course we cannot absolutely say that God did it but we can say it with great affirmation. There's not only a lack of a natural explanation but evidence against it. Every model from the past to today has failed. Admit that at least the evidence for the origins of things fits very well with the theistic world-view. This is faith and one could say that forever. At least we try to be rational instead of just saying the origin of life is a mystery. Thus all in all, I am justified in believe that God created everything. There are only two explanations (design or nature) and if nature is shown to be improbable, then it is completely warranted to say that God is a more reasonable explanation. God is not in the least improbable and it would seem that from the data we know, life was designed.

    Of course naturalists don't know! If they did, we might as well give up theism...since invoking God would be made unnecessary. What is unknown about God? The minimalist definition is very straightforward and follows logically from the data:

    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    God is beyond the universe which means that He is not subject to the natural laws. He created the universe and the laws that govern it. In addition, this being has existed eternally which therefore needs no cause for its' existence. Lastly, He is able to make decisions.
    The problem is, we know something about why the data resists a naturalistic explanation.

    Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

    This theory is science because it is explanatory. This explains the origin of life and a intelligent designer is demanded by the data. Second, it's testable. It specifically makes predictions against certain observations - that is, observations which would falsify it. If the origin of life can be explained through natural processes then paley's theory would be refuted. This theory has been assaulted by the best minds of science yet has returned stronger than ever. Some may argue that this proves nothing, yet nothing in science definitely proves anything. They are always vulnerable to further observations which is what makes it science. Tentativeness is an essential characteristic of science. We are not close-minded, but the theory does precisely what every theory must do - it denies certain observations. This makes it testable.
    Last edited by macguy; May 22nd, 2007 at 02:09 AM.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  12. #102
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    Science is based on deduction and observation. Ignorance and incredulity run completely counter to the entire process. You can't trot out some theory and support it by saying "Well, for all we know it COULD be true" or "You know, I just can't think of anything else, so this must be it".
    It is also based on induction but as I said, my article completely turned your arguments around. It depends on how the argument is used. Are you intentionally ignoring that link and trying to hop around it?

    The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to ?nd evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.


    Also, read my above post for the nature of science. You also repeatedly seem to move away from Junk DNA as being science. :-/


    I'm honestly not at all sure how you can say that. All that is needed is to show a possible way in which these systems could have occurred naturally- it doesn't even have to be the "right" way.

    I was right about what IDers do claim...As for the flagellum, they could test it rather easily since bacteria is know of reproducing at very rapid rates. It may be perhaps one of the best ways to observe evolution due to it's reproduction speed. It must be a testable hypothesis though. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)


    Very outdated although may be applicable to Behe's older versions. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "Behe" as there are others who actually advanced the argument. The URL just doesn't come to my head at the moment but I'll be sure to let you know if you want. Oh, not to mention that your article brought in gene duplication which is refuted by Behe here.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  13. #103
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    Because if the cell is really irreducibly complex, then there is no other sane possibility except that God did it.
    That is one whopper of an IF there. The only way you could know something is irreducibly complex is if you were omniscient. Assigning probability to complexity in light of ignorance is futile. The fact that we don't know how a certain thing happened at this point in time is no reason to lift our hands up and claim the boogie man did it. That is intellectual bankruptcy.

    Behe's criteria for IC is a joke (removing parts). Things that were once claimed to be IC like the eye, were later shown to be reducible.Of course, once the flagellum is figured out, you won't give up on IC, you will just pin it on some other unknown process.

    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    What is unknown about God? The minimalist definition is very straightforward and follows logically from the data:
    What is known about god? You are upset that science hasn't quite figured how everything happened just yet, but are perfectly happy with an entity who answers exactly ZERO questions about how things happened. How did god make the flagellum? At this point, you suddenly don't really care. Could god have used evolution to make the flagellum?

    To recap.
    With evolution:
    The flagellum was created using an unknown process.
    It could have involved reproduction and natural selection - we have a way to investigate.

    With God:
    The flagellum was created using an unknown process.
    We have no course to investigate.
    We have also added an entity to our non-explanation.


    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    Paley's theory: An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
    Are we now dragging up theories from the late 1700's that have been abandoned by the scientific community for more than 150 years, and calling them relevant? What's next, geocentricism?

    Everything is compatible with ID, including evolution. It therefore explains nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    Second, it's testable. It specifically makes predictions against certain observations - that is, observations which would falsify it.
    Name a testable prediction ID made before other parts of science discovered it. Show how the opposite of that prediction is impossible to conclude from ID.

    Explain the appendix, male nipples and mammary glands, the whale's vestigial hind feet, the human eye's blind spot, and endogenous retroviruses in light of ID.

  14. #104
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    It is also based on induction but as I said, my article completely turned your arguments around. It depends on how the argument is used. Are you intentionally ignoring that link and trying to hop around it?

    The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to ?nd evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.
    I'm not trying to dodge it- I just think it has no place in genuine science.
    Also, read my above post for the nature of science. You also repeatedly seem to move away from Junk DNA as being science. :-/
    I'm not moving away from science, I'm saying junk DNA is not something that is going to change the case either way right now. There is a lot more work to be done, and its a little premature to say we understand how it functions and what it all means.



    I was right about what IDers do claim...As for the flagellum, they could test it rather easily since bacteria is know of reproducing at very rapid rates. It may be perhaps one of the best ways to observe evolution due to it's reproduction speed. It must be a testable hypothesis though. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwinís Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum canít be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)
    That's one way- but not a way that is likely to happen. Even if someone were able to produce a flagellum ID'ers would argue that the information coding for the flagellum was was already presant but dormant. More importantly, you don't prove evolution by duplicating it. We simply don't have the kind of control that would be necessary to produce something like that, and even if we did the results would be guided and thus invalid. Providing a possible pathway is the best way to refute these IC claims.


    Very outdated although may be applicable to Behe's older versions. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "Behe" as there are others who actually advanced the argument. The URL just doesn't come to my head at the moment but I'll be sure to let you know if you want. Oh, not to mention that your article brought in gene duplication which is refuted by Behe here.
    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html
    Here's another one. There are many out there. Simply put- Not only are thse things not IC but there multiple possibilities for their evolution. They not been "refuted"- just argued against. Not even convincingly. Just pushing the bar higher saying, OK well I gues than THAT is IC if the origninal wasn't.
    http://www.nslij-genetics.org/duplication/
    Here's a site that links a bunch of articles about gene duplication and its role in evolution. Apparently the only one Behe convinced was Behe. I think you're exxagerating his "accomplishments".
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  15. #105
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    The artificiality that plagues the short discussions of argumentum ad ignorantiam found in so many textbooks on informal logic results from the fact that in real life it is difficult to find arguments based simply on ignorance. It is clearly fallacious to argue that a statement must be false solely on the basis that it has not been proven true, or that a statement must be true solely on the basis that it has not been proven false. Typically, however, people do not argue in such a manner. Usually, we find them utilizing a premise, whether it be implicit or explicit, that if a proposition P were true (or not true) then we should reasonably expect to ?nd evidence for it being true (or not true). When we do not find such evidence we can take this as a kind of evidence that P is false (or true). If my son tells me that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom and I go look and find no evidence of a Great Dane, I conclude that it is false there is a Great Dane in our bathroom. My lack of evidence for it being the case that there is a Great Dane in our bathroom is good evidence that there is not a great Dane in our bathroom because I have knowledge that if a Great Dane were there, there should be positive evidence to confirm its presence. Walton is, therefore, correct to note that presumed examples of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam can often be redescribed in a positive way that makes them seem not to be arguments from ignorance at all.
    This is actually correct. To summarize it:

    Lack of proof is not proof of a lack (argument from ignorance)
    Lack of evidence, when you correctly expect evidence to be present, is in itself evidence for a lack.

    Now all you have to explain is why we should expect a handful of scientists, working on this issue for a couple of decades, to reproduce an event that happened over 1 billion years on nonillions (1030) of experimental sites on earth. The scientists aren't God, you know

    Ironically, "lack of evidence" is actually the strongest evidence against the existence of the God of the Bible.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us