Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on January 17, 2002, 05:13:37 PM
-
While I feel the tug to argue with the tighty righties on many issues on this board I have still not seen the one issue that seems to really light my fires.
Teaching Creationism in school. Why oh why is this still an issue almost 80 years after the Scopes trial. Only a completely relapsed bufoon would ........sorry I'll try to stay civil.
Evolution happened. <----Period
Deal with it and quit trying to tell my kids that the laws of nature were somehow suspended because that is what the Bible says. If you want to get specific, bring it on!
PS. The first person to quote Dr. Peterson to me will be very sorry. (Hint : He was a janitor before getting his honorary degree from an Adventist school)
-
Evolution happened. <----Period
Ah... but did it happen as it is being taught?
Both are based on a serious amount of assumptions and beliefs... its just that Creationism has so many more documents to support it;)
AKDejaVu
-
Ummm... sorry, but I don't really care what they teach. In its long, long history, mankind has taught and believed a lot of stuff. Some was right apparently and some was obviously wrong. Yet here we all are, still plodding into the unknown future.
I told my kids what I thought. Guided them as best I could. Now they're mostly all grown up... they decide for themselves now...
...and like the rest of us they'll find out who was right eventually.
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Evolution happened. <----Period
Prove it :D
Who's to say that one of God's days isn't like 10 million years or more? It does say that Adam came from dust. Stardust maybe? God said "let there be light" and there was light. Big Bang maybe? I've kind of merged the two to justify my existance :) I don't know if I'm right, i think I am, but I wasn't around billions of years ago so... All I know is that I refuse to believe that the human DNA or any DNA for that matter came to being by a random chance of events. I can see them not teaching creationism in school as it's religious. But they should, and my science teachers did, make sure to say that it's just theory and that there are other "ideas" about creation. The only thing we can be 100% sure about is that we can't be 100% sure about anything, exept the one thing we can be absolutely sure about :)
I guess you could call me a confused Christian.
-
I think its pretty clear and I dont understand why a debate ever existed.
Creationism is a RELIGIOUS concept, the version in question is being particular to the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All belive in creation in more or less exact way IIRC. Seperation of church and state means this is not taught in schools as part of official curriculum. All the whacko christians and such conservatives who ask for it to be taught as official curriculm should also ask that Budhist and whatever other religious idea be taught. If you want it go to sunday schools!
Evolution is a scientific theory based on real genetic and archeological evidence. If you dont want it then refuse teahing of gravity in schools too. Would you?
RELIGION = CHURCH
SCIENCE = SCHOOL
OK? Nobody too upset I hope?
-
But here is another thing I just dont understand.
Why cant people compromise?
There is plenty of room for both a GOD type origin and EVOLUTION.
Evolution and all of Science for that matter work pretty well back to the big bang and start of the universe. Nobody knows where all this came from, or what was before or where it is.
Where is the universe?
I see plenty of room for a GOD type force in that, no?
-
What if I were to tell you that a vessel with a methane atmosphere (primordial) and a soup of preorganic compounds (known to exist on other planets pre life) that was zapped by high voltage electricity (lightning) produced nucleotides. A group of nucleotides make DNA. All this was accomplished over about 72 hours in a lab. What do you think nature could do in 4.5 billion years?
The only evidence for Creation is the Creation story in the Bible........what about all the other religions and their creation stories? You don't need to twist the story of Genesis to fit the facts Udie. Genesis is just a story. The Bible is a wonderful compass for moral behavior, but it is not perfect, and pre Moses it is not even very accurate history.
Toad wrote: "Ummm... sorry, but I don't really care what they teach"
Humans have risen to the hights because we stand on the shoulders of giants. We have the ability to take knowledge from past generations and use it to further the next. I care very much what they teach.
AK Dejavu wrote: "Ah... but did it happen as it is being taught?"
"Both are based on a serious amount of assumptions and beliefs... its just that Creationism has so many more documents to support it"
Did it happen as being taught....we don't know the detailed mechanism, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Scientists argue over whether evolution occurs in spurts or gradually. They agree that it did happen.
As to the "many more documents", nope. Unless you mean Bible studies. That isn't evidence it is Bible study. More later.
-
as long as they don't present evolution as a closed case it is ok. if a school taught creationism i'd send my kid to a different school - period. i can't believe there is even a debate about it, good grief.
good science would mean letting the kids know that this is the idea that seems most likely based on what we know rather then a definite 'this IS the way it is'. they should realize it's subject to change and reinterpretation like anything else.
truth is, we don't have enough information to make a conclusion either way, that's what's great about science:
you don't have to make a conclusion. its more about being methodical about the pursuit than having a final answer.
religion doesn't offer anything like that.
they give you one option, one reality; riddled with laughable inconsistencies; and then wonder why you have little faith in their freaky ideas about an invisible daddy in space who likes to zap stuff into being and then hide out and peek and judge us while we do our thing.
ug, come on outta the cave lotar..... it's ok....come on...it won't hurt you, see, no lightning bolts;)
we are on our own, like it or not. might as well let the kiddies know early and limit the fairey tails to santa claus.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What if I were to tell you that a vessel with a methane atmosphere (primordial) and a soup of preorganic compounds (known to exist on other planets pre life) that was zapped by high voltage electricity (lightning) produced nucleotides. A group of nucleotides make DNA. All this was accomplished over about 72 hours in a lab. What do you think nature could do in 4.5 billion years?
What exactly is this "nature" that you speak of? Also, from where did the methane and lightning come?
-
Also, from where did the methane and lightning come?
The methane came from the anus of the universe, duh! The lightning came from the positively charged electrons from planet's rubbing on the carpet... :)
-SW
-
A nice troll, TahGut.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Also, from where did the methane and lightning come?
The methane came from the anus of the universe, duh! The lightning came from the positively charged electrons from planet's rubbing on the carpet... :)
-SW
(Smacks forehead as SW's brilliance illuminates my ignorance)
You should be sitting on a mountain top in Tibet Wulfe, no really. :p
-
anyone who believes that the story of creation should be taken literally is truly an idiot
that being said, i believe the story to be true in a symbolic sense. i definitely believe god created life. scientists cannot and i dont believe ever will be able to duplicate that feat. so in that sense creationism is true. and the story of original sin may very well have truth to it as well, though i doubt the sin was really eating an apple :)
the bible was not meant to be taken literally, though i certainly am much more likely to believe the events ofthe new testament to be "historical" as opposed to the old.
-
I knew this would be your stance on religion in school, without ever asking. Perfectly ok to talk "tolerance" when it fits your agenda, eh? ;) Well, I agree, religion does not belong in public schools. Shall we discuss what else I don't think belongs in public schools? No?
-
Until there is full and proper credit given to Prometheus I refuse to believe any of the urban legend bunk in todays textbooks.
-
Unfortunately kieran, schools teach (or impose hehe) "tolerance" (or PC pick your choice) , those who teach religion dont.
I am sickened by religious activists in schools. I think its even wrong to allow religious activities IN schools and universities.
Just to see the campus crusade for christ nutcases SWARM individual students each day bombing them with false smiles and empty questions about the beliefs of others.. ugh! Come on people, they dont have ANY right whatsoever to harrass people from other cultures and religions just because they are not like them! Ive come very close to smacking some of them upside the head when im the unlucky person that gets swarmed.
-
Please, by all means let me have it. Contrary to what you may believe I will change my mind given the proper circumstances. I sense that you will try to tell me how Evolution is somehow the same as Creation and should not be taught.
Evolution as a method of describing the diversity of life on our planet passes the test of the scientific method with flying colors. In the absense of the ability to directly recreate the experiment we can create a model. What would you expect from evolution in terms of this model? A hierarchy of life with an almost linear progression from least complex to most complex even within the great diversity and multitude of life. Look around you, does this apply? The fossil record is very complete in many cases, showing a progression along the same lines. One of the most complete fossil records is that of man. Keep your head out of the sand and your mind open. I promise I will.
-
Oh Zigrat I think well make life from scratch one of these days.
Its only a matter of time.
-
Oh tahgut Evolution is not PC or fair or decent in any way, I think thats an important thing to remind you of- its a very "capitalist" idea.... :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh tahgut Evolution is not PC or fair or decent in any way, I think thats an important thing to remind you of- its a very "capitalist" idea.... :)
HUH!?:confused:
Science is the most PC thing there is.....................nothin g is more fair or less prone to prejudices when done properly.
-
Science is not PC. PC = lies and dishonest delusiuons. Science = ture things as in reality.
Anyway what I meant was more along the line Evolution has no "affirmative action", you can cut or you cant............
Yes thats awful of me I know, string me up..... :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What if I were to tell you that a vessel with a methane atmosphere (primordial) and a soup of preorganic compounds (known to exist on other planets pre life) that was zapped by high voltage electricity (lightning) produced nucleotides. A group of nucleotides make DNA. All this was accomplished over about 72 hours in a lab. What do you think nature could do in 4.5 billion years?
I'd say God designed the universe that way :)
The only evidence for Creation is the Creation story in the Bible........what about all the other religions and their creation stories? You don't need to twist the story of Genesis to fit the facts Udie. Genesis is just a story. The Bible is a wonderful compass for moral behavior, but it is not perfect, and pre Moses it is not even very accurate history.
There's 6 billion bits of evidence walking and talking on the Earth right now :)
The ONLY[/I][/U] I repeat the ONLY[/I][/U] fact about this subject we can honestly say is true is that nobody on this planet will ever know for sure how we got here. It's impossible. All we have is faith, I know where I put mine. And my gut tells me that no way in freakin hell is this all random.
Hell for all we know we're an experiment in some lab somewhere.
-
I sense that you will try to tell me how Evolution is somehow the same as Creation and should not be taught.
I would do nothing of the kind. Separation of church and state is a sacred part of our political heritage. I know very well the impossibility of catering to all the religions, therefore the need to keep it separate. There is nothing wrong with teaching the scientific approach, we just tack on our personal beliefs at home and at church, instead of ramming it down everyone else's throats at school.
For all your intelligence, you seem to miss the fundamental hypocracy of your stands. FWIW, I don't care a bit how you feel about science or homosexuality; what I am offended by is your need to tell me what I need to think. I think you are a flaming hypocrite to preach tolerance in one thread and run in here the next and jump on a soapbox with intolerance. I think you are arrogant to suggest I need to pull my head out of the sand when you can't clear the silicon from your own eyes.
"We can't teach religion at school!" What are you afraid of? That some religious kid will beat you up or rape you? What is this religious fear? Why shouldn't they work to forward their beliefs? I can understand how religious families feel when a secular holiday excludes them, change the holidays! "We need to be more toooooleraaaant about religion!" Funny how the argument seems so wrong when it doesn't support you, eh?
You aren't about tolerance, you aren't about improving society, you aren't about anything noble at all, you're just a self-serving hypocrite- just like the rest of us. The difference between us is I know it.
-
OK wiseguys who created evolution?
-
"OK wiseguys who created evolution?"
It was Yamaha.
-
evolution explains what happens to life as it adjusts to it's environment through the generations(by means of mutations which are either successful or not). it is pure speculation to project it so far back that you think you can use it to explain the origin of life.
-
What if I were to tell you that a vessel with a methane atmosphere (primordial) and a soup of preorganic compounds (known to exist on other planets pre life) that was zapped by high voltage electricity (lightning) produced nucleotides. A group of nucleotides make DNA. All this was accomplished over about 72 hours in a lab. What do you think nature could do in 4.5 billion years?
the probability of that happening would be like a tornado tearing up a junkyard and assembling a 747.
I'm not for OR against the theory of evolution, but it ticks me off when people try to force it on others. Same goes for the Biblical story of Creation. Just lay your cards on the table, let others view them at their leisure, dont shove it down their throat! I can't stand that from either side. Let the facts speak for themselves, no one wants to believe something that is forced on them IMO. I have a friend who does that. Out of nowhere he will start a conversation just to argue against evolution. Theres no purpose in that. IMO one should offer religion/theories/ideas and not force them and demand they are correct. It all comes down to their morals and principals. blah
oct out
[EDIT: changed terms :) thx sw]
-
Creationism is the belief that some higher power created us?
Evolutionism is that life created life created itself?
It's funny, but no one is any more right or wrong than the next guy- but you'll still see people arguing over who is right and who is wrong.
I got my own ideas, but they are just that.
Argue when you got some facts, otherwise what's the point?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Argue when you got some facts, otherwise what's the point?
-SW
Why spoil a good argument with facts? ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Evolution happened. <----Period
Your opinion. <-----Period
Christains don't like your and yours forcing YOUR belief into schools and at thier children any more than you want THEM forcing thier beliefs at your kids.
It shouldn't be a problem. Teach both in public schools and let PARENTS shoulder the responsiblity of making sure THIER kids now the difference between B.S. and Reality (notice I did not specifiy which is which).
The problem today is not whether or not creationism or evolution should or should not be taught in public school. The problem is Parents needs to get off thier lazy tulips and stop expecting the U.S. Government to raise thier kids.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
All the whacko christians and such conservatives who ask for it to be taught as official curriculm should also ask that Budhist and whatever other religious idea be taught. If you want it go to sunday schools!
....Parents should also teach thier kiddies that openly insulting people for what they believe in is commonly considered "uncalled for" in modern society, and pretty much cause for bringing attention to ones self and being point out as, an ass. Of course the internet also removes the possibility of having ones nose flattened when participating in the above mentioned activity therefore ..we have to learn to be accepting of asses, or at least tolerant. Might work for the problem between evolutionists and creationists....even scientologists! JMHO, no offense. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But here is another thing I just dont understand.
Why cant people compromise?
There is plenty of room for both a GOD type origin and EVOLUTION.
Evolution and all of Science for that matter work pretty well back to the big bang and start of the universe. Nobody knows where all this came from, or what was before or where it is.
Where is the universe?
I see plenty of room for a GOD type force in that, no?
lol :) Has anyone ever accused you of being completely schitzo?
:D
-
There are people that believe the world is flat. Should they teach that in school also?
It's My opinion that I'm the avatar of the God Biffnar. In My Diety form, I drank too much beer and bleched forth the Universe. Better start teaching that in schools also.
I mean if you're going to have one creation myth taught in schools, might as well have them all...and truely confuse the kids.
-
This is REALLY simple. (I'm not taking sides...just pointing out common sense).
Christians are correct and Creationism is how it all happened
1. We have a set of pre-made rules for us to follow (takes some work out)
2. We get to talk to "God" any time we want. (At least theres SOMEONE-THING).
3. Maybe...just MAYBE if YOU are WRONG, we all get to go to "Heaven and live on forever and ever and ever...in bliss no less. (How this can happen without lots of sinful nudity and sex is beyond me..but you get the drift)
....Oh, and all the Hitler's and Dahmer's and etc etc get to burn forever in a big nasty lake of fire (makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside)
Evolution is how it all happened
1. We came from Gas and slime and monkees. (distasteful)
2. It takes too long (we are impatient)
The real kicker
If you are right...when we die we get the opportunity to cease to exist and our conciousness is no more. (Scary thought to most, maybe even worse than Hell). No necessarily bad...but not good either
Added for the amusement of the truly intolerant. I believe in both. I believe GOD IS the missing link. I think your average Christian puts way too much "spiritualism" or "magic" for lack of a better description into the God thing. I do NOT think "God" as taught to us in "Bible" fashion could possibly be such a completely hateful and mean spirited bieng as "it" is portrayed. I mean really, be honest with yourself. How can you be so loving and blah blah and send people to
'hell" who've never even heard of you, FOR NOT BELIEVING IN YOU? Completely ludicrous
-
Those who are trying to mix evolution and the Bibles account of creation think of this, According to the book of Genesis God created mature creatures, (not newborns), a mature Man and Woman, "Great Whales", Cattle, etc...
Sooo, Would God not also create a mature (already aged) earth?
Ponder the thought.
;)
-
I believe there is a higher power, but as far as organized religeon goes it's a bunch of hooey.
Take 1 part superstition and two parts myth, shake well and you get some absurdity like "God knocking up a married virgin" to create mankinds savior.
No doubt JC was a man of God, but the son of God..... give me a break!
How many men don't have sex with their wives after marriage? :rolleyes:
Whoever called it the "opiate of the masses" was spot on IMO.
-
The problem with christianity, and all religions really, is that its dogma is simple minded.
It takes something as complex as the universe and applies simple myths, most not even making sense, to explain its inner workings.
Science does this as well, but it is flexible and willing to correct itself as new evidence is presented, thus creating more complex theories.
When theories or facts or simple common sense contadict church teachings, its adherents then modify the dogma to their own personal tastes in order to compensate for the errors in the teachings. We get wholey new individual interpretations with the question, "how do you know god didn't design it this way?".
Anyway, this subject has been debated by more "enlightened" people than me, so I will now take my leave.:)
F.
-
Tumor youre kind of wierd buddy. In one post you call me "schitzo" for my comment then a few posts down you say basically the same thing- that you also think there can be room for both god and evolution.....
And yes I think anyone who belives the creation story verbatim in the year 2002 is a little whacko, the ones who demand this purely and specifically RELIGIOUS concept be taught in schools are even more whacko. Just like the whacko gays who want gay type things taught in schools.
-
Something that pisses me off sometimes is how evolutionists tend to act as if their theory is anything but just that, a theory. Often they pretend that they are the scientists, and anyone criticizing them are basically just plain stupid.
One must remember that science deals with knowledge discovered using the scientific method. The theory of evolution is not based on scientific facts. Not one aspect of the theory of evolution has been proven. Remember that.
-
Originally posted by easymo
"OK wiseguys who created evolution?"
It was Yamaha.
ROTFL!!!
But with some help from Toyota!!
:)
-
Originally posted by hblair
Those who are trying to mix evolution and the Bibles account of creation think of this, According to the book of Genesis God created mature creatures, (not newborns), a mature Man and Woman, "Great Whales", Cattle, etc...
Sooo, Would God not also create a mature (already aged) earth?
Ponder the thought.
;)
"In his Image" does not have to mean mature. I don't recall any mention of Adam and Eve's age either. Good point to ponder however, this just goes to show how quickly and easily "interpretation" can change the entire meaning of a simple statement...err...whatever it was.
-
Lest we all forget, the Bible as we know it was written some 2000 years ago. This book was/is actually a combination of 66 entirely differen't books written over a fairly large amount of time. (This is not theory). The Bible wasn't just whooped up over night (like a few other religious documents I'll leave nameless) by a single guy. It's a pretty cool story (and I won't even get started on the Apocrypha)
King James had the base of what most of us consider the modern bible translated in the...err...17th century? The date escapes me. Anyway, translated from Greek, Latin, Hebrew and a few other languages. James also sought to keep the translation as un-biased as possible by ensuring those doing the translatING were made up of a mix of differen't...hmm...lets call it "doctrines". I believe there may even have been an athiest or two involved. Anyhow, this is a remarkable book to say the least. Christian or atheist, I recommend taking a class to study the book in a non-religious format (as I did, it was way more revealing than sitting in church).
Anyhow, the Bible IMHO was written to/for a bunch of people (the world) who were considerably less educated than we were. However, I would not want to try to survive in thier world (when survival is #1 just imagine how education changes). Add this to the FACT that the Bible was written as a standard, warning, AND as a prediction (ok...Jews please be nice) of the return of Jesus Christ preceding the end of the world as we still know it. Now, consider this...a book written for people with a considerably lower level of education / knowledge, BY a bunch of people who expected the return of J.C. and the end of the world to happen in 200yrs TOPS. It works out to be a fairly good "Ok do this, live this way OR you will suffer miserably for eternity" story. It worked fairly well.
I think the Bible has merit...is worth much more regard than offered by your modern "I know everything" athiest/evolutionist (no offense) who on 9 out of 10 occasions have never bothered to crack the book open let alone try to figure out what it means. On the other hand ....I'm not entirely sure the actual stories and meaning are getting to us today.
-
Historically speaking, whenever the church has messed with science, it has been dead wrong.
The whole concept of religion relies on things that a human can't understand and therefore a true believer should not seek the 'bad' wisdom because things are just like God wanted them to be and that's good enough.. Right?
If the church had its way, the earth would still be a pancake and all the stars and the sun turning around it.
Religion is the human minds way to explain the unexplainable. It seems that some people just NEED to believe in some higher power because they can't grasp the reality around them.
Actually none of us can since what we understand as a concious reality is in fact an interpretation of signals fed into our brain. Anyone who experimented with LSD knows how different the 'reality' can look like after taking some acid.
Religion seems to have (in my experience) the biggest role in lowly developed societys like some village tribes in the jungles. They have gods here and there starting from treetops to earth. They don't have enough education to know why a lightning strikes and burns the forest so they think it's because the god of thunder is mad at them..
Superstition is such a strong part of our daily lives that it amazes me when I think we're already living the year 2002. How many of you knows or uses the phrase 'knock on wood?'
It comes from an ancient belief that if you mention some fortunate thing aloud, the God of unjustice will make it reverse for you (for example: Thank goodness I havent had a toothache for ages..) Luckily there is a way to please the God for saying such a thing and this is by knocking some unpainted wood. I don't know about other countries but this tradition goes on very strongly here even though most people have no idea of where it came from.
-
I am God.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
"In his Image" does not have to mean mature. I don't recall any mention of Adam and Eve's age either.
I wasn't refferring to "in his image" per say, but the term "man". Genesis speaks of a man and women, not children or newly born babes, etc.
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
If the church had its way, the earth would still be a pancake and all the stars and the sun turning around it.
Religion is the human minds way to explain the unexplainable. It seems that some people just NEED to believe in some higher power because they can't grasp the reality around them.
What is your opinion on Isaiah 40:22?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
"We can't teach religion at school!" What are you afraid of? That some religious kid will beat you up or rape you? What is this religious fear? Why shouldn't they work to forward their beliefs? I can understand how religious families feel when a secular holiday excludes them, change the holidays! "We need to be more toooooleraaaant about religion!"
If there were equality in the teaching of religion in schools, then I'd be for it. Sections on the Hindi, Bhuddism and Druid and Pagan thought would make for an education. But if you are just talking ONE religion, then no. And prayer? Christian only? Leave it out of our schools.
Horn
-
Says "circle" but really meant "sphere?"
-
Horn-
I was turning an argument around. I don't for a second want religion in schools for all the reasons enumerated. Though religious, I recognize it as unworkable. Do note how similar the argument sounds to including gay education in schools.
-
Those who are trying to mix evolution and the Bibles account of creation think of this, According to the book of Genesis God created mature creatures, (not newborns), a mature Man and Woman, "Great Whales", Cattle, etc...
Sooo, Would God not also create a mature (already aged) earth?
Ponder the thought.
I have missed alot since my last visit to the boards....great stuff on both sides of the issue.
hblair...Incredibly enough I am not an athiest., however I choose to believe that God isn't trying to play tricks on us. Why place rocks that can be definitely aged through many radioactive isotopes on our Earth that are 4.5 billion years old? Is this some almighty test to see if we have faith? Did God give us a brain and the ability to reason just to see if we were gonna shut down our intelligence when it disagreed with the Bible?
If you don't understand the various methods for dating inorganic and organic materials there was a very good explanation on the National Geographic site a little while ago.
Kieran,
I would be in favor of teaching tolerance for religions in schools. How is this hypocritical? I have different views on different subjects Kieran. Some things belong in school some don't and each has its own reason. That isn't hypocritical, its human.
Kieran wrote:
You aren't about tolerance, you aren't about improving society, you aren't about anything noble at all, you're just a self-serving hypocrite- just like the rest of us. The difference between us is I know it.
Wow! All I can say is I try to be as noble as I can within the restrictions of being just another person. My stance on Evolution is not based on idle opinion. My degree in college was in biological science. I spent 4 (ok 5) years looking at all aspects of the biological world and have drawn my conclusions from that. I have also purchased and studied many "scientific creationism" books over the years and have found all of them to be bad science.
Creation didn't happen as described in the Bible...if it did God is some merry trickster testing us with intellectual land mines.
Consider this: God has become less and less necessary over the centuries as science and the ingenuity of Man comes up with more and more answers to the questions our forefathers took as unanswerable. Is this proof there is no God? NO! But it does require much more faith in God if evolution is accepted than if it is not. So who is the more religious man? The evolutionist who believes in God or the Christian who blindly follows the literal interpretation of the Bible?
-
we are the result of the universe consuming to many chili dogs, call it what you want, just stop flattering yourself thinking in our present state we are anything more....
-
I cannot help you if you fail to see the fundamental hypocracy of being adamantly open-minded of sexuality classes in school for the sake of "spreading understanding and tolerance", yet at the same time being apparently terrified children might be exposed to religion in the classroom. You are doing precisely what you rage against religion for doing; pushing your mores upon others. Toad was closer to what you appear to suggest you are, that is, teach all of it and let people decide. Me, (being in the profession) I know that is not practical- there isn't enough time in the day to do it, even if we could all decide what is acceptable.
I say neither should be included, as we as a society cannot determine where the lines of acceptability are. I say both should be handled by parents and churches.
You aren't being open-minded, you are being fickle, selective, and hypocritical. If you are a "scientist" as you posture yourself to be you would seek knowledge. If you had taken that approach I could understand your need to see homosexual studies in school. As it is you are just another agenda-pusher to me. Clothe it all in the buzzwords of the day, but it is the same thing.
-
Target: Humans have risen to the hights because we stand on the shoulders of giants. We have the ability to take knowledge from past generations and use it to further the next. I care very much what they teach.
Yeah... and a very large number of those "Giants" were taught the Creation myth you so despise in their youth.
Go figure.
Guess the knowledge from those poor misled giants gave us this "knowledge from past generations" and some other "unenlightened" giants used that to further the next. And so on and so on and so on.
Pretty ironic, huh? :D
I really don't think the teaching or not teaching of a Creation Myth is going to totally stymie the forward progression of humankind's scientific knowledge.
I think you've got an axe to grind and this is a tempest in a teapot.
Did it matter if Copernicus believed the Creation Myth or not?
Did it matter if Einstein believed the Creation Myth or not?
Did it matter if the inventor of the Hostess Twinkie believed the Creation myth or not?
BFD.. They're YOUR kids. Guess where the responsibility lies.
Or do you sluff all that "teaching religion, sex, honor, character" stuff off on the schools and other minor government functionaries?
Kieran, spot on in just about every respect.
-
I NEVER suggested teaching "sexuality" in schools. Go back and read again. I suggested teaching tolerance. Sex education in school should be retricted to the biological aspects only. This is not a change of heart, it is consistant with everything I have ever posted.
Educated people CAN agree on the general method by which life on Earth got to the point we see today and they do. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist. Big difference between training for a science and using it. I taught science briefly before moving into the private sector. I am not a scientist.
-
Hblair Isaiah 40:22 reflects the common belief of those times that the sky was actually something solid above people's heads protecting them from all kinds of nasty things. The stars and the moon were either hanging from it or merely holes in the cover - a terracentric system.
The protective part of course was somewhat accurate even though the atmosphere is not solid.
-
Originally posted by Tumor:
Added for the amusement of the truly intolerant. I believe in both. I believe GOD IS the missing link. I think your average Christian puts way too much "spiritualism" or "magic" for lack of a better description into the God thing. I do NOT think "God" as taught to us in "Bible" fashion could possibly be such a completely hateful and mean spirited bieng as "it" is portrayed. I mean really, be honest with yourself. How can you be so loving and blah blah and send people to
'hell" who've never even heard of you, FOR NOT BELIEVING IN YOU? Completely ludicrous
Exactly how i feel. thanks for putting it into word form for me, tumor :)
hblair:
Those who are trying to mix evolution and the Bibles account of creation think of this, According to the book of Genesis God created mature creatures, (not newborns), a mature Man and Woman, "Great Whales", Cattle, etc...
Sooo, Would God not also create a mature (already aged) earth?
Ponder the thought.
Where do the dino's come from? Why, God make 65,000,000+ year old bones and buried them :D exactly
-
Octavius obviously you haven't read Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
-
How then shall we teach tolerance without discussing what we are being tolerant of?
Sure, we can model tolerant behavior.
Sure, we can use catch-phrases that accentuate differences.
Sure, we can celebrate uniqueness in culture and customs.
But we aren't doing anything specific there. Not that I have a problem with that, but it is not the same as replying to my comment "homosexual studies do not belong in school" with "we need to teach tolerance."
I know a nice guy that is gay. I don't want to be his friend, yup, because he represents a lifestyle I find reprehensible. I am polite, helpful, and have even defended him against those that publicly bashed him for being gay. Still, he is not my friend and never will be. I could live next door to him, I could work next to him, and as long as he never mentions his lifestyle, we could talk. But that's it.
I can show him respect, but I will never approve of his lifestyle, nor will I ever be a part of spreading it. How tolerant is that?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Says "circle" but really meant "sphere?"
The translated "circle" comes from the old hebrew word "chuwg" meaning encompass, draw round.
-
and when the ancient asians thought that the world was on a giant lotus flower it was just code for what they really meant right?
you see lotus leaves are kinda eliptical and planet orbits are slightly eliptical right? right? thats what they meant...it could be..... :rolleyes:
ever seen a god....any god? why are the other 75 zillion religions wrong and your jew/christian thingy is right?
i mean theres thousands of gods floating around according to the thousands of fantasy stories about them but the closest anyone has ever come to seeing them is some mexicans finding the virgin mary in everything from treesap to a reflection in the bathroom window. thats because your imaginary friend is the real one and the others are all fake huh...
come on, wake up... why are you all trying to make silly myths match the real world?
still primative after all these years. a bunch of cowering hairless apes worried that an invisible man is watching them from space...thats hilarious
-
Sure, we can model tolerant behavior.
Sure, we can use catch-phrases that accentuate differences.
Sure, we can celebrate uniqueness in culture and customs.
But we aren't doing anything specific there. Not that I have a problem with that, but it is not the same as replying to my comment "homosexual studies do not belong in school" with "we need to teach tolerance."
Sounds like you have the start of a good curriculum already. Model tolerant behavior, accentuate differences and celebrate uniqueness.....I would support that.
Toad:
Pointing out the inaccuracies of the "Giants" of the past is ridiculous.
The point is that each new stride was based on the ability of that man or woman to look past the accepted paradigms and say what if. We need to celebrate that ability to say "what if" and Creationism based on the Bible says just the opposite. It says you have to take this on faith no matter what. Shut down your brain and don't question this book.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
ever seen a god....any god? why are the other 75 zillion religions wrong and your jew/christian thingy is right.
...
the closest anyone has ever come to seeing them is some mexicans finding the virgin mary in everything
If they saw the virgin, that could not have been the right Mary or they were not christians.
The word in Isaiah almah means "young woman" with no implication of virginity for which hebrew has different word bethulah .
The translatior into greek used word parthenos which does usually mean "virgin" - kind like ambiguous "maiden" in English.
Matthew quoted that mistranslated greek version when he said "... Behold, a virgin shall be with child,... "
Modern versions of Bible correctly give "young woman" in Isaiah but they also correctly leave "virgin" in Matthew since they are translating from greek in which he wrote.
miko
-
You're pretty conflicted there, TG.
Toad is referring to the idea that knowing and understanding religion doesn't mean you necessarily believe in it. He is saying an understanding of religious doctrine doesn't equate to accepting it. He might even be saying an understanding of history requires to some extent the understanding of forces that shaped it. He is also stating many of our protagonists for advancement were knowledgeable of religion, and by all appearances it didn't cripple their ability to advance civilization.
What you are suggesting is it is an offense to be exposed to it, that it has no historical value, and that any reference to it in a curriculum is without cause.
-
We have mandatory religious lessons at school..
I never liked them because I've never been religious and the religions appear crazy to me. However now later on I've found the knowledge useful, I know something about most of the biggest religions out there.
Probably it would have been better if they only gave lessons without having exams and giving degrees from it. Tests are the limit for me where studying becomes work instead of fun.
-
The best, most convincing argument against christian creationism I ever saw was one sentence by Darwin himself.
It has nothing to do with mechanics of evolution etc. but rather the existance of life as a design of a christian Creator.
Just curious, anyone else saw it?
Here it is:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice
The wasp paralyses the caterpillars, but does not anesthetise them, so they feel every moment of their slowly (days) being eaten alive while unable to control a single muscle to do anything about it.
If you can imagine a more terrible, cruel situation, you have a way more wild imagination then I do.
It is just one of a multitude of such examples. That directly contradicts the of infinite mercy attributed to the Creator by christians.
miko
-
I just don't see it that way, but the board doesn't need to see Mr.Fish and me go through this one again. Suffice to say that isn't to me an "all-compelling" argument against the concept of religion.
-
The point is that with religious issues, we should respect the view of the believers and the believers should also respect the view of ours. As long as we don't stuff eachothers with our ideology, everything is quite fine..
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You're pretty conflicted there, TG.
Toad is referring to the idea that knowing and understanding religion doesn't mean you necessarily believe in it. He is saying an understanding of religious doctrine doesn't equate to accepting it. He might even be saying an understanding of history requires to some extent the understanding of forces that shaped it. He is also stating many of our protagonists for advancement were knowledgeable of religion, and by all appearances it didn't cripple their ability to advance civilization.
What you are suggesting is it is an offense to be exposed to it, that it has no historical value, and that any reference to it in a curriculum is without cause.
You know what Kieran...I'm getting pretty sick of being called hypocritical and conflicted. Please try to stick to the issues.
I have no problem with Religion...I have a problem with teaching Biblical Creation as science.
As to our protaganists for advancement being hindered by religion, there are numerous examples.
1. Who burned the Library of Alexandria?
2. Ptolemy (the scientist not the Pharoh) made a model of the universe that was incredibly complex and wrong because he was working under the assumption that God could only make "perfect" shapes and the only "perfect" shapes (in his time) were circles. Not to mention the Earth had to be in the center.
3. Even until the late 19th century scientists were convinced there had to be some kind of "ether" that carried light through space. This is a direct offshoot of the planetary spheres and other hocum that religious scientists kept inventing to maintain the literal nature of their beliefs.
Yes even very religious men made great discoveries. You are right about it not crippling their abilities. You are wrong if you feel that it didn't hinder them at all.
-
Why is it that whenever religion, particularly Christianity is brought up on this board, and people comment on the subjects that get brought up in the threads, people get so pre-disposed on slamming the Christians?, that they prematurely ejaculate all over themselves getting all worked up over getting their insults out. Mrfish's reply is a prime example. ;) Why the venom? All I did was ask a question or two, and offer up a possible answer. We can have discussions like this and learn things from each other, no reason for being a meanie. :)
-
;)
-
What was the point behind your question to me hblair btw?
-
why the venom?
because religions f's up the whole world and shut peoples heads off and its irritating.
heres the patent response for that of course: religion doesnt make problems people do and when everyone accpets jesus everlovin grace everything will be ok....
right? :rolleyes:
everytime i turn on the tv and see people holding hands and swaying and having a 'religiogasm' all i can think is what a bunch of weakminded losers.
it is a cheap drug for poor uneducated superstitious people and nothing more.
go anywhere in the world where people have nothing and are miserable and they will always turn to religion. they dont have a pot to piss in but they --->bought<--- a picture of the pope and hung it on the wall.
they got 11 kids running around because they are afraid to go to hell for using birth control but the pope sits back on a golden throne with a million servants.
its hipocritcal and useless. everytime you confront a christian they roll their eyes back in their head and start chanting the same old nonsense - big wafty sayings about god's grace.
it is a cheap escape for people who cant stomach the truth.
keep your fantasies i'd like a safe world some day - one without the murderous compulsions brought on by religion.
-
Originally posted by hblair
Why is it that whenever religion, particularly Christianity is brought up on this board, and people comment on the subjects that get brought up in the threads, people get so pre-disposed on slamming the Christians?,
because you people are always trying to force your bs on us! and now you are trying to indoctrinate kids in public schoools thats why.
-
It's nothing against Christianity in particular HB, it's just the dominant religion here. I assure you if they wanted to teach kids the proper method to kill chickens in order to see the future I'd be equally opposed :)
-
Mr.Fish, I don't agree with your point of view in the least- no probs, don't have to. I will say you are completely wrong about public education teaching religion. Civil liberties unions live for that kind of thing. Sure, occasionally the word "religion" may be said; but as far as a state-sponsored indoctrination? Not in my country. What country do you live in?
-
Religious studies can be offered as an elective in schools. Should it be there? I dunno, depends on how it is approached if you ask me. If it is a cursory glance at the workings of the world's major religions, sure- it might help us poor Americans better understand the root cause of some the longest lasting conflicts. OTOH, if the intent is to focus heavily on any particular religion, then no.
In no case should an attempt be made by a school (other than parochial) to forward any religion as the one and only.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Religious studies can be offered as an elective in schools. Should it be there? I dunno, depends on how it is approached if you ask me. If it is a cursory glance at the workings of the world's major religions, sure- it might help us poor Americans better understand the root cause of some the longest lasting conflicts. OTOH, if the intent is to focus heavily on any particular religion, then no.
In no case should an attempt be made by a school (other than parochial) to forward any religion as the one and only.
No argument on any of that...well said.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
In no case should an attempt be made by a school (other than parochial) to forward any religion as the one and only.
why do you say that? as a true christian you had better be for christian education in public school!
you have a christian duty to spread the word of christ to everyone you see fervently and relentlessly with all your abilities.
at least that's the way i interpreted the bible when i read it. if i were a christian i'd be preachin every minute of every day. otherwise yer just blowin smoke...
-
When we went around the first time, I felt you were possibly offended by a discussion I had with St.Santa. After witnessing your vehemence unleashed on Hblair, who has done nothing to provoke you, I realize it is you that has issues to resolve.
If you have rejected religion, don't condescend to tell me how to be religious. I happen to believe you don't understand it at all, and see the pointlessness of arguing with you about it.
I would like to see the proof of the overt state-sponsored program to indoctrinate our children into a national religion? I could understand and justify your anger, then.
-
"Did it matter if Copernicus believed the Creation Myth or not? "
Believing the "Creation Myth" is not the point....using the Bible as a science text is the point.
"Copernicus's heliostatic cosmology involved giving several distinct motions to the Earth. It was consequently considered implausible by the vast majority of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers of succeeding generations before the middle of the seventeenth century. Its notable defenders included Johannes Kepler (1571 -1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642). Strong theoretical underpinning for the Copernican theory was provided by Newton's theory of universal gravitation (1687). "
Galileo had a little trouble with religion on this one....look it up.
And based on the delay in acceptance of his theory so did Copernicus. (even though he was dead) The fact that Copernicus didn't publish his ideas until he was on his death bed speaks volumns about how religion has undermined and attempted to thwart the expansion of knowledge.
"And yet it turns" - GG
-
Originally posted by mrfish
why the venom?
because religions f's up the whole world and shut peoples heads off and its irritating.
heres the patent response for that of course: religion doesnt make problems people do and when everyone accpets jesus everlovin grace everything will be ok....
right? :rolleyes:
everytime i turn on the tv and see people holding hands and swaying and having a 'religiogasm' all i can think is what a bunch of weakminded losers.
it is a cheap drug for poor uneducated superstitious people and nothing more.
go anywhere in the world where people have nothing and are miserable and they will always turn to religion. they dont have a pot to piss in but they --->bought<--- a picture of the pope and hung it on the wall.
they got 11 kids running around because they are afraid to go to hell for using birth control but the pope sits back on a golden throne with a million servants.
its hipocritcal and useless. everytime you confront a christian they roll their eyes back in their head and start chanting the same old nonsense - big wafty sayings about god's grace.
it is a cheap escape for people who cant stomach the truth.
keep your fantasies i'd like a safe world some day - one without the murderous compulsions brought on by religion.
Hey I really appreciate you painting me with a big wide brush like that. Put me in the same boat with people who aren't even really Christians, eh? Is that the easy way, just pull up your worst memories of people who *claim* to be christian, then say they are all like that? Don't bother investigating the facts. From the post above, it would seem you are more close-minded and judgemental than the people whom you are accusing to be.
-
your people can't even keep their house in order. shouldnt every christian be able to defend christianity?
you have hundreds of denominations some that are killing each other.
there is one body of christians and the fact that it is fractured isnt my problem. if anything it shows the weakness of the organization.
they cant even put out a consistent message why should their view be taught in school?
-
Originally posted by mrfish
your people can't even keep their house in order.
Who are my *people*? What house?
Originally posted by mrfish
shouldnt every christian be able to defend christianity?
Yes.
Originally posted by mrfish
you have hundreds of denominations some that are killing each other.
No I don't. I'm a member of the church of Christ. Most denominations are not doing what the Bible says.
Originally posted by mrfish
there is one body of christians and the fact that it is fractured isnt my problem. if anything it shows the weakness of the organization.
Or, most people who say they are Christians aren't Christians after all. (You know, that verse in Matthew you went over when you read all the Bible)
Originally posted by mrfish
they cant even put out a consistent message why should their view be taught in school?
errr, When did I say it should be taught in school? I'm not one of these who pushes for "prayer at the flagpole". If people want to pray they will pray. I also believe evolution should not be shoved down our throats as well.
-
Better wipe the spittle from your lip...
-
doh.
-
Originally posted by hblair
errr, When did I say it should be taught in school? I'm not one of these who pushes for "prayer at the flagpole".
you are compelled by the bible to spread the word every chance you get.
it seems lukewarm not want the message at schools, but what do i know.
-
Jesus walked straight out of his home town when it became obvious people would not listen to him. There comes a point when even the most ardent supporter realizes the words will not be heard. To continue the protest does more harm than good in some cases.
You aren't receptive, you can't even look at a person's perspective objectively. When you're ready to talk about it seriously, I'm sure God will put someone there for you.
-
We've got a door knocking deal coming up in a month or two. Whereabouts in frisco do you live? and do you own a shotgun?
:) :eek: :) ;)
-
shiiiii......they betta bring a fan cause it's gonna get awful hot with all that pritchin' and a-glorifyin'......send your heaviest hitter.
;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I know a nice guy that is gay. I don't want to be his friend, yup, because he represents a lifestyle I find reprehensible. I am polite, helpful, and have even defended him against those that publicly bashed him for being gay. Still, he is not my friend and never will be. I could live next door to him, I could work next to him, and as long as he never mentions his lifestyle, we could talk. But that's it.
I can show him respect, but I will never approve of his lifestyle, nor will I ever be a part of spreading it. How tolerant is that?
I think this is a fairly bad thing. Don't get me wrong, not trying to offend you Kieran, but you've done for this guy everything any true freind would do for you, probably more. The problem is your still solid about not being his friend. I would think this is disrespectful. In otherwords, you've made yourself Judge and Jury and convicted this guy before he's committed a crime and THAT is what leads to very bad things happening on a grand social scale. (no offense just speaking my mind)
I too used to think exactly like you, however ..lol. My wife worked with a gay man and he ended up being a very close friend of the family. He know's how I feel about homosexuality and that it is not a topic for discussion when my kids are around. I used to think it was hilarious how this guy and my wife would sit in the living room and chit-chat/gossip exactly like a couple of little girls hahaha. Heck I even embarrassed the toejam outta my self once. Here I was in the Den playing Aces High while he and my wife were having one of thier gossip sessions when suddenly someone shot me down and I'm screaming "YOU FU$%*ING studmuffinGOT" at the top of my lungs heheh.....sheesh.
Anyway, you'd be suprised at just how better YOU feel about yourself when you start accepting people for who they are, irregardless of ...a host of variables.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by mrfish
why the venom?
because religions f's up the whole world and shut peoples heads off and its irritating.
heres the patent response for that of course: religion doesnt make problems people do and when everyone accpets jesus everlovin grace everything will be ok....
right? :rolleyes:
everytime i turn on the tv and see people holding hands and swaying and having a 'religiogasm' all i can think is what a bunch of weakminded losers.
it is a cheap drug for poor uneducated superstitious people and nothing more.
go anywhere in the world where people have nothing and are miserable and they will always turn to religion. they dont have a pot to piss in but they --->bought<--- a picture of the pope and hung it on the wall.
they got 11 kids running around because they are afraid to go to hell for using birth control but the pope sits back on a golden throne with a million servants.
its hipocritcal and useless. everytime you confront a christian they roll their eyes back in their head and start chanting the same old nonsense - big wafty sayings about god's grace.
it is a cheap escape for people who cant stomach the truth.
keep your fantasies i'd like a safe world some day - one without the murderous compulsions brought on by religion.
I'll take a group of just about any religion over a single person with such a vile view of other's any day. At least they are NICE! (and please don't point me at extremists). This is just as bad an attitude as any racist view on the planet. But it's ok to hate religion because religion teaches nothing but hate, chaos and intolerance...right? Nice mfish real nice.
-
Don't confuse the fact I won't befriend a gay to mean I hate them, I don't. I will treat them as any other human being. What I cannot do is surround myself with people whose lifestyles I strongly disagree with. We fundamentally teach our children the same thing, right?
I wouldn't stand by and let anyone helpless be abused, regardless of how I felt about them.
-
If you had to be trapped for five years on a desert island with either an aggressive homosexual or a Jehova's Witness, which would you choose? ;)
-
thats a tough one err....ummmmm.....is the homo a mormon?
-
I had a friend who was Jehova's Witness..
He was a nice guy, seemed ordinary except maybe for his music taste (KISS, showing satanic symbols with his fingers..) But otherwise quite mellow and nice guy.
Then he started preaching about his religion, sent us audio tapes of thier version of the bible etc.. I protested to this and started my own religion (we were lower grade school back then..)
I named it Simowah's Witnesses (My first name really is Simo) and I immediately got 2 followers from the class.. LOL.
He later told me how dangerous it is to play with such things, for he has seen his mother and father doing exorcist trips to haunted neighbourhoods.. He claimed with a serious face that this haunted house had cups and dishes flying in the air - paranormal activity and his mother removed the evil spirits with the power of God. I had to slap myself to make sure I was still awake and not dreaming.. I realised that the parents had totally brainwashed these kids, feeding them all kinds of horror stories. Completely disgusting.
We have to keep in mind that there aren't any proven paranormal confrontations untill this date, even with the $10 000 prize money the scheptic society will award to the person who first proves a paranormal incidence in a controlled non-cheatable enviroment.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If you had to be trapped for five years on a desert island with either an aggressive homosexual or a Jehova's Witness, which would you choose? ;)
I'd have to go with homosexual hahahah. I've had plenty of visits by JW's and oh man. In the setting you offer I'm sure nothing short of mild violence would be required for 10 minutes peace and quiet.
-
Sorry to hijack this thread back to the original topic.
Creationism and evolution are both irrational, but at least creationists don't pretend to be rational, anything that flies in the face of scientific fact is simply a matter of faith.
Evolutionists use natural selection to explain way to much about the life we see around us. Just take a sterile planet, move a star close enough, but not too close, and voila: life. What a crock.
There is no way random events will cause chemicals to arange themselves into increasingly complex forms. The simplest life form is infinitely more complex than any machine man can build.
If life was just a matter of mixing the right chemicals with the right amount of energy it could be duplicated in a lab. But not only can it not be done, there's not even a theory on how it could be done. We are supposed to believe that the chemical forumula which triggers spontaneous life has eluded us for now.
Not to mention that the fossil record offers no support for evolution at all.
People who believe in evolution simply don't want to admit that we don't know how life came into being, or why it is so varied. Which is why these kind of discussions quickly turn into rantings about how ignorant religion is. As though atheists have been the true source of man's progress through the ages.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
Not to mention that the fossil record offers no support for evolution at all.
ra
Huh?
-
Kieran: He is also stating many of our protagonists for advancement were knowledgeable of religion, and by all appearances it didn't cripple their ability to advance civilization.
Thanks, Kieran. The whole thing was spot on, this is the salient point.
Target, that's it. That's what I'm saying.
"It just don't matter."
All of mankind's strife, killing, abuse, stupidity, sorrow, etc., in the world since the beginning of time... related to religion as well as that totally UNRELATED to religion...
and here we still are. Plodding along into the future, making progress all the time.
Teaching or not teaching Creationism in US schools isn't going to make much difference, if any at all.
Tempest in a teapot. Laugh and press on with your life.
"And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
Bet you like that one, eh? :D
-
you people have entirely too much time on your hands:)
-
'If life was just a matter of mixing the right chemicals with the right amount of energy it could be duplicated in a lab.'
Actually the scientists have proven that given the circumstances they suspect earth had before life started, molecules start interacting in a way which could evolve to a simple form of organic life.. The problem naturally is that no scientist has 10-20 billion year cycles to test this theory on a testing bowl.
One other theory is that life was originally brought to earth from a meteor. They've found traces of bacteria from meteors that they dug from the north pole ice.
How would creationism explain the fossils anyway? Or oil that we burn every day. Or the natural gas you use for cooking.
-
The only trouble with going with the meteor theory is it only replaces the question of, "How did life start here" with, "How did life start there?"
-
Ah come on, you guys are getting pummeled by Mr.Fish. I'm Methodist, and believe in the dude upstairs. Your not supposed to let these guys that are going straight to hell whip us so badly.
"still primative after all these years. a bunch of cowering hairless apes worried that an invisible man is watching them from space...thats hilarious
That's pretty funny.
I never was impressed by atheists as a whole, as they kinda seemed just like the rest of us, but weren't clever enough to try and explain why were all here, and hopeless enough to not have any faith at all.
Regardless, this reminds me of FM and weapon lethality threads. Just AH players slapping eachother around about more things they can't prove or accurately back up...
and earns this thread, a Miguel's approval.
(http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com/images/fathatlink7.gif)
(excuse my spelling, I was pry praying in school during that class, or more probable, haven't reloaded WORD after my last reformat)
-
<>
This pretty well sums up evolution theory. It's rationalistic faith instead of religious faith. "We could create life from sterile chemicals in our lab if we had 20 billion years. Trust us, we're scientists, we don't have your simple human failings."
<>
In my case, I don't care as I am quite comfortable acknowledging that I don't have a clue how life came into existence. Evolutionists bug me because they claim to know, yet they only offer vague theories and cool artist's renditions to support their theory. Evolution theory has become the new dogma, not a sign of enlightenment. The emperor has no clothes.
ra
-
except, creamer, atheists say their isn't a god. that's just as silly as saying there is a god - no one knows like you said. however i suspect the gods we have to choose from in this century are just imagined vapors like the gods of every other century...
i'm an agnostic which means i don't really care if there is or isn't a god because either way he's totally irrelevant to my life here on earth.
and you dont have to believe in god to have "faith" i have plenty of faith that once we come out of the dark ages of religion and magic and superstition we can all live happily together on earth.
religion is just a huge monkey wrench in the cogs of progress and gives people one more reason to go at each other.
if you are a christian then you cant rest til everyone is a christian - if you are a moslem everyone is an infidel and you have to wear some stupid hat - if you are a jew then you are chosen and everyone else is schmutz....so on and so on...
you will all never agree on which fairey tale so why not just rely on yourselves? can you be moral without the threat of consequences or does daddy still need to hold yer hand and threaten you with hell? can't you just do the right thing without being told how to think? guess not...most of you are only religious because you were threatened with hell as children and are stil scared.
now here's some smileys creamster: drink!
:):D :confused: :)
-
So, ra, you prefer the superstition approach instead of the rationalizing down-to-earth approach of the scientists?
At least the scientists actively seek knowledge to improve the world. Most recent discoveries explained things that the scientists of the past described miraculous or the act of God for lack of a better explanation.. Yes, even the scientists are often religious. They're just stubborn enough not to believe a 2000+ year old book when it comes to scientific facts.
If all people in the past would have settled to the BS the church and the priests were spewing to the people, we'd still be at the educational level of the dark ages.
The churches actually collected scientific data in thier own libraries to hide them from other people. Knowledge was bad, and who dared to claim otherwise was burned alive. Most village doctors who used the natural cures on illnesses, herbs etc. were burned as heretic. The ones who stayed quiet or hiding, survived.
Religion, crusades, the church.. They have caused so much EVIL to the human kind that it's completely beyond my understanding why they are let to exist anymore. Nowadays the christian church is luckily somewhat civilized - the problem with the fundamentalism has just moved to Islamic countries.
But if you look in the past, the things the inquisition did were such a crime against humanity that I WISH I could go back in time with a minigun and a heck of a lot of ammo. They oppressed, tortured, mutilated, deceived and cencored whole nations for decades.
-
Mrsid2,
If you read my posts you would see that I don't endorse either, I'm from the 'we don't know' school. I'm not defending creationism because faith is faith, trying to hold it to any scientific standards is pointless. I'm just deconstructing evolution, which seems like a psuedo-religious belief to me.
Just because scientists seek a rational explaination for the existence of life doesn't mean that we have to blindly believe their completely unproven theories. Why can't the theory of evolution be defended without bringing in a history of the dark ages? If it is a scientific theory, it should stand independent of man's history. It is not a scientific theory, it is a rationalistic theory, a kind of superstition. It blows the 2nd law of thermodynamics away by claiming that random events cause incredibly complex structures (life) to exist.
I think it's interesting that we live on a planet which is virtually infested with life, yet so far any explanation for life's existence requires faith, one way or the other.
ra
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
Religion, crusades, the church.. They have caused so much EVIL to the human kind that it's completely beyond my understanding why they are let to exist anymore. Nowadays the christian church is luckily somewhat civilized - the problem with the fundamentalism has just moved to Islamic countries.
Yeah, and that ol Hitler fella, forgot him, what faith was he now? Atheist you say? How about Stalin? Surely he was a religious fella? Atheist too? Surely not. hmmm. Weren't they responsible for a death or two?
The arguement that Christianity does evil to the world is pure Hogwash. Sure, misled people have done evil things. But to blame it on Christianity is very weak.
Two examples...
>>I go to the Etowah county jail on thursdays every other month now with a couple fellas from church. Why? To try to sell our product to guys who can use it. What does our product do? Well, it'll change your life for the better. Your life won't center around self anymore, it'll center around Christ and helping others. To spread the truth. We help those guys in whatever ways we can. Guys who have been or are on trial for any crime you can think of (literally). They are still welcome to this Christianity product.
>>A few weeks ago our Deacon of Benevolance got up after our Sunday morning service and told the story of a local woman who had taken on the responsibility of raising her neices children, in addition of her own children, four in all. She has no husband, doing this on her on somehow. Well, sometime in early December, her mobile home caught fire, they lost every possesion they owned but the clothes on their back. Our congregation donated some money at that time to get the kids Christmas. Well, now the family needed some money because she was about to purchase a home. This was after the Sunday morning service, many of the 150 or so people had left. Out of about 35 adult men, there was about $4000 donated right then and there, on the spur of the moment. Sure, she was encouraged to attend with us, but there were no strings attached.
Last time I checked, there were no "Agnostics" on the roll to see the fellas at the jail. As far as I know atheists don't even care about these guys or the lady with the four children. What kind of organized charity works do Atheists do anyway? Oh, you donate to your "cahrity of choice"? That's a lot more convenient huh?
Remember stuff like this when you get on your next anti-Christianity kick.
-
How are they on Video Card upgrade needs? I assume the 'ol Ti500 will get old eventually.
I'd visit and even sing the hymns.
badump, bump -cymbolcrash.wave-
-
there are a million other 'products' that could do the same thing except yours also causes a division. you tell them that now they are better and saved and the rest of the world is wrong, infected with evil and will go to hell.
how about teaching those jailbirds that if you go around stealing and hurting people then you dont get to play with the rest of us? no need for myticism there just common sense.
if they cant figure it out on their own then they are too weakminded to be in the general population anyway. we have a lot to do and no time for explaining to people why they need to behave they should know by the time they are adults.
the last thing they need is another crutch. and christians didn't corner the market on helping people either. most charities are non religious. i raised my friend's kid for 3 years for no other reason than someone had to.
no need for ghost stories there. no threats of hell, just doin the right thing.
-
It's a part of human nature that some become more resolute the more they are challenged. We work with people every day that will deny something right in front of them because they don't want to admit they are wrong.
I know I don't hold the key to Mr.Fish's beliefs, or to leading him to God. The best I can do is demonstrate his anger at religion and anyone religious has no bearing on me. It doesn't make me mad, it doesn't even really make me sad because I have the faith to believe that God will teach and reach him ultimately.
No, Christians shouldn't rest until God's work is done. I just don't happen to believe butting heads in a contest of wills and verbage will help here. From what I have seen, the verbage is too practiced, too polished to be off-the-cuff. What good is going through another round of, "You're stupid, your argument is stupid", as if saying it made it so?
Still, the funny thing is the way you frame it, Mr.Fish. If any of us try to talk religion we are proselytizing. If we don't, we are terrible Christians. Interesting trap you've built there...
-
Originally posted by mrfish
how about teaching those jailbirds that if you go around stealing and hurting people then you dont get to play with the rest of us? no need for myticism there just common sense.
There you go Mr. Fish. There's something you can do. Go down to your local jail this week, visit the inmates and tell 'em that stuff. You can start one of those huge private charities that do so much work. The "Jail-going straight-talking atheist guys". :)
BTW, some of those guys were busted for possession. Do you not smoke marijuana? You could also land in the can couldn't you? Do you use "common sense" (as you put it above)? you are very judgemental of people whom you don't know. I hope you can straighten that problem out.
This is starting to turn into a circus. It is clear that the fish isn't going to follow his heart til I show up at his door with a few guys to rough him up. We'll get you to repent alright. What was your address again? ;)
-
you didnt drive over 55 when the law was set to 55 right?
now you do because the speed limit is higher?
was it immoral before? is it immoral now or does its morality depend on the whim of the law?
i know cops that drink now and thats ok but if they drank during prohibition they were criminals and sinners?
law is arbitrary and never can replace common sense. you wont see me in jail for hurting anyone or stealing - if they want to lock me up for something arbitrary like weed then let em.
if it were legalized tomorrow would that speak of its morality today? you better have a stronger moral compass than just the law.
if you risk breaking the law, then you risk going to jail period. every man has to know that risk and theres nothing a christian can offer you to keep you out of jail that common sense can't.
religion can however lead you into a life of fear of everything and fear of hell though so you weigh the options.
-
Lessee, I agree, illegal stuff puts you in jail sometimes. :confused:
Smoking dope is ok if you're a really good person, yea yeah, all that. Have fun smoking your dope, Hope you face responsibility someday. Oops, forgive me, I don't mean using illegal controlled substances as a full-grown adult with a family is irresponsible. It's really OK. Just don't let the law dawgs sniff you out, and get thrown in jail, because your wife and kids might get a lil embarrassed there. But hey, you're not trying to hurt people, cause you're only bad if you try to hurt people. Right?
Oh well, I'm done with this convo, unless some new material appears (other than comments from the O-club marijuana guild, which I'm sure are OTW now) Sorry I followed this so far off the subject.
:)
-
I'm not making this up. Being from a VERY religious background (which I long ago decided was for the birds) I have to say this.
I've had 3 very good freinds who where athiests. I caught each one (because of my keen religious trainging no doubt lol) make the statement...."God never did anything for me".
Kinda goes along with the old "There ain't no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole" thing.
Human nature makes sure we have something to turn to in time of need. When there's howitzer rounds coming down....there's not much else to turn to.
:rolleyes:
-
HBlair I guess your knowledge of history doesn't go beyond the last century if you claim what you did above..
I never claimed the church to be the sole reason for evil things, evil comes from within - not from the church.
But you have to realise that during the middle ages and beyond, the church was the ultimate instrument of politics and power. The priests had power over the king and the country. The church of the inquisition could well be directly compared to NSDAP or the communist party. Both of which are banned in most countries nowadays - and for a reason.
As I told you in my post the status of the church has changed nowadays and even the people following it have become less narrowminded and enlightened. Just as the people in Germany are nowadays just like the rest of us. Russia.. well.. the system is still reaping what it sow'd there. It will take decades for them to heal, if even then. We have to keep in mind that both Hitler and Stalin were very short periods in power compared to the whole dark ages of religious oppression.
The Taliban people are living the same kind of religious phase like christians did in the dark ages. They had very little knowledge - rules that based on belief not knowledge, rules that prohibited anyone from GETTING knowledge. That creates a deadly cycle where fundamentalism feeds itself by general stupidity of the population. The fact that all churches have leaders really only makes things worse.. If you haven't noticed the system of church is really a dictatorship.
The Pope doesn't hand out votes from his decisions. No, he's giving out the message of God directly through him. Right? He can't be wrong say the catholics. Same applies to the religious leaders of Taliban.. If they say go kill all Americans, that's exactly what the dumb diddlys will do because they know no other law except the one that they have been brainwashed to since being children. A lifetime of horror stories and promises of 7 virgins and a heaven on earth after death does wonders to a 19-year old boy with no education, work or hope for a future.
I have to rephrase: The church is not the cause for evil, but it's a powerful instrument to control people by their superstition for the people who really ARE evil and use their power wrong. Any religion that has a leader who has any kind of power over the other is really a political system. Unfortunately power corrupts, and who could be easyer to be corrupted than a guy who probably thinks himself too that he's on a mission of God and everyone think he's holy. That's the very base of corruption.
And Tumor: That howitzer example is directly comparable to a drowning person. He grabs the last straw even though he knows it won't save him. It's just the nature of a man to try to preserve his life by any means possible. So even an atheist may say a prayer when the howitzer hits, just in case. :)
I really don't know if God exists or not. The world just seems to be a place which does not support the existence of an all-being controlling our lives. Things happen more or less randomly, most of them bad things. The fact that we live in priviledged societies may cloud our judgement. The sad truth is, though, that for each one of us there are 100 or more people in a state of agony and hunger. If there is a God, may God have mercy on them.
Somehow I just think that ain't gonna happen.
-
That explanation just might wash... IF we were all Catholic or Muslim. In the case of Baptist, every person is considered equal and responsible to find information themselves. The minister is the center point of that learning, but is not in totalitarian control. In our church, we have elders that evaluate the minister regularly. If they feel he is moving away from the covenant of the church, then the minister is replaced.
You are correct in the respect religion doesn't kill, it's the men and women who manipulate the religion who do so. This is where I get the quote Exodus where God told the Israelites to "wipe out a country"- yes, He did. Point to a place in the Bible since the advent of Jesus where any country was instructed to do so again.
As to the reference to Hitler and Stalin? Completely accurate and valid. You are all aware that more people were alive in the 20th century than in all previous centuries combined? You are aware the combined death tolls of WWI and WWII exceeded by far the death tolls of all the wars before combined? Millions died in those wars- millions. Both of the world wars were sparked by political reasons, not to further a religious agenda.
-
I think we should look at the length of timeperiods and percentage of the population of the time when we evaluate the severeness of something in the history.
Sure there are more people nowadays, but with your logic it's a lesser crime to kill all the children from a family who only has 2, opposed to killing 4 children from a family that has 10. I don't see it quite that way.. The effect, while being harsh on both, would be far bigger to the family with only 2 children, for they would be left barren.
I have to say I'm not familiar with the baptists church, and from what you said it seems a very democratic and in that sense a sane church. I'm happy to hear there are such institutions also.
You were quoting Bible in your post. So God told the Israelites to wipe out thier enemy? Are you sure that's not what the priests invented in order to run thier own political issues? I mean, how many times since the Bible was written (which was a considerably long time btw and many many persons) has anyone been able to get a direct message from God? Sure there are many who claim, as there are many who talk to martians. Yet any proven encounters are missing.
Has anyone thought about this? Why did God stop doing miracles and giving out thundering messages to people about 2000 years ago? Where did He go, what happened to Him?
Or is it just that people nowadays just don't buy all the stories the wandering preachers tell them.
-
WRT the numbers of people killed in the name of religion vs. those that were killed for blatant political causes, no contest- politics have killed more by far.
WRT to time, I would agree, more of human history has been wrapped up in religious wars of one kind or another. Still, the "causes" were in most cases justifications for furthering the desires of the leaders themselves.
As an example, people in America commonly believe Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery; this is not true. Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, period. Only after the Emancipation Proclamation and Gettysburg did slavery become an integral part of Lincoln's plan. Still, it was something to rally the troops, even if it wasn't the real reason Lincoln had in mind.
People can be manipulated in many ways- it may be religion for some, but a quick look at your clothing will probably reveal Madison Ave. has you by the balls as well.
Why doesn't God speak to people in the form of prophets? I believe we've run the course on that in many ways. Man started in paradise and screwed it up (showing he was unfit for paradise). God gives people the law, by which they can live right, but they screw that up too (showing once again man is unfit for heaven, and cannot make himself fit). God sends Jesus to live among us and die for our sins as the ultimate sin offering (and, by having been pure His entire life, trading his blood for our sins).
The whole of the Bible shows that men fail, and that men cannot make themselves perfect. Prophets have come and gone in all that time, but with the first coming of Jesus the nature of religion changed. It was then left to all believers to be witnesses, not just a select few prophets. The Holy Spirit is to be with all believers, not just a few spokesmen.
In this, Mr. Fish is right- it is the duty of believers to speak of their faith and to share the good news. He is wrong where he assumes they are to force it upon anyone- that is impossible. If Moses couldn't break through the hard heart of Pharoah, how could I expect to be able to bull through anyone determined not to be swayed? Until your heart is ready for the message it will be nonsense to you.
-
Well the Jehova's witnesses are trying to half-force the religion to people. I find going door to door sales very aggressive especially since religion is everyones private issue.
Another thing I fail to understand is the sacrifice issue..
Christians believe that they are dirty, no good and not worthy by any means - at least to paradise. They feel that they have to make good for the sins they committed.. Sins which are by modern standards no sins at all, if judged directly from the Bible.
Why did priests stop making blood offerings, sacrificing lambs etc.. Doesn't that please the God anymore?
Who and what for did Jesus sacrifice his life? If his father is the God, why should he die for human sins? So God in fact murdered his own son in anger of the sins of human.
Or was it more like that Jesus, knowing the political aspect of religion at that time, was raising opposition against the powers that be at that time. They saw it, understood what it means and eliminated him like they eliminated hundreds or thousands others before Jesus and after him. Only difference is that Jesus left a myth behind him, many contradicting stories.
Jesus could be seen as Yasser Arafat of the time, fighting the evil Israelis (of course it was quite the opposite back then, funny when you think of it)
God promised the Jews Israel, yet they are forced to commit murder and be murdered every day in order to keep the land. It looks like God certainly does nobody any favours.
I just feel that too many things contradict eachothers, no valid proof has been made of any supernatural intervention and nothing in this world really reflects any intervention of a pleasant higher spirit which God is supposed to be.. Any logical person will sum up the facts and see that either the God is the biggest sadist ever (un)seen or he doesn't exist.
-
Blood represents life; that blood was sacrificed was part of the atonement for sin provided for by the Law. It is clear that man is fallible, even the most atheistic would agree. So, under the Law, man could make atonement for his sins by sacrificing blood (animal). Human sacrifice was not included and was detestable.
Not just any animal would do. The animal was to be pure, without blemish. It had to be prepared in a specific manner, and offered in a specific place. It was expected the man would select his animal from the very finest of his stock- thereby showing his respect for God and recognizing without God he would have no animals at all.
The parallel to Jesus is therefore clear- the one person who walked the earth without sin, the "perfect lamb, without blemish". Jesus was the very best God could offer, a sacrifice of His own son. Through the sacrifice of his blood, mankind's sins were absolved and salvation was possible. After such a sacrifice, no pitiful animal could ever compare. In that move the circle was closed: man fell from grace, failed in the Law, saved through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, given the responsibility to spread the faith and bolstered by the Holy Spirit.
Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary as they no longer serve the same purpose. Jesus said, "I am the way". No animal sacrifice can help you atone for your sins, or will get you into heaven. Only Jesus can do that.
-
On the surface it looks as though God did murder his son. But wait, what's this? Jesus rose from the dead? That's the other part of the message; the body means nothing, only the spirit matters, and for those that believe, the spirit resides with God forever. Jesus served as an example for us that death has no hold on God. In that way, His death in such a public and painful way was absolutely necessary.
You see, suffering is a part of our existance. It is a part we earned when we fell from grace. God does not promise the road will be easy, in fact, He warns it will be very hard. Good people are going to get sick and die. Disasters will claim the innocent. The weak will be trampled by the strong- we see it all the time. The hard thing is keeping the faith that all of this is temporal, yet the spirit is eternal. As difficult as it is for all of us we have to always keep an eye to forever and realize what happens to us here will be nothing but a faded memory in eternity.
The major consistency of the Bible is to turn your thoughts from yourself and to think of others, focusing first on God, then your fellow man. Denial of self is the cornerstone of most religions, in fact. Mind control? Maybe. But we are warned to watch for false prophets that will lead us away from God's word, or to do things He would never have us do. This is where it is incumbent upon us all to learn all we can in order to discern the truth from the lies. Yes, it is ok to be a Christian and to use your brains, too.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Until your heart is ready for the message it will be nonsense to you.
wow straight off the pamphlet!
thanks for summing up succintly what i hate about christianity: if you don't agree with the message then it is some failing in you. when you are thinking straight it'll all make sense. :rolleyes:
you say you are a baptist with emphasis and i guarantee a lutheran or a catholic would do the same thing.
there's even division within your religion and often violence too n. ireland
not a very strong or consistent message if you all can't agree on it eh?
of course someday when i wise up it'll all make sense - until then i'll stick to logic thanks.
-
Your standard reply comes right from the stock quotes as well- you didn't invent fire. FWIW, nothing is wrong with you except you don't choose to listen.
Your dislike for me personally is well-documented. Sorry you feel that way, but if you can come in with the anti-religion dogma, spouting your words as if saying them made them fact, then I guess I am entitled to say my piece, too.
I don't know what happened in your religious upbringing that has made you so virolently anti-religious, but that is the way you come off to me. You seem to just be excessively angry at the mere mention of the word- or do I read your message wrong?
BTW, you ever heard of Zeno's Paradox? Goes something like this...
A runner wants to run a certain distance - let us say 100 meters - in a finite time. But to reach the 100-meter mark, the runner must first reach the 50-meter mark, and to reach that, the runner must first run 25 meters. But to do that, he or she must first run 12.5 meters.
Since space is infinitely divisible, we can repeat these 'requirements' forever. Thus the runner has to reach an infinite number of 'midpoints' in a finite time. This is impossible, so the runner can never reach his goal. In general, anyone who wants to move from one point to another must meet these requirements, and so motion is impossible, and what we perceive as motion is merely an illusion.
The fact is I could probably, with enough effort, poke holes in all the proof you could provide for any explanation of the creation of the universe. Take the make-up of a star, for instance. How do we know what makes one? How do we know the sun is a ball of hydrogen gas? Has anyone ever been there? Has any probe gone and returned with samples? No? Then how do we know? We don't. We have faith in our scientist when they say they have "proof". Therein is the prob, though; "proving" in science often means you convince other scientists to agree with you.
There's even division amongst your scientists over what killed the dinosaurs. Not a very strong or consistent message if you all can't agree on it eh?
FWIW, where there are people there is violence. That is human nature, not religion's fault, and you'd be a fool to suggest wiping out religion will end violence on earth.
Edited for a clearer example of Zeno's Paradox.
-
real (as in not the discovery channel)science doesn't offer a final answer only a guide and method for the search.
conclusions are subject to change and are only as good as their ability to withstand trial.
cs pierce called it a "sustain systemic doubt" in otherwords you keep your mind open and accept new possibilities as they arise.
religion has the answers case closed. no room for questions. it cant withstand 4 seconds of trial yet you should believe it anyway.
it is childlike and evergreen and fits awkwardly into an evolving world where people arent as desperate and uneducated as the days when people believed burning bush stories and worshiped figurines.
scientists are a lot more civilized over disagreements....when's the last time a scientific argument erupted into gunfire? find any examples on google - if you did how many? is it common? how about compared to religious violence?
all you have to do if you dont like a scientific principal is disprove it - religion has no failsafe. its childlike notions of the universe are set in stone, forever relying on magic and nonsense to explain difficult or uncomfortable ideas.
when's the last time scientists that believed one thing decided to cleanse the world of those who didn't?
your silly paradox only exists because of our understanding of math. it is a language and like a language can never completely convey a cnocept.
any number can be divided therefore you can make a mathematical argument that you could never get anywhere.
a better understanding of math would eliminate the paradox altogether because as we can all see experientially - you can get where you are going.
science never pretends to be the full explanation - einsteins laws modified newtons and some day his will be modified as well....science offers a progressively clearer picture of the world. religion offers campfire stories and a reason to distance yourself from your neighbor...
if you are unhappy with the result that stars are largely hydrogen then i suggest you familiarize yourself with spectral analysis.
there arent any ghosts miracles or animal sacrifices or arbitrary laws about chopping your noodle... but it is still quite interesting.
nothing "happened" to me because agnosticism isnt a dysfunction or a failing it is just what happens when you decide to lose your childish fear of hell and really look at christianity for what it is.
a mess.
people are indoctrinated as kids or in times of weakness and never question it....if you did would you still find it sensible???
whatever floats your boat i guess.
-
Yes, I am familiar with spectral analysis. I recognize Zeno's Paradox isn't a "truth". I understand science beyond the Discovery Channel. Thanks for the appraisal nonetheless.
If you are going to prove science is more consistant than religion, you'll have to do much better. All you have proven so far is history can be rewritten when a new theory arises.
I forgot, what minister invented the atomic bomb? Which nun invented germ warfare? Oh, wait, these were scientists, weren't they? You look it up on Google if you like. While you are looking, see if it was a monk that invented machine guns, assault rifles, and tanks.
Your continued assertation religion has sparked war is true to a point, but it is by no means the sole purpose for wars. Most wars are in fact originated in disputes over resources or land. Should we dissolve all borders and boundaries and become one world country- that would after all eliminate border disputes, wouldn't it?
You're going to have to do better than that.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Should we dissolve all borders and boundaries and become one world country- that would after all eliminate border disputes, wouldn't it?
good idea!
-
I was raised in a family of atheists. I came to religion in my early thirties (which interestingly you managed to turn into an insult the last time I mentioned it). Funny, I have never been more at peace with myself and the world around me. I can still read the same newspapers, technical journals, and political rags and I still have full use of my faculties when doing so. I don't find myself conflicted in understanding the scientific reasoning behind a particular theory or concept whether it agrees with my religion or not.
Getting religion does not equate getting a lobotomy.
-
Returning to my original question, doesn't blood sacrifices sound paganic to you?
Who defines sin? God. Who do you answer for those sins for? God. That leaves the question why did his son have to die for our sins. There simply is no logic folks.
If God is the one demanding a blood sacrifice, he would not send his son to die to pleace his own demands. Thats a contradiction in terms! And what happened to the sacfrifices anyway, nobody does them anymore - and even if did they'd be put to jail probably or an asylum.
Just face it, it was an ancient ritual taken from the earlier religions. People made ritual sacrifices because it was the habit of the time. Also I'm pretty sure the sacrificed meat (not Jesus's I hope :)) was consumed by the priests, that's why there were strict rules how you must prepare the meat for sacrifice (lightly grilled, some salt and pepper and some herbs, thanks)
As what goes for Jesus, he was murdered for political reasons. The jews then made up the story, digged out his body and spread the word. Jesus became a martyr just like the small palestinian boy that the Israeli security guards shot dead in front of his fathers eyes. The terrorists that crashed WTC are martyrs in the eyes of the Taleban supporters. In their minds they now spend luxury time in heaven with 7 virgins at their use. :)
I think the bottom point is that in order to accept religion, a person must make a decision to abandon all logic in order to relieve stress from himself. It's an easy escape to start believing in the supernatural and that some higher force is guiding us through, instead of being responsible for your actions alone.
Guilt plays a big part in christianity. People feel dirty and sinful, they must make sacrifices and suffer because of their sins.. That's just some sort of masochism. Why would God want you to suffer? He was the one who created you as you are. You are His picture. Surely he wouldn't want you to suffer, unless he wasn't perfect Himself either and wanted to punish YOU for his own imperfections. Another thing that does not, folks, make any logic.
I say look yourselves in the mirror. Keep an honest mind. Answer to yourselves to keep a clear heart. You can do that without God - and still be a good person. I was raised to value many of the same things I can see are taught in the Bible.. They're good advice and I can see the wisdom behind it.
It's just so that I make my own way. I make my own decisions. I don't need superstitious delusions to get through my daily life, and I'm happy. My grandparents are religious people, and when I was a child they were telling me stories about Jesus, God and religion. I listened, but never really took them seriously.. As I grew older I could see more and more facts that talked against the whole thing.
OTOH I've prayed in dire situations.. The way I see it, if you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to lose. :)
But things have to be pretty friggin bad before I start grasping the unknown. Like drowning.
-
That was moronic Mrtard2.
Please be entertaining like Fish.
-
Mr Creamhead, you have to come up with better arguments than that if you want to take part in the discussion. Shoo.
-
Your repeating yourself.
-
Only because nobody could yet give any answer to the questions I layed. I guess that's because they can't.
Either they haven't taken the time to think about the issues, or they surrendered to the fact that having a religious belief simply carries no logic.
-
MrSid2, you need a vacation, like 2 weeks up in the Mir station, just you and the universe ...
-
Religion's purpose is to try and answer why there is life and why there is a universe, not how . When a religion begins to tell people how things came into being then it becomes a mythology .
Trying to reason with anyone who has "faith" in a religion, regime, or government is a waste of time . I've never understood what drives intelligent people to fanaticism . Luckily I've never come into its grasp . The world is full of people killing or dying and taking their beliefs to the grave with them, however wrong they are .
-
Congrats Spamm, you even outdid Mrtard2.
I have "faith" in my government and God. Those terrorists my government condemns, will in fact take their beliefs to their graves.
You "grasp" that?
-
If you agree with what I said than why are you hostile with me ?
-
but what amaze me is why, when religious people and agnostic people start a discussion, they tend to compare apples with oranges.
In other terms, it's impossible to compare a religious belief (like the creation mith) with a scientific theory (like the evolution theory).
By definition the religion is based on beliefs, dogma (you use the same word in english?) that cannot be explained, they must be taken as true because is God that say this.
The science (as defined by Galileo) is based on theory, iphotesis that must be proved and verified at any time, valid only until someone else (or the same scientist even) can prove a different, contraddicting theory.
The best compromise between the religious beliefs and the scientific theoryes I've heard was from my Professor of the class of paleontology (sp.?) at the university:
"Evolution and creation are both true: God is the creative force of the Big Bang (the start of our time), and the One that set the rules, and I thank Him for the gift of this amaizing universe to explore".
Nice, uh?
-
Originally posted by Samm
If you agree with what I said than why are you hostile with me ?
Dont worry Samm, it's just Creamo's style ;)
-
...I did answer this question several stages up.
Either they haven't taken the time to think about the issues, or they surrendered to the fact that having a religious belief simply carries no logic.
God gave his son as blood sacrifice to prove we should give all we have to Him. Jesus was also proof of life beyond death. Jesus, being perfect in life, was the perfect blood sacrifice, making further animal sacrifice unnecessary.
I realize I wrote it in a much larger format the first time, so maybe this time it will be easier to find. I find perfect logic in it.
-
LOL. I'd like to be in the position to know what purpose the God saw / sees in animal sacrifice. What was the benefit to him? As an all-forgiving and all-being he should not require any sacrifices to please him. That was more like the paganic Gods of the past who were spiteful and wanted blood if someone broke their rules. All in the minds of people of course, since by also your definition, these Gods never existed. :)
Only the God that YOU believe in, exists.
Keep your faith if it makes you happy.. You couldn't convince me of anything though, which was no surprise really.
-
You couldn't convince me of anything though, which was no surprise really.
I believe that, as you basically have yet to acknowledge you've understood a word I've said. Could be the language barrier, I suppose.
God didn't demand blood sacrifice to "please" Him. It was intended as atonement for sin. Sacrificing a perfectly good animal was costly; more than that, the way in which it needed to be offered forced the giver to think about God- which is the part that was "pleasing". One of the purposes of sacrifice was for the giver to recognize that, without God, they would have nothing.
-
Kieran its more than a language barrier.
I just can't grasp why a God should demand costly sacrifices from people for centuries, then decide to end it by sacrificing his own son. Just face it, the sacrifice comes from the believers sense of guilt and sin. He feels (or the priests did) that he should make up his sins by sacrificing his property to the God. After that he is ok again.. So, in order to remove the sin of murdering someone, you murder a flock of animals after that, burn them at the altar and life shines again. Very convenient, yet it lacks any logic again.
With catholics its sin - confess - absolution - rinse - repeat.
The funny part is that most christians feel guilt and think theyre sinners even if they're not breaking against the book.
Of course 90% of people today break against the rules of nutrition, blood transfer etc. that are written in Bible. Those rules were essential during the times when they couldn't match blood types or prepare certain types of meat so that its free of parasites or disease. Now the rules are just senseless and outdated even though they probably saved hundreds of lives back then.
Has there been any documented instances where a person has skipped a sacrifice and got directly punished by God after that?
It is and was all in the persons head. Superstition.
-
Two of Aaron's sons burst into flames for not preparing a sacrifice properly. This is documented in the Bible (I'm at work, cannot look for reference here).
What is escaping you is the process of moving from paradise--> fall from grace--> the Law--> Jesus--> Salvation. The process shows us that, since we have free will we tend to rebel against God. God first shows us we sin; he then shows us we cannot rid ourselves of sin; next, he shows us the price of sin is death (though Jesus didn't sin, His death was necessary for the sins of the world); finally, he shows us that through Jesus we can enter heaven and defeat death.
Animals were used as substitutes for people- after all, God couldn't very well ask people to kill themselves to atone for their sins. The sacrifices were just that- sacrifices. They were also tests of faith- "Do you believe God provides? If so, giving up a lamb from the best of your herd won't matter, you are giving it back to God." This is therefore also recognizing where the wealth you enjoy came from in the first place.
God tested Abraham when he told him to sacrifice his only son (to his wife, Sarah), a son who came after a very long wait. In this ancient society children were part of a man's success, and having no heir was considered a punishment by God. Yet Abraham was prepared to do what God asked of him. God stopped him, pleased Abraham understood where the thing he most loved on the planet came from- God Himself. Abraham proved he would hold nothing back from God, and because of this he was turned into a great nation.
God did no less when he offered the best he could offer to the world- His only son. He held nothing back, and this was the ultimate sacrifice. Once again, how could any lamb ever compare to Jesus? Once and for all, sin could be absolved, but the only catch is you have to believe Jesus did it for you and you must follow Him.
You speak of "guilt" and pressure from leaders. Do you know what "conviction" is in its religious context? It means the Holy Spirit calls to you and attempts to lead you to salvation. I felt it- very strongly. It wasn't a product of my environment; remember, I came up in a family of atheists. It was simply there, a feeling of overpowering magnitude, something difficult to explain. I have felt guilt before, this wasn't guilt. This was the absolute certain and innate knowledge that I was on the wrong track and needed to change.
I searched for answers, found them, and rejected them. I didn't want to give up control of my life, and excused away the need for me to do so. I used every dodge you and Mr. Fish have dropped on me so far, and many more you haven't thought up yet. I finally realized I couldn't run from it, it was truth, and I needed to look it squarely in the face and for the first time in my life do the right thing.
As I lay there in my bed confessing that, a glow hit my chest, radiating warmth throughout my body, and peace as I have never known before or since flooded my body. I felt it. I was there. I was touched and reborn in that very instant. Nothing, NOTHING on this planet will ever convince me there is no God, as I have felt His touch personally.
I don't have to understand it all, I won't be the most eloquent spokesman, I may not even convince you or anyone else, but I can only speak the truth. I know God exists.
-
But things have to be pretty friggin bad before I start grasping the unknown. Like drowning.
Think on that for a bit.
-
All I can say is that stay strong in your faith Kieran.
You should always do what your heart tells you, we just go different ways on this one.
I realize I can't convince you to change your mind about something you feel so strongly about.. And I don't really want to insult you either.
We may differ in opinnions, but there's no need to fight over them.
Good luck and good future from my behalf, I have no need to continue this discussion any longer.
-
No probs here! Meant no disprespect to you either.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Target, that's it. That's what I'm saying.
"It just don't matter."
All of mankind's strife, killing, abuse, stupidity, sorrow, etc., in the world since the beginning of time... related to religion as well as that totally UNRELATED to religion...
and here we still are. Plodding along into the future, making progress all the time.
Teaching or not teaching Creationism in US schools isn't going to make much difference, if any at all.
Tempest in a teapot. Laugh and press on with your life.
"And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
Bet you like that one, eh? :D
I did!
We have "plodded along" as you say, and have made great strides over the years. What you fail to see IMHO is that the strides may have come sooner, or in greater leaps had not the burden of religious "science" held us back.
Teaching Creationism in school as if it were science would harm our children as much as teaching Christianity as if it were the only answer.
People who compare the Evolution and Creation as both requiring faith are simply not putting in the time to learn the issue. And that is really the whole point. Taking something on faith reduces the ability to look at it with a critical eye. Creationism is faith-based by its very nature, and thus does not belong in a classroom as part of a science curriculum.
ra, Please go back and read the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy exists in a CLOSED system. Unless you view the universe as the closed system it just doesn't apply in this case. But the more telling qoute from you was "I don't care" and that you are from the "I don't know school". Exactly my point. If you don't know then you should care. If you don't care you will never know.
I've been away for a few days, 140+ posts! Wonder stuff in here on both sides (sorry if that sounds conflicted Kieran).:D
-
This is for Kieran:
Xeno and Calculus (http://www.crushingabird.com/pocket/projects/second/poems/patrick_text.html)
-
I wont start on the brain washing bible religions, im sure ive done my part to piss off the christian community. Maybe even opened a few eyes, doubtful because in christianity the blind lead the blind.
But the argue that evolution is not happening, and has not brought us to what humans are today is laughable.
I guess the petrifide in ice glacier neanderthal's that were recently discovered are not "gods" people. They clearly are "human" but with bones structures that are not as "developed" as ours (in the identical shapes).
From single-celled amoeba's at the pools that bleed from the core of the earth, advanced to a multi-celled bacteria that eats away at it we have developed, as all creatures on earth.
Ive seen a study done buy a professor of astronamy/mathmatics that wrote up a eqasion(SP) according to earths evolution that claimed in our galaxy there should be 50,000+ planets with life form, such as ours. I think "god" had his work cut out for him..
-
Do we put you in the "world would be a better place without religion" camp? Can you really be that absolute? If I can, as a religious person, see the need to question what people tell me about religion, certainly you must be able to question the infallibility of science alone to bring about a better civilization. I would think a man of science would be wary of such sweeping generalizations.
If OTOH you acquiesce the possibility we need religion, then you must also consider the possibility the reason we need religion is because there is a God. If you follow that line of thought, not teaching religion would be foolish.
Your argument religion has held back the development of civilization is unproven at best, and unfounded at worst. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Take the Mayan society. It developed its science of astronomy as a direct result of its religious beliefs, yet the system that was developed is technically very sound.
The great pyramids of Cheops are architectual wonders- built as burial temples for god-kings.
Sure, we can point to wars and suffering that occurred due to religion, but we could just as easily look at the good that was done- unless of course you consider the likes of Mother Teresa a terrorist. ;)
-
Not all religions dispute evolution- this is where you show your ignorance of religion. Some religions accept it, except for the point of origin. Evolution could be construed as God's way of "creating". See how open-minded religion can be? ;)
-
If God were almighty could he create a rock that he could not lift?
;)
always liked that one..
--
To anyone who claims that the christians have "calmed down", from all of the mind control, and war paths the reason you feal like this is because you were brought up in there societity, under there terms. Had you been brought up a muslim in some 3rd world toejam hole you would be thinking that it was "ok".
Deny all you like but the US is a christian country, all hands down you cannot prove this wrong.
Ive read senseless post of "what about hitler" "stalin" "blah".. they were not on religous crusades, they had other motives.
What about the Roman empire?? Senselessly slaying clans of men women and children who would not conform. Thats just the tip of the ice-berge, we could probably go on all day about power hungry christian societys.
The salem which trails were not a small group of people, that was hundreds maybe thousands of people accused of whitchery because they didnt go to church on sunday to get guilt-ridden.
I have no doubt you "fealt" something Keiran, i dont want to break your heart but all religous freaks feal something, all of them. Its not the cult like chants your doing that are envoking the fealings, God is not reaching down and touching you.. YOU ARE envoking the fealings, nothing more. Unless your gods great enough to stop buy every other beliefs followers and touch them with his "grace"... :rolleyes:
-
Kieran tell me somehting...
If "god" created all we see, in the sky and alike why doesnt he mention the life on other planets and what he has done for them, i mean you know hes god here so hes got to be god there to right? he created it and all..
Religion is how we are controlled, a person stripped of all of there animalistic traits is the easiest to control, because they are nearly helpless and the need direction.
----
MrFish
just wanted to say great points in all of your post, i truely enjoyed reading them.
the thoeries on hell and how its used to scare people is RIGHT on the money.
Satanism, for example, is the prime "enemy" for christian faith. Simply because 1000 years "before christ", up till now it has promoted the exact opposite of christianity.. thus leading to mental gratification buy fullfilling your animal needs and desires.. This person is hard to control because he will think for him self becuase he is "almighty" and not inferior to any other man. We are all as (maybe less)signifigant as the dust on your desk when you look at the broad spectrum of space and life around us.
-
"Would the world be a better place without religion?"
"Would the world be a better place without science?"
Sounds like a really good thread topic to me.
"Your argument religion has held back the development of civilization is unproven at best, and unfounded at worst. Saying it doesn't make it so."
As long as religion is tied directly to the knowledge base available for study it will limit what can be studied to what is acceptable to the religion. That is what "Creation Science" attempts to do. This is simple logic. It is not the same as teaching "A study on Religion" or "The Religions of the World". On the one hand you have religious control of the curriculum, on the other is open minded study.
As to holding back the developement of mankind.
The Library of Alexandria - Why was it destroyed
"In 412 Theophilus' nephew Cyril succeeded him as Patriarch of Christianity. The Patriarch exercised control of Alexandria, and the conflict between secular and religious authority was decided in 415, when the Roman prefect Orestes, officially still in charge of the province, objected to Cyril's order that all Jews be expelled from the Alexandia. Cyril's army of monks murdered the prefect and were cannonized by him for this deed.
These same monks captured Hypatia, daughter of the Museum's last great mathematician Theon, who was the last keeper of the library. She was a Neoplatonist philosopher and astronomer whose teachings are partially recorded by one of her admirers and pupils, the Christian Synesius, and she was also supposedly an advisor to Orestes and one of the last members of the museum-library. Driving home from her own lectures without an attendant, this independent woman and scholar epitomized the suspect nature of Paganism and its heretical scientific teachings. She was dragged from her chariot by the mob, stripped, flayed, and finally burned alive in the library of the Caesareum as a witch. The Patriach Cyril was made a saint for this action. The library itself was ransanched of any gold or silver and then put to the torch.
Today, several diggings where the library stood, have revealed scientific and historical documents that would have resulted in the industrial revolution having occured 1500 years earlier. Among the lost documents included the methods used to build the pyramids and the parthenon, alchemy, natural plant medicine and utopian philosophy."
1500 may be an exageration - what if we say only 1/2 that long? What have we learned in the last 750 years?
-
Originally posted by Am0n
If God were almighty could he create a rock that he could not lift?
;)
always liked that one..
--
To anyone who claims that the christians have "calmed down", from all of the mind control, and war paths the reason you feal like this is because you were brought up in there societity, under there terms. Had you been brought up a muslim in some 3rd world toejam hole you would be thinking that it was "ok".
Deny all you like but the US is a christian country, all hands down you cannot prove this wrong.
Ive read senseless post of "what about hitler" "stalin" "blah".. they were not on religous crusades, they had other motives.
What about the Roman empire?? Senselessly slaying clans of men women and children who would not conform. Thats just the tip of the ice-berge, we could probably go on all day about power hungry christian societys.
The salem which trails were not a small group of people, that was hundreds maybe thousands of people accused of whitchery because they didnt go to church on sunday to get guilt-ridden.
I have no doubt you "fealt" something Keiran, i dont want to break your heart but all religous freaks feal something, all of them. Its not the cult like chants your doing that are envoking the fealings, God is not reaching down and touching you.. YOU ARE envoking the fealings, nothing more. Unless your gods great enough to stop buy every other beliefs followers and touch them with his "grace"... :rolleyes:
I don't know where to start. :) Kieren, let me reply to this one, give me a few minutes, bz at work.
-
To anyone who claims that the christians have "calmed down", from all of the mind control, and war paths the reason you feal like this is because you were brought up in there societity, under there terms. Had you been brought up a muslim in some 3rd world toejam hole you would be thinking that it was "ok".
All religions are not the same, and treating them as such is not scientific. You seem to continually fail to recognize this point.
What about the Roman empire?? Senselessly slaying clans of men women and children who would not conform. Thats just the tip of the ice-berge, we could probably go on all day about power hungry christian societys.
This one is really funny- the Roman Empire killed Christians, they weren't Christian.
The salem which trails were not a small group of people, that was hundreds maybe thousands of people accused of whitchery because they didnt go to church on sunday to get guilt-ridden.
Nice. Sure, you can grab instances of zealots in all of history, and religion is not alone. Politics have their zealots too- or have we so quickly forgotten Clinton?
-
Today, several diggings where the library stood, have revealed scientific and historical documents that would have resulted in the industrial revolution having occured 1500 years earlier. Among the lost documents included the methods used to build the pyramids and the parthenon, alchemy, natural plant medicine and utopian philosophy.
And once again, you quote opinion as fact. Prove this. You would probably argue that virtuous man would no doubt have utilized to the full all the knowledge contained in that library, and would have shared it with all if it hadn't been for that nasty, repressive religious leader. I could counter just as easily a secular leader may have come along and done the same thing- and it would be just as provable.
-
Target,
The equating of past religious atrocities with teaching creationism in US schools is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Arguing against teaching a "Creation Myth" in schools and arguing against religion are not exactly the same.
Anyway, that's not germane to what I'm saying.
I'm saying that all those "giants" you so revere (and want US youth to emulate) were probably, almost certainly. exposed to some religion's Creation Myth in their youth. :)
Nonetheless, and for better or for worse, that did not stop them from "thinking the deep thoughts" and "making the world/society a better place".
Some will argue that their early exposure to a "Creation Myth" may have driven their wonder and thus their desire for research.
Others will argue that their early exposure to a "Creation Myth" may have hindered their wonder and thus their desire for research.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably some truth in each camp.
As I said, though... it just doesn't matter.
The world progresses as the world progresses.
It might be possible to show where teaching a "Creation Myth" hindered man's progress. I'd also wager there's examples where such a belief may have driven and advanced man's progress.
Perhaps the world isn't meeting YOUR personal need to see progress but once again, I personally feel that there is "no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should".... despite your feelings or my feelings about teaching a Creation Myth in US schools.
As I said... I don't really care. I don't think it is/was/could be much of an obstacle to the progress of mankind. Teach it or don't... I just don't care. Because it really won't make any difference in the "big picture".
-
Originally posted by Am0n
If God were almighty could he create a rock that he could not lift?
;)
always liked that one..
?
Originally posted by Am0n
Ive read senseless post of "what about hitler" "stalin" "blah".. they were not on religous crusades, they had other motives.
Yeah, those "other" moticves were exterminating the entire Jewish population. Men, Women, children by the millions. Are you saying that is a good thing?
Originally posted by Am0n
What about the Roman empire?? Senselessly slaying clans of men women and children who would not conform. Thats just the tip of the ice-berge, we could probably go on all day about power hungry christian societys.
Thanks for making a point. The Romans were a pagan people and many of those tortured were *Christians*. Reminds me of the guy who runs the ball in the opposite end zone to give the other team a score. :D
Originally posted by Am0n
The salem which trails were not a small group of people, that was hundreds maybe thousands of people accused of whitchery because they didnt go to church on sunday to get guilt-ridden.
hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions! tens of millions! (we're up there with hitler now, if it were only true huh?) Some people who were not Christians, just superstitious with a Bible.
Originally posted by Am0n
From single-celled amoeba's at the pools that bleed from the core of the earth, advanced to a multi-celled bacteria that eats away at it we have developed, as all creatures on earth.
They did tell you that this is a theory no? Or do you have faith that it is fact?
Originally posted by Am0n
Ive seen a study done buy a professor of astronamy/mathmatics that wrote up a eqasion(SP) according to earths evolution that claimed in our galaxy there should be 50,000+ planets with life form, such as ours. I think "god" had his work cut out for him..
rofl. This is all fact huh?
-
"This one is really funny- the Roman Empire killed Christians, they weren't Christian."
lol- actually kieren emporer constantine converted to christianity and later it was mandatory in the roman empire.
how it is relevant to me is still a mystery. all it is is a branch of judaism. i mean if you are a jew you believe a messiah is coming according to prophecy - being a christian just mean you are a jew that thinks jesus was that messiah.
you act as if jesus was some blond hippy created by uncle sam just for you like the pictures of him suggest.
jesus is nothing more than the alleged fullfillment of a prophecy of some leper ridden trifling desert people of 2000 years ago.
my father wasn't from israel and neither was his father or his father. was yours?
if i was going to believe in any religion i would probably believe in the religions of the forests and fjords where my ancestors roamed before christianty was shoved down their throats, although their religions are patently ridiculous too.
just because some emporer grabbed up the trendy religion of the day and later passes it on to the powerbrokers of medieval europe who enjoyed its ability to mesmerize and subjugate the masses doesnt mean it says anything to me about my life.
your wacko god creates evil and then tells us to stay away while he invisibly watches and judges he dangles it in front of us for a few decades and then consigns us to hell for eternity if we bite all from his invisible hiding place???.....and where's jesus? i mean what is he waiting for? is he watching from his invisible tower too?
hilarious..... and if i do say so myself it sounds a bit naughty if ya know what i mean.
-
Yes, yes, yes, fully aware of the incorporation of Christianity into Roman society. After all, "Roman Catholics" originated somewhere. ;) This was all later, of course.
I don't act as if Jesus was a blonde hippy, don't know where that line even came from. Sounds like rhetoric to me.
I do believe God/Jesus watches over us, I just don't think it is a situation where I can expect to be saved from all the mistakes I make while I live on this planet. I think Jesus is more concerned for my immortal soul than whether or not I get that new SUV or move in the right circles.
-
Ok Hblair, now although i respect your opionon i never once said the theroy of populated planets in our galaxy was fact, if i did i appoligize. BUT i'll take the advice of a professor over a hick about astronimical therioes any day. No offense. I mean i wouldnt go to my doctor to have my cars engines over-hauled..
If you want to tell me how to catch "the big one down at the lake", i'll listen contently.. but dont shoot down a very, extremely intelligent persons therories when you cant even attempt to argue them.
did hitler slaughter jews for his religous reasons? of course not, he was atheist as pointed out, he thought they were discusting people. The discussion wasnt if it was a good thing, it was if it was religiously motivated.
"Some people who were not Christians, just superstitious with a Bible."
Cmon LOL... Thats a oxi-moron if i ever read one LOL. (thats whats christians are)
About the single celled organism theroy, it holds water quiet well. The spring with extremly hot water erupting from it, the steam alone can mortaly wound you. Scientist have found the most primitive, oldest organisms there. The next clostest organism is a bychondrate, 2 celled organism and they mutate the farther they get away. There is much more to this but it has been some time since i seen these therioes.
--
And im glad you figured out that the romans were christians Kieran. Christiananity, Chatholism.. same toejam, different pile.
At one time yes they were a pegan society, very sucessful one at that.. But then again at one time the Apache indians that populated north america were pegan, but are now christians.. so whats your point? The tortured christians relentlessly.. but now are the same. Sorry i dont know where you were going with that statement.
-
BTW
Sorry for hi-jacking your thread with a religous debate on how christ is blind TahGut, i couldnt hold my self back :D
just for the record, i think that they should teach sceince in school, not religous mumbo-jumbo. Do you know if it deliberately mentioned "god" or "jesus" in those teachings? if so that is rediculous.
As a future parent, the more i here, the more home schooling apeals to me :)
----------
1000 years ago .. "We created the earth, it is flat you will fall off the earth and die if you go out to sea"
today.. "ohh wait, its round and theres "space and time" umm.. we created the big bang that made this galaxy."
OK.. where was the thing that blew up creating the bang?? "space" as we know it was created buy this catashophy. someone ask god for me tonight while your de-grading your self before your sleep.
-
If you want to tell me how to catch "the big one down at the lake", i'll listen contently.. but dont shoot down a very, extremely intelligent persons therories when you cant even attempt to argue them.
Who are you talking about here? Certainly not the arguments you've put forth...
"Theory holds water quite well" still means "I think he's right". Proving it beyond doubt is not possible.
Hitler and Stalin are excellent points, because the argument at that time was how non-religious causes have killed more people in our world's history than have religious causes- and between Hitler and Stalin alone this is almost certainly true. The point for you, spelled out simply, is politics kills more people than religion, so blaming religion for all the evil in the world is misguided.
"Dont shoot down an extremely intelligent person's theories when you can't even attempt to argue them intelligently."
Sorry to edit your words into legible form.
-
As a future parent, the more i here, the more home schooling apeals to me
You're going to make a wonderful teacher. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You're going to make a wonderful teacher. :rolleyes:
If that means my teaching would disagree with yours, im going to have to agree with you.
-
Be sure to teach them that condescending tone and self-congratulatory nature that makes you so endearing while you're at it. ;)
In all seriousness, you'd better think long and hard about the home-school route. If the spelling and grammatical skills you've displayed here are any indication, state standardized testing will be murder for your kids. I am not kidding. :eek:
-
BUT i'll take the advice of a professor over a hick about astronimical therioes any day. No offense.
Hehe, the juxtaposition of these two comments is hilarious. Now, why would Hblair be offended by this? ;)
-
Kieran Wrote: "And once again, you quote opinion as fact. Prove this. You would probably argue that virtuous man would no doubt have utilized to the full all the knowledge contained in that library, and would have shared it with all if it hadn't been for that nasty, repressive religious leader. I could counter just as easily a secular leader may have come along and done the same thing- and it would be just as provable.
But Keiran, a secular leader didn't burn down the Library, it was done in the name of religion. That is a fact not an opinion. Whether that knowledge could have brought on the industrial revolution sooner is a matter of opinion. I choose to believe that more knowledge would have been beneficial. duh!
Kieran wrote: Take the Mayan society. It developed its science of astronomy as a direct result of its religious beliefs, yet the system that was developed is technically very sound.
True, but the knowledge of that system was passed on to only a select few based on their religious beliefs. Only priests or higher ranking members of the community could even read their petroglyphs. So religion once again was a stumbling block to furthuring knowledge. To top that off the Spaniards went on a book burning spree when they entered the new world so that almost all Mayan codices are now gone. I believe 4 exist in the world. So the Mayan religion suppressed knowledge and the Spaniards continued it in the name of Christianity.
Religion doesn't stop knowledge from expanding. It hinders it.
And Kieran wrote: The great pyramids of Cheops are architectual wonders- built as burial temples for god-kings.
Yes, but the plans and methods for building those pyramids are still somewhat mysterious 3000 years later. These plans and methods were all kept in the Library of Alexandria and have been lost to us.
Toad wrote: I'm saying that all those "giants" you so revere (and want US youth to emulate) were probably, almost certainly. exposed to some religion's Creation Myth in their youth.
Almost certainly.
Nonetheless, and for better or for worse, that did not stop them from "thinking the deep thoughts" and "making the world/society a better place".
Some paid the ultimate price for those deep thoughts - Bruno for instance was killed by the church for touting the Heliocentric theory.
Some will argue that their early exposure to a "Creation Myth" may have driven their wonder and thus their desire for research.
Others will argue that their early exposure to a "Creation Myth" may have hindered their wonder and thus their desire for research.
The search for knowledge will only move forward if the "faith" required by all religions is suspended in return for experimentation and question. It could be argued that all of these men and women either forsook their need for "faith' or were limited by it.
Maybe, maybe not. Probably some truth in each camp.
As I said, though... it just doesn't matter.
The world progresses as the world progresses.
It would be further along without the actions of many religious zealots over the past centuries. (See earlier posts but here is another)
Everyone knows Gregor Mendel established the science of genetics through his experiments on string bean plants. He was actually never published in his lifetime, and his writings were ignored until long after his death. You see Mendel was a Monk, and as such did not feel the need to push his discoveries on the world. He was also largely ignored because he was a monk. A little reverse religious chauvenism.
It might be possible to show where teaching a "Creation Myth" hindered man's progress. I'd also wager there's examples where such a belief may have driven and advanced man's progress.
True but not by design. Linnaeus was probably the greatest biologist of his time. And a staunch Creationist. He designed the system by which we still name plants and animals by genus and species. It was this staunch creationist that opened the eyes of another great scientist of his day named Darwin to the possibility that species may indeed not be fixed. This wasn't Charles Darwin btw it was Erasmus. This eventually opened the eyes of this staunch creationist to admit that "maybe the species within a genus can change". It was a small step, but about as big as he could take within the bounds of his religion.
Perhaps the world isn't meeting YOUR personal need to see progress but once again, I personally feel that there is "no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should".... despite your feelings or my feelings about teaching a Creation Myth in US schools.
As I said... I don't really care. I don't think it is/was/could be much of an obstacle to the progress of mankind. Teach it or don't... I just don't care. Because it really won't make any difference in the "big picture".
I think we should always fight for the advancement of knowledge Toad. I never equated religious zealots to Creation Myth. I was mearly answering a question. Creation Myth is not science and should not be taught as such.
-
Originally posted by Am0n
Ok Hblair, now although i respect your opionon i never once said the theroy of populated planets in our galaxy was fact, if i did i appoligize. BUT i'll take the advice of a professor over a hick about astronimical therioes any day. No offense. I mean i wouldnt go to my doctor to have my cars engines over-hauled..
All we've seen is your take on some theory you remember seeing sometime or other. You haven't quoted squat. All you've typed is jibberish you think you remembered. Give us the source of these quotes. Otherwise, anyone could just post any old thing and clain it came from a "wise old professor I once heard of".
IfOriginally posted by Am0n
you want to tell me how to catch "the big one down at the lake", i'll listen contently.. but dont shoot down a very, extremely intelligent persons therories when you cant even attempt to argue them.
I don't fish. Who was that extremely intelligent person? I'm not saying he doesn't exist, but honor him with his name please.
Originally posted by Am0n
did hitler slaughter jews for his religous reasons? of course not, he was atheist as pointed out, he thought they were discusting people. The discussion wasnt if it was a good thing, it was if it was religiously motivated.
Point being non-religion issues have caused the biggest slaughters in history. If you wanna say something like "withcraft is bad", ok, I agree. But it is a fact that no Christian has ever killed as many people as Hitler, or Stalin, or Gangus Khan. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, these are facts, not theory.
Originally posted by Am0n
About the single celled organism theroy, it holds water quiet well. The spring with extremly hot water erupting from it, the steam alone can mortaly wound you. Scientist have found the most primitive, oldest organisms there. The next clostest organism is a bychondrate, 2 celled organism and they mutate the farther they get away. There is much more to this but it has been some time since i seen these therioes.
And this convinces us of evolution in what way?
Originally posted by Am0n
And im glad you figured out that the romans were christians Kieran. Christiananity, Chatholism.. same toejam, different pile.
Now why would you say that? Why the useless hostility?
-
And Amon, please use the spellchecker. Makes it easier for hicks such as myself to figure out what you're trying to say. If you can't use the spellchecker, sound them out or something.
The tortured christians relentlessly.. but now are the same. Sorry i dont know where you were going with that statement.
?
-
The possible number of life bearing planets, and technology bearing planets. The Drake equation.
Go Here (http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/drake.html)
Amon
spellcheck is a crutch
-
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death
Proverbs 14:12
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1
Well guys...that says it all for me regarding this thread.
Cyas Up!
:)
-
Toad:"Nonetheless, and for better or for worse, that did not stop them from "thinking the deep thoughts" and "making the world/society a better place".
Targer: Some paid the ultimate price for those deep thoughts - Bruno for instance was killed by the church for touting the Heliocentric theory.
His death did not stem from his being taught some sort of Creation Myth. It stemmed from religious intolerance. Big, big difference.
Your contention that teaching a Creation Myth in a US school will impeded the progress of the human race is pretty far-fetched, isnt' it?
It just isn't that important; it's a non-issue anyway you look at it.
...and now, this thread is way too long given the lightness of the issue at hand.
Adios, muchachos!
-
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 11:1
Rude has made my point for me. Not denegrading his faith, that is his and I honor it. However it is just the opposite of the pursuit of knowledge...."the evidence of things not seen". Why look if your faith says its not necessary?
or
At the point where the secular concept of reality conflicts with the religious concept of reality....ignore the evidence, denegrate the evidence, teach our children the evidence doesn't matter because the Bible says otherwise.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The possible number of life bearing planets, and technology bearing planets. The Drake equation.
Go Here (http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/drake.html)
Amon
spellcheck is a crutch
Went there:
OK, we stacked the deck by choosing all the optimistic numbers. Go back and put in some numbers of your own. You only have to insert one pessimistic number to drop the number of planets in the Milky Way down to around 1, which would be the Earth. For example, humanity has been technological for only 100 out of its 100,000 years of existence. If you find the thought of a low number of life-bearing planets depressing, that we might be alone in the Milky Way, bear in mind that there are more galaxies in the visible universe, than there are stars in our galaxy. So if there were only one life bearing planet in each galaxy there would still be trillions of life bearing planets. But we will never communicate with or visit other galaxies.
And how likely are life-bearing planets that can lead to intelligent life? Do they require a large moon, such as the Earth has? Such double planets may well be rare, particularly if the Moon formed as the result of a huge impact early in the history of the solar system. Does intelligent life require dry land as well as oceans? What are the odds that the Earth would end up with both oceans and dry land (as opposed to all oceans or all dry land)? We don't really know, but once you start thinking about it, things become rather tricky quite rapidly.
Is it just me or did this site ask more questions than give answers?
-
Toad:"Your contention that teaching a Creation Myth in a US school will impeded the progress of the human race is pretty far-fetched, isnt' it? "
No!
I realize you don't care, you have made that very clear and I am sorry you feel that way. I will try one more attempt at proving it is bad:
Creation Myth - faith based
evolution - based on the scientific method and up for questioning through that method.
Which one is science? Which one says "no need to learn any more, here are all the answers"?
Teaching our children to stop asking the questions is dangerous Toad. I don't see why this doesn't bother you. Tempest in a teapot my ass.
You say "don't worry, humans have risen above these problems"
I say "lets start somewhere above those problems and move on from there."
-
Teaching our children to stop asking the questions is dangerous Toad. I don't see why this doesn't bother you. Tempest in a teapot my ass.
Why ask these questions, when we already have all of the answers?
If you choose to ignore God's truth and manufacture your own, that is your choice. However, one reality remains. One which we all will deal with someday. Death.
It does not suprise me in the least that most do not care to believe in a God who will hold us accountable....believe on his Son as your Savior or die the second death. That's not comfortable or convenient or self serving.
The truth is that while you choose to define life which consists of the flesh, God has defined the life he intended for us to live...through our spirits as well as our flesh. What we have as a gift from God cannot be confined to a lab or simple theory.
It is your very intellect and the love affair you seem to have with it which seperates you from the truth.
Jesus said that no man could come to the Father unless he became as one of these(refering to a group of small children which surrounded him). Children are trusting and are not filled with contention. They are not great. They love without justification. They are humble and weak. They are not smart. They have no need to prove anything.
I have no quarrel with you.
It is what it is and it has been with us for thousands of years...it is nothing new.
Take Care
-
hblair:
I think you missed the real point of the Drake equation. The number of planets with the POSSIBILITY to support life was 10 BILLION in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. The rest of the equation has to do with probability that life created technology. That is the number that reduced to 1 in the Milky Way when pessimistic assumptions were used. This still leaves 100's of Billions of planets with technology in the Universe if the assumption is 1 per galaxy.
-
Which one is science? Which one says "no need to learn any more, here are all the answers"?
This is a false assumption as well. Nowhere is it said Christians, or people of any religion for that matter, should stop learning. Over and over Christians (can't speak for other religions) are warned to be careful not to follow false teachings or messengers. Believers are to continue to search for truth and meaning. You go too far to say believers shut off their minds.
-
Rude wrote: "Why ask these questions, when we already have all of the answers?"
Well finally a Christian willing to lay it on the line. Exactly my point Rude! Why ask questions? To learn from them! The church doesn't want "Creationism" questioned. That is why it is not science! Thank you thank you thank you Rude.
-
Kieran - Faith means to believe without question. Sure you can look for false prophets but never will the search for truth be outside the context of the Bible.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You say "don't worry, humans have risen above these problems"
I say "lets start somewhere above those problems and move on from there."
Last pass. I think MOST of us are ALREADY well above these problems.
:D
-
You Americans are crazy ;).
I'm not sure we have a creationist thing going here, evolution is the accepted norm. I went to a religious school and even there evolution was accepted.
My personal view is that perhaps the Bible creation story is a metaphor(i mean, who the &#^$ really knows how it happened). God might have created the universe structure then left it all to evolution to build up plants and animals and people. Meanwhile he overlooked it all, maybe made some changes where he saw fit. Perhaps he placed the forerunner of man on earth as someone to rule over the other creatures. Maybe thats just a bit egotistical though.
That all sounds good and I would have no problem believing it, but im not convinced by any one explanation. Once again, who the hell really knows? Whos got a video of God creating the world? Whos got a picture of the big bang and a sign thats says 'God is fake'. Who made a time machine out of string and cardboard and went back to see it first hand? No-one. No one did.
Evidence points to evolution taking place. Evidence also points to things happening that can't really be explained and that scientists just guess at. Where DID the dinosaurs go? How DID monkeys become men, and if they did, why are there not lots of different sorts of man(not just ones adapted to their environment). Why are there not dog men(dogs are smart) or cat men or other men descended from intelligent animals.
Once again, im not a creationist but i'm also not 100% sure that evolution is the be all and end all of lifes emergence. My point is, one more time, no one knows the answers. All the debating in the world won't bring the answers to us. No-one will ever know in all probability. Why not enjoy life as it is instead of obsessing about where it came from.
That is all,
gavor
-
The religious side here isn't arguing against science, only the posture from the scientific community here that religion is an abomination, and that the mere mention of the word "religion" is a crime. I have no problem at all with the teaching of evolution. That seems pretty flexible from a guy whose beliefs are supposed to make him inflexible, doesn't it?
-
thanks for the link Tahgut, u the man. :cool:
didnt have time to look for it before i went home from work last night. Even after the link was given per request it was still rediculed, typical.
Soooo HBlair you like boats(seen in ur profile and picture), but you dont fish? :confused:
Sorry i dont have a Thesaurus and a Dictionary sitting here at my desk and use spell checker to impress you guys. Also i dont doctor up my thoughts, and i type over 100 wpm so occasionally i miss-type things.. o'well i wont loose any sleep over it :)
The whole point of this isnt if creatism is right or wrong, it is if it is right or wrong to teach it to our children in "public" schools.
Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)
Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?
Originally posted by KieranI have no problem at all with the teaching of evolution. That seems pretty flexible from a guy whose beliefs are supposed to make him inflexible, doesn't it?
[/b]
No, it doesnt. It makes you sound like a hypocrite. which normal for your faith, dont be alarmed.
------------------
Gavor, yes we are crazy! welcome to the party :)
Evolution comes from a great period of time of adaption to certian climate or condition. There are countless documentiations of this happening today. No HBlair i will not look them all up on google to impress you with my browsing/searching skillz'.
dogs do communicate, they just dont speak our language. Maybe they have some better way of communicating that doesnt require grunting like our lanuage, telepathy or something along those lines. Dont assume that the most vocal species is the most intelligent, we made the "guidelines" of what intelligent is, yet we intelligent creatures destroy the earth and the "less-intelligent" live off of it in moderation.. If you were the earth, not human, who would you think was more intelligent?
-
Originally posted by Am0n
thanks for the link Tahgut, u the man. :cool:
didnt have time to look for it before i went home from work last night. Even after the link was given per request it was still rediculed, typical.
There's a difference between ridiculed and questioned.
Originally posted by Am0n
Soooo HBlair you like boats(seen in ur profile and picture), but you dont fish? :confused:
I confess, I tie the lines to the headers and trawl at 90 mph.
Originally posted by Am0n
Sorry i dont have a Thesaurus and a Dictionary sitting here at my desk and use spell checker to impress you guys. Also i dont doctor up my thoughts, and i type over 100 wpm so occasionally i miss-type things.. o'well i wont loose any sleep over it :)
I can't type either, but I was just saying, try to form your sentences so we can understand them easier is all, no biggie.
Originally posted by Am0n
The whole point of this isnt if creatism is right or wrong, it is if it is right or wrong to teach it to our children in "public" schools.
I think the curriculum thing is a side issue is it not? I think the theory of evolution should be pointed out, and it also should be pointed out that creation should be mentioned also, with a brief unbiased explanation of both. (as do most US citizens in the last poll)
Originally posted by Am0n
Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)
Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?
You are aware of the difference between public and private schools? Public schools are paid for by the public (me, you, all citizens) private scholls are private, and are at liberty to change some of their curriculum.
This was taken from the Gallup poll site:
According to a Gallup poll conducted June 25-27 of this year, Americans favor teaching creationism in the public schools, along with evolution, by a margin of 68% to 29%. However, by a margin of 55% to 40%, they would oppose replacing evolution with creationism.
Originally posted by Am0n
It makes you sound like a hypocrite. which normal for your faith, dont be alarmed.
Fella, you're trying to jab people but you keep missing and falling on your face. Please save face and stop the attempted insults for your own good.
Originally posted by Am0n
Evolution comes from a great period of time of adaption to certian climate or condition. There are countless documentiations of this happening today. No HBlair i will not look them all up on google to impress you with my browsing/searching skillz'.
If you don't want to back up your "facts" with documentation, that's your call.
Originally posted by Am0n
dogs do communicate, they just dont speak our language. Maybe they have some better way of communicating that doesnt require grunting like our lanuage, telepathy or something along those lines.
Did he say telepathy? Like the Superfriends use? Oh that's sooo cool. :)
-
Yes telepathy :)
Hblair you beat around the bush once again, please answer the question. Those statistics mean nothing since the majority of americans are "god fearing people". Yes i understand the difference between public/private schools.. this was a hypothetical question.
Originally posted by Am0n
Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)
Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?
[/b]
-----------
Originally posted by HBlair
I think the curriculum thing is a side issue is it not? I think the theory of evolution should be pointed out, and it also should be pointed out that creation should be mentioned also, with a brief unbiased explanation of both.
[/b]
Why should it be taught in sceince even if it is mytholigy? Thats a whole other classroom. If you teach christian beliefs you'll have to teach the other 100 religious beliefs.. that would get a little redundant. I dont want my children influenced buy religon at there most vulnerable state, when they are open minded to learning.
-
Originally posted by Am0n
Hblair you beat around the bush once again, please answer the question. Those statistics mean nothing since the majority of americans are "god fearing people". Yes i understand the difference between public/private schools.. this was a hypothetical question.
Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)
Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?
If you are speaking of a private Christian school, of course. Why? because the parents are sending their children to a school of their choice and paying out of their own pocket for the Christian ideals, beliefs to be included in the curriculum.
A person would be justified to feel wronged, because they are not getting what they are paying for.
In a public school, there are children of both evolution and creation backing parents, so to say that one view should be taught is to go against the others views. Do you understand that? Private and public education are two different things.
Originally posted by Am0n
Why should it be taught in sceince even if it is mytholigy?
your opinion again.
Originally posted by Am0n
Thats a whole other classroom. If you teach christian beliefs you'll have to teach the other 100 religious beliefs.. that would get a little redundant.
Why would you go into that detail? You'd just go something like "many religions believe the earth and universe was created by a higher form, but has not been proven by science, as evolution is not a proven fact" etc etc. blah blah. :)
Originally posted by Am0n
I dont want my children influenced buy religon at there most vulnerable state, when they are open minded to learning.
as 65% of the population doesn't want their children influenced by only evolution. Yet their opinion is not important to you. Why?
-
Every time you type about school, you prove what you don't know.
There is nothing hypocritical about learning evolution and believing in creation. We (believers) live in a secular world, and in order to do so must understand the scientific principles and theories that guide our society. We must play by the rules and be good citizens. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's
As Toad aptly put it, understanding science does nothing but give the religious an informed opinion of the other viewpoint.
Parochial schools are private institutions with an homogeneous student base. Parents send their children there for the express purpose of learning in an environment from the perspective of their particular faith- completely not the situation of public schools.
Public schools do not teach a religion as the religion because of separation of church and state, not because religion is a taboo subject. Therefore, religion discussed in the context of abstract comparison is allowable, though should be held to a minimum to avoid showing possible biases towards any particular religion. Do not confuse this to mean religion cannot be discussed in a public institution- it only means indoctrination cannot occur.
Any semantic argument concerning whether religion is a science or myth is moot- it undoubtedly has shaped the human experience since the beginning of time. It is ignorant to close your eyes and pretend it never happened.
Typing 100 words per minute would be no sweat if I didn't worry about such minor things as spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence continuity, or accuracy of fact. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The religious side here isn't arguing against science, only the posture from the scientific community here that religion is an abomination, and that the mere mention of the word "religion" is a crime. I have no problem at all with the teaching of evolution. That seems pretty flexible from a guy whose beliefs are supposed to make him inflexible, doesn't it?
And I have no problem with Religion. Unless it becomes the arbiter of thought. I railed against religion in this post only when I was asked to prove religion has been detrimental to learning.
Religion is not the issue here. Neither is the veracity of Evolution. The issue is teaching religion and calling it science. This is also wrong in the reverse, science is not a religion. The basic flaw of religious "science" is the lack of ability to question the hypothesis. I know you are encouraged to seek truth Kieran, but the truth you accept cannot by definition be outside the teachings of the Bible.
-
The question of whether to call it "religious science" should in actuality be determined by which side does the study- scientific or religious. A scientist who pursues the history of religion throughout the ages is no less a scientist than a person who studies archaeology. What you are really discussing here is scientific research conducted by those with a religious bias, and in that I would agree. Call it religious studies, whatever.
To ignore the impact and import religion has carried on the human experience is akin to denying the value of ancient civilizations. Both are fundamental in understanding who we are and how we came to be, and in that sense are worthy of the term "science".
Truth be told, I am not insulted by reluctance of scientists to have religious studies associated with them. I find it somewhat disturbing to refer to religion as a science from my perspective, too (due to the connotations associated with science).
-
Well Kieran, Other than the fact that I feel Creation as described in the Bible didn't happen, and the novel way you had of defining terms in your last post, I think we agree on just about everything else.:)
Don't teach religion and call it science, don't teach science and call it religion.
In the interest of moving this thread to an even 200 I will say this however:
The question of whether to call it "religious science" should in actuality be determined by which side does the study- scientific or religious.
Nope nope nope! Science is a method of study. It is the way to question our environment and all answers are open for question or change. In the example of "creation science" the hypothesis is always "God did it". That cannot be questioned, it is a matter of faith. That is precisely why it isn't science.
-
Target, I noticed earlier in this thread where you said "Evolution happened period". well, doesn't the scientific community still consider evolution a theory? Yet you say it is fact. Doesn't this mean you have "faith" in the theory? Isn't that unscientific, to say that things that are not proven to be so, are in fact so?
Please practice what you preach there Reverand.
:)
-
An aside on religeon and science:
As a teenager, I was in love with science. I really stuggled with my belief in God during this time. I prayed earnestly for some sign from God, but sadly, it never came. Or at least, not in the way I would immediately recognise it.
One Sunday I was standing in the vestibule in back of Church during Mass. I was only there to pick up a church bulletin to prove to my parents that I had been to Mass. There I saw our family doctor standing back there listening to the sermon from the back vestibule doorway. I was tip-toeing out the door and he saw me and winked at me. I then decided to stand there until Mass was over, because I didn't want him to see me leaving early. When the collection basket came around, he put a $50 dollar bill in it.
I was so in awe of this man. He was not only our family doctor, who had eventually delivered every one of the eight kids in my family, but he was also the Chief of Thoracic Surgery at the regional hospital.
I don't know if this was my sign or not, but I've often thought about the devoutness of this man of science, apparently untroubled by the seemingly conflicting beliefs between science and religeon. I never forgot that.
-
Almost got me there huh?
Evolution did happen.
I am convinced of that fact because of the study i have put into it, as are over 98% of the trained Biologists in the world today. Evolutionary Theory refers to the method(s) by which evolution occurred. No faith involved. If a better solution were to be brought forth, I would happily recant that statement.
Reverand? Weren't you the one ragging on Amon to get a spell checker?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Almost got me there huh?
Evolution did happen.
Your faith is strong, unfortunately you can't prove it as fact. :(
Originally posted by midnight Target
I am convinced of that fact because of the study i have put into it, as are over 98% of the trained Biologists in the world today.
98% eh? Who polled all the trained biologists in the world anyway?
Originally posted by midnight Target
Reverand? Weren't you the one ragging on Amon to get a spell checker?
Can't win 'em all. :) You knew what I meant though didn't ya?
-
Nope nope nope! Science is a method of study. It is the way to question our environment and all answers are open for question or change. In the example of "creation science" the hypothesis is always "God did it". That cannot be questioned, it is a matter of faith. That is precisely why it isn't science.
You're picking nits. My point is you can call the study of religion science by your own definition:
Science is a method of study. It is the way to question our environment and all answers are open for question or change.
Put "social" in front of environment, and religion fits. You take one example, creation science, and conclude it cannot be science because you assume the study would always be done by religious people. A person from a pure scientific bias might conduct the research and attempt to prove or disprove such a tenet, might search for the origins of beliefs and link them to real-world causes, therefore placing the study in science.
It isn't a unique way of defining science- it's simply outside the narrow view you have of it. Science is also the systematic study of a particular event, discipline, or natural occurance. It is the gathering of all evidence and data needed to synthesize information necessary to gain a better view of the studied subject.
Are you aware scientific explanations of religious events don't necessarily fall outside of faith? Take the 10 plagues of Egypt; if you gave scientific explanations for what happened I could believe them and be ok with that- of course with the understanding God brought those physical events about.
Believe it or not, I am not the person with the narrowest view here.
-
that's too bad when your argument digresses to digs on someones spelling.
typically pious though.
:rolleyes:
-
Yes, it's all Targets and Am0ns fault. Buncha evolutionist montsters out to get me!
Mrfish, lose the frowny face chum. :)
-
Originally posted by mrfish
that's too bad when your argument digresses to digs on someones spelling.
typically pious though.
:rolleyes:
Too bad when your argument digresses to stereotypes, diatribes, and insults of the intelligence of those holding an opposing viewpoint.
Typical for you, though. :rolleyes:
-
I'm not picking nits, you are avoiding the real issue. Of course you can study religion scientifically. What you cannot do is study science religiously.
Creation studied scientifically must be open to the possibility that "God did it" might be wrong. I don't think religious scientists would be willing to go that far.
hblair:
There are really no absolutes and all "facts" are subject to question. Facts in science simply are views or rules with a very high probability of being correct. When I say evolution is a fact that is what i mean....high probability of being correct, very high.
The study of religion is NOT A PROBLEM! It has been the focus of almost all human activities since writing was developed. It is irrevocably tied up in our history and deserves study. The only concern with religious study is that it might turn into religious cheerleading, and care should be taken to avoid that eventuality.
You are an educator Kieran, and I salute you for that. My view of "science" is based on the scientific method. That isn't narrow, it is well defined and I bet you have used it over the years to run science fairs etc.
1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.
Thats my view...is it narrow? I don't think so.
-
hblair:
I was joking about the spell checker thing....just my stupid way of trying to lighten things up a little. My ability to spell is limited so I am not one to preach.
I thought Mrfish was talking about me there.
-
Those steps are precisely correct in the context of proving an hypothesis, I don't disagree at all. And, I don't disagree that a religious scientist will face the contradictions of facts vs. belief. What you may not realize is it is quite possible to do so. A religious scientist can arrive at the same conclusions about the creation of the universe, with the exception of there being one step removed- God caused (fill in the blank) to start the process in motion. In every other respect the research yields the same results.
You see, no matter where you go with it (creation by nature) you wind up at the same source- something from nothing. That is against the physical laws of the universe as we understand them. Whatever exists had to originate somehow, derived from something. Am I wrong? Isn't this the basis of the "Big-Bang" and similar theories?
So there's your conundrum- instant something from nothing. And how do you prove it? What explanation does science give us for something from nothingness? That something always existed? Doesn't that defy understanding? Aren't we forced to believe that on faith if we cannot believe in creation by God?
-
You are absolutely right Kieran. We eventually hit a wall. What I contend is that we should always look for the way over the next wall, and never just "lay it on the lap of God".
If the wall is the "Big Bang", or even the unexplainable beginnings of a constantly expanding and contracting Universe, it is still a long way removed from Evolution through natural selection as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. The "Wall" has been pushed further and further back by science.....when should we stop looking?
-
The problem I have with religion is the number of different ones. Each believes their religion is THE religion. Even within each religion there are various sub-groups and each of these has a different interpretation of that religion. The common theme in religion is a god(or gods), but all these gods are different(except the islam god, they believe in the same god as christians). So how is a non-religious man to choose which religion is right, if indeed any are?
I'm not a rabid follower of science either, science makes a lot of promises that never come to pass. They denounce things as impossible that are then solved 5 years later. Science cant explain everything, but in general scientists agree with each other. And they can produce proof of what they are saying.
Sorry i'm straying a little off the current points, just ironing out my thoughts before I wade in :).
-
What, dont tell me it's a compromise?! Looks like i may have missed it all! :(
-
After 200+ posts Gavor......compromise?
-
Ya . Wish i'd joined in sooner.
-
And again, the only difference between the religious and non-religious scientists is there is the infinite first step before all other explanations. (Just as there is always "one more" beyond any number, there is always a "one before".) The religious scientist says God created everything, he/she doesn't say how. In that context any scientific explanation is valid, and there is no reason to ever stop learning about the beginning and what has occurred. In the same vein, evolution can exist side-by-side with religion from the standpoint it can be argued by the religious this is how God chose to populate the planet, and is part of a plan. The religious scientist doesn't need to give up faith to pursue answers.
-
Thank you all for a very well spoken discussion. Kieran you are a worthy opponent and I appreciate all of your input...even the "hypocrite" stuff;) .
The only thing better than this would be to do it in person with beer in hand.
-
Yes, and I'll apologize for that as well. So many people jumped in with the "anti-religion all costs" type conversations, and I am guilty of lumping you in with them. In the last few posts I've come to realize this was not your position after all, and I owe you an apology for that mistaken assumption.
Sorry! and thanks for the discussion. :D
-
Frankly, I don't think we have the processing power between our ears to understand "Creation" from either a Biblical or scientific sense. Like trying to run Photoshop using Windows XP on an 8088 with 640K Ram.
Infinity –impossible to really imagine, in a hands-on kinda way, without a wall, plateau or border in there somewhere with either space or time. God created the universe? Well, who created god and what did he do in the infinite time before he created the universe and what will he do in the infinite time after the sun burns out in a few short billion years?
Evolution provides a plausible framework for the development of species after the initial creation of life, and the "primeval soup" provides a plausible explanation for the creation of life on an earth like planet in its earlier developmental stages. But still, going back to the big bang, what created the pre-big bang matter existence? How long was it there? What was there before that?
Maybe when we evolve to Homo Sapiens Super Superior, with those big Classic Star Trek foreheads with bulging, pulsing veins then we will be able to discuss such issues with any authority.
As for teaching in school -- religion in the social studies classes (all religions, not just the one I believe in... with the good and bad and alternatives too) and evolution in science class as an ongoing field of study.
Charon
-
Man, I hate it when I’m late to a party.
Originally posted by Kieran
And again, the only difference between the religious and non-religious scientists is there is the infinite first step before all other explanations. ...The religious scientist says God created everything, he/she doesn't say how.
I agree. But the problem is not with “religious scientists” and “non-religious scientists” as you defined them. The conflict is between evolution and creationism as put forth by conservative Christians. By “conservative” I mean that subset of Christians who believe in a literal or plain interpretation of Genesis. That is, God created human beings from the earth in their present form in a day. When most people talk about creationism (creation science), this is what they mean. This is simply at odds with the theory of evolution that indicates that human beings arose as a gradual process of genetic modification.
My problem is not with what anyone believes. My problem is with what is taught as science. Creationism is not a science, because it cannot be disproved. Evolution is a scientific theory because it can be disproved. Evolution is also a scientific fact because there is abundant scientific evidence that this is how organisms, including human beings, come into existence. The importance of various theories regarding the mechanism of evolution (natural selection, punctuated equilibrium) is debated scientifically, but that doesn’t mean that evolution didn’t happen.
Similarly, gravity is a scientific theory. It is also a scientific fact (although the NIK2 causes me some problems on this one). There have been different theories regarding the mechanism of gravity through the years (Einstein’s classical theory, quantum theory) but this doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t happen. We teach gravity in scientific courses, we should teach evolution.
Evolution is one of the most important components of the biologic sciences. It helps us understand topics as diverse as comparative anatomy and drug-resistant microorganism. Many of the challenges facing us in the near future will require people with a good education in biology. To understand that, you only have to scan a newspaper and notice headlines regarding bioterrorism, mad-cow disease, AIDS, and many others. What we teach our children in public schools is important.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Frankly, I don't think we have the processing power between our ears to understand "Creation" from either a Biblical or scientific sense...
Infinity–impossible to really imagine, in a hands-on kinda way, without a wall, plateau or border in there somewhere with either space or time...
...what created the pre-big bang matter existence? How long was it there? What was there before that?...
...Maybe when we evolve to Homo Sapiens Super Superior...
Try reading popular rendering of the most recent hypothesis, like superstring, etc. You will find many answers and ample illustrarions for the power of human mind.
The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene is a good book to whet your interest.
Superstring or any other particular framework is not necessarily the ultimate right way the Universe is structured but it is a reasonable and logical one and human mind conceived it and imagined it and manipulates it (with a help of math). Whether this universe is really organised that way is irrelevant in the context of human mind power - one may have been.
There is no problem of human mind dealing with infinities, concepts of not only time but space as subjective human constructs, etc.
For example, within a framework of to the SS theory a collapse of space after a certain point (Planck value) could be still viewed as a collapse if measured by the same ruler but will look like expansion if measured by the same method (the one the inhabitants would use).
That neatly takes care of beginning of space and time - much like we are not puzzled where a sphere "begins" or "ends".
Seven intricately-folded holed dimensions of microscopic size in addition to the three we can perceive is just a topping on the cake in SS theory.
How about sequence and causality - we are finding out those are also artificial human constructs that do not reflect reality accurately. According to the recent developments of quantum theory (which seems to be transitioning into practical technology right now) it looks like all outcomes of a particular quantum effect are taking place - not just probabilities of them described by "wave functions". No probabilities - actual particle going from point A to point B through ALL possible points in between. Of course that makes us redefine what a concept of a particle is.
In a few years we may have fast computers because a quantum thingy will perform all possible calculations at the same time and collapce the final solution at examination time.
There are indications that our brains may be operating on quantum principles - massively parallel and producing solution first and logical step-by step explanation for it (often much) later. Obviously such kind of processing would have to be on sub-sellular, molecular level where quantum effects can be observed. If so, the limit of the power of human mind may not be even expressed in our current human terms!
Granted, not many minds on the planet are capable of such a feat of comprehension, but not that few either, so all depends on your definition of "we".
If you are concerned with when an average school program for average human will contain those items, probably never - I once compared the curriculum of a Russian Gymnasium school 1910 to the modern one and the process seems to be going the other way - less learning. American prevailing school system is even worse in that respect.
miko
-
Where the hell have you been Myelo? I could have used your assistance earlier. :) Very well stated, and exactly what I have been attempting to say all along.
Charon, I disagree. We have been pondering the imponderable since recorded history began. Its just that when we ran into something we couldn't describe it was attributed to God or a god until proven otherwise. Our limits have not been reached.
:D
BTW I read an article recently that infered that our brains are actually "wired" to believe in God, or at least to feel that spiritual euphoria associated with prayer and meditation. Weird huh?
As for books...Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan is very good.
-
Here's a pretty interesting article on how our (our meaning not just the evolution-only people but also the other 65% of us) money is being spent on PBS. I remember hearing this stuff when this series came out, and was able to find an article about it on the web:
SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."
Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."
Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")
"Public television producers are clearly at odds with overwhelming public sentiment in favor of hearing all scientific sides of the debate," said Chapman, a former Director of the US Census Bureau. "The huge majorities in the poll cross every demographic, regional and political line in America." The national sample of 1,202 adults was conducted by Zogby International from August 25-29. The margin of error is +/-3.0%.
Discovery Institute commissioned the Zogby poll, though the survey itself was designed by the Zogby organization. It also included questions on education and "intelligent design," a theory that some scientific critics of Darwin support. (That theory makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life's origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.) Discovery Institute last week also opened a special website (http://www.reviewevolution.org) to critique the WGBH/Clear Blue Sky series in a scholarly "Viewer's Guide." Discovery officials say that the website analyzes all program segments in the series and has uncovered numerous scientific and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions. Full results of the Zogby poll also are available on the website.
"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."
Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.
Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it."
Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."
Are the evolutionists creating a religion of their own? What do you guys think?
-
Here's the list the last post refers to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U. • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. • Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
-
QUOTE]The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene is a good book to whet your interest.
Miko
[/QUOTE]
Interesting Miko, I'll give it a shot. I have casually followed some of the more recent Quantum developments and find the research fascinating. Being FAR more average intellectually than, say, a Stephen Hawkings I still have to wonder if even those minds can fully bridge the gap from the theoretical to the actual. Are the limiting constructs always artificial and subjective, or do they, at some point, reach a physical limitation on comprehension? Our current science often hinged on great minds in the past overcoming subjective interference -- things that were though incomprehensible -- so someday understanding the full nature of the universe is a possibility I suppose.
For me, while I may appreciate a theory explaining infinity, etc. it's hard to grasp in a visceral sense that something has "always been" or "goes on forever." For me, that first sub atomic particle had to come from somewhere.
Charon
-
hblair,
It would not be hard to find 100 scientists willing to answer yes to the statement at the top of that list, but here is a quote from Dr. Schaefer himself:
"In this context, my personal opinion is that the universe is probably 15–20 billion years old. I am convinced that such a view is completely consistent with the teaching of the first chapter of Genesis. For those of you who want to go into this matter in depth, I recommend James Montgomery Boice's commentary on the first eleven chapters of Genesis."
Now the important thing is not that he agrees with the great age of the Universe. The important thing is that he feels the need to BE CONSISTENT with the Book of Genesis. There should not be a 7th step to the scientific method which says: "Check with God to see if it's OK".
What learned men of religious conviction continue to do is INTERPRET the Bible to agree with the evidence. 400 Years ago saying the universe is 20 billion years old and that this number is consistent with Genesis would have got you an invitation to a BBQ...of you. Has the Bible changed in 400 years or has the knowledge of mankind kept expanding? The one issue that keeps knawing at the throats of Christians is evolution. Hard to justify that one to Genesis I guess.
-
My only addition- grabbing fundamentalists from any group as an example of the whole group is dangerous. I agree with you though, teaching fundamentalist religion in a public school just cannot be done.
For example, within a framework of to the SS theory a collapse of space after a certain point (Planck value) could be still viewed as a collapse if measured by the same ruler but will look like expansion if measured by the same method (the one the inhabitants would use).
That neatly takes care of beginning of space and time - much like we are not puzzled where a sphere "begins" or "ends".
Ok, I'll admit it, this makes no sense to me. ;)
-
What's your comment on the article I quoted Target? Here's another interesting one...
Evolutionist Henry Gee, chief science writer for "Nature", has pointed out that limited fossil evidence for human origins poses severe problems for anyone trying to piece together the real story of human ancestry. Writing in his recent book "In Search of Deep Time" (Free Press, 1999), Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." As a result, conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices." Indeed, such theories carry "the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
:)
-
I thought this thread was dead!
Hey that rhymes!
Good article hblair, it agrees with my skeptisism of evolution. Isn't it strange that when Darwin produced his work he was persecuted. Now days you hear them talking about how that was so terrible and a repression of science by the church. Reading that article it seems to me that the scientists themselves are now persecuting their own for daring to question Darwins work. Hypocritical? Not surpising though. If you look at almost any scientist who broke away from the accepted norm of his/her day, you'll find they were discredited or laughed at, perhaps even thrown in jail.
Something to think about.
-
You can find many more articles and web sites that are based on "scientific creationism". This changes nothing of what I said.
Henry Gee's quote is commenting on the evolution of humans 5 to 10 million years ago. Australopithicus is (IIRC) 3.5 million years old. So what he is saying is that prior to this time the fossil record is weak. Note nothing is said about the "more recent" evolutionary fossil record which is quite good. He is not commenting on Evolution as a whole and it would be dishonest to portray his quote as such.
-
Evolution is a quite dodgy scientific theory in my uninformed opinion, but Creationism is belief in the Jewish creation myth, which is based on God.
unfortunately, God can never be at the basis of a scientific theory - for to be a scientific theory you have to frame it so that it is provable or disprovable.
Please Note: It does not have to be correct to be a scientific theory - it just has to be framed in such a way that one is able to prove or disprove the theory through experimentation.
According to the Xians (and those guys really know the big G), God cannot be proved or disproved to exist (and I believe it's also a sin to attempt to do so) - apparently one has to make do with having faith in the Lord rather than proof. So any theory that ultimate relies on the Big G doing his thang is ipso facto unscientific, even by the Xian definition.
Thus God, as far science is concerned, is meaningless (in the logical sense) - in that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of the big G, you have to have faith.
There is a place for the Jewish creation myth in schools - but in comparative religion classes, with all the other weird and wonderful creation myths from around the world, not biology lessons.
Because while God may have something to do with science, science, properly done, has nothing to do with him.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You can find many more articles and web sites that are based on "scientific creationism". This changes nothing of what I said.
From what I gather, this article was about how over-eager scientists, so convinced of evolutional theory as being fact, actually coerse scientific research to make it fit into the theory, whereas they would not even consider doing such in other scientific research. Do you agree that this can happen?
-
Originally posted by hblair
From what I gather, this article was about how over-eager scientists, so convinced of evolutional theory as being fact, actually coerse scientific research to make it fit into the theory, whereas they would not even consider doing such in other scientific research. Do you agree that this can happen?
Of course it can happen. That is the beauty of the scientific method though. Any theory / conviction / truth is up for debate. The problem with the Evolution issue is not the lack of evidence for its being accepted as fact, it is its divergence from the Creation Myth as stated in the Bible. Saying that research has been coersed is not the same as it being so. I think these men and women? who signed the petition will continue to say research has been coersed as long as the Bible is disregarded as a science text.
-
Sing with me now -
Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Ok, I'll admit it, this makes no sense to me. ;)
That is why I am not publishing books like Brian Greene.
Take a look at it. He has a good style. Don't bother with hardcover edition, unless you want to pay few extra bucks for extra color pictures.
miko
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand if many of those undoubtedly bright but mostly far from evolutionary biology scientists looked up a popular book "The Blind Watchmaker" by R. Dawkings , they will see that there is as inevitable process of complexity of life arising from inorganic matter as formation of stars from "randomly" assembled hydrogen atoms.
When you light a match you expect to see a fire even though "random" interaction of molecules of carbon and oxygen is involved.
Also, you cannot predict the shape of a flame you will get at any point in time.
Still, the laws of nature ensure that out of many random micro-ineractions completely non-random, complex and very certain phenomena occurs.
In fact the Evlution Theory is so elegant that it looks more like the way God would choose to set in motion.
miko
-
If the quotes regarding Henry Gee’s book is an attempt to somehow scientifically discredit evolution, I’m afraid it misses the mark.
Gee argues for the use of cladistics instead of relying solely on interpretation of the fossil record. Cladistics is a method of analyzing the evolutionary relationships between groups to construct their family tree. The principle is that organisms are classified according to their evolutionary relationships, and that the way to discover these relationships is to analyze common derived characteristics. The primary advantage of cladistics is that it allows generation of testable hypotheses. Cladistic analysis is usually performed on a computer that generates all possible family trees that would fit the data, and you assume that the simplest one is probably correct.
This is necessarily a simplified description – anyone interested should read the book – but the bottom line is this: Far from being inconsistent with evolution, cladistics assumes that any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor. This assumption is a general assumption of evolutionary biology.
There is a tendency for creationists to rely on selective quotes taken out of context in an attempt to argue that evolution is not scientifically sound, with no real understanding of the science involved. This would be akin to a scientist with no understanding of religion offering second-hand snippets from the Bible in an effort to discredit all of Jewish or Christian beliefs.
If someone wants to say that evolution doesn’t occur because the Bible says it doesn’t, then fine—that’s an honest opinion. But if someone wants to make a scientific argument that evolution doesn’t happen, then -- as we say on the blacktop -- don’t be coming inside with that weak stuff :)
-
Well, dammit myelo............thats what I said!
;)
-
Where's my wingman?!?
Kieran!, four bogies on my 6 !
HELP!
I'm getting gang banged by the pagans!
:)
-
To everyone harping on Evolution being JUST a theory:
Gravity...JUST a theory, try stepping off a cliff, do you think you will fly?
Aerodynamics...JUST a theory, you might not fly, but planes do.
Quantum Mechanics...JUST a theory, does just about every piece of electronics in the world work?
Every scientific priciple is JUST a theory.
-
I'd laid off it as I feel there is an understanding of sorts- that is, believers and nonbelievers alike can be scientists, and mentioning the word "religion" in a public school isn't necessarily cause for a school board meeting.
As to convincing a scientist evolution is false? Not a prayer! I have to concede believing means faith, as when Jesus showed the nail holes to Thomas- "You believe because you saw, how much more blessed are those that believe without seeing."
I don't care if they call it religious science or don't, we can study it anyway. Fighting a secular world for a position of honor seems anti-religious anyway, doesn't it? ;) Not turning on ya, just don't think this part is worth fighting for.
-
"As to convincing a scientists evolution is false? Not a prayer! I have to concede believing means faith, as when Jesus showed the nail holes to Thomas- "You believe because you saw, how much more blessed are those that believe without seeing."
Welcome back Kieran.:) And how blessed are those who see that there may not NEED to be a God to explain the physical world and yet still believe.
And how disillusioned are those who see the evidence and chose to ignore it? Kinda like showing the nail holes to Thomas and having him insist its just special effects makeup.
-
Hblair, didn't intend to gang up on ya, just thought it was an interesting discussion.
I’m finding that I’m starting to agree with Kieran. So I may have to re-think my position – don’t want to get kicked out of the pagan club :)
-
Thrawn-
Of course gravity is a fact- the theory you refer to is a theory of our understanding of how it works. Same for aerodynamics and quantum physics, etc. Forces of nature exist, your theories are explanations for how they work, not attempts to prove or disprove their existance.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Welcome back Kieran.:) And how blessed are those who see that there may not NEED to be a God to explain the physical world and yet still believe.
And how disillusioned are those who see the evidence and chose to ignore it? Kinda like showing the nail holes to Thomas and having him insist its just special effects makeup.
And how blessed are those who know what they're talking about. Which verse is it where Thomas is shown "nail holes" Target?
:)
-
hblair,
I was quoting Kieran on the "NAIL HOLE" thing. I have no clue which verse it is, or if one even exists. Sheeesh!
Read the post for its meaning.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
hblair,
I was quoting Kieran on the "NAIL HOLE" thing. I have no clue which verse it is, or if one even exists. Sheeesh!
Read the post for its meaning.
So, you're saying you're clueless?
Look here buster. Get your Bible facts straight or I'm gonna send mrfish and Amon over there to straighten you out.
:)
-
Thank God for Google....ooops:eek:
John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
KJV
-
PS hblair,
Hope you're enjoying Gods special effects trickery....making those stars look like theyare so far away and leaving all this tantalizing evidence for Evolution. That comedy jokester!
-
John 20:29
Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
-
the question was "which verse is it where Thomas is shown nail holes"
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
but my original post has been ignored by this attemp to change the subject....sad.
-
What question is that? I thought you made some rhetorical remarks. Clarify.
Edit: Hey, I started the "Thomas" reference, I know what I meant by it. ;)
-
Welcome back Kieran. And how blessed are those who see that there may not NEED to be a God to explain the physical world and yet still believe.
And how disillusioned are those who see the evidence and chose to ignore it? Kinda like showing the nail holes to Thomas and having him insist its just special effects makeup.
hblair then wrote:And how blessed are those who know what they're talking about. Which verse is it where Thomas is shown "nail holes" Target?
which had nothing to do with my post but started this attempt to find the right passage.
-
And how disillusioned are those who see the evidence and chose to ignore it? Kinda like showing the nail holes to Thomas and having him insist its just special effects makeup.
If this is what you meant, I understood you. You were turning it around to imply believers see evidence and ignore it. Gotcha. I didn't think you were looking for an answer.
Now you realize of course, assuming you accept Jesus stood there with nail holes in His hands and a spear thrust in His side, it would be proof He was who He said He was? Let's not sidestep that issue. ;)
Anyway, I didn't throw that out there for the anti crowd, I meant it for HBlair. Point is, our sides are polarized and we aren't budging (you or me).
-
Sorry, guessed what you meant and typed as you posted.
-
WTG Targy. You looked it up. Do you honestly think I would have posted that without knowing the scripture? I thought it was pretty obvious I was ribbing you.
Go take your place in the sad seat beside fish and Amon. Why do you guys get your panties in a wad so easily? Why do you feel you have something to prove?
-
hblair......It was a joke?! (You DO think I know what I'm talking about?)
Please! My panties haven't bunched since....well a long time. I enjoy the heck outa this BBS and you have added to that enjoyment for me.
-
....
hahah... this funny urge overcame me and I couldn't resist!
-
In the beginning, there was nothing.
...
And it exploded.
I am trained as an engineer, where proof and logic and evidence are most highly "worshipped". The worship of science and the worship of a Creator both require the same thing.
Faith.
Looks like we're really all in the same boat after all :)
For what its worth.
-
Originally posted by Arcon
I am trained as an engineer, where proof and logic and evidence are most highly "worshipped".
If you apply the knowlege of the laws of nature in your engineering work only as a matter of cultural/religious preference, I would not agree that you were trained as an engineer. As a priest of technology maybe...
miko
-
Thanks Tumor........
Arcon...Please look into it before passing judgement.
Top three reasons to believe big bang cosmology
1. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis - Models of the possible outcomes of photons becoming quarks becoming subatomic particles becoming nuclei of simple atoms like Hydrogen, Lithium and Helium seem to agree with a big bang cosmology.
2. Cosmic Microwave Background - A measure of the leftover energy from a "big bang".
3. Hubble Expansion - Noted originally by Hubble in 1927, the red shift of objects in space proving they are racing away from us at a high rate of speed.
-
this thread is like chuckie.
-
This thread is like last nights curry and beer.
-
Now THIS is a lunker!:D
-
But what about the Aliens? :eek:
-
i am eagerly awaiting this community's answer to a question that existed since time began. Perhaps it could be put to a poll?
:rolleyes:
I myself tend to lean towards the creationist side of the coin, which is suprising considering when i was younger GOING to church was more important than the sermon or what you learned.
The reason? It is more interesting...more things in this world have been achieved due to blind faith and believing than can ever be chocked upped to a bunch of white coats in a lab.
or, we can look at Descartes' "i think there for i am."
that one line makes more sense than any biology textbook that i have ever read.
-btw i think that was Descartes, i have a terrible memory placing lines to philosophers.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by loser
The reason? It is more interesting...more things in this world have been achieved due to blind faith and believing than can ever be chocked upped to a bunch of white coats in a lab.
Name three.
-
Jesus, certainly saved my soul from a terrble hell. I am grateful for it. I am shocked at the amount of posts in this thread (well kind of, this subject has always been a hot one). To me its not debatable. God did it, He said it, and that good enough for me. Gen 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
It doesnt expalin why He did, or how he did, whether it is some explainable phenomenon. Or that a day in God's eyes is longer than one of our days. He just did. I love it:). This is the God I want to believe in and follow and worship.
-
Now, Ill admit right off the bat that reading 6 pages of this stuff may have caused me to misinterperate soe of the posts... I feel required to throw my two cents in either way. :P
There are some possibilites I have "come up with."
1. Religion is social control, invented by man.
2. Religion is man's attempt at explaining things that actually did occur, but couldnt be understood.
3. Religion is true as taught.
In order of importance - this is what I lean towards in terms of my opinion.
3. As taught, religion is not true.
2. Many of the events explained in the Bible may have occured, but man's attempt to explain them is flawed.
1. This is too deep to be true, methinks. Would require WAY too much effort.
Big Bang Theory: Absolutely true, period. We all know the theory, and it have been explained here - universe expands rapidly and creates various elements integral to the formation of stars. Matter not condensed into stars forms "dust" between systems or planets orbiting stars. Universe is still expanding, but the expansion is strange. As time goes on, everything is moving away from everything else at ever increasing speeds - there is no clear "center." Stars and galaxies "ahead" of us are picking up speed and increasing distance and stars "behind" us are increasing speed at a rate slower than us - falling behind. (redshift intensity). The only theory that was open to debate before 1980 was the "Big Crunch" or "Big Freeze." The Big Crunch Theory states that the force of the initial expansion would eventually be halted by gravity and the universe would collapse in on itself resulting in another "Big Bang." The Big Freeze Theory states that the force of the initial expansion is greater than the gravity that would be necessary to halt, and recall the expansion. 99% of astonomers now agree that the universe will continuously expand until the stars are so far apart that they are not visable from one system to the next. The "death" of the universe and its life will not be molten and dense, but cold and empty.
"Creation" of Life: Heres how it works... universe expands, stars are formed... hydrogen, helium, light elements rule the day. Once the stars begin to die, and nova, heavy elements are created (read, carbon). The Supernova is the ONLY event in the universe that can create elements heavy enough (through massive heat and density) to support material life as we know it. So quite literally, we are "made from the stars." The creation of life is not simply a "chemical process." It requires a VERY delacate set of conditions that must be met (life as we know it at least). Temperate climate, water, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc... these must be STABLE conditions... millions of years worth of stability - variations of planet orbit or planet evolution (physical evolution) will destroy the process. Im willing to bet that life - nevermind intelligent life - is so rare in our galaxy that... say there are maybe only 50,000 planets orbiting stars in our galaxy that can support life as it occured on Earth (Terra if you want to get into "non-ecocretric speak"... might as well start refering to "The Sun" as Sol too.) :P Anyway - the claim that we are the only life forms in this galaxy is about as rediculous as saying "humans are the only species on this planet." There are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth and there are more galaxies in this universe than there are stars in our galaxy... never mind the mathmatical possibilties of parallel or co-existing/multiple universes.
Bottom Line: There are so many possibilities we must consider, and closed mindedness is not the way to seek the answers to our questions. "God did it, it says so in Luke 3:13" is not an answer - but neither is "God doesnt exist." Personally I dont think its too far fetched to consider the possibility that Jesus was an extra-terrerstrial visitor and his "miracles" were simply not understood. Look at the stories:
1. Sodam and Gamorah (spelling?) - how many of you knew that there is actually radioactive material in the ground at the Bibilcal locations of these two cities?
2. The Museum of Bahgdad houses an electric battery carbon dated to over 10,000 years old. Correct me if Im wrong, but we didnt have this capacity at that time.
3. City of Atlantis... the "City of Gold (read, metal)" - what do you think about a temporary garrison? It wasnt swallowed by the sea, they upped and left.
4. Similarities between religions - they all have a messenger, supreme being, rules, a return prophecy, copulation between "angels" and humans, and fantastic stories of men and machines which could do the impossible (Chariots of fire that could fly).
--With that in mind... ask yourself what we would do if we visited a planet housing intelligent life that was perhaps at a neandrothal level of evolution? We would:
1. Arrive and proclaim ourselves as astronauts from Earth. We come to bring peace and prosperity to your world.
2. Yes, Earth is our home planet, it is amongst the stars (pointing skyward)
3. Bestow upon them "commandments." Rules with which to govern their society.
4. Copulate with the locals in order to assist them in skipping a link in the evolutionary chain - afterall - they could be valuable trading partners in the future - weve got to bring them up to speed.
5. Before leaving - we tell them that we will return - they had better be good and follow those rules and if everything goes well, we might just take a few you back to Earth with us.
...Now how is this interperated? "Strange men that could fly came from the sky one day in their firebreathing carts that made a tremendous thundering noise. They told us of a wonderful place called Earth, and that "Earth" is watching us - we must follow these rules... if were bad we dont get to go to Earth - and they will be back... we must be good so they will be pleased when they return. One of our cities was insolent and "Earth" sent fire down to wipe out the infidels. We build a temple where they landed and we pray to them everyday. We build statues of them and draw pictures on rock - pictures of strangely dressed humans and even stranger "craft." We follow the rules because we dont want Earth to be angry at us - Earth will return."
You know what.. its really late and I should be sleeping... I realize I just kinda "stopped" but damnit its hard to think when your tired. :P If this topic continues with any amount of interest Ill post more later.
-
Oh, before I log:
Remember when we thought the Earth was flat?
Remember when we thought the sun rotated around the Earth?
Remember when we thought stars were "jewels" in fixed positions in a sphere surrounding the Earth?
We think we were created by a supreme being.
We think the universe is deviod of any life other than our own.
We think that we are somehow important in the galactic stream of things.
"Truth" goes through three stages:
1. It is conjured up by a mad man.
2. It is hailed as blasphemy.
3. It is accepted as self-evident.
Something to think about.
-
I just discovered this post today and am amazed at the number of postings. Is this a record or something? I could only read the first two pages and this last page, but I've enjoyed reading the discerning thoughts.
Anyway, I know the real truth...Aliens came down in their little flying saucers and zapped some monkies into men. I've read it and I have faith so I believe.
I forgot who asked, but yes, it was Rene Descartes who coined "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "Cogito me cogitare, ergo sum" which means "I think, therefore I am." But don't toss all your peanuts into his hat just based on this one statement. He deals with dreams and discerning reality and even has some fun with a ball of wax. He's an interesting read.
As for life, I believe Stephen Hawkings said our modern computer virus has all the features that define life. We ourselves are becoming gods. We will engineer our own evolution and set out amongst the stars. In further, I think Hawkings believes we will one day in fact be gone and our engineered creations (machines) will continue beyond us.
There are many faiths and many ancient stories. Schizophrenia isn't a 20th Century development, but rather has been around I'm certain as long as man could think. I'm careful where I lay my blind faith. People do follow...ask Jim Jones or Branch Davidians or even those purple tunicked Nike wearing people waiting for a spaceship. God gave us the tools to reason, so I think we should do so and some of that reasoning may contradict certain beliefs held very dear and which were handed down for many, many generations. If there is a God, it is he himself who gave me the ability to reason and conclude his non-existence.
-
Dudes.
You need to separate evolution from abiogenesis.
Evolution is change of allele frequency in a group over time.
Abiogenesis is the scientific theory dealing with the origins of life.
Evolution is one of the more well supported scientific theories out there. Unfortunately, it collides with religious texts belonging to the western world, and is thus hard to swallow for many; indeed, as some religious institutions always has done, they've activelyworked against it.
Evolution isn't just an opinion.
Creationism. What - 30 pages of wildly inaccurate and scientifically impossible statements sold on faith alone? Belonging to yet another religion who claims to have the answer.
The two do not even compare.
I'll give references of proof to anyone who wants it. I expect creationists to return the favour.
Lastly, evolution is notmutually exclusive with religion. Interpret Genesis as "figure of speech" and you can argue that god created the mechanism of evolution. Even though the 'figure of speech' Bible defense is getting worn.
looking forwardto the day when consensus is that ist is ALL just figure of speech. Ain't that far ahead of us, that day
-
looking forwardto the day when consensus is that ist is ALL just figure of speech. Ain't that far ahead of us, that day
So am I. You see, it has been foretold in Revelation (and several other places).
-
I am Convinced! Santas proffessors are extremely educated, and they got these cool textbooks and do these experiments that gotta be right. And besides we have these muscles that cause goosebumps when we get cold, like we're supposed to have fur there! And the skulls! I forgot to mention the skulls they've found from our extinct ancestors. Oh yes, not possible that they were mutations of homo-sapiens. No way.
And all matter was once the size of a tennis ball! This is fact because those proffessors use large words and long equations and besides they all look real smart! Also, what about the Galapogos Islands? They have species not existing on other land masses, that means evolution happened! ~~~ Period!
All this I believe to be true, oops, that requires faith. :(
The theory is fact!
-
(http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20000405.gif)
(http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20000428.gif)
I thought I'd bring a little humor to this conversation :D
Daniel
-
HBlair, you'll readily accept current theorieson aerodynamics or flight related physics, yet when equally well supported science is presented, you say it's equal to faith.
I ain't gonna get in between you and your spiritual belief, but when ya call evolution another fancy faith and all the hard work that's been done in biology for hogwash, I sort of think you're mistaken.
-
Even though the 'figure of speech' Bible defense is getting worn.
Are you suggesting new explanations should be invented for entertainment value? Hey, this isn't a new argument- it's a sure bet the material has been covered thousands of times before we were even born. ;)
I'll never "prove" to you there is a God; first, your mind is set against it to begin with, and; I don't happen to believe it is within any human's power to "prove" He exists anyway. If it was possible, what would be the point of faith?
As to the point Hblair is making, try this; draw me a picture of a subatomic particle. What, you can't? Why? Because there is no microscope powerful enough to see one. The best we can do is theorize, test, and use the results we receive to come to a conclusion- yet that conclusion is still not conclusive proof. At some point a leap of faith must be made. Now you might argue that leap is small, and I might agree; still, you've decided what evidence to keep and what evidence to disregard as meaningless as you've moved along.
Religion does no less- though most of the evidence comes from ancient writings from various cultures. There are certainly gaps, and there are certainly instances where a leap of faith has to be made.
-
The job of science, or any form of skeptical inquiry is not to determine the "truth", but to increase or reduce the probability that a certain hypothesis explains a phenomenon.
The level of faith required to believe a thing varies according to the evidence. Everything requires some level of faith. The real key to the scientific method is not the absence of faith, it is the presence of the skeptical inquiry.
Religion on the other hand is based on faith, and by definition frowns upon skeptical inquiry (see Doubting Thomas).
This is the main reason for my personal opposition to "Creation Science". How can a field of scientific inquiry be established with a conclusion that cannot be questioned?
-
Kieran, I believe the difference between faith and justifiable belief is rather large.
YMMV of course. :)
-
Define "justifiable belief". ;)
I merely suggest you are far more likely to be sympathetic to faith in your field, even though at its root it is just as much a leap of logic as anything in religion.
MT, can't argue with your view of the relative immobility of the church vs. the transient nature of scientific beliefs. OTOH, it can be argued the fact scientific beliefs do regularly change, their basis in "fact" was flawed from the beginning. This in turn can be argued as evidence science is at least as flawed as religion as far as understanding evolution or creation.
-
Evolution has stopped.
Natural Selection near human habitations just isn't operating.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Define "justifiable belief". ;)
I merely suggest you are far more likely to be sympathetic to faith in your field, even though at its root it is just as much a leap of logic as anything in religion.
MT, can't argue with your view of the relative immobility of the church vs. the transient nature of scientific beliefs. OTOH, it can be argued the fact scientific beliefs do regularly change, their basis in "fact" was flawed from the beginning. This in turn can be argued as evidence science is at least as flawed as religion as far as understanding evolution or creation.
Sorry Kieran, but your "leap of logic" statement just isn't true. Any part of any scientific explanation can and should be questioned. If you are not satisfied with an answer then choose an alternative hypothesis and try to find the evidence that supports it. No "Leap" is needed and no "Faith" is demanded. If you need more convincing of a fact then seek it out. When the level of "Faith" is as small as possible, then the conclusion can usually be called a truth, or a fact.
As to the scientific method being flawed because of the transient nature of conclusions over the years, I can only say bravo. When has a religion ever happily said "we were wrong about that" based on an inquiry process that was an integral part of that religion? Never happened, never will.
-
I won't argue scientific reasoning has as its purpose a continual search for evolving truth; that should be tacitly obvious. I won't argue religion isn't staunch in its intractibility to change. What I am comparing is the methodology for coming to conclusions in both arenas.
Science uses evidence to narrow down possibilites, then goes with the best guess. Religion proof is based on ancient writings and recorded history of various cultures, compared for similarities and discrepancies. Both science and religion pick and choose what evidence is relevant, discarding what is felt to be irrelevant. Both pursuits inevitably come to a place where a conclusion must be drawn.
You are ready to believe in quarks because there is evidence to support their existance- yet it is quite possible the evidence may be the result of another natural phenomena outside what we know. Until such time this evidence might be found, you will be prepared to slap me upside my head with my ignorance- only to be later found to be incorrect. Oops. ;)
Sure, there are plenty of zealots who do the same with religion, we all know that. And surely you must recognize there is much disagreement not only amongst the different religions, but within specific religions themselves. That conflict almost universally revolves around the interpretation of the Word or the significance of such interpretations. This leads the theologists to study the history of the time of the writing, apply the words to the timeperiod, extrapolate meanings from that timeframe, etc. I guess what I am saying is there is plenty of debate within religious circles over what is to be accepted and what isn't, and the process is scientific. The one specific point that cannot be disproven (within the religious debate) is the existance of God- everything else is open to discussion. Taken this way, religion is only marginally less absolute than science.
-
I like Jack Chick’s take on the issue, particularly where he proves that gluons don’t exist, and that atoms are held together by Christ’s hands. :)
Big Daddy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)
Of course, there is a lot more good reading at the site, covering everything from the falseness of all other religions and outlandish Christian sects like Catholicism (responsible for the Holocaust you know), a neat take on homosexuality and an even neater one on Rock n Roll (he did get the record company exec down pat): A Plethora of Fun @Tract Catalog (http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp)
Charon
And for a Chick counterpoint, try Spacemoose. Antlers of the Dammed (http://www.spacemoose.com/antlers.htm) The strip stirred up quite a bit of controversy, and even a letter of protest from the campus ministries, most of whom Chick and his hard core evangelical Protestant peers would regard as sinners doomed to hell preaching false religions. For fans of Irony Spacemoose was more than just a vulgar display of cartoon art, it was a vulgar display of cartoon art with a purpose :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I won't argue scientific reasoning has as its purpose a continual search for evolving truth; that should be tacitly obvious. I won't argue religion isn't staunch in its intractibility to change. What I am comparing is the methodology for coming to conclusions in both arenas.
Fair enough
Science uses evidence to narrow down possibilites, then goes with the best guess. Religion proof is based on ancient writings and recorded history of various cultures, compared for similarities and discrepancies. Both science and religion pick and choose what evidence is relevant, discarding what is felt to be irrelevant. Both pursuits inevitably come to a place where a conclusion must be drawn.
First of all, science actually makes the "best guess" then tries to narrow the possible answers to one. But that is a trivial difference. I think you are missing the main point though, even if you stated it in your opening paragraph. The evidence a religion chooses as relevant CANNOT disprove the basic tenants of that religion. Science OTOH has no such qualms.
You are ready to believe in quarks because there is evidence to support their existance- yet it is quite possible the evidence may be the result of another natural phenomena outside what we know. Until such time this evidence might be found, you will be prepared to slap me upside my head with my ignorance- only to be later found to be incorrect. Oops. ;)
Sadly this has been true. People will often call something a fact when it is based upon only speculative evidence. Evolution based on natural selection is not based upon such evidence.
Sure, there are plenty of zealots who do the same with religion, we all know that. And surely you must recognize there is much disagreement not only amongst the different religions, but within specific religions themselves. That conflict almost universally revolves around the interpretation of the Word or the significance of such interpretations. This leads the theologists to study the history of the time of the writing, apply the words to the timeperiod, extrapolate meanings from that timeframe, etc. I guess what I am saying is there is plenty of debate within religious circles over what is to be accepted and what isn't, and the process is scientific. The one specific point that cannot be disproven (within the religious debate) is the existance of God- everything else is open to discussion. Taken this way, religion is only marginally less absolute than science.
Taken that way I would probably be interested in joining such a religion. I don't think there is a religion in existence today with that type of open-mindedness. For instance:
"The only path to heaven is through Jesus" (paraphrased, but I think that is accurate) Is this open for experimentation? Is it provable? Is is repeatable? .....of course not. Religious scholars may be able to test or verify that this was said, but what if no other evidence exists for this statement than the Bible? There is plenty of evidence that other religions feel differently. There are actually more people that feel this statement is wrong than feel it is correct. That doesn't prove that it is wrong, just an irrelevant fact. Where does the weight of evidence fall on a question like this?
-
Good points, but consider this; science cannot disprove Jesus is the only way to heaven, that heaven exists, or that there is a God. Therefore science must consider the possibility God exists.
Of course the way to definitively prove this right or wrong is to die- many have tried this, but they ain't talkin'. ;)
Edit: I should also clarify I am not speaking for any particular religion. I am discussing this from a purely scientific vs. religious perspective.
-
Guys Guys, you really need to chill out on this issue :). The simple fact of the matter is that neither of you will be able to prove your belief's/theory's. It is one of those questions that will only have an answer at the of the world (that is if you believe that it will end like that). I personally go for the Biblical creation view (Not sure whether or not genesis is symbolical or not, but don't really care either), but i don't have all day to list the reasons. And remember, how we got here isn't important, we're here already, its what we do with today that matters :) .
-
Sorry Samu1, but I contend that there IS sufficient proof to explain the diversity and origin of life by strict scientific means, reducing the "faith factor" to such a degree that it can reliably be called a fact.
Saying we can never be sure is just silly. Why do you think God gave us brains for Krise sakes?!;)
-
Samu1, if you think we are angry, you're wrong. We are merely debating the point-counterpoint. Of course we believe what we believe, but both of us know our respective sides expect us to challenge our thinking. There is nothing wrong with debate in this fashion, and as long as I have a few moments here and there to discuss the issue I have no problem listening to an opposing viewpoint. In fact, if I am to ever learn anything new or understand the other side I have to hear and experience that viewpoint.
I don't let the fact MT is wrong get in the way... ;)
-
I'm Wrong??!!!!!
Dangit! I wish you would have told me 284 posts ago!!:D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Good points, but consider this; science cannot disprove Jesus is the only way to heaven, that heaven exists, or that there is a God. Therefore science must consider the possibility God exists.
Absolutely true. However, will religion ever consider the possibility that he does not?
I read something yesterday that I think we may agree on:
"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead."
-Albert Einstein-
Kieran
-
MT:)
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Evolution has stopped.
Natural Selection near human habitations just isn't operating.
(If you are being sarcastic please disregard the following, as I’m assuming you are sincere.)
First, evolution and natural selection are not the same thing, although they are related. Second there are plenty of contemporary examples of both. Off the top of my head, here’s four:
Strains of corn with high sugar content (just planted in my garden)
Labrador retrievers with a strong desire to retrieve (Throw a stick within eyesight of my Lab and watch what happens. Do the same thing with my boxer and observe the disgusted look on her face)
Bacteria resistant to antibiotics (last year my daughter had an ear infection with such a strain)
Sickle-cell anemia in southern Africans (evolved in response to Malaria infection)
Evolution and natural selection are all around us -- if only our kids are educated enough to appreciate it. It’s too important to do otherwise.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Labrador retrievers with a strong desire to retrieve (Throw a stick within eyesight of my Lab and watch what happens. Do the same thing with my boxer and observe the disgusted look on her face)
Natural Selection may have passed by Bradley (Black Lab). He knows he's supposed to get the darn thing, but it is just sooooo much darn trouble. On the third toss he will often stare at me, kinda roll his eyes, and slllooowwwly walk over to the item to be fetched, pick it up with a huff, walk slllooowwwly back and look at me with this "please try to hold onto that thing for a while!" look.
:D
-
Kieran wrote:
Good points, but consider this; science cannot disprove Jesus is the only way to heaven, that heaven exists, or that there is a God. Therefore science must consider the possibility God exists.
Well, while you're basically right that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God, I don't think science must consider the possibility of God existing any more than it must consider the existance of Nerfhluhrs.
That is, if Nerfhluhrs are postulated about in some scientific theory, they suddenly become interesting. Same with god. It's been a while since a saw a theory saying "alpha + beta divided by God gives us the thrust of..." :D
It's pretty hard to disprove the existence of many things. This, however, does not lend any credit to the existence of these things. It's essentially a fallacious argument from ignorance: "we do not know that A is not; therefore, it is" or "therefore it might be".
I'm open minded enough to think just about anything might be, including singing and dancing leather g-strings living on a planet made up entirely of fat Bulgarian women. I'd be insane, however, to give each such possibility cpu time, so to speak, and unless there's some supporting objective evidence, I'm unlikely to regard is as little more than children's tales - *especially*
if there, for some people, are compelling reasons why they WANT a thing to be true. The very thing that you want something to be true should mean that you are extra careful when assigning a value of truth to it.
And, there's as much justification for that as there is for the Christian deity and particularly for the religions writings belonging to the same.
Edit: I should also clarify I am not speaking for any particular religion. I am discussing this from a purely scientific vs. religious perspective.
I think in short, the difference can be said like this:
Through the methodology of science, humans try to approximate knowledge about a universe we essentially know nothing about, building on past discoveries. It's self correcting.
Religions create the universe and all its rules and how things are, and then try to wrap the facts of life around this conception. It's static and never changing (at least the Judeo-Christian faith is). What changes is the interpretation of words, and the emphasis on different parts of the Bible. For instance, today it's not very popular in the Lutheran church to go around and brag about it being a doomsday religion. Our priests are really silent about that one. Then again, if I dressed like them, I'd shut the hell up too :D
Tired tired tired. 03.47, just done with the first quarter on the graphics programming mini project. Woohooo. A bed. Sleep. Laters d00ds
-
That is, if Nerfhluhrs are postulated about in some scientific theory, they suddenly become interesting.
Postulate away.
What if geological evidence exists backing the biblical story of a great flood?
What if historical writings from diverse cultures verify events and places as described by the Bible?
What if archaeologists uncover the remains of destroyed civilizations (such as Sodom and Gomorrah)?
You will still never consider for a second the biblical accounts are true, because you've already decided they are not. That is the antithesis of scientific observation.
Now before you flip that around and say, "Sure, have you considered religion might be false" let me say, "of course". Before I came to religion I asked that question a lot. But even if I didn't, hey, that's science's way. Close minded? Sure, but so is making up your mind religion is utterly false in the face of even the slightest evidence of corroboration.
Tired too, just finished another long day. :)
-
Most ppl would agree that the bible does contain historical (but highly dramatized) stories of true places, events. Why are ppl so certain that the Bible is 100% account of events but not Hopi legends, or the Inca's or....the list goes on.
Research shows the links that the Old Testement was pieced together from earlier stories. Sumerians have the same creation story only it's more highly detailed than the Jewish version.
Showing the possible historical facts behind them does not show that a God exist. Believe what you want to believe, but if it boils down to some Jerry Fallwell wanna-be trying to say they should teach my child about THEIR religion, instead of Evolution then I'll have to politely shove that kindling book down their throat. :D
Embrace the PAGANS!!!!!!!!!! hehe
-
I'll give Prometheus his due. He is the original sacrificial lamb that we seem to need every once in a while. He was chained to a rock for giving us lowly humans fire. If I remember right there were ravens or some other bird that picked at his eyes as he was chained there.
The bible is mythology with a little history mixed in. Many of the storys, including the flood, are borrowed from other cultures. It is not the absolute holy word of the only god.
If we're going to teach creationism as science. Lets teach native american creationism, or Australian aboriganal "Dream Time" Creationism. Or maybe my personal favorite the Creationism of the Poetic and Prose Eddas of Snorri Sturlson. Teach them all but not at the exclusion of any of the others, if we want well educated children.
As for the theory of evolution, science is good but limiting, if we can imagine it we can do it. Teach science to, but avoid absolutes as there are very few of those.
-
Well Kieren, what you're doing there is you take a 'leap of evidence' so to speak. Let me use your own example:
What if geological evidence exists backing the biblical story of a great flood?
That would indicate that the Bible chronicled events as they happened. However, and this I find is important, what indigious Indians refer to as The Great SnowGod That Comes From The Mountain, we today refer to as "an avalanche set off because ofcertain snow conditions on slopes with a certain character".
That is, there is geological evidence of a flood. Or rather, of thousands of floods. Let's assume the Bible had it absolutely right (and I think it is a rather accurate "logger of events"). There was a flood. The Bible now takes the GIGANTIC leap and says "the flood was the workings of God, for this and that reason".
Much like theindigenous indians would say "the SnowGod is angry because I pissed my name in the snow yesterday", or some other reason.
What I am saying is there is the event, the fact which may be covered in various degrees of accuracy, and then there is the interpretation of it.
And, the leap of faith is that one says "A happened, therefore A must mean B" - but there's no supporting evidence of that assertion.
What if historical writings from diverse cultures verify events and places as described by the Bible?
Again, the Bible was written by men, in times of men. They're bound to chronicle events. The biblical interpreations of these vents as divine in nature and whatnot is what I dispute. And, I also dispute certain areas of ttheir reporting, where it is inconsistent with scientific facts.
What if archaeologists uncover the remains of destroyed civilizations (such as Sodom and Gomorrah)?
They could do that, and I could claim it was done by Nirfur, God Of All Things Yellow And Furry Taht's my interpretation of an established fact. My leap of evidence is no bigger than the one made by Christians.
You will still never consider for a second the biblical accounts are true, because you've already decided they are not. That is the antithesis of scientific observation.
I think you've misread me, or I've presented my opinions in such a way they cannot but be misread.
I think that in the bible, there are toejameloads of truisms, and there's a strong foundation for construction of a personal moral system. I also believe that it chronicles events as it happened, seen from the authors point of view and the geo-political situation of the day.
However, when they report a natural phenomenon and not only say "god-did-it" on reflex, but also "and he did it because A and B" without supporting that claim, then I object.
Now before you flip that around and say, "Sure, have you considered religion might be false" let me say, "of course".
Before I came to religion I asked that question a lot. But even if I didn't, hey, that's science's way. Close minded? Sure, but so is making up your mind religion is utterly false in the face of even the slightest evidence of corroboration.
I won't knock your personal beliefs. In fact, I don't really care about them in the sense that I don't regard them as bad or good. It's just the facts I'm interested in. If someone, anyone, says to me "A is true, because something invisible made it with B, and the proof is circular in nature", then I'll probably say "uhm, wait a minute here dude..."
Kieran, I don't know if you believe this; I wish, very intently, that there is a god or some other supreme being out there. I have a desire so strong for an afterlife that thoughts about not existing are nearly consuming me. I would like nothing more than be able to surrender critical thought and accept something dogmatically.
However, I am not capable of it. I was raised with the idea of evidence precedes faith. Was raised to be a skeptic, to doubt, to demand and produce evidence.
And, lacking such, I regretfully must conclude that although my desires are there, the very fact that they are so strong forces me to question any conclusions I reach about deities and the afterlife, if there is such a thing.
Still, I think I cop out on things from time to time :). A friend lost his mother a while back, and he was naturally complaining about why she was taken from him. I said, and this I believe, that they're not ours to have. We borrow their wonderful beings for just a brief period of time, and then they go back to where they belong.
I refuse to define where that is :). In that sense, I am spiritual, or religious, but even so, I see it as just a bunch of my own weakness/double standards (hey if standards are good, double standards are twice as good) :).
Interesting discussion from e vs c to science and faith in general. Thanks for keeping it civil kieran: I find that every discussion we have about this subject, I gain a little more insight in how the world is seen from the other side, so to speak.
-
And who dressed you today Baron Von GrossenArsch.......Satan? :D
-
Trying to debate creation against evolution is a waste of time. Evolutionists will try to put Creationists defending the Bible, and if a Christian is critical of evolution, well, hey, it's a theory that is subject to change you know, That's the nature of Science. Man apparently is only fallable when penning Bible scripture, not when theorizing evolution. Oh wait, theories are only theories, not fact, or are they? hmmm..
Weasel, get back to your dinosaur ark thread. :)
-
The real story of the great flood?
from this national geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/flood.html) site
Almost every culture on Earth includes an ancient flood story. Details vary, but the basic plot is the same: Deluge kills all but a lucky few.
• The story most familiar to many people is the biblical account of Noah and his ark. Genesis tells how “God saw that the wickedness of man was great” and decided to destroy all of creation. Only Noah, “who found grace in the eyes of the Lord,” his family, and the animals aboard the ark survived to repopulate the planet.
• Older than Genesis is the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh, a king who embarked on a journey to find the secret of immortality. Along the way, he met Utnapishtim, survivor of a great flood sent by the gods. Warned by Enki, the water god, Utnapishtim built a boat and saved his family and friends, along with artisans, animals, and precious metals.
• Ancient Greeks and Romans grew up with the story of Deucalion and Pyhrra, who saved their children and a collection of animals by boarding a vessel shaped like a giant box.
• Irish legends talk about Queen Cesair and her court, who sailed for seven years to avoid drowning when the oceans overwhelmed Ireland.
• European explorers in the Americas were startled by Indian legends that sounded similar to the story of Noah. Some Spanish priests feared the devil had planted such stories in the Indians’ minds to confuse them.
-
"Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman wondered what could explain the preponderance of flood legends. Their theory: As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea.
• During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland.
• About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result.
• About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey.
• Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded.
• Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story."
-
Success (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/wgrtfld.htm)
Explorer finds new evidence of great flood
WASHINGTON (AP) — Artifacts found at the bottom of the Black Sea provide new evidence that humans faced a great flood, perhaps that of the biblical Noah, thousands of years ago, the discoverers say.
Remnants of human habitation were found in over 300 feet of water about 12 miles off the coast of Turkey, undersea explorer Robert Ballard said Tuesday.
''There's no doubt about it, it's an exciting discovery,'' Ballard said in a telephone interview from his research ship. ''We realize the broad significance the discovery has and we're going to do our best to learn more.''
-
From a purely scientific viewpoint, one must be careful of any postulation being represented as fact. Ryan and Pitman's argument is a sound argument, but it is not necessarily fact.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, it should be curious to see cultures from all over the world relating similar viewpoints regarding religion. If as some suggest this is lower-order thinking in humans, is it uniquely human? When asked about the concept of death, Koko (the famous sign language-using gorilla) remarked "sleep". Is it half the people have missed something even a gorilla undestands, or is it half the people are on the thinking level of a gorilla? ;)
From a purely scientific viewpoint Ballard's discovery cannot be construed as conclusive scientific evidence of a great flood- at least not as represented in the quote. Archaeological searches for the Ark provide far more credible proof than a submerged civilization in one specific location.
Edit: I snagged the 300th post!
-
WOW! I couldn't even read all the posts here.
I just wish that we all can respect and allow others the right to enjoy their beliefs as long as they don't infringe on our right to believe what we believe. In due time I believe humankind will know the true answers to satisfy all. As a United States citizen, I truly believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that the government should not interfere with the various organized religions (as long as they aren't hurting anyone). I also believe that organized religions should not impose their will on the state either.
I personally am an atheist. I truly believe in evolution. Having said that, who am I to tell others that they do not believe in God? I truly believe that God does exist for those of faith and I am not about to say that they don't think or believe that way.
Bottom line: I'll respect your right to believe in God if you'll respect mine not to. Also please don't try to push creationism in OUR public schools if you refuse to teach evolution in YOUR classrooms/churches.
Have a good day all :) ~S~!
-
Archaeological searches for the Ark provide far more credible proof than a submerged civilization in one specific location.
Well there is documented evidence of a human habitation that was flooded out of existence in the Black Sea. There is also evidence that suggests with a high degree of accuracy that the Black Sea changed suddenly from fresh to salt water. This was a great flood, no question about that. Was it THE great flood of the Bible? That is only open to speculation. I tend to agree with the findings as a plausible explanation of the various flood stories.
Searches for the Ark have found nothing to compare with the above. The most I have been able to find is a 1949 picture of an anomoly on Mt Ararat. Nobody has ever seen this anomoly up close, studied it, or identified it as anything other than a possible natural formation, or just an unknown thing. It seems like it would be difficult to look upon such a thing without prejudice if you are trying to prove the Bible is factual in a fundamentalist way.
And congrats on number 300. I stopped at 299, felt bad about taking 300 when I started the thread.
:cool:
-
E
-
Bump!
eskimo
-
I like Beer.
-
Ypu've evolved a taste for beer, Tumor.
Beer wasn't around at the beginning of time, you see, and neither were you.
Me and the other Nirfurists were, however. You can thank me for your beer preference.
Too bad the evil fallen DudeWithWings Norhokffht tempted people into making inferior beer - the Ameri kkHan beers.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Ypu've evolved a taste for beer, Tumor.
Beer wasn't around at the beginning of time, you see, and neither were you.
Me and the other Nirfurists were, however. You can thank me for your beer preference.
Too bad the evil fallen DudeWithWings Norhokffht tempted people into making inferior beer - the Ameri kkHan beers.
Who said I like Ameri kkHan beer?