B
Bullitt
Guest
Canada doesn't even know what continent it's on, let alone what political stance it carries.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
- Status
G
gingergenius
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 29 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it's not just us. It's not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.
[/b][/quote]
I didn't use a capital E for enlightened. It's my own definition... you 'see the light'. In other words, many of us are brought up in a religious background and are taught certain things about the world. As our minds develop independently, we can begin to have opinions of our own, and not of society or our parents. Very few people I know are devout, yet at the same time very few of them call themselves atheists or even agnostics. They occupy a grey area through fear (eg. Pascal) or familiarity.
My definition for enlightened people is those who have accepted their insignificance: that when they die they will rot; that the concept of 'soul' is fictitious; that their life has no standardised meaning at all. For many people in the grey area, this is too much to bear thinking of.
For the devout, religion is more than a meaning for existance. But again, their only irrefutable argument is that there are 'supernatural levels'. And they have no proof of this. So if they argue their case, they are far from enlightened and as I said, must be beaten back. If they hold their views but accept that they cannot argue for them, then they are with the enlightened.
It's all about the thought process that goes into making the choice.
...as we hope you also become enlightened. :lol:
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it's not just us. It's not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.
[/b][/quote]
I didn't use a capital E for enlightened. It's my own definition... you 'see the light'. In other words, many of us are brought up in a religious background and are taught certain things about the world. As our minds develop independently, we can begin to have opinions of our own, and not of society or our parents. Very few people I know are devout, yet at the same time very few of them call themselves atheists or even agnostics. They occupy a grey area through fear (eg. Pascal) or familiarity.
My definition for enlightened people is those who have accepted their insignificance: that when they die they will rot; that the concept of 'soul' is fictitious; that their life has no standardised meaning at all. For many people in the grey area, this is too much to bear thinking of.
For the devout, religion is more than a meaning for existance. But again, their only irrefutable argument is that there are 'supernatural levels'. And they have no proof of this. So if they argue their case, they are far from enlightened and as I said, must be beaten back. If they hold their views but accept that they cannot argue for them, then they are with the enlightened.
It's all about the thought process that goes into making the choice.
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 29 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it's not just us. It's not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.
[/b][/quote]
I didn't use a capital E for enlightened. It's my own definition... you 'see the light'. In other words, many of us are brought up in a religious background and are taught certain things about the world. As our minds develop independently, we can begin to have opinions of our own, and not of society or our parents. Very few people I know are devout, yet at the same time very few of them call themselves atheists or even agnostics. They occupy a grey area through fear (eg. Pascal) or familiarity.
My definition for enlightened people is those who have accepted their insignificance: that when they die they will rot; that the concept of 'soul' is fictitious; that their life has no standardised meaning at all. For many people in the grey area, this is too much to bear thinking of.
For the devout, religion is more than a meaning for existance. But again, their only irrefutable argument is that there are 'supernatural levels'. And they have no proof of this. So if they argue their case, they are far from enlightened and as I said, must be beaten back. If they hold their views but accept that they cannot argue for them, then they are with the enlightened.
It's all about the thought process that goes into making the choice.
[/b][/quote]
The assumption being that we religious almost put no thought into our "faith." I agree, there a lot of people that fall into that category. However there are those of us that have gone through an immense journey to come to accept the "faith of our fathers." I happen to be one of those. Sent to the finest religious institutions for my education, brought up in a family full of pastors and missionaries. I definitely don't have the same beliefs my family does. I've gone through a lot of criticism for that, too. I'm not the only one, I know a lot of people with similar stories. Also, the Jesuits... How do you factor a group like them? One that promotes education, yet is still religious? Where would western education be without them?
...as we hope you also become enlightened. :lol:
It is amusing that you use the word enlighten as the founders of the Enlightenment were all Diests...uhm and Darwin was a Diest. So, it's not just us. It's not as if all of science were screaming that there is no God, just a loud portion of it.
[/b][/quote]
I didn't use a capital E for enlightened. It's my own definition... you 'see the light'. In other words, many of us are brought up in a religious background and are taught certain things about the world. As our minds develop independently, we can begin to have opinions of our own, and not of society or our parents. Very few people I know are devout, yet at the same time very few of them call themselves atheists or even agnostics. They occupy a grey area through fear (eg. Pascal) or familiarity.
My definition for enlightened people is those who have accepted their insignificance: that when they die they will rot; that the concept of 'soul' is fictitious; that their life has no standardised meaning at all. For many people in the grey area, this is too much to bear thinking of.
For the devout, religion is more than a meaning for existance. But again, their only irrefutable argument is that there are 'supernatural levels'. And they have no proof of this. So if they argue their case, they are far from enlightened and as I said, must be beaten back. If they hold their views but accept that they cannot argue for them, then they are with the enlightened.
It's all about the thought process that goes into making the choice.
[/b][/quote]
The assumption being that we religious almost put no thought into our "faith." I agree, there a lot of people that fall into that category. However there are those of us that have gone through an immense journey to come to accept the "faith of our fathers." I happen to be one of those. Sent to the finest religious institutions for my education, brought up in a family full of pastors and missionaries. I definitely don't have the same beliefs my family does. I've gone through a lot of criticism for that, too. I'm not the only one, I know a lot of people with similar stories. Also, the Jesuits... How do you factor a group like them? One that promotes education, yet is still religious? Where would western education be without them?
A
aligmacd123
Guest
We are all religious people if we like it or not. Religion is a word thrown around a lot but the real meaning of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The meaning of the word Religion.
We all have our own views and sometimes many people come together with similar views. This is what is known as "organised religion". These are Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism etc.
There are questions that keep coming back to me. "Why are we trying to ditch God? Why are we trying to disprove something that ultimately has a positive influence on so many people's lives?" and finally "Why are we so arrogant that we can't accept something bigger than ourselves?"
Maybe if we answer these questions we might actually get somewhere
We all have our own views and sometimes many people come together with similar views. This is what is known as "organised religion". These are Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism etc.
There are questions that keep coming back to me. "Why are we trying to ditch God? Why are we trying to disprove something that ultimately has a positive influence on so many people's lives?" and finally "Why are we so arrogant that we can't accept something bigger than ourselves?"
Maybe if we answer these questions we might actually get somewhere
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 29 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 29 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
D
darwin_23
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 30 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OO-Darwin.
The theory is used to explain how the facts are so. But it has no bearing on the origin of life.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
I'll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I'm not holding my breath.
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OO-Darwin.
The theory is used to explain how the facts are so. But it has no bearing on the origin of life.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
I'll be satisfied when mathematicians get to the bottom of it all, because they deal in ultimate truth. I'm not holding my breath.
D
darwin_23
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]
Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.
A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]
Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.
A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]
Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.
A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. We NEED a thread on this so everyone can get irritated all over again.
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]
Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.
A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. We NEED a thread on this so everyone can get irritated all over again.
D
darwin_23
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Oct 30 2009, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]
Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.
A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. We NEED a thread on this so everyone can get irritated all over again.
[/b][/quote]
Something doesn't have to be a theorem to be true - are you not convinced about gravity because it cannot be proven mathematically? The evidence for biological evolution is as overwhelming as the evidence for gravity. I will note that most people misinterpret what the term evolution actual means - biological evolution is simply the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. That is what is considered fact. Confusion arises when people use the term differently i.e as an explanation the origin of life on earth (technically this is abiogenesis), or even the origin of the universe (not the Big Bang Theory as many people think - this says nothing about the origin of the universe, but rather the expansion of the universe after its initially cause, hypotheses for the origin of the universe include chaotic inflation or various other explanations based on string theory).
Evolution in the sense you use it is not a fact. It's a theory. That's why we have the Theory of Evolution:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Italics mine, because I'm cynical (but not a cynic).
[/b][/quote]
I feel a bit relieved that someone else can note that it is indeed a theory (scientific or otherwise).
[/b][/quote]
Yes evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. In science the term theory is very different from the commonly used term theory. A scientific theory is used to explain a scientific fact e.g the theory of evolution is used to explain the fact of evolution (similarity the theory of gravity is used to explain the fact of gravity).
EDIT: There is even a Wikipedia page on this exact point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
[/b][/quote]
Already linked. Do keep up, OODarwin.
A theory is a theory. What's the difference between a theory and a theorem?
[/b][/quote]
Indeed you have linked it, my apologies. You are correct the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life - that is abiogenesis.
A theorem is a mathematical statement proven to be true - it is not related to a theory.
[/b][/quote]
Some of our resident evolutionists argue as if their theory were a theorem.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. We NEED a thread on this so everyone can get irritated all over again.
[/b][/quote]
Something doesn't have to be a theorem to be true - are you not convinced about gravity because it cannot be proven mathematically? The evidence for biological evolution is as overwhelming as the evidence for gravity. I will note that most people misinterpret what the term evolution actual means - biological evolution is simply the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. That is what is considered fact. Confusion arises when people use the term differently i.e as an explanation the origin of life on earth (technically this is abiogenesis), or even the origin of the universe (not the Big Bang Theory as many people think - this says nothing about the origin of the universe, but rather the expansion of the universe after its initially cause, hypotheses for the origin of the universe include chaotic inflation or various other explanations based on string theory).
G
gingergenius
Guest
OK, so we have a 'Theory of Evolution'. On its own, one man looking at some finches and saying 'we come from apes' means little.
However, how many bits of actual science back this up? We've got mitachondrial DNA evidence linking us all back to a woman in Africa over 10,000 years ago. Evidence tells us that ourselves and the chimpanzee are 94% related. There is fossil evidence not only of early humans over 10,000 years ago, but also other species with very similar bone structures to ours. Other groups of primates have been recorded, without any human aid, using tools to get food. Neanderthals, a different species to humans, lived up to 30,000 years ago, and were capable of making tools. If I did some research, I could list more.
So yes, the religious may get pedantic about the word 'Theory', but it is a theory that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by subsequent scientific research. The Big Bang remains a theory, although again there are other recent discoveries (such as red shift) that point to it (or parts of it) being correct).
However, how many bits of actual science back this up? We've got mitachondrial DNA evidence linking us all back to a woman in Africa over 10,000 years ago. Evidence tells us that ourselves and the chimpanzee are 94% related. There is fossil evidence not only of early humans over 10,000 years ago, but also other species with very similar bone structures to ours. Other groups of primates have been recorded, without any human aid, using tools to get food. Neanderthals, a different species to humans, lived up to 30,000 years ago, and were capable of making tools. If I did some research, I could list more.
So yes, the religious may get pedantic about the word 'Theory', but it is a theory that has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by subsequent scientific research. The Big Bang remains a theory, although again there are other recent discoveries (such as red shift) that point to it (or parts of it) being correct).
S
Sir Speedy
Guest
Also, both God and The Big Bang Theory can co-exist.
Did anybody say they couldn't? If so then shut up. If not then I'll be leaving.
Did anybody say they couldn't? If so then shut up. If not then I'll be leaving.
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 30 2009, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it's just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.
Evidence of evolution provides a sliver of understanding for the observer. To expand that into a universal theory is an interesting exercise, but not conclusive, not practical.
Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.
No, you've got to do better than that.
Getting pedantic about the word "theory" is no more than seeking to agree the terms of debate. Without those terms it's just mutual abuse. The criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt is specific to judicial determination of facts, and has nothing to do with science.
Evidence of evolution provides a sliver of understanding for the observer. To expand that into a universal theory is an interesting exercise, but not conclusive, not practical.
Religious authorities - actually, the Vatican - understand that point because they have a tested philosophical discipline, which forces them to try and reconcile the conflict. You argue as if they are enemies of reason. Naive.
J
jacovw
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ Oct 29 2009, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
This is probably one of the best posts thus far.
How much of what is actually out there (as far as knowledge goes), does the individual know... can anyone give me a percentage? is it 10% (very generous). Then maybe there's a chance that God actually exists in the other 90%, and you just haven't learned that yet? We have to admit that there is the possibility.
oh just one thing: if you truly believe Hitler was a Christian, you have just proven that you have absolutely no clue about what Christianity says. If i can step out onto some dangerous ground quickly:
In a tradition Roman Catholic church, will also not find Christianity! They pray to Mary and the Saints and spend a lot of time attributing great power or holiness to pieces of wood, stone or gold! This flies straight in the face of Christianity! They even say that the Pope decides what is true and what not! Now granted in modern times we find Catholics who have turned from those anti biblical ways and now practice Christianity. But in the Dark ages it was not just "scientists" it was by a much greater degree the Christians who were burned at the stake, those who did not follow the Catholic viewpoints and wanted to read the bible for themselves! Since then there has been thousands of people claiming to be Christian but the bible says by their love for each other you will know them and that a tree is recognized by it's fruit (good or Bad).
This is probably one of the best posts thus far.
How much of what is actually out there (as far as knowledge goes), does the individual know... can anyone give me a percentage? is it 10% (very generous). Then maybe there's a chance that God actually exists in the other 90%, and you just haven't learned that yet? We have to admit that there is the possibility.
oh just one thing: if you truly believe Hitler was a Christian, you have just proven that you have absolutely no clue about what Christianity says. If i can step out onto some dangerous ground quickly:
In a tradition Roman Catholic church, will also not find Christianity! They pray to Mary and the Saints and spend a lot of time attributing great power or holiness to pieces of wood, stone or gold! This flies straight in the face of Christianity! They even say that the Pope decides what is true and what not! Now granted in modern times we find Catholics who have turned from those anti biblical ways and now practice Christianity. But in the Dark ages it was not just "scientists" it was by a much greater degree the Christians who were burned at the stake, those who did not follow the Catholic viewpoints and wanted to read the bible for themselves! Since then there has been thousands of people claiming to be Christian but the bible says by their love for each other you will know them and that a tree is recognized by it's fruit (good or Bad).
J
jacovw
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Oct 30 2009, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
yes god said so! by saying he created the earth in seven literal days. "it was day it was night... the first day"
what do you mean then you'll be leaving?
yes god said so! by saying he created the earth in seven literal days. "it was day it was night... the first day"
what do you mean then you'll be leaving?
J
jacovw
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 30 2009, 12:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
DNA evidence and similar appearance prove nothing... it's there to show that for certain beings certain things work well. the evolutionary theory doesn't say that we might find certain links... if it did these things you listed would be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. but if evolution says that one species came from another, then it must (in order to be fact) take a birds egg subject it to some tests and hatch a bloomin' flying squirrel! That would be indisputable fact! by the way even some insects use tools. and time factors are all based on inconsistent dating methods. These are all things that have been discredited as many times as they have been proven!
okay maybe it's difficult to give a last word on the topic, but this just once again shows the futility of this topic "We got proof! that's not proof! Yes it is! no it Isn't!" and so on
DNA evidence and similar appearance prove nothing... it's there to show that for certain beings certain things work well. the evolutionary theory doesn't say that we might find certain links... if it did these things you listed would be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. but if evolution says that one species came from another, then it must (in order to be fact) take a birds egg subject it to some tests and hatch a bloomin' flying squirrel! That would be indisputable fact! by the way even some insects use tools. and time factors are all based on inconsistent dating methods. These are all things that have been discredited as many times as they have been proven!
okay maybe it's difficult to give a last word on the topic, but this just once again shows the futility of this topic "We got proof! that's not proof! Yes it is! no it Isn't!" and so on
D
darwin_23
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 01:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
So your saying "we don't know everything so God might exist". That's like me saying "we don't know everything so we might have been created by a giant pink space bunny, who currently uses platypuses on earth to control us using their secret mind-control powers". Currently there is the same amount of evidence for both scenarios - but since most people weren't told the second scenario by there parents they don't believe it (which is unfortunate). I will honestly admits there is a possibly of God, though I also believe there is an equal possibility that we were created by a giant pink space bunny (or an invisible pink unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster.....)
So your saying "we don't know everything so God might exist". That's like me saying "we don't know everything so we might have been created by a giant pink space bunny, who currently uses platypuses on earth to control us using their secret mind-control powers". Currently there is the same amount of evidence for both scenarios - but since most people weren't told the second scenario by there parents they don't believe it (which is unfortunate). I will honestly admits there is a possibly of God, though I also believe there is an equal possibility that we were created by a giant pink space bunny (or an invisible pink unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster.....)
D
darwin_23
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 30 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
This is the exact reason why I find religious beliefs frustrating - some people completely ignore overwhelming evidence as they already have there beliefs made up based on religious texts. Make no mistake biological evolution is proven (and the things listed by gingergenius are proven beyond any reasonable doubt!), the only people who question it either don't understand it, or do so because of a religious agenda they have. Why you think getting a flying squirrel (a mammal) out of a birds egg will prove evolution is beyond me ?!?!?! (it would in fact quite conclusively disprove evolution!). I could spend time explaining evolution, but it would take too long, isn't really relevant in a thread about religion, and I'm sure it would be ignored by all with opposing views anyways
This is the exact reason why I find religious beliefs frustrating - some people completely ignore overwhelming evidence as they already have there beliefs made up based on religious texts. Make no mistake biological evolution is proven (and the things listed by gingergenius are proven beyond any reasonable doubt!), the only people who question it either don't understand it, or do so because of a religious agenda they have. Why you think getting a flying squirrel (a mammal) out of a birds egg will prove evolution is beyond me ?!?!?! (it would in fact quite conclusively disprove evolution!). I could spend time explaining evolution, but it would take too long, isn't really relevant in a thread about religion, and I'm sure it would be ignored by all with opposing views anyways
J
jacovw
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Yes, my point on the beautiful argumentative circle is proven again!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
a flying squirrel might be a bit outrageous (sense of humor aside that is!). Although Steven Gould (a little more respected on the topic than anyone here, i'm sure) has hypothesized that evolution might happen in giant leaps and not slow changes. so it wouldn't disprove evolution, it would prove an offshoot of evolution (okay so maybe it shouldn't be bird to mammal, what about reptile to bird, would that be better?)! or maybe something completely new like a six legged furry reptilian!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)
Remember one of you affirmed it as an counter argument to my one quote: just because one opinion is more widely spread than another, doesn't make it the right one. Especially if that opinion is less than a hundred years old. There are many scientific "facts" that stood for much longer than 100 years only to be completely blown out of the water! Evolution might make a stronger argument because it relies on very partial and subjective evidence and claims the time factor which means we have to wait and see if nature will prove it... but alas we just never will reach the age of a million odd years now would we?
Point: Just don't be arrogant about Evolutions apparent watertight theory! I'm not trying to claim the absolute validity on the case for any scientific research on the biblical accounts, I just personally believe them to be more plausible. The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony, which has nothing to do with the beginning of the world! Which reminds me isn't this thread about religion and not about evolution can i suggest we talk about Religion:
Which is right?
Who was Jesus?
Was Mohammed who he claimed to be!
etc etc.
Yes, my point on the beautiful argumentative circle is proven again!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
a flying squirrel might be a bit outrageous (sense of humor aside that is!). Although Steven Gould (a little more respected on the topic than anyone here, i'm sure) has hypothesized that evolution might happen in giant leaps and not slow changes. so it wouldn't disprove evolution, it would prove an offshoot of evolution (okay so maybe it shouldn't be bird to mammal, what about reptile to bird, would that be better?)! or maybe something completely new like a six legged furry reptilian!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darwin_23 @ Oct 30 2009, 02:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I could spend time explaining evolution, but it would take too long, isn't really relevant in a thread about religion, and I'm sure it would be ignored by all with opposing views anyways
Ditto for the Creationist argument! B)
Remember one of you affirmed it as an counter argument to my one quote: just because one opinion is more widely spread than another, doesn't make it the right one. Especially if that opinion is less than a hundred years old. There are many scientific "facts" that stood for much longer than 100 years only to be completely blown out of the water! Evolution might make a stronger argument because it relies on very partial and subjective evidence and claims the time factor which means we have to wait and see if nature will prove it... but alas we just never will reach the age of a million odd years now would we?
Point: Just don't be arrogant about Evolutions apparent watertight theory! I'm not trying to claim the absolute validity on the case for any scientific research on the biblical accounts, I just personally believe them to be more plausible. The best biblical proof however is in the manuscripts and in personal testimony, which has nothing to do with the beginning of the world! Which reminds me isn't this thread about religion and not about evolution can i suggest we talk about Religion:
Which is right?
Who was Jesus?
Was Mohammed who he claimed to be!
etc etc.
- Status
