From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-13-2006 23:14
quote:"The Bible is the only thing that gives you the full picture," he says. "Other religions don't have that, and, as for scientists, so much of what they believe is pretty fuzzy about life and its origins ... oh, this is a great place to work, I will tell you that."
Priceless!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Let's face it, we're only a few thousand years old If we carry on like this, humanity will have been packed and dusted in less than 10000 years. Now that's a good job
quote:"There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could have been deformed, diseased or something. I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."
Can't argue with that!
BTW, this reporter should have done his research. This isn't the first Creationist museum ...
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-17-2006 21:43
I'm excited about this new museum. Who knows, maybe there will be some interesting information in there after all. I wonder why everyone is so against it? Someone has opened up another school of thought and the media is ready to shoot it down. Why? I thought alternative options were supposed to be allowed in America...hmm.
[sidenote]
quote:Theological scholars may have noticed that there are, in fact, no dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible - and here lies the Creationists' first problem.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote:Someone has opened up another school of thought
"School" and "thought" are two words I would never associate with such a place.
quote:I thought alternative options were supposed to be allowed in America
Has the government shut it down? No. Then what's your point? In the same vein, we are allowed to show it for the farce it is.
quote:There are also no dinosaurs mentioned in any text before Richard Owen coined the term in 1842.
Well, because we hadn't discovered them yet. I believe the word "duh" applies here? The reporter's point was that Creationists can't explain them because their source for the history of the world doesn't mention them at all and provides no explanation for their existence.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-18-2006 01:40
Gideon:
Try to get through the link at the bottom please. My hope is you will get a firm understanding on certain 'scientific' definitions and how those definitions are applied to creationism. And then you'll perhaps understand how I and some others around here use words like 'crap' when it comes to 'creationism.'
quote:15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
Darwin's Finches revert to Type
Neanderthals are not related to humans.
Did the chromosome break or fuse? Did apes evolve from humans?
Darwinism is a popular religious cult dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal..as Darwin said that whites descended from blacks..as blacks descended from apes and whites were superior to and would displace the older, darker species..
Evolution is the Darwinists creationist myth..
Read the link posted above that 'refutes" any disbelief in the official dogma But don't ask Questions..such as "did the chromosome break or fuse and how long did that take?"" because as the "scientific article" states..."These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record" Since when is any question about a scientific "fact" an unreasonable burden? .
Most of the "scientific arguments" presented in that articles are now hedged backpeddling amongst the government funded, vested interest "scientific" ommunity of high priests..splitting hairs and sputtering "aw shuckss"..as in trying to salvage a theory that cannot be defended on the basis of current scientific research. There is a nervous nellie feeling to the arguments..waiting for the next shoe to drop..as it dropped after the DNA tests on Neandertals..
Be A Heretic...and say plainly..the simple truth...Evolution didn't happen..
quote:Read the link posted above that 'refutes" any disbelief in the official dogma But don't ask Questions..such as "did the chromosome break or fuse and how long did that take?"" because as the "scientific article" states..."These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record" Since when is any question about a scientific "fact" an unreasonable burden?
Thank you, skyetyger, for effectively demonstrating how creationists repeatedly take statements out of context. The "frustrating requests" the writer spoke of referred specifically to creationists' perpetual requests to see the in-between fossils, no matter how many in-between fossils one produces. Your application of this statement to all scientific questions is something we call "twisting words."
Regardless, if somehow we were to produce the entire fossil record one day, creationists would still come up with some kind of "argument" against it. In this behavior, they are very much like conspiracy theorists. Myself, I'm done listening to creationists until they start placing the same conditions of "proof" on themselves as they do on science.
OK ..Go back and read the section on "common ancestors" in that article..The current "dodge".....Man and apes did not evolve from each other..they diverged from a "common ancestor."
Now...here is the "why " of that "dodge"
Fossil Record
Kangaroos are basically upright..therefore when the "fossil" is studied..Kangaroos are homonids..monkey/humans.
It is a question of backbone..
Here is a question...Common Ancestor..?
There is a chromosome on a DNA chain ..DNA is similiar in all aminals..like a backbone..so a kangaroo, a fish, a monkey or a human doesn't show much change from one "backbone" or one DNA chain to another..all are very similiar..
NOW
On a specific DNA chain... One Chromosome is in the On Position for species Y..The chromosome in that position is reversed.in Species X..That chromosome is ....180 out or in the Off Position...There aren't any other positions....Only Those 2...On/Off Yes/NO Yet Evolutionists conclude that the similiarity and the anomolie in that "backbone" of DNA proves "speciation" and those two species "evolved from "common ancestor" ...
If Evollutionist claim "common ancestor" for those two species...Then
1) What is the position of that chromosome in the Common Ancestor?
If Species Y is the ancestor of Species X ..without a commom ancestor..
2) Which is the "switched" position in evolution..which came first..the Species X or Species Y?
If the above cited Species Y and Species X are unable to breed ..are completely speciated in form and figure..
3) Why does that same exact chromosomal anomolie occur in other species without any evidence of speciation? Did the chromosome "break" in one species and "fuse" in anther?
4) What environmental factors would cause a "switch" in chromosomal position..if that "switch" is the "proof of speciation" between Species X and Species y?
5) In Evolutionary Time..How long did it take for a chromosome to "switch" from one position 0 To 180 when 0 and 180 are the only possible positions?
6) What does it mean that Darwin's Finches reverted to TYPE?
7) Are Gold Fish ..Asian Carp?
These are scientific facts..These are scientific questions..
And none of this science supports Darwin...
Haven't we done all this already, over and over and over??
We hardly need to - once again - go through all the repetition of refuting the creationist nonsense. The *proof* and the *facts* speak for themselves. Your *beliefs* are irrelevant.
Please - if you want to conitnue arguing things that have been shown to be factually incorrect....just read through the archives and speak to yourslef outloud
Quote "In 1997 he succeeded in analyzing part of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, showing that it differed profoundly from modern human DNA. " UnQuote
Are those the "facts" that speak for themselves?
There isn't any evidence that I am a "creationist." And I am not spouting nonsense.
Neandertals are not related to humans..could not breed with humans..and did not descend from a common ancestor
The proof and facts speak for themselves and they do not speak for Darwin...
There is big $$$$ being spent to refute those "facts" that Neanderthals were not "ancestors or relatives or kissing cousins of humans" They may have been Pets...They may have been Marisupials for all the evidence there is..
No One is concerned that:
There are museums dedicated to Neandertals as Ancestors of Humans
There are scientific journals and web site devoted to Neandertals as Ancestors of Humans
That is vested interest in refuting a scientifically established FACT...with big money being spent to establish any... however absurd... relationship between Neanderthals and humans..to salvage careers and wipe the egg off the Darwinists faces..
That is As Silly And Stupid as anything in any "creation myth"..
Now ..take a look at some other "darwinian science" and evolution in the same light..
As everyone gets in a twit about a "creationist" museum..
How about getting in a twit about the Neandertal museums and other nonsense being spouted by Darwinist..on public monies..
Meanwhile I am going back to something useful..like finishing the index page of my php..
If you ask me about creations.. I would say.."I Don't Know" but I don't like lies masquerading as "science" just everyone believes those lies as "proof and fact" which speak for themselves..No fact or proof "speaks" for itself..but is subject to continual scrutiny
That is what I don't like about "evolution" and "darwin"
It is the Secular ..Gospel.. mostly disproven by recent scientific evidence...and I am a Heretic..
I wonder, is skyetyger playing Devil's Advocate, or do you truly believe the nonsense your typing? I may name call, but I refuse to get into any type of intellectual argument with you skyetyger.
Patrick
Evolution and Creationism are not intellectual arguments or science..It is Comparative Religion...
And I don't do religion...
Read the science...
It was cherished "truth" for hundreds of years... "proven " and "fact" ...that English were Viking/Anglo Saxon/Norman and were not as "original" as the older Celts..such as the Irish, Welsh and Scots but DNA has refuted that...
Now DNA Is Not "Proving" many of our most cherished "myths"..neither historical or scientific but when a historian is confronted by DNA proof that English are English and have been since Cheddar Man...the historian changes his theory..What does the Darwinist do? Defend the disproven. and yell very loudly "Don't question my "facts."
I am a heretic..and so far..I have been proven right about Neanderthals
READ THE SCIENCE YOURSELF
It is not philosophy...It is SCIENCE..
I asked questions posed by mcrobiologists and so far..no one on this thread has answered those questions..which means..no one here has read the scientific literature about common ancestors, darwin's finches and the switch on that chromosome or even which species has that "switch" and why it is important to understanding biological systems.
It may not be something that interests you, Patrick ..other than as comparative religion.. I like science and read widely on the subject.
skyetyger: No one really answered your 'questions' here because we're all sick and tired to deal with lunatics who believe in the tooth fairy and creationism. You want answers, use the Search and the FAQ. We replied to such nonsense dozens of time. No creationist has ever made sense. They keep spinning on their head and their pseudo scientific knowledge and refute the evidences went confronted with them.
It is the Secular ..Gospel.. mostly disproven by recent scientific evidence...and I am a Heretic..
And you hope, by making statements like this, to get people engaged in constructive conversation?
As I said, we've gone over this stuff over and over. Read the FAQ and the archives.
We've covered both the creationist dribble and the doubts of the microbilogists.
Everything that we learn in modern sicence SUPPORTS that we have been correct in our scientific understanding of evolution in general, and we learn more specific details all the time.
To say something as blatant and absolute as "evolution didn't happen" is extremely ignorant. Evolution has been observed in our time in laboratories. We see evolution constantly among the viruses. We see the vast evidence on many levels, and we learn what Darwin was right about, and what he was wrong about.
Are there people who take to evolution with a religious bent? Of course. There are people who will take to anything in that manner.
To equate the proven facts of evolution with the nonsense of Creationism is purely absurd.
To state that "evolution didn't happen" based on disupted claims in regard to the specific course evolution may have taken in the human species is equally as absurd (especially in light of the current mapping of the neandertal genome...as opposed to a 1997 'partial' view?)
DL-44
Defend the Faith...
Monkeys as venerated ancestors
Fossils as holy relics
I have read the latest "research" on the Neanderthal genome
This was reported on CNN:
QUOTE WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Neanderthals may have given the modern humans who replaced them a priceless gift -- a gene that helped them develop superior brains, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday.
By tracking smaller, more regular mutations, the researchers could look at DNA's "genetic clock" and date the original genetic variant to 37,000 years ago.
They noted that this D allele is very common in Europe, where Neanderthals lived, and more rare in Africa, where they did not
"The D alleles may not even change brain size; they may only make the brain a bit more efficient if it indeed affects brain function," Lahn said.
Now his team is looking for evidence of Neanderthal origin for other human genes. UNQUOTE
NOW...We have ample historical evidence of state sponsored, agenda driven science:
QUOTE Kelves says that by 1935 "...eugenics had become `hopelessly perverted' into a pseudoscientific facade for `advocates of race and class prejudice, defenders of vested interests of church and state, Fascists, Hitlerites, and reactionaries generally' UnQuote
virus and bacteria do no "mutate" any more than dogs "mutate" or people mutate
Antibiotic resistance is cited as "mutation" or "adaptation" but it is not "mutation" or "adaptation" or "evolution" any more than a person who receives a vaccination and "adapts" "mutates" "evolves" into a person with immunity
Virus and bacteria can acquire "immunity" which is lost in succeeding generations if the antibiotics are not used.
Virus do "combine" with other virus to produce virus's with characteristics of both parents..but then so do humans
Nothing new there and that is not "evolution"
quote:DL-44
Defend the Faith...
Monkeys as venerated ancestors
Fossils as holy relics
Funny boy
And just so you know there is this thing called UBB code. You might find it too in the FAQ during your quest for answers. Or maybe you'll open your eyes and see the Insert UBB Code box next to the text area.
[edit] In the light of your previous post(s), you should really check out the archives. [/edit]
OK
Being a Heretic..I guess I should RECANT..
HOWEVER.....Acording to Modern Research..including an article published yesterday in Australia...
"No humans alive today are descended in any part from Neanderthals. It is believed that Modern Humans and Neanderthals could not breed with each other, because Neanderthals and the great apes had 48 chromosomes whereas modern humans have only 46."
I didn't find anything in the archive about creationism..
Thanks Poi
I checked the philosophy archives...
Here is another quote from the science papers..Also..it was reported that chimps had 99.9% DNA with humans..Now it is 96% and dropping. The Neanderthals are promoted to 99.5 but there are Profound Differences.. Mice share over 90% but they don't have a Lobby...
"One finding so far is that the Neanderthal Y chromosome is substantially more different from human and chimp Y chromosomes than are other chromosomes. This suggests that little interbreeding occurred, at least among the more recent Neanderthal species."
OK I will answer the arguments presented in the FAQS:
Intelligent Design V Darwin...both have some problems...
THE SEVERAL DIFFERENCES..intelligent design doesn't address adaptation very well and Darwinism takes too long..and doesn't make sense in some very key areas...
Here are some thoughts about both:
I would say there is "ADAPTATION" but that seems to be built in or the species dies..
Consider...Virus "Mutation"...A species can only "adapt" within a range...We can adapt to "smallpox." We do not mutate or evolve..we develop an "immunity" That is within the range of the species. It has been said that small pox wiped out the Indians..but what is interesting is that there wasn't any vaccine at that time. Whites had some small acquired immunity..which was a slight edge but they were as susceptible as the Indians..That is "adaptation." That slight edge or "adaptation" is lost in succeeding generations..The species revert to the Mean or Type..just like the Darwin Finches discussed below.
Speciation seems to be limited to what is already in the box of dog, human, finch, virus...That means a Darwin Finch can adapt to a range FINCH.. but when the environmental factors get beyond that range FINCH..the bird cannot "mutate" or "adapt." The bird cannot mutate into a lion to survive in an environment overrun, overgrazed and trampled by the sudden appearance of a herd of buffalo..Or even "evolve" or "mutate" into any form required to cope with the environmental change..And the Darwin Finch Reverts to Type..which means that a micrometer increase in beak size in big seed seasons quickly Reverts to the Mean beak size of Finch in normal times..The bird is limited to FINCH BOX.
Think of it this way..If species could rapidly "evolve" or "mutate" in reaction to environmental factors..then we should be seeing very rapid evolution because many species are under very serious pressure right now. This is not the case...Species are not "adapting' or "mutating" They are becoming extinct..OK ..next...
Here is an Argument:
Speciation. For Instance..an isolated population (2) has 10 genomes..There is a switch in the 5th genome..which is not shared by the general population (1)from which it is isolated...That switch is inherited..So the isolated population (2) becomes a bit different ...then a second switch occurs on the eighth genone in the isolated population..and this third population (3) is slightly different than the second (2) and very different than the Greater Population..(1)
That is the "instant" switch I mentioned at the beginning of this thread..but it has not be demonstrated that fusing or breaking genomes or chromosomes means anything at all. It is the intriguing question of 46 human chromosomes and 48 in chimps..It is theorized that human's fused or the chimps broke but instantly? Although no one denies now that humans appeared very abruptly..
Or Did They?
All dogs are wolves...dogs can REVERT TO TYPE and can breed with wolves and other canines....But We are alone..we are unable to breed with any other "ape type." That means we are a different species..although Darwinist keep trying to breed us off to Neanderthals and other apes using the "switch" theory above..but what if....our line is unbroken but we are the only surviving member?
What if there were always humans..maybe bigger or smaller..but always identifiably human? That would not have a switch..it would not have an adaptation although it might be bigger or smaller or ..different within the BOX human...not mutated or evolved but..always within the range "human?"
These are some of my Heretical Ravings but as you see... I am not scientifically illiterate..
I just have a different theory..and I don't buy into UnEthical Science in any way..as Ethics and Good Science have always been true and real in the end...I don't buy into eugenics in any form..All Men Are Created Equal...and no "interbreeding" with ape men or space men can change that..not by evolotionary accident or certainly not by (intelligent) design..
Can you please explain to me exactly who these "state sponsored" groups are, who are so adamant about pushing an "evolution agenda"?
Last time I checked, our monkey in the white house was a supported of 'intelligent design'.
Anyway.....
skyetyger said:
The bird cannot mutate into a lion to survive in an environment overrun, overgrazed and trampled by the sudden appearance of a herd of buffalo..Or even "evolve" or "mutate" into any form required to cope with the environmental change.
[/quote]
And this type of instant change, which always seems to be the argument among those who do not understand the science they are talking about, has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is not "survival magic".
Evolution does not happen to an organism, it happens to a species.
And it has been witnessed. In our time. In laboratories.
Other than that, I will not sit and argue with someone so insistant on throwing about the ignorant and insulting mockery you seem so fond of.
If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation - great! If you enjoy your verbal masturbation....by all means, have at it...but in that case, farewell.
The smallpox virus was unable ..over centuries..to "mutate" or "adapt" to vaccines. It died out...
That happened to a species...
Evolution has not been "witnessed" in our time in a laboratory...unless you mean "recombination" and that is not "evolution" from a "common ancestor"
And don't ask me to believe that Northern Europeans have superior brains because their daddy was a European Ape and their Mommie was an African Ape
The rest of the human race descended from HUMANS...and are Human..
What is wrong with that Theory?
Also ..
The switch on the genome would have to be instantaneous..The D allele being introduced by one neanderthal into the Northern Europeans gene pool would have to be instantanwous
No one disputes ..instantaneous....
But neither the switch on the genome or the allele are useful informatin..in terms of survival so there isn't any known mutation that would take Evolution time and be useful that would be outside the bounds of the adaptation for that species...For Instance...the "precious gift of superior brain" bestowed by Neanderthal didn't seem to have much survival value in the neaderthal species case..
"Instantaneous" was proved by the mitochodrial DNA studies..
The Darwinsist are arguing that the "pressure" for the DNA change would take Evolution XXX time but no one disputes that man appeared very suddenly...
What if we don't have an ancient ape ancestor?
Do we need one?
The current theory is...There are millions of years of subhuman apelike beings..billions and eons...of apes..and then suddenly..HUMANS
Why?
Why does the "sub" have to proceed to the sup..? Dogs are not inferior to wolves...not in strength or intelligence or beauty..
THEN what if....our line is unbroken but we are the only surviving member?
What if we were always HUMAN...
Maybe a bit bigger or smaller..maybe a bit sharper in the tooth or bigger in the bone....BUT always equal to ..
Human...
Dude. It looks like somebody was sleeping in biology class. You have so many misconsceptions about evolution. It's disturbing. I hope you're not representative of the education system in the US.
Sorry but evolution have been witnessed in our time and in the wild. Read real scientific literature. The argument that significant DNA changes have to be instantaneous to be valid has been debunked countless times, i.e. read the Blind watchmaker or have a look at some documentary featuring Richard Dawkins.
The smallpox virus was unable ..over centuries..to "mutate" or "adapt" to vaccines. It died out...
...
What if we don't have an ancient ape ancestor?
What does that have to do with anything?
Evolution is not "the theory of how we developed from apes".
And as I stated above, evolution is not "survival magic". Not every species is able to adapt - that's the whole point you are missing here: evolution is not a directed super power. It does not take a species and say "ok, what do we need to make this species survive?"
(and let's not forget - small pox is not gone...it is just contained....)
As Poi said - you have a great many misconceptions about the basic principles of evolution - it is no wonder you are so confused about the finer points.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-20-2006 22:49
I didn't quit WS. I just got tired of being battered for my beliefs. I still don't believe that life originated without help, and I still don't believe the Earth is older than a few thousand years. All the evidence I have ever been given of a millions of years old Earth have been shown to be wrong. Seems like it is always back and forth. Every scrap of evidence I have been given for a millions of years old Earth are shown to be based on guess work or lies, while the tangible evidence for a thousands of years old Earth are few and far between. And many of those arguments are shaky at best as well, or just ways to disprove the millions of years old Earth.
So no, I didn't give in my beliefs. I do remember that we had a miscommunication on some definitions and that cleared up a ton of problems about Evolution, Darwin, and Creationism. But calling either the Theory of Evolution (origins) or the Theory of Creationsim (origins) science is absurd at best. Both are centered around belief systems, which means believing one system almost guarentees the belief in one theory.
And you cannot tell me that the Theory of Creationism (origins) is wrong, because you have no possible means of proving it wrong. You were not there when God formed the Earth, you were not there when God placed plants, animals, and mankind on Earth. You have no evidence of a millions of years old Earth either, because all your evidence is in the present. What happened to it between then and now? You don't know because you weren't there.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-21-2006 01:19
I don't mean to be rude, I'm just tired of pompous people thinking they know the answers. No one knows all the answers. No one is certain about what happened between "The Beginning" and now in any system. They all, even scientific theories, take faith to work.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
please. we have shown you many many times what evidence is out there. The fact that some quack or some quack website tells you, without being able to offer actual scientific evidence, that it is wrong is completely irrelevant - we have shown you over and over why the arguments offered by such places as answersingenesis.com and other similar sources are 1) wrong and 2) not scientifically sound from the start.
This whole thing is so truly saddening.
I will say, for the sake of my own mind I guess, one more time:
evolution has been proven to happen.
There are plenty of particulars open to debate. That is not one of them.
I wanted to be a paleontolgist when I was kid...I remember going to the AMNH in NYC and just being in awe of all those dinosaurs.
But later on in life I had a revelation - one of those moments where you really being to doubt your core beliefs - in this case I started to doubt evolution. I was watching a documentary on TV...it clearly showed dinosaurs coexisting with humans..in fact one of the humans, I think his name was Fred, had a dinosaur (a sauropod) as a pet. Fred had a friend called Barney, and Barney kept a Smilodon (saber tooth cat) as a pet..further evidence that these "pre-historic" creatures are not as old as we would think.
So now, I'm no longer sure what's right - creation or evolution.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
Gideon: Do you really think scientists hold on their theories and are in denial of any new fact/discovery proving them wrong ? It seems you also have a misconception of the word: 'critical'.
Ever heard about, say : Newton's theory of gravitation. That theory prevailled for almost 250 years. That was a good approximation and people didn't knew better at the time, but scientists didn't fear to claim it bullshit when the buddy Einstein elaborated the general theory of relativity.
This is just one of many examples of the scientific community's open mind to sound and coherent theories. Can you imagine a single second that if there was anything contesting the ~4 billion years earth the scientific community would not rush to investigate and elaborate new theories based on these exciting finds ?
Also think about the fields of science that your ~6 thousand years earth dream contradicts and what it would mean. Our understanding of radioactivity, electro-magnetism, biology, geology, ... isn't as crap as your dream suggests. So far the 'guess work' and 'lies' allowed us to do quite a few things in these fields. Heck we haven't even blown up our planet.
quote: skyetyger said:
Neanderthals are not related to humans.
You obviously never met my ex-boss.
Hear is a good quote from S.J. Gould -evolutionary biologist and agnostic
quote:?In their recently aborted struggle to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed rhetorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science (creation science) not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that creation science?as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals?could not qualify as science by any standard definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.?They then pointed out, as Hutton had, that questions of ultimate origins are not resolvable by science. Thus, they claimed, creation science and evolution science are symmetrical?that is, equally religious. Creation science isn't science because it rests upon the untestable fashioning of life ex nihilo by God. Evolution science isn't science because it tries, as its major aim, to resolve the unresolvable and ultimate origin of life. But we do no such thing. We understand Hutton's wisdom??he has nowhere treated of the first origin?of any substance?but only of the transformations which bodies have undergone???
? "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding," Natural History 96 (October 1987): 18.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
I apoligize for "venting." I thought the DNA was proof enough but the "cultural anthropologist" study skulls and insist the neanderthal matches "primitive humans" in Australia..That racist statement burns me to the core..Comparing a modern human to a modern ape is exactly what that is...Neanderthal is a Modern Species of APE..Cro Magnon is a Modern MAN...
That sort of pseudo scientific racism is to be condemned in every case..and the "d-allele" that articles states the Cro Magnons inherited from the Neanderthals..The Cro's already had the genome.. And it has not been proven that the Neanderthals had it at all..
I am not a "creationist." I am a historian by education with a rabid interest in science, having grown up on farms and ranches where applied genetics is a stock in trade..
As a historian, I suggest any one reading this thread should be familiar with the terms "bestiality" "anthropomorphism" and "Cro Magnon"
As a avid reader of science..I think the topics I am trying to explain or argue are too large for this thread..A discussion of Darwin's finches is a book size subject..
Cro Magnon is 100% genetically identical to modern humans...neanderthals are 100% genetically identical to Great Apes...
Historians were angered in the 1960's about Cro artifacts being incorrectly attributed to neanderthal ..The artifacts were being fitted into the scheme of the theory rather than standing for independant analysis..The artifacts were being shoehorned into a preconceived mold..the theory..
I do apologize about my tone..There has been much racism in Darwinism..it is tainted with the stink of it and perhaps it is time for a new and better theory..
I had a conversation yesterday with a person who tests very high in IQ..and he said he didn't feel "smart." He didn't feel that he was born that way. He remembered feeling as small child that we couldn't overlook or skip logical steps..that everything had to be examined carefully and critically..We both felt that being "gifted" was a habit of thought, acquired at a young age rather than some....innate ability that distinguished us..In Other Words..we don't believe the d-allele was the entire reason for our ability to score highly on intelligence tests..and that other people were not less smart..or not less smart all the time..but then he said "I am not smarter all of the time." He was very glad to hear that Cro Magnon had been identified as what Cro Magnon really is....as he agreed...The hunters in the caves around the campfire..tossed the bones of the venerated monkey ancestors over their shoulders to be gathered up and treasured as holy relics..by the evolutionists..
quote: skyetyger said:
I am a historian by education with a rabid interest in science, having grown up on farms and ranches where applied genetics is a stock in trade..As a historian, I suggest any one reading this thread should be familiar with the terms "bestiality" "anthropomorphism" and "Cro Magnon"As a avid reader of science..I think the topics I am trying to explain or argue are too large for this thread.
You should stick to history - and we don't have to worry about your IQ either...
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
I think the topics I am trying to explain or argue are too large for this thread
Perhaps what you call "too large" I call simply "irrelevant"?
Either way, it seems you have no actual interest in what is being said to you, you simply want to go on with your dogma...about how evolution is too dogmatic....hmmm....
As I said, and others have said, you seem to have a big misconception about the basic precept, which is leading to a large amount of 'strawman' type arguments and a big missing of the actual points of the arguments for evolution. It is really pointless to try to discuss it until we can step back and address the basic precepts....
~shrug~
But you are, of course, free to feel however you want about the issue. I am comfortable with understanding the facts that have been put forward, and have been able to address the criticisms brought against evolutionary science because of the critical approach and critical peer reviews to which such science is subjected, and because of the number of times that incorrect conclusions have been challenged and overturned in the scientific community.
And because everything we learn *supports* the fact that evolution happened and continues to happen.
quote: skyetyger said:
The hunters in the caves around the campfire..tossed the bones of the venerated monkey ancestors over their shoulders to be gathered up and treasured as holy relics..by the evolutionists
Is a monkey an ape with a tail? I guess to you monkees, apes, neanderthals..it's all the same, give or take a gene or two?
Maybe you should subscribe to this theory instead, at least it makes more sense than we evolved from cute little monkees:
quote:I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.[/code]
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
The PROOF:
The DNA of the Neanderthal matches chimpanzees..
The DNA of the Cro Magnon matches human..
It is known that Cro Magnon is a modern human...exactly like yourselves..
Is it reasonable for you to assign human qualities to an ape based on a popular anthropomorphic adolescent sexual fantasy?
Anthropomorphism is assigning human characteristics to animals
IF..in 35,000 years..somebody finds a site in the forest where there is a campfire and a couple of beer cans..the largest and oldest population of "homo" remains found in the forest are chimpanzees..Then it will be possible for that "somebody who found" to KNOW for an absolute fact that Monkeys prefered Budweiser..
And that means that anyone living in the future time who drinks Bud..probably developed a genetic predisposition to Bud from his monkey ancestors because everyone knows..humans screw apes..
Now get a grip folks..That may be Darwinsim but it isn't history..it isn't anthropology and it isn't genetics..It isn't even science..
Neanderthal/monkey is not the past of man
APE the past and future of Neanderthal..
Genetics...
IT matters a great deal whether a vaccination or an antibiotic resistance is a "mutation" an "adaptation" or a mechanism within an organism which can be defeated.
Antibiotic resistance is "blanketed" in the popular mind as "evolution" "mutation" "adaptation" but that is sensationalism, a facile explanation for the people who are not really interested..It is comforting and we believe we have explained something...
To initiate a respnse..to AIDS or to defeat a bacterias response to antibiotics is not evolution...and does not prove evolution
All Medical Research..pre and post darwin is an attempt to understand the mechanism of a specific organisms response to environmental stimuli..
"Evolution" is not any specific organisms response to enviromental stimuli..That has never been proven
Evolution has not been proven..indeed not even defined..
The study of an organisms response to environment stimuli is pre-empted by Darwinism but does not require and indeed, in some cases, has been impeded by Darwinist Ape Chit..
That is why I say the "science" is a book length subject..
"Evolution" is not any specific organisms response to enviromental stimuli..That has never been proven
Of course it isn't. I do beleive that's what I've said
This appears to be one of those basic precepts that is tripping you up...nobody with any understanding of evolution has described evolution as an organism's response to stimuli.
quote: skyetyger said:
Evolution has not been proven..indeed not even defined..
Right.
~sigh~
And with this we're right back where we started.
Perhaps instead of reading all of the cutting edge articles on evolution, you should step back and read the basics?
Is there an echo in here??
Think I said that once or twice here already...
From: Out on the Sea of Madness... Insane since: Dec 2003
posted 11-24-2006 18:26
Why is is that creationists find it completely impossible to actually constuct logical, rational arguments in support of their views? And why are they also completely unable to actually present those views in textual form in some coherent and readable fashion?
Anyone else notice how both skyetyger and jade share so many simularities in typing style and presentation of ideas?
Stream of conciousness typing styles do nothing to present your ideas in the best light, and make it harder to even wade through the dross to find anything worth keeping.
Organisms Response to Environmental Stimuli..
Small Pox and The American Indian..
Small Pox killed whites and indians equally...the same as AIDS kills everyone..
The Whites had developed a "habit of thought" which gave them an edge...Consider a Bear...I have seen bears..I have a habit of thought concerning bears..You have seen dogs..you see bear..you say "nice doggy"
But that slight edge of "habit of thought" doesn't go very far in preventing or responding to AIDS or smallpox..
Vaccines are discovered..and smallpox cannot "adapt" "mutate" or "evolve" ....respond to environmental stimuli..
Now..the one side of this argument states that man "evolved" "mutated" or "adapted" to environmental stimuli..but
The other side is...smallpox did not..
Man has within his range the capability of responding effectively to enviromental stimuli "smallpox"...That is INHERENT..It has not been proven that man did not have that capability at any time..past present or future..Man always had the capability of responding to envirnmental stimuli with "habits of thought." Apes do not and there isn't any reason to assume that apes, past present or future can respond to environmental stimuli in any way other than exactly as they respond today..
Henry Ford said something about "the proof of evolution is that fewer chickens are being killed on the roads today by automobiles..that proves "natural selction."
RhyssaFireheart...
I have read technical papers that are much more difficult to understand than what I am writing..I could present this as a statistical comparision of DNA.
I am presenting very complex technical information as "analogies"
I don't "believe" anything..
Exactly what gives you the impression I am a "creationist?"
Prove THAT!
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-24-2006 23:16
skyetyger:
Just provide the links to the technical papers you refer to. I have no interest in 'proving' that you are a creationist. I am however quite interested in the 'technical papers' that have apparently provided you with this proof.
Simple enough?
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
Now..the one side of this argument states that man "evolved" "mutated" or "adapted" to environmental stimuli..but
The other side is...smallpox did not..
What exactly is it that you are trying to argue here skytyger????
What the hell does that statement have to do with *anything*???
Do you understand that the vast majority of what you have been arguing has nothing to do with evolution??
Many species have adapted to their environment over time. Many have also failed to adapt, or have adapted but been killed off anyway.
How well a species is able to adapt to their environment has no bearing on evolution. None.
Evolution is not a matter of better/worse. There is no goal. If an organism is able to survive, it passes on its genes - mutations and all. If it is not able to survive, it passes nothing on - mutations or not.
DL-44
I realize I have an interest in this subject not shared by very many people...It has been an abiding interest of mine for a very long time so the arguments may not be familiar to others...The same as one person may not understand the latest car model and all the arguments about design, etc...
But..
It has nothing to do with "how well." Or even whether a species failed to adapt or not..although all of those questions are intriguing...(to me at least) But...To answer you fairly...
I am commenting on two arguments..in fact..both of which are "evolution"..One involves "speciation" and the other "one point v multipoint origin"
Darwin's Finches adapt within a limited range..but at a genetic level, there isn't any change..and the Finches revert to type..
Neanderthals are not ancestors..indeed may not even be relatives..
These studies..were done to clarify points about the theory of evolution..and the origin of man/species
I have read reams of studies and evidence pro and con..most of which are factual, scientific studies conducted without bias but then again...
I should post some of the Darwinian "neanderthal" racist arguments I have had the nauseating experience of wading through as a Historian..But all varieties of human experience are history..after all..
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-25-2006 01:58
ST, you still have not posted any factual evidence supporting whatever your position truly is...nor have you posted anything even remotely approaching coherent thought yet.
Now, you have basically been asked to put up, or shut up.
Does that sink in?
I will put this succinctly - please post your factual evidence and position in a coherent manner.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
So..
The position posited in the Courts...that "evolution" merely addresses change...
There isn't any change that requires the theory of evolution
And the theory of evolution is much more to answer in the Rise of the Third Reich than Christianity..
It is a racist religion...or it is the religion of racist..
Without basis in scientific fact..
Gideon pointed out the time problems..I have pointed out the speciation and ape ancestor problems
Evolution is Dead...
Whether anyone chooses to practice Neanderthal worship, or Mohammed worship or Jesus worship is a right guaranteed by the Constitution but I can't wait to see the end of teaching children that blacks are inferior because their ancestors either were apes or had sexual congress with apes...and claim scientific proof.... that whites are superior because their ancestors either were or had sexual congress with apes....Or that women are superior to white men because white men have "neanderthal" genes.. the Y gene being somehow (scientifically, of course) more neanderthal than the X....IT has been taught by Court Order..
I have read it all...in academic literature..
A New Day Dawns...
but I can't wait to see the end of teaching children that blacks are inferior because their ancestors either were apes or had sexual congress with apes...and claim scientific proof.... that whites are superior because their ancestors either were or had sexual congress with apes...
DL-44
Nope, went to the same schools...
The current theory.."multipoint origin" explains the "evolution of race." It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior with direct evolution UP to whites. IT also replaced the theory that modern men were inferior to Cro because of interbreeding with Neanderthal (inferior European or Asiatic races) .which was Nazi credo...That has all been taught in various guises in American schools..
Darwin is inferior to superior..ape to man..so somebody has to be "it."
BUT Don't take my word for it..
Go research it..
Google Search
Darwin finch DNA
Neanderthal DNA
Cro Magnon
Eugenics
Marshall Grant
Social Darwinism..
Snd the list goes on and on..
quote: skyetyger said:
I have read reams of studies and evidence pro and con
I know you are a self-proclaimed historian, so you must enjoy reading books about evolution that were written at a time when infections were cured with amputations - but have you read anything since Darwin's Descent of Man which is circa 1871? Have you read anything that wasn't carved on stone tablets?
The only evolutionist you quote, and you quote him repeatedly is Darwin - do you have any idea how much the theory of evolution has evolved (pun intended) since Darwin? Do you even realize that Darwin's theory of evolution is outdated? Have you ever heard of punctuated equilibrium? oh, wait, i'm sure you have.
I would suggest you try to read some Niles Eldredge or Stephen Jay Gould but since you think evolution is about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or neanderthals having sex with lemurs (sorry, i meant monkeys) so you probably would not get much out of it.
But you are entitled to your beliefs....
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-25-2006 04:15
quote: skyetyger said:
but I can't wait to see the end of teaching children that
I put forward this notion some time back in another of these, 'we've done this to-death before' threads. That is; it is my opinion organized religion, in the traditional understanding of religion would very likely cease to exist within two generations if children were not indoctrinated, if you will.
Science does not provide the comfort of a belief system.
Cosmic soup baby!! =)
quote:
It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior
This is what the Mormons preached until not that very long ago... like in my life time.
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
quote:It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior with direct evolution UP to whites.
WHAT??!!! Are you on crack ? Evolution is blind. It has not goal.
It puts some of your previous statements in a different light. If this is where you come from, you've got a loooong way to go before you can argue about Evolution.
Evolution and Creation are both theories, but with some important differences.
Evolution has facts: whether in the test tube or in the fossil and geological records.
Evolution is supported by the fact that modern day whales still have remnants of limbs, all vertebrates have vestiges of gills during their embryonic development, and humans still have vestiges of a tail..that's a right a monkey like tail!
The geological record supports - even if you disbelieve carbon dating - that the earth is billions of years old...sedimentation studies (ex. the accumulation of silt and sand over time) will confirm that certain time periods, such as the age of dinosaurs, lasted for millions of years...yet the bible will imply the earth is a few thousand years old.
And the fossil record......the evolution of the horse, the camel, the existence of dinosaurs, trilobites, the burgess shale.....all of these support evolution and the fact that not all creatures were created in one fell swoop.
Creation does not have one shred of fact.
So whichever you believe is up to you. Freedom of choice and of beliefs. But don't confuse science and conjecture. Science is based on observable facts such as fossils. Creation has nothing to do with science or facts..in fact it violates all the physical laws as we know them...
Is there a God? Did he/she create the earth and mankind? If so, there isn't any science behind it..not as we define science today.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
DL-44
Nope, went to the same schools...
The current theory.."multipoint origin" explains the "evolution of
race." It replaced pure Darwinism which had blacks as inferior with
direct evolution UP to whites. IT also replaced the theory that modern
men were inferior to Cro because of interbreeding with Neanderthal
(inferior European or Asiatic races) .which was Nazi credo...That has
all been taught in various guises in American schools..
Darwin is inferior to superior..ape to man..so somebody has to be "it."
BUT Don't take my word for it..
Go research it..
Google Search
Darwin finch DNA
Neanderthal DNA
Cro Magnon
Eugenics
Marshall Grant
Social Darwinism..
Snd the list goes on and on..
Eugenics? Social Darwinism? Nazi Credos?????
I'm sorry - I was under the strange impression that we had been discussing evolutionary science
As for the finches - yeah, I've done plenty of reading too. At best, any controversy around them would reduce the number of species from about 14 to about 6 actual species, with further variation within those species.
After a quick refresher, the only information readily available about them 'reverting to type' involves two groups, formerly thought to be 2 different species that were in fact just variations within the species.
The debate about where neanderthal falls in the family tree has raged for decades. Nothing new there...
Wow. My understanding of evolution is shattered....
ST, you very clearly have some issues with this subject that are beyond the scope of science. Whatever they are, and whatever racial issues you have, they don't bear on the sicence that supports evolution.
From: 2 steps away from a los angeles curb Insane since: Nov 2003
posted 11-25-2006 20:48
quote:anthropomorphic adolescent sexual fantasy
He he he, whew... took two pages, but finally some porn!
Mmmm... tentacles!
*UC scurries to North Wing to relocate SUHO's infamous Tentacle Porn collection... And, brings along his new multi megapixel camera in order to maybe get some new pictures of his pet...*
[edit]
He he he, no one will find me there... hah! It's abandoned! Everyone is gone!
It's MINE! ALL MINE!
* a naked UC runs through the abandoned North wing screaming "You'll never catch me! You'll never catch me!"
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-26-2006 03:41
Webshaman, you taught me a lot about my beliefs, and I thank you for that. You helped me understand that Evolution does exist, that it is real and factual. You helped me see massive holes in my arguments and in what I believe to be right. Thank you for not giving up, and continually beating the faults of my arguments to the dust. I have learned a bunch.
I still believe there is one God, the Son of God is Jesus Christ, He died because I am an inherent sinning human, and I will go to Heaven because of what He did. I still hold on to what the Bible says about the Creation of the Earth and all things therin, but your arguments have helped me understand preachers can be wrong and evolution could happen. I'm still shaky on the particulars and I probably will be until I can do some hard core research on my own. Don't get me wrong, all the info you and others have given me was great, but I really need more until I can accept that evolution is an observable fact. Who knows, the scientists could be wrong. The preachers could be wrong.
No offence to anyone involved, but I need to find out on my own. I have some wonderful new facilites and faculty now to help me understand these things now. Hopefully I can have that understanding solidified in the future.
The reason why I don't post much anymore is that there is only so much I can take of insults and brow-beating. Not from you, and not necessarily towards me either. I just don't like to see anyone insulted or put down for what they believe, even if they are being stubborn about it. Beliefs are very close roots in people's lives, it takes a lot to shake them.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-26-2006 03:46
Sleeping Wolf, I have a question for you: How do you know Creationism "does not have one shred of fact"?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote: Gideon said:
Sleeping Wolf, I have a question for you: How do you know Creationism "does not have one shred of fact"?
I consider a fact as measurable or observable. A fossil is fact - you can touch it.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
quote:Sleeping Wolf, I have a question for you: How do you know Creationism "does not have one shred of fact"?
I don't see what kind of facts could prove that creationism is right, especially if you take genesis literaly or believe in a ~6 thousands years old Earth. On the other hand every scientific record indicates that the Earth is 4-5 billions.
And this includes numerous radioactive isotopes dating techniques. Which techniques are also used to date the fossils. They all tend toward the billions years old Earth.
Were the Earth 6 thousands years old as Creationnists claim, it'd mean that either our scientific knowledge is good to put in the trash ( and who knows how we manage to build bridges, do medical imaging, probe the cosmos, ... ) or that the one behind the creation made its task much more complex by creating radioactive particles with half life of hundreds, thousands, millions years, fossilized bones and soft tissues of its own creatures, interleaved foot/paw prints in the geological layers, oriented magnetic particles toward the same direction in the geological layers of equal age, ...
I don't know for you but none of these suggestions sound really likely to me.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-26-2006 11:48
quote:Webshaman, you taught me a lot about my beliefs, and I thank you for that. You helped me understand that Evolution does exist, that it is real and factual. You helped me see massive holes in my arguments and in what I believe to be right. Thank you for not giving up, and continually beating the faults of my arguments to the dust. I have learned a bunch.
Then it was all worth it, and I would hope that you could see why many here strived to reach you. I hope that you continue to grow and strive forwards.
quote:I still believe there is one God, the Son of God is Jesus Christ, He died because I am an inherent sinning human, and I will go to Heaven because of what He did. I still hold on to what the Bible says about the Creation of the Earth and all things therin, but your arguments have helped me understand preachers can be wrong and evolution could happen.
As has been said countless times before, that is fine - what you choose to believe is your own, personal choice. It is only when that Belief system is used to attempt to counter others that it comes under scrutiny. It is only then that glaring holes in it's logic come to light (or not, as the case may be). Continue to belief as you wish - just remember, that if you do choose to use it to counter Science, you will run into problems. Or perhaps you will go the path of Bugs, Master Suho, & Co., and co-opt Religion and Science.
Please keep in mind that Science is a tool - a real, existant tool. Like math, it is a way of explaining and examining things. It is quite funny, I have not heard many Creationists expounding that Math is wrong, that it is not logical, etc. But when it comes to Science (of which math is a part, certainly), they do.
It is my personal view that if one is going to be Religious, that one should have a firm grasp of Science, to temper the rather extraneous parts of Religion into something more feasible and realistic.
In any event, Gid, carry on.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-26-2006 20:21
Poi, if the Creationists are correct, that doesn't mean all the science in the world is renedered completely useless. It just means that one theory is incorrect. That happened to the atomic model over and over again, and to my knowledge it is still being adjusted today. Doesn't mean all the research done before is wrong. Doesn't mean that all the methods were wrong. Just the interpretations of the data collected needed work, or some of the methods needed more accuracy. I keep learning more and more theories about this atomic model: like the Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion can explain some things, and I had been using that for my molecular model. However, I found out that the Molecular Orbital theory explains the color, shape, and charges better than the VSEPR model did. Doesn't mean that model is entirely incorrect, just means that it cannot account for some attributes of the atom like the MO model does.
Could this be the case with Creationism and Evolutionary Theory? When God gave Moses the Genesis story, He did put some science in there, but not a lot. God was more intent on showing us Adam and Eve, and the story of us and how we got here and became so attuned to sin. Perhaps some science is needed to know the rest of the story? This is what I want to find out.
I do like the critical observations of Creationists on Evolutionists, and Evolutionists on Creationists. It keeps both sharp.
Sleeping Wolf,
quote: SleepingWolf said:
I consider a fact as measurable or observable. A fossil is fact - you can touch
it.
So if Creationists do fossil research, then they have facts, right?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
If creationists are correct the accuracy issue of several fields of science is of an order of magnitude so high it would blow away most of it. The ratio is ~750.000 ( 4.5 billions / 6 thousands ). Well to put this figure into perspective, it's like saying that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is not ~384,000 kilometres but 512 metres.
Think twice about it.
Is it more likely that scientific records are off by such an order of magnitude or that fairies, leprechauns, trolls, the groke, ... and god ( damn I almost forgot him ) exist ?
Of course you're free to believe whatever you want. But beliefs and science are two completely different things.
Of course parts of science are being adjusted. The whole point of science is to be critical of itself. The particle model is one strong example. Quantum theory ( and string theories ) is so much more accurate in its prediction that it can only mean the particle model is, like Newton's theory of gravity in its time, an ok approximation but do not reflect what happens for real at the atomic and sub-atomic scale.
quote: Gideon said:
So if Creationists do fossil research, then they have facts, right?
No they don't.
If they have fossils in their greasy little hands then they have factual proof of animals (invertebrates, vertebrates) or plants that lived millions of years ago and that were never documented in the bible...and that are much too old to be explained by the bible.
I don't even know what does fossil research mean?
do you mean paleontology?
or does it mean finding a dinosaur femur and saying it is actually a rock that looks like a leg bone just as a grilled cheese sandwich might look like the virgin mary?
or does it mean finding the same bone and saying it was actually the bone of a very large donkey which was drowned during the flood?
creationists can't use fossil research to support their moronic cause...the best they can hope to do is twist the facts in their favour...by misinterpreting the truth...also called lying
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
Anything said after that is irrelevent. We have shown you repeatedly exactly how and why the creationists are wrong. The fact that you choose to believe what is contrary to the facts and the evidence has no bearing on the issue.
quote: Gideon said:
So if Creationists do fossil research, then they have facts, right?
Unfortunately, the creationists have proven this statement wrong by continually ignoring the facts they hold in front of them in favor of trying to make the facts fit a story. Again - we've been through this all before, ad nauseum. You've argued all of this repeatedly, and been shown in hundreds of different ways exactly how, where, and why the arguments you present fail.
There is only so much of a beating you can take for your beliefs? Then stop trying to present your beliefs as 'science' when they clearly fail to pass the basic tests of science.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 11-27-2006 15:40
quote: poi said:
Of course you're free to believe whatever you want. But beliefs and science are two completely different things.
Not necessarily.
I happen to believe that faith in a higher power is an idea. How do we express our ideas? We use tools. As WebShaman so succinctly and eloquently said earlier in this thread, science (and math) are tools. These tools are used to express our ideas - and they change, are replaced, and even *gasp!* evolve.
Is it possible for these two things to coexist in the intellectual arena? Possibly, provided the parties espousing both remained intellectual. A 'religious' person with some scientific background and an 'evolutionist' with a measure of faith would hold a good debate. Others would simply resort to name-calling, unsubstantiated proposals, and even stream-of-consciousness reasoning.
The point I'm trying to make is that beliefs and science are not completely different, they're simply kept seperate by insolent groups of devout followers. And yes, I consider some theorists of evolution devout. Some are even scary in that white-shirt-and-tie, knock-on-your-door-at-5a.m. "Have you found Jay-sus?" way.
There's also the fact that it's entirely possible that beliefs and science - ideas and tools - are two parts of the same whole. Different yet the same. Hmmm....
quote: poi said:
Of course parts of science are being adjusted. The whole point of science is to be critical of itself.
I think religion should be critical of itself as well. While there are things in the Word that should remain as they are (I happen to think "Love one another," "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are pretty good rules), I do think some things are open to interpretation. For example: "Let there be light" is God's way of throwing a cosmic light switch. But how would we mortals percieve it, even millions of our years later? Perhaps as the Big Bang. Genesis tells us the world was created in six days - what is a day to an omnipotent omniscient cosmic being? Maybe 24 Earth hours; maybe millions of years. The science does not exist to explain this; the tools haven't been discovered to express this idea.
JMO.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
It's all fine and good to make esoteric/philosophic statements about the nature of science and belief, and it is true that there are people who treat science in the same way that many treat religion.
But they are still 2 entirely seperate concepts, no matter how much many people would like them to be the same.
Can they coexist? Can they together define the way in which a person sees the world? Of course. But that is far from them being the same.
Religion goes well beyond the realm of observable, testable facts and theories that science relies upon, and in fact in many cases snubs and even harshly condemns such approaches outright.
Religion *should* be critical of itself, but far more often than not, it is only critical of others, and only defends its precepts no matter the facts.
Science, by its nature, accepts criticsim by all, and exists only because of criticism and constant redefinition. Religion generally exists only because of the lack thereof.
quote:
Genesis tells us the world was created in six days - what is a day to an omnipotent omniscient cosmic being? Maybe 24 Earth hours; maybe millions of years. The science does not exist to explain this
The science does not exist to explain it?
Why/how is it the job of science to explain the possible variations in interpretation of ancient literature?
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 11-27-2006 21:27
quote: DL-44 said:
Religion *should* be critical of itself, but far more often than not, it is only critical of others, and only defends its precepts no matter the facts.
That's the problem - both with religion and science. Let me try to clarify: I see faith and religion as two different things. I have faith in God, Jesus Christ and the promise of redemption; but I would not call myself religious due to the utter revulsion I feel when I see or hear of religious people (aggressive televangelism, lecherous Catholic priests, &c.). These 'devout' or 'religious' people would have us discard science as Godless thinking injected into our world by Satan meant to turn us from the One True Way and simply take things exactly as written (and, by the way, God needs money, please call the number at the bottom of your screen, athankyouverymuch).
By the same token, I see scientific theory and scientific fact as two different things. Theorists accept criticism and are always thinking of new ways and ideas to expand our understanding of ourselves and the worlds around us; the proponents of scientific fact would have us discard everything but the "hard evidence" and consider this existence a cosmic accident easily explained and replicated by laboratory experiments.
Goodness, instead of clarifying, I'm soapboxing. I apologize. But I do hope you see where I'm coming from.
quote: DL-44 said:
Science, by its nature, accepts criticsim by all, and exists only because of criticism and constant redefinition. Why/how is it the job of science to explain the possible variations in interpretation of ancient literature?
Science exists to assist us in dealing with the world we can perceive; we can sense (see, touch, &c.) God's creation but cannot explain its coming into being. The Bible tells us God created the world in six days; we can choose to take that at face value (faith/religion) or investigate it further to prove or disprove that (science). But what is our basis of a 'day'? Is it defined by God as it is defined by man? In this scientific realm, we need to question the nature of the 'given' value (day).
Again harkening back to WebShaman, let's look at it mathematically:
Creation = 6 * day
Where day = ?
We assume, as mortal men and women, that day = 24 Earth hours. But to God, at that point in His plan day could = 75,000,000 Earth years. Or 5.2 seconds. We don't know for sure, because we have no way of seeing the Universe as God sees it. At least, not yet. Maybe science will create that method - that is what I was driving at, DL-44.
It's not science's job to explain ancient lore, science's job in the hands of a human is the same as a calculator, computer, pen or screwdriver - to achieve an end through the use of the tool.
One more illustration: take an ice sculpture (God's creation). Now we are told that the sculptor (God) made the artwork using a tool. Now we can assume a regular chisel and clawhammer were used, given the delicacy of the artwork. However, perhaps the sculptor has had years of practice and can execute very fine work with a chainsaw. Then again maybe they worked in a meat locker for weeks with a taphammer and an olive fork. We won't know until we ask the sculptor, or find a way to see him at work.
*dismounts from soapbox again*
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
quote:
By the same token, I see scientific theory and scientific fact as two different things.
Well yes, they are 2 different things.
quote:
Theorists accept criticism and are always thinking of new ways and ideas to expand our understanding of ourselves and the worlds around us; the proponents of scientific fact would have us discard everything but the "hard evidence" and consider this existence a cosmic accident easily explained and replicated by laboratory experiments.
This is a common problem people face when trying to deal with scientific issues, and is a big misunderstanding of terminology.
"facts" are out there.
"facts" are not absolute.
Theories are methods used to take those facts and explain the way that they relate to one another and to the natural world. Without facts, there are no theories.
quote:
The Bible tells us God created the world in six days; we can choose to take that at face value (faith/religion) or investigate it further to prove or disprove that (science).
Those are the only two options?
When what we know and can explain scientifically reaches a point that we can no longer currently explain, we must use the bible to fill in the gaps?
There are any number of options, and opt personally to disregard completely what hebrew mythology has to say about creation, in the same way that I dismiss what greek, norse, egyptian, mayan and korean mythologies have to say about it. They all make very interesting reading, and they all express some pretty interesting ideas about the people who wrote them, and about our perceptions of the world we live in.
But they can no more explain the very beginning than science can, and in all reality, they generally do a worse job of explaining it.
quote:
We assume, as mortal men and women, that day = 24 Earth hours.
I would say that any rational individual with serious interest in determining the begining of the universe would make no such assumption, and would be very unlikely to pursue any sort of investigiation into biblical interpretation at all.
quote:
But to God, at that point in His plan day could = 75,000,000 Earth years. Or 5.2 seconds. We don't know for sure, because we have no way of seeing the Universe as God sees it. At least, not yet. Maybe science will create that method - that is what I was driving at, DL-44.
If we were to look at the bible, and try to use logic on something that is clearly illogical, that logic would tell us that if god created the universe, and created day and night, that the 'day' spoken of in his most sacred texts would refer to the day that he created...
But that's a whole different conversation, and one with nothing to do with science
Now, to step back to the far more important point behind this part of the discussion - you are working from an assumption that falls well outside of what we can say is true using this tool that is science: that god exists.
To look forward to a time where science can create a method 'of seeing the Universe as God sees it' takes a huge set of leaps over the fact that there is no scientific evidence that any sort of god or gods actually exist(s). That again is a topic far greater than can be summed up in this thread, but it is essential to realize that the assumption of a god is beyond the scope of science, and to try to harmonize the two - while it is certainly perogative philosophicaly - is beyond the scope of reason.
To compare what we learn through science to what the bible says in any other than an allegorical way is a hopeless and fruitless journey.
Science and religion (or faith, or 'belief systems', or the bible...) are seperate things and will always be.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 11-27-2006 22:04
You make several excellent points, DL-44, and I admit we've strayed a bit from the topic of the thread. Thanks for getting in the trenches with me on it - I haven't had a good debate on faith vs. science since college.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-28-2006 15:31
quote:Now, to step back to the far more important point behind this part of the discussion - you are working from an assumption that falls well outside of what we can say is true using this tool that is science: that god exists.
That is the kernel of it.
Well said DL.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-28-2006 18:03
So Dl, are you saying that science assumes that there is no God?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 11-28-2006 18:25
quote: Gideon said:
So Dl, are you saying that science assumes that there is no God?
I think science takes the stance that until something can be proven scientifically, it should be considered a factor. Just as mathematical theorems don't really work in the ethereal (numbers tend to be concrete things, rather than plucked out of thin air), so too do scientific theories.
IMHO, just as a pen does not immediately know the end result of a writing, science and math do not immediately know the end result of their applications - that is left to the individual weilding the tool.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
So Dl, are you saying that science assumes that there is no God?
I will answer this again for you gideon, even though it is one of those things that I have answered for you many times.
Science does not 'assume' anything about god.
There is no evidence to support there being a god. Therefore any such concept of god or gods have no bearing on science. Should there ever be any evidence of a god or gods, then our understandings will grow, just as they did when cells, atoms, and quarks were discovered.
Be certain of this though: such evidence being found would be far from the end of scientific inquiry. The concept of god does not explain everything, it only adds to the questions...contrary to the 'perfect' explanation that the religious would have us think.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-29-2006 01:20
quote: DL-44 said:
Science does not 'assume' anything about god.
Okay, then do scientists make assumptions about God?
quote: DL-44 said:
There is no evidence to support there being a god.
I would tend to disagree with this claim.
quote: DL-44 said:
Be certain of this though: such evidence being found would be far from the end
of scientific inquiry. The concept of god does not explain everything, it only
adds to the questions
But I would most certainly agree with this. Facts about God only seem to make Him greater and less comprehensible. They do pose more questions than answers. There are a few answers for the here and now, though. Pretty impressive I think.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
Okay, then do scientists make assumptions about God?
I am certain that, like all humans, many scientists have some rather varied views of god. If I get the time, I'll track them all down and determine what level of assumption they make about such things
quote: Gideon said:
I would tend to disagree with this claim.
Then by all means - share with us this evidence of gods that seems to have eluded the rest of the world...
quote: Gideon said:
Facts about God...
Except one problem - there aren't any facts about god (see above).
Gideon: I sure hope the scientific community is not biased by some imaginary friend, bed time stories and other beliefs for which there isn't the slightest shred of a proof.
The fact that science can not disprove the existence of god, the flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapots, pink invisible unicorn, trolls, thor, fairies, orcs, ... only means there is nothing to disprove them.
On the other hand there is absolutely nothing to prove their existence either.
No clear conclusion can be drawn.
However from a logic stand, the lack of any proof of their existence makes it almost absolutely certain that these chimeras, as friendly they may be, do not exist.
Faith is blind. It bares no reason. People are free to believe whatever they want, but science is governed by logic and reason.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-29-2006 14:19
quote:quote:
DL-44 said:
There is no evidence to support there being a god.
I would tend to disagree with this claim.
Gid, I would be more than interested in your evidence to the contrary. If you disagree and call the lack of evidence to support there being a god a 'claim" - then surely you can refute it. Please present your evidence and facts to the contrary.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 12-01-2006 00:26
I'm slightly confused by your wording Webshamman, but if you are wanting the evidence I have found that proved God exists to me, then I can tell you. However, for everyone reading, this is very personal stuff. I don't really expect these experiences to work for anyone but me, because they have shaped what I believe, and why I believe. God worked these things into my life so I can come to know him. He called me this way. I think you all need to find evidence for yourselves. Especially if you believe there is no God. If you believe that then you had better be pretty darn sure of yourself, because if there is a God, and He does sit in judgement like John claims, then you're screwed.
I don't think there has ever been a time I've questioned there being a God. I think I always knew there was someone or something up there, controlling what is going on down here. And as of yet I haven't met any sane person who doesn't think there is something more to this life than the temporal. It isn't anything mental or logical, just a feeling within me. When I sit quietly I feel like there is more...something more. I watched a movie, called the Incredibles, that really made me think. Why would people envision superheros? Why would we want superpowers? Why do we want to be able to influence the world around us like that? Or have protection like that? Hope? I came to the conclusion that we all have a wanting, a desire for something more deep within us. I always feel a need to belong to something greater than myself. A need to be a part of something that will give my life purpose and meaning.
Well, I was in a deep, dark, depressed state when I was in junior high. I was a mess. Not physically. I was an A B student, had friends and family. I played games and people generally liked me. I was a pacifist and I was a sweet guy. However, underneath I was a wreck. I felt so alone. Empty. I tried video games. No good. I tried food. No good. Books. No good. I tried lust, masturbation, anything to fill me up with happiness. To fill that void within my life. That desire to have a purpose, to be filled up.
Freshman year of my high school, I read a book by Francine Rivers called, "A Voice in the Wind." It was about a Jewish girl, who's family were one of the first Christian families in Jerusalem. It was about her faith in God, when her home, her temple, her holy city, and her family, were all destroyed in a few short weeks. Then she was shipped off to Rome where it was a capital offence to be a Christian. She was tortured and beaten, then ultimately fed to the lions. She was saved by a doctor, horribly disfigured, and in an overall horrible position. The strange thing was that she never lost her hope in God. Never. And God came through for her. He opened the eyes of everyone in her Roman family she was a slave to, and they all accepted Christ's gift of a new life. They all either went to heaven, or had a complete character overhaul. And at the end, she was happy.
When I was half-way through, I thought about my heart, and where I was. I thought about how hard I tried to fill my void, and was never able to fill it. Then I finally turned over in my bed and said, "God, if you are real, if you are truly there, please save me." And things changed.
I started to open up and pray more often, more meaninfully. And when that happened, I became...joyful. I have never been joyful in my entire life! I have been happy, giddy even, but never joyful. It was like I had a hope, a dream that could never be destroyed. I started to learn more about this God that performed miracles in that fictional book I read. I wanted to know if He was truly real.
Every night I would read the Bible, searching for Him, searching for something that would show Him to me. And every night I would find something...something about Him. His miracles, His faithfulness, His devotion. Something about me. It was almost magical how closely a book that was compiled almost 2000 years ago, and written older than that, would fit exactly with me life now. So I continued reading, learning, and being filled up by some sort of presence...I couldn't quite put my finger on.
I no longer liked video games. Not because they weren't fun, but because I felt like I didn't need them anymore. Life like it is now is plenty enough for me. And then I started losing my interest in lust. That battle is slow and long, but I don't want women anymore like I used to. I used to idolize women. I don't anymore. I used to be mean and angry a lot. Now I am kind, I love those around me. Not because I am told to, but because this thing living inside me does.
Now I know why I changed. It is because of the Holy Spirit within me. It is so strange to see it work...so strange to see what happens. Just like what happened to the apostles. They recieved the Holy Spirit, and became completely changed men. They no longer cared about their lives before Jesus Christ. They were ready to die for Him. Paul even said he was happy to die! Just because they would have the promise fulfilled of seeing Jesus Christ again. I look forward to that with great hope.
You see, it is all about hope. Hope that the prophesies laid out in the Bible will come true. The ones about the Jewish people are already almost to fruition. The ones about the Jews before the Church have come to pass, now I am waiting on the one last week. It is coming soon. The Jews have already made preparations for their holy temple. The church of Jesus Christ, as discombobulated as it is, has been ready for a while. There's only so many more people out there who haven't heard the Gospel. Only a few peoples left who haven't heard of Jesus Christ's death, and resurrection for our redemption into God's kingdom. I can't wait to be there on that day and see God. To see Him, and to dance and sing for Him. To hug Jesus. To meet the Christians of old times. The ones who died for their belief in God.
I have found my proof of the existance of God. Have you found yours? Do you know for certain that God does or does not exist? If you don't, you need to find out now. Because the time is coming that we are all going to have to stand before Him someday. The time for decision is now. Because there may not be a tomorrow.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 12-01-2006 00:32
And Poi, I've never seen a troll. Logically, I don't believe they exist. I have some friends who have seen ghosts, and I trust them. Thus, I believe there are ghosts. Or something that would make them think so. I have never touched one, nor felt its presence. I have felt the presence of God. I have seen God's Hand in my life. I have felt the presence of demons. I have been attacked by them before. Might even be attacked now. I don't believe in something blindly Poi. I'm no idiot. I have to have a lot of proof for me to believe anything. Took me a long time to believe the apostles were right about God. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I believe about what some of these preachers are telling me. But I do know that God sent His son here to die for me. And I do know that I can trust what He said. That is enough for me.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 12-01-2006 01:18
quote:And as of yet I haven't met any sane person who doesn't think there is something more to this life than the temporal.
May be one of your best yet Gideon.
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
quote:Especially if you believe there is no God. If you believe that then you had better be pretty darn sure of yourself, because if there is a God, and He does sit in judgement like John claims, then you're screwed.
I'm pretty darn sure I'd rather live fully the only life I have than live in fear of a "God". If there is a God and he wants to punish me for living MY life, then screw him!
quote:I have found my proof of the existance of God. Have you found yours? Do you know for certain that God does or does not exist? If you don't, you need to find out now. Because the time is coming that we are all going to have to stand before Him someday. The time for decision is now. Because there may not be a tomorrow.
Right. So basically you have absolutely no rationnal proof of the existence of your imaginary friend. We're back to square one. Of course if those 'proofs', as you call them, are enough for you believe, then be it but these are nowhere near to scientific proof.
I personally have make my mind. Thanks but no thanks.
But I do know that God sent His son here to die for me. And I do know that I can trust what He said.
I'm sorry....I thought we were talking about evidence here
It's no surprise to anyone that when you say you have evidence, and you are asked for it, you turn instead to "you better be ready" and "you better be sure of yourself". You realize that right - that it's no surprise to anyone?
~shrug~
As I said: there is no evidence for the existence of gods, and no cause for science to look for gods, and so stories of gods have no bearing on science.
Should that change, then science will address such things as gods. Until some form of evidence can be proffered by those who feel it exists, there's not much point in even discussing how gods fit into science. It is purely in the realm of personal belief.
{{edit - so as not to ignore the personal side of your post -
quote: Gideon said:
I came to the conclusion that we all have a wanting, a desire for something more deep within us. I always feel a need to belong to something greater than myself. A need to be a part of something that will give my life purpose and meaning.
Well, I was in a deep, dark, depressed state when I was in junior high. I was a mess. Not physically. I was an A B student, had friends and family. I played games and people generally liked me. I was a pacifist and I was a sweet guy. However, underneath I was a wreck. I felt so alone. Empty. I tried video games. No good. I tried food. No good. Books. No good. I tried lust, masturbation, anything to fill me up with happiness. To fill that void within my life. That desire to have a purpose, to be filled up.
This is what I call the 'god hole'.
Not everyone has a 'god hole'.
To those of us without a 'god hole', having people explain to us how great god is, and how we obviously need 'god' too, and how peachy and wonderful everything is with god (and how we 'better be ready' and 'better be sure'), is about the same as having the heroin addict explain to you just how beautiful life is with heroin, and how ugly the world is without it, and how everybody just needs to get high and the world will be a wonderful place.
Have you ever experienced that? It's a pretty fair analogy...
I'm comfortable without my needle, thank you very much
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 12-01-2006 04:55
Isn't there something about 'opiate of the masses' ? =)
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 12-01-2006 06:23
quote: poi said:
If there is a God and he wants to punish me for living MY life, then screw him!
God doesn't want to punish you for living your life. That is why He died for you. He's taking your punishment for all the bad things you have done in your life. All the times you have hurt Him, all the times you have hurt someone else, all the times you have hurt yourself. He wants to take the blame! He wants you to be able to get off scotch free! Why don't you want to let Him?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 12-01-2006 06:29
quote: DL-44 said:
It's no surprise to anyone that when you say you have evidence, and you are
asked for it, you turn instead to "you better be ready" and "you better be sure
of yourself". You realize that right - that it's no surprise to anyone?
When asked for evidence, I gave you my evidence. My evidence is enough for me to believe that God does exist.
And hey, you should be sure of what is going to happen to you. If the eternal cost is as it is said to be, and the eternal rewards are what they are said to be, don't you want to be sure?
BTW, do you have evidence that God doesn't exist?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote: Gideon said:
When asked for evidence, I gave you my evidence. My evidence is enough for me to believe that God does exist. And hey, you should be sure of what is going to happen to you. If the eternal cost is as it is said to be, and the eternal rewards are what they are said to be, don't you want to be sure?BTW, do you have evidence that God doesn't exist?
Ok, this all goes very directly to the subjects that we have gone over to a ridiculous extent already in the past, and I don't have the time or energy to pull out all the explanations for you yet again, Gideon.
Your questions are absurd, and I've explained why already. Your 'evidence' is quite obviously not relevant scientifically, and science is clearly what we are talking about here.
If you've got something new to add rather than spewing the same nonsense that many people have already answered you on hundreds of times, let;s hear it. Otherwise....why are you bothering to say this all again?
quote:God doesn't want to punish you for living your life. That is why He died for you. He's taking your punishment for all the bad things you have done in your life. All the times you have hurt Him, all the times you have hurt someone else, all the times you have hurt yourself. He wants to take the blame! He wants you to be able to get off scotch free! Why don't you want to let Him?
As DL-44 worded it, I don't have a god hole. I'm a grown up, I can take care of myself. I don't need an imaginary friend.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-01-2006 16:42
quote: DL-44 said:
Science does not 'assume' anything about god.
There is no evidence to support there being a god. Therefore any such concept of god or gods have no bearing on science. Should there ever be any evidence of a god or gods, then our understandings will grow, just as they did when cells, atoms, and quarks were discovered.
Be certain of this though: such evidence being found would be far from the end of scientific inquiry. The concept of god does not explain everything, it only adds to the questions...
quote: poi said:
I'm a grown up, I can take care of myself. I don't need an imaginary friend.
These two statements seem to contradict one another, yet both of you are standing in defense of science. DL seems to propose that the concept of God is just like the concept of evolution: a tool to suggest a possible history for our species. poi, on the other hand, chalks any concept of a god or gods up with the boogeyman and Santa Claus.
I don't presume to know more or less about God and I am certainly no scholar of science. And yet it seems to me that DL & poi are not unlike two different denominations of Christianity: saying the same thing two different ways.
And like some Christian denominations, they defend their faith with a ferocity that can be frightening to behold. But, as I've said, no Darwinists have knocked on my door at 4 a.m.
Yet.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
These two statements seem to contradict one another, yet both of you are standing in defense of science. DL seems to propose that the concept of God is just like the concept of evolution: a tool to suggest a possible history for our species. poi, on the other hand, chalks any concept of a god or gods up with the boogeyman and Santa Claus.
Whoa, back up a second
The statement from me that you quoted was a very basic statement in regard to science: it makes no assumptions about (insert subject here).
Poi stated a personal opinion. You will find similar opinions expressed by me above as well.
The point being, "science" does not make an assumption about whether something exists. If there is evidence, or something to suggest that evidence might be found, then ways are developed to find, express, and evaluate that evidence.
As there is no evidence of god that anyone has been able to offer, science by definition has no reason to take it into account.
As it stands, the question of whether or not god exists is entirely immaterial. We evaluate the evidence before us, and if you wish to take a philosophical view which explains how your deity fits into that - anyone is welcome. However, it must be understood that such groups of thought *are* philosophical and not scientific.
I do not in any way consider any god or gods to be a valid explanation of....anything.
quote:And yet it seems to me that DL & poi are not unlike two different denominations of Christianity: saying the same thing two different ways.And like some Christian denominations, they defend their faith with a ferocity that can be frightening to behold.
Again: facts. Evidence.
This is not 'faith' and it is not 'doctrine'.
Science is not a religion. Period.
Science represents what we know; what we understand. It does not claim to be the 'final answer'. By its very nature it evolves as we learn.
This is very different from religion which sets an answer and then forces everything to fit.
*Please* understand the very important distinction.
I have no 'faith' to defend. I will fight against mythology and floklore being disguised as science. I will not fight against the furthering of our scientific knowledge, whether that challenges evolution or not.
And please - there is much more to evolution than Darwin. Let's stop making this a "darwinist" issue.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-01-2006 17:17
quote:These two statements seem to contradict one another, yet both of you are standing in defense of science. DL seems to propose that the concept of God is just like the concept of evolution: a tool to suggest a possible history for our species. poi, on the other hand, chalks any concept of a god or gods up with the boogeyman and Santa Claus.
Then you need to go back and read exactly what they posted, because you have failed to understand what they both posted.
Nowhere has DL "proposed" that the concept of God is like the fact of evolution at all.
poi's views are his own - as are anyone elses, for that matter. He draws his own conclusions, but nowhere does he state as a fact that Science has determined that there is no God.
quote:And yet it seems to me that DL & poi are not unlike two different denominations of Christianity: saying the same thing two different ways.
Then you need to brush up on your Science more. Then you will see that DL and poi are nowhere near to being like denominations of Christianity, for they are not saying the same thing in different ways.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-01-2006 17:24
quote: DL-44 said:
I will fight against mythology and floklore being disguised as science. I will not fight against the furthering of our scientific knowledge, whether that challenges evolution or not.
So, hypothetically speaking, if evidence were uncovered that pointed towards the existence of a creative directive force (to be dubbed 'God' by countless masses), you would consider that there is something more to the story than mere stories?
As an aside, I am sure that you file the gospels & epistles of the New Testament as 'stories' rather than 'evidence' despite their being first-hand eyewitness accounts.
quote: DL-44 said:
And please - there is much more to evolution than Darwin. Let's stop making this a "darwinist" issue.
Fair enough - I stand corrected. The nub of my jist, however, is that not all Christians get rude and intrusive with their faith - I certainly would not expect coldly rational human scientific creatures to act as such, regardless of which scientific theory they have weighed to be the most likely.
Which brings me to the subject of "the God hole". Some people have it, some don't; by the same token, some are autistic, some aren't; some are gay, some are bisexual, some are hetero. Is "the God hole" genetic? If so, will the scientific community seek it out to study, catalogue and eliminate it? Is it a learned behavioral hole? If so, will we begin indoctrinating our children against it? What are your opinions?
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
So, hypothetically speaking, if evidence were uncovered that pointed towards the existence of a creative directive force (to be dubbed 'God' by countless masses), you would consider that there is something more to the story than mere stories?
That is not a logical progression.
The potential existence of such a force, and the huge number of very different stories about different incarnations of what could be said to personify that force, are *extremely* different things, with gobs of things in between.
I don't think it is possible to equate all of the different belief systems closely enough to say that any such 'force' could be equally called 'god' and cover all the bases.
If evidence were uncovered, we would have to see where the evidence leads us. That is the way of things
quote: Gothmatum said:
As an aside, I am sure that you file the gospels & epistles of the
New Testament as 'stories' rather than 'evidence' despite their being
first-hand eyewitness accounts.
This is a subject worthy of its own thread, and indeed, there are many very long threads here already devoted to it.
In short: nonsense. At best, the earliest of the gospels was written 70+ years after the alleged crucifixion. There are countless discrepancies between the various gospels.
More importantly: how does a story which claims that there were eyewitnesses relate to there actually being eyewitnesses? This is an argument very often touted by the christian apologists as 'irrefutable evidence'. The story claims that hundreds of people witness an event, so these witnesses, claimed to exist within the story, are somehow evidence that the story is true? Talk about circular references! =)
quote:
Which brings me to the subject of "the God hole". Some people have it, some don't; by the same token, some are autistic, some aren't; some are gay, some are bisexual, some are hetero. Is "the God hole" genetic? If so, will the scientific community seek it out to study, catalogue and eliminate it? Is it a learned behavioral hole? If so, will we begin indoctrinating our children against it? What are your opinions?
For my personal view, I will leave it at this for now: I don't have a strong opinion as to the origin or nature of such a hole. It is very apparent in many people, as can be seen by simple observation. I refer to it as 'god' related only because god seems to be the subject which makes people very adamantly tell other people that they must also need what they themselves need...
As for 'eliminating' such a gene - yikes. Now we're on a different topic altogether.
However, as far as 'indoctrinating' against it, that is hardly necessary. All we need to do is to *stop* indoctrinating our children into religions.... =)
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-01-2006 18:28
quote: DL-44 said:
More importantly: how does a story which claims that there were eyewitnesses relate to there actually being eyewitnesses? This is an argument very often touted by the christian apologists as 'irrefutable evidence'. The story claims that hundreds of people witness an event, so these witnesses, claimed to exist within the story, are somehow evidence that the story is true? Talk about circular references! =)
This is an excellent point. In other events, such as a car accident, eyewitnesses only help peice together evidence already given. And what evidence is there of these events?
Other than the continued existence of the Church, of course, but that's the subject of another thread.
quote: DL-44 said:
As for 'eliminating' such a gene - yikes. Now we're on a different topic altogether.
+1
quote: DL-44 said:However, as far as 'indoctrinating' against it, that is hardly necessary. All we need to do is to *stop* indoctrinating our children into religions.... =)
What about not indoctrinating our children into *one* religion? What if people could be more (and I apologize in advance for the use of this word) 'pantheistic' about their children's education?
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
What about not indoctrinating our children into *one* religion? What if people could be more (and I apologize in advance for the use of this word) 'pantheistic' about their children's education?
to me, that's kind of like 'should I expose my child to one street drug, or to many of them?'
quote: Gothmatum said:
This is an excellent point. In other events, such as a car accident, eyewitnesses only help peice together evidence already given. And what evidence is there of these events?
While that point is enough for me, this situation is more striking - we don't have witnesses of an event for which there is no evidence, we have a story, which *claims* there are witnesses (for which there is no evidence) of an event for which there is no evidence...
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 12-01-2006 20:22
The problem I have with pantheism is that it starts with the assumption of a god and that, god is all and all is god.
I personally don't know any believers who willingly would expose their young children to other religious notions let alone instruction that wasn't in strict compliance with their particular brand of religion.
All ism's are perpetuated on get'em while they're young.
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-01-2006 21:02
quote: NoJive said:
All ism's are perpetuated on get'em while they're young.
So be careful... call it 'evolutionary theory'... not 'evolutionism' or 'Darwinism'... wouldn't want people thinking any sort of indoctrination is going on...
I just want to clarify and say clearly that I am not proposing everyone should believe exactly what I believe, nor that what I believe fully explains everything or that it will work for you, like some late-night car-wash-in-a-spray-bottle salesman (and some televangelists are equally as annoying). Frankly, I don't think everything should be explained... where, then, would the minds and imaginations and (yes, I'll say it) faiths of mankind go?
I've had a personal experience that "shades in the blank places" in my life, and in my case that's taken the form of a largely-Presbyterian view of Christianity. It's just what works for me. It's like driving a car - I might like driving a Jeep, but that isn't to say I'm going to hate you for driving a Ford. It still gets you from A to B.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 12-01-2006 21:36
quote: Gothmatum said:
So be careful... call it 'evolutionary theory'... not 'evolutionism' or 'Darwinism'
<lol> Yes, as I was writing that I thought I should include religious but..... =)
quote: Gothmatum said:
It's just what works for me
Yes... well that's what it's all about isn't it. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would you agree that your largely-Presbyterian view...while not answering all your questions does provide you a certain level of comfort? That may not be the correct word but I think you know what I mean.
As for your driving analogy. I'd rather push a chev than drive a ford. =)
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
It's like driving a car - I might like driving a Jeep, but that isn't to say I'm going to hate you for driving a Ford. It still gets you from A to B.
Which is all fine and dandy - everyone is free to believe whatever they like.
But again - what we're talking about here is science - facts, evidence, and how the facts and evidence interact with us. Evolution is not an alternate religious belief, and it is not "just a theory" in the manner that someone sitting and thinking "gee, I think maybe..*this* is how it works..." is a "theory". To qualify in scientific terms as a theory requires that it be supported by evidence and facts. It will not someday "graduate" to a fact or a law. Evolution is a fact. It happens. We've observed it. We *know* that it does happen. We don't know all the details. THere is plenty still to learn.
How that effects your 'life view' is up to you. But your life view, and my life view, have no bearing on the facts and the evidence, and won't change the fact that evolution happens. No matter what you drive or where you go in it
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-04-2006 15:42
quote: NoJive said:
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but would you agree that your largely-Presbyterian view...while not answering all your questions does provide you a certain level of comfort?
I can't deny there is a 'security blanket' feel to religion. However, the way I see it, humanity is still a young race, and the universe around is quite dark and mysterious, not unlike our bedrooms when we are little. As we grow and explore, we find there is nothing to fear, but until we reach that maturity we use a little light to throw back the darkness. Until we, as a race, can look behind all the bookshelves and open all the closets of this existence, there will be unknowns, and we have a choice: believe in something greater than ourselves, or believe this is it.
There's a certain logic to this, actually.
If this life is all there is, and we believe in God, it won't make a lick of difference.
If this life is all there is, and we don't believe in God, it still won't matter.
If there is a life after this, and we don't believe in God, we become lost and/or damned.
If there is a life after this, and we believe in God, we have access to Paradise.
Do what you will, but I will err on the side of potential salvation, thanks very much.
JMO.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
If there is a life after this, and we don't believe in God, we become lost and/or damned.
Again, this is not a logical progression.
If there is an after life, it still doesn't neccisarily mean there is a god.
If there is a god, that still leaves the door wide open - do you ahve any idea how many gods we've created? =)
quote: Gothmatum said:
Do what you will, but I will err on the side of potential salvation, thanks very much.
To push the above point further - how can you be sure you've erred on the side of salvation? How many different paths to salvation are there according to the different religions?
I'd sure hate to die having pissed off Odin, or having failed to follow the proper laws of islam, or not having sacrificed the proper type of animal at the proper time, and so on...
That aside, and giving, for a moment, the christian view the benefit of the doubt, I still find it extremely hard to beleive that 'god' would accept people into his arms who followed his rules just to cover their ass...
I'd like to think he wouldn't let people off on a technicality
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-04-2006 17:45
quote: DL-44 said:
If there is a god, that still leaves the door wide open - do you ahve any idea how many gods we've created? =) ... How many different paths to salvation are there according to the different religions? I'd sure hate to die having pissed off Odin, or having failed to follow the proper laws of islam, or not having sacrificed the proper type of animal at the proper time, and so on...That aside, and giving, for a moment, the christian view the benefit of the doubt, I still find it extremely hard to beleive that 'god' would accept people into his arms who followed his rules just to cover their ass...I'd like to think he wouldn't let people off on a technicality.
I've been avoiding using biblical quotes, but I do remember Christ at one point saying "In my Father's house, there are many rooms." He also said he was the one way to the Father - I interpret this to mean that he provides us with a direct conduit to God. It's like hooking your workstation directly to the T3 line rather than going through the switch, hub, router and server.
That said, what's not to say that some of those "many rooms" aren't set aside for others? Some people are perfectly fine holding their god or gods at an arm's length, or interacting with them on a physical basis in the form of trees or animals. I certainly don't see the Divine setting up a lean-to in the middle of nowhere; more like a huge stretch of seafront property, with rock cliffs and caves (props to Neil Gaiman for the imagery there), rolling green fields and a lush forest or two, and a big city with a massive keep in the middle. "A mighty fortress is our God" and all that, considering there's been open rebellion in Heaven before.
I'm soapboxing and I apologize. But what I'm driving at is that there may well be more than one manifestation of Paradise, just as there is more than one manifestation of God - Jesus Christ is Allah is YHWH is...
Well, I could go on, but I think you get the idea. ~_^ It's all from one source, though we narrow-visioned mortals shoehorn the Divine into our perceptions in whatever way works best for us. I don't think it's so much that "we create God in our own image"; rather, we slap a face we can relate to on God so there's some familiarity... it makes things easier for those of us without cosmic-level perceptions and powers.
But as I've said, Jesus Christ is the only one I know of in the mainstream who invites us to remove the mask from God and see the Divine for what it really is. And to do that we can't look to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or James Dobson or Donald Wildmon... we need to look past the Religious Reich... deep within ourselves are the answers we seek, gifted to us from the Divine since birth and there for our discovery, be it through religion or meditation or philosophy or science. Only once we've chosen a path and followed it into ourselves and overcome our fears and doubts do we realize that each of us, every one, is just a peice of the Divine, and fully entitled to be truly something great.
Again, JMO.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
While I can appreciate your view, and I do get your points, I think you miss mine.
You are talking about this one way, this one thing, this one path....
You do allude to the idea that "this = that = the other"
But the problem is - the different religions have *vastly* different ways of acheiving 'paradise', and so to say that you are 'erring on the side of salvation' just doesn't work. You are erring on one of many potential avenues of salvation - one which may be very very wrong. There is every bit as much probability of a religion other than that based on christ being 'the one', in which case you are as screwed as a nonbeleiver.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-04-2006 21:02
That is a very good point, DL, and it hasn't been completely lost on me; I just hope that the 'paradise parole board' looks at things like behavior and intention rather than simply belief. I do my best to treat my fellow man (or woman) with respect regardless of what they believe in, and I do my best to make the world I live in a better place; others (read: the Religious Reich) spout Christian dogma but don white hoods and burn down health clinics. A heaven where I have to share bunk space with John Wayne Gacey and members of the KKK might not be worth pursuing after all...
But that goes into the weight of truth vs. the weight of rhetoric, which is another topic entirely. Thanks for clarifying, DL, and I hope I've made myself clear to you as well!
My idea really is that this = that = the other, and if more people realized that, we'd have less people killing each other in the name of God. Sometimes I think maybe the Buddhists have it right: self-barbeque in the square when that happens.
'Defender of the Faith': What in God's name are you doing?!?
Immolating Buddhist: Making you deal with your $#!+.
(Thank you, Robin Williams.)
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
Gothmatum: To second DL-44, and at the risk of repeating myself, make sure you get the correct answer to your salvation problem.
quote:Until we, as a race, can look behind all the bookshelves and open all the closets of this existence, there will be unknowns, and we have a choice: believe in something greater than ourselves, or believe this is it.
One doesn't need to be religious to realize there is a lot of things greater than him/herself. Also having questions is not reason enough to invent answers. Answers must be seeked, not made up.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-04-2006 21:45
quote: poi said:
One doesn't need to be religious to realize there is a lot of things greater than him/herself. Also having questions is not reason enough to invent answers. Answers must be seeked, not made up.
I wouldn't call myself religious - not with the way I think up sarcastic comebacks to the minister's sermons and squirm in the pews when I'm tired. I want a place of my own so I can get out of my church. And I'm not talking about buying a timeshare. If these idiots have enough money to televise their 'miracle sessions' and send poor idea-starved brainwashed kids door-to-door, don't they have enough to feed the poor, clothe and educate our kids and take care of our elderly with respect? Nah, who would think of that?
Finding answers within oneself is not the same as inventing them. Sometimes it takes a great deal of introspection to make a personal breakthrough, be it towards or away from a measure of faith or the veracity of an idea. Believe me, I spent enough time in solitude during my stint as a patient at UPMC's mental health institution to tell you that for certain.
And it's "sought", poi, not "seeked." FYI sought is the correct past tense of the word seek AFAIK.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
I just hope that the 'paradise parole board' looks at things like behavior and intention rather than simply belief.
Which negates your previously laid out list of options
It is also my response to the threats of eternal damnation for being a non-beleiver
If there is a god who granted us this gift of reason, surely he'd want us to use it moreso than he would want us to follow things that don't stand to reason...
quote: Gothmatum said:
A heaven where I have to share bunk space with John Wayne Gacey and members of the KKK might not be worth pursuing after all...
If the tenets most accepted in christianity are true, then those are distinct possibilities - reich and rhetoric aside!
quote: Gothmatum said:
My idea really is that this = that = the other, and if more people realized that, we'd have less people killing each other in the name of God.
But with so many options out there, and so many vastly different religions....there is just no way they all can equate. I mean...there are more than the big three religions out there after all, and even those three have some gigantic differences in the view of what god is, what god wants, and how to please god/get to heaven....
It seems to me that to say they're all the same in the end is nothing more than a way of not dealing with the differences between them. Though I guess you're saying that the differences are the fault of human interpretation, whereas the originating 'force' was the same in all cases?
But then of course, there are the more truly different religions that don't rely on this whole 'one god' concept, and would be much harder pressed to be able to make them in any way relatable...
quote: Gothmatum said:
Finding answers within oneself is not the same as inventing them. Sometimes it takes a great deal of introspection to make a personal breakthrough, be it towards or away from a measure of faith or the veracity of an idea.
Of course it is! Of course, in many cases, inventing answers is what needs to be done - when speaking of internal issues, and personal problems/goals/weaknesses/plans/etc, the answers you invent for yourself are the only ones that will get you anywhere.
That will have to extend as well to things like religious beliefs.
But to get back (way back ) to the earlier point - where those personal answers won't help and won't apply, is when we are dealing with the factual evidence on which a scientific theory must rest.
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-05-2006 15:40
quote: DL-44 said:Which negates your previously laid out list of options.
Not necessarily. Jews and Christians are held to different standards, and so would be examined in different 'sections' before consigned to a final location. I mean, you wouldn't go to Club Fed for serial murder, right? To me, that just stands to reason. Which brings me to your next point...
quote: DL-44 said: It is also my response to the threats of eternal damnation for being a non-beleiver. If there is a god who granted us this gift of reason, surely he'd want us to use it moreso than he would want us to follow things that don't stand to reason...
In Dante's Inferno there is a place for true intellectuals, virtuous and forthright souls who never believed - in other words, they had no 'God hole'. I believe Plato was one. Anyway, the only punishment in this place was the complete and total absence of God's divine presence. I guess to most here that would seem like a fantastic thing, considering they don't acknowledge God's existence anyway...
quote:
quote: DL-44 said: If the tenets most accepted in christianity are true, then those are distinct possibilities - reich and rhetoric aside!
Once again we get into the question of motivation vs. appearance. Sure, these folks appear to adhere to 'Christianity', but when was the last time Christ donned a pointy white hood and screamed 'white power' (especially considering, according to some evidence, Jesus wasn't white)? I don't believe God listens to rhetoric, but looks into the heart, and sees the truth that's there, be it benign or malignant.
quote:
quote: DL-44 said:
But with so many options out there, and so many vastly different religions....there is just no way they all can equate. I mean...there are more than the big three religions out there after all, and even those three have some gigantic differences in the view of what god is, what god wants, and how to please god/get to heaven....It seems to me that to say they're all the same in the end is nothing more than a way of not dealing with the differences between them. Though I guess you're saying that the differences are the fault of human interpretation, whereas the originating 'force' was the same in all cases?But then of course, there are the more truly different religions that don't rely on this whole 'one god' concept, and would be much harder pressed to be able to make them in any way relatable...
Again, not necessarily. Greek and Roman mythologies begin with a single god and goddess. Some Wiccan tenants refer to God & Goddess both, &c. I think with a little examination, one could weave a very interesting tapestry with all the diveristy of these myriad faiths with common threads between them all.
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
Not much time at the moment, but just wanted to touch on one point -
quote:Once again we get into the question of motivation vs. appearance. Sure, these folks appear to adhere to 'Christianity', but when was the last time Christ donned a pointy white hood and screamed 'white power' (especially considering, according to some evidence, Jesus wasn't white)? I don't believe God listens to rhetoric, but looks into the heart, and sees the truth that's there, be it benign or malignant.
My point was not about the verbal professions of any of these people. My point is that, according to the christain view, *anyone* no matter what their sins, if they confess, repent, and accept god, can get to heaven.
So if that view was somehow correct, then heaven could easily be filled with a vile assortment of creatures...
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-05-2006 19:18
quote: DL-44 said:
My point was not about the verbal professions of any of these people. My point is that, according to the christain view, *anyone* no matter what their sins, if they confess, repent, and accept god, can get to heaven.So if that view was somehow correct, then heaven could easily be filled with a vile assortment of creatures...=)
Right you are, DL, but the trick is they need to accept Christ in their hearts, and forsake anything that isn't Christlike. So if they say "Yeah, Jesus is God" but still hate black or brown people in their hearts, Jesus will say to them "I never knew you."
It's splitting hairs but it's pretty important!
~~~
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
quote:Right you are, DL, but the trick is they need to accept Christ in their hearts, and forsake anything that isn't Christlike. So if they say "Yeah, Jesus is God" but still hate black or brown people in their hearts, Jesus will say to them "I never knew you."
At which point the Flying Spaghetti Monster will grab them with its noodly appendice and give them love and pasta for ever. Unless the pink invisible unicorn stomp them, or they re-incarnate in a more humble creature to heal their karma, or ...
From: A place surrounded by turkeys Insane since: Jul 2006
posted 12-05-2006 19:40
quote: poi said:
At which point the Flying Spaghetti Monster will grab them with its noodly appendice and give them love and pasta for ever. Unless the pink invisible unicorn stomp them, or they re-incarnate in a more humble creature to heal their karma, or ...
Off-topic, but...
I think you should found the First Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Potluck pasta dinners every week and a feelgood message for everybody. As for evidence, hire people with catapults and pasta dishes to be positioned behind the reredos. I'm telling you poi, you may be the next L. Ron Hubbard!
I do get your point, however. My discussion with DL, like most of this thread, has wandered way off-topic.
quote:Again, not necessarily. Greek and Roman mythologies begin with a single god and goddess. Some Wiccan tenants refer to God & Goddess both, &c. I think with a little examination, one could weave a very interesting tapestry with all the diveristy of these myriad faiths with common threads between them all.
Surely we could. We could weave such a tapestry through many unrelated, contradictory things in life, if we try hard enough.
But is the interestingness of this tapestry of any actual value? Does the ability to create abstract connections relate in any way to the reality of the situation?
Just a rhetorical question really...
To me, whatever interconnections can be made have no real bearing when it comes down to it. The similarities that exist tell us something about the human psyche...as do the differences. I find all of it quite interesting, but I think to take all of these different mythologies and mash them into one, or to try to say that they are just different paths to the same end is........frought with both logical and philosophical problems.
It is also important to note that when you speak of this ability to interchange the religions, you are still approaching this from a very decidedly christian perspective - assuming that the christian view of god is accurate, and ignoring the vastly different views of god that add some pretty nasty snags in that 'interesting tapestry'
posted 11-13-2006 19:37
If we carry on like this, humanity will have been packed and dusted in less than 10000 years. Now that's a good job 
Evolution
