View Full Version : Creationism in Museums and Schools
KukriKhan
09-24-2008, 06:27
Read thread topic mate.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Sorry, mate.
:laugh4::laugh4:
Wait...
:laugh4:
OK. Thanks, mate. :bow: Ya made my day, as it were.
Kadagar_AV
09-24-2008, 07:34
cmacq, you never answered my earlier questions, go back and look:)
KukriKhan, I didn't get the fun part, care to elaborate?
Koga No Goshi
09-24-2008, 07:48
Read thread topic mate.
I couldnt care less about other peoples view of the universe.
However, when they want to drag their unscientific beliefs into schools... Now THAT is a whole other thing, get my point?
I am a strong believer of everyones right to believe in whatever thay want to. I'd never argue against it in other debates. However, again, draging it into the school system is something different, dont you agree?
We could go through the whole list of countries that make mandatory religion part of public education and I can't think of one-- I'm sure we could dig up one or two--- but the list on the whole, are not countries I think most of us would like to emulate.
Honestly, it doesn't lead to anything good. The best case scenario is that most people just sort of shrug and apathy their way through it and religious people get a warm fuzzy feeling that their particular religion is being given public, government-sanctioned airtime in an educational environment everyone must sit through. The worst case scenario is a steep drop in critical thought and a rise in religious fundamentalism in this country.
Papewaio
09-24-2008, 08:31
cmacq, you never answered my earlier questions, go back and look:)
KukriKhan, I didn't get the fun part, care to elaborate?
At 9 pages long it can be hard to wade through and find the question. Could you cut'n'paste it in.
Also try and be a little less harsh with your posting, it is coming across very Dawkinish.
Kadagar_AV
09-24-2008, 08:48
It's only one page back and he has seen the questions a couple of times already... But here goes:
When you get back, please state what the BS kids gets thaught in school is:)
cmacq, as I study to become a teacher it's interesting to know what a religious person would find to be "bs".
[...]Why, if religions are so incorrect about the origin of species and the nature of the universe, does science, and scientists, and science-supporters even care what so-called creationists think, say, or write? Why the hate? Why the "my idea is better than your idea"? Why even give a creationist the time of day, much less argue with him/her?
It actually claims to be science and is an attack on science in general. There are those who want creationism to be tought in science classes, and they have power. If one find the future of science, knowledge and understanding something to fight for, then one fight against this misunderstanding of science that ID is. As long as it poses a threat.
While stipulating that 'the scientific method' (a relatively recent invention in thought and procedure) trumps Ecclesiological studies in source material, if not determination in focused study habits; and while I do not retreat from my assertion that "science is our new religion", I grant that some great minds here, who's opinions I highly respect, disagree with me; I further assert that in its trappings and its satisfaction of our human curiosity: science and religion serve at least similar, if not identical anthropological functions.
It might have similar functions, but at the end of the day, only one of them can predict the weather. :tongue:
Regarding faith in science; as far as I am aware there are only two what you might call articles of faith required by science:
*That our senses do not systematically deceive us about the world around us.
*That the principle of inductive logic is valid (i.e. it is legitimate to generalise from specific observations to general principles about the universe).
The second point always seems to me like the most legitimate avenue for criticism of science as faith-based (and indeed it is logically iffy to say the least) yet oddly enough very few people seem to go down this road. I suppose it is a difficult principle to reject utterly since we employ it so routinely in everyday life from an early age.
Of course, I would tend to argue that what science in fact requires is confidence, not faith, and I would draw a distinction between the two. Religion requires one to accept certain facts unquestioningly, and stick to them no matter how faulty they prove, on the assurance that all will become clear after death. In science one is encouraged to question everything and seek justification for accepting scientific principles, and if those principles are found wanting, they are rejected.
The other main reason I would suggest for science not being a religion is that science does not prescribe a moral code, whereas this is the main point (and in my view only legitimate domain) of religion. This is also the argument I would give for atheism not being a religion; the fact that it makes statements about the nature of life, the universe and everything only qualifies it to be a philosophy, not a religion. To become a religion it has to prescribe a moral code.
cmacq, as I study to become a teacher it's interesting to know what a religious person would find to be "bs".
cmacq, you never answered my earlier questions, go back and look:)
I may hazard, this is a question one might ask a religious person? As far as BS in the schools is concerned, as a fish that doesn’t notice the water, you seem to be doing just fine, so why should we try to alert that? Besides, I find it difficult to believe you're at all serious, with such a question?
have to run
CmacQ
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-24-2008, 15:26
Regarding faith in science; as far as I am aware there are only two what you might call articles of faith required by science:
*That our senses do not systematically deceive us about the world around us.
*That the principle of inductive logic is valid (i.e. it is legitimate to generalise from specific observations to general principles about the universe).
The second point always seems to me like the most legitimate avenue for criticism of science as faith-based (and indeed it is logically iffy to say the least) yet oddly enough very few people seem to go down this road. I suppose it is a difficult principle to reject utterly since we employ it so routinely in everyday life from an early age.
Of course, I would tend to argue that what science in fact requires is confidence, not faith, and I would draw a distinction between the two. Religion requires one to accept certain facts unquestioningly, and stick to them no matter how faulty they prove, on the assurance that all will become clear after death. In science one is encouraged to question everything and seek justification for accepting scientific principles, and if those principles are found wanting, they are rejected.
The other main reason I would suggest for science not being a religion is that science does not prescribe a moral code, whereas this is the main point (and in my view only legitimate domain) of religion. This is also the argument I would give for atheism not being a religion; the fact that it makes statements about the nature of life, the universe and everything only qualifies it to be a philosophy, not a religion. To become a religion it has to prescribe a moral code.
There is a third unquestioned principle in Science, that I have already mentioned. Science assumes that the universe is essentially ordered and regular, measure something perfectly twice and you will get the same result both times. 1 ton will be 1 ton until something else acts to affect a change.
While Science does not necessarily contradict religion Scientists, like Dawkins, do. He wrote a book called The God Delusion. If someone started a thread with that title on the Org it would probably be closed or changed for being offensive and if the opening post was the contents of that book presented as they are there the poster would get warning points.
Ironside
09-24-2008, 16:37
Nice research...
as I noted above, from the opening line of the article, I thought as much.
Schools are also very over rated. I suppose ones radicalizing Pakistani Madrasa deeney, can be another’s NAPOLA, which in a more stable form, may be seen as yet another’s indoctrination at Oxford or Cambridge.
CmacQ
As public education is pretty much proven to be beneficial to about everyone, you would have to develop a technique that gives quality education to everyone at a better rate than schools to replace them. Obviously one thing that needs to be certain of if you want to keep a high quality, is that powerful groups are kept out in thier attemt to use schools mainly as a propaganda center.
It's a bit like democracy, it's not perfect, but it's the darn best thing we have.
Kadagar_AV
09-24-2008, 17:10
I'm sure the point excape you for the momment. Yet, to possibly forestall the parting of the fool from his money, from a very young age one may be taught to think independently and critically. In fact, vast heaps of BS arguably far more ridiculous daily pass for fact in our schools, at all levels. No doubt at some point, you may have sampled this very rich and diverse cuisine.
Cmacq, If you argue that school teach BS, it would of course be of interest to the discussion if you bring up some points to prove your points?
Why would I not be serious to question what you consider to be BS?
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, Yes and no... I do think science is more acepting of chaos than you think. Like, the scientific world has agreed that particles don't really behave like they should. They can teleport, a particle can affect another particle without any connection and so on...
String theory is grasping at the surface of this problem at the moment though... But for now, we just have to accept that the universe isn't always logical, or maybe that we just have not understood the logic yet:)
On a sidenote, why should christian beliefs stop at evolution vs creationism? Why not open more classes to a christian worldview?
IE, when the teacher teach about gravity, he should also mention that another theory is that it is God's will that draws things towards earth.
And when we teach astronomy, the teacher should quote the bible explaining that God holds up a blanket that is the stars and sky, much like a tent.
Or? :)
Cmacq, If you argue that school teach BS, it would of course be of interest to the discussion if you bring up some points to prove your points?
Why would I not be serious to question what you consider to be BS?
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, Yes and no... I do think science is more acepting of chaos than you think. Like, the scientific world has agreed that particles don't really behave like they should. They can teleport, a particle can affect another particle without any connection and so on...
String theory is grasping at the surface of this problem at the moment though... But for now, we just have to accept that the universe isn't always logical, or maybe that we just have not understood the logic yet:)
On a sidenote, why should christian beliefs stop at evolution vs creationism? Why not open more classes to a christian worldview?
IE, when the teacher teach about gravity, he should also mention that another theory is that it is God's will that draws things towards earth.
And when we teach astronomy, the teacher should quote the bible explaining that God holds up a blanket that is the stars and sky, much like a tent.
Or? :)
they could re-introduce the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and ban a bunch of books from literature classes :laugh4:
There is a third unquestioned principle in Science, that I have already mentioned. Science assumes that the universe is essentially ordered and regular, measure something perfectly twice and you will get the same result both times. 1 ton will be 1 ton until something else acts to affect a change.
That's an assumption based upon observations, not a belief.
While Science does not necessarily contradict religion Scientists, like Dawkins, do. He wrote a book called The God Delusion. If someone started a thread with that title on the Org it would probably be closed or changed for being offensive and if the opening post was the contents of that book presented as they are there the poster would get warning points.
bin Laden is religious; so?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-24-2008, 18:02
That's an assumption based upon observations, not a belief.
bin Laden is religious; so?
What does Bin Laden have to do with this? Richard Dawkins is a well respected member od the scientific community and he has gone on record stating as fact that you must make a choice between religion and evolution. This would seem to be because Dawkins is a scriptural litteralist who is incapable of grasping the concept of varrient interpretation.
From my own experience it is now clear that Europe's infatuation with Atheism, which I think began in the post-War era, is in decline. Dawkins and Mitchens attack re4ligion not only as nonsensical but also as evil. they blame a God they do not believe in for the wrongs of a species they claim is nothing more than an evolutionary accident.
I think that Kukri is on the right track but paridigm would be a better description of science than "religion". Science is a lense through which you view the world, it sees the world as essentially ordered. Observation indicates that the world may not be completely orderly, because repeated experements do not always produce the same results, even under tight controls/ It is assumed this because of unknown varriables, but that is an assumption based on the assumption of an ordered universe.
The assumption that the universe is ordered is the starting point od Science, everything else rests upon it and in that sense it qualifys as a belief.
From a theological standpoint Nacv was correct when he said that God could have created the Earth with age, he could even have done it two second ago. The question then arises though as to why he would have done this and why he hides the fact from us, if the Bible is meant to be God's direct and irrefutable word why does he lie to his creation and yet ask us to believe him? Why does he say it is his irrefutable word (thw whole text rather than select passages).
What does Bin Laden have to do with this? Richard Dawkins is a well respected member od the scientific community and he has gone on record stating as fact that you must make a choice between religion and evolution. This would seem to be because Dawkins is a scriptural litteralist who is incapable of grasping the concept of varrient interpretation.
bin Laden got as much to with this as Dawkins. There is no such scientific community; there are a lot of scientists in a lot of fields that might be bound together by the relevant theories and publications for the field; but "the scientific community"? C'mon. Does the stance of Dawkin, if wrong, prove that your computer does not work? That tomorrow's weather forecast is incorrect, and that all previous weather forecasts also have been? Absurdness.
Observation indicates that the world may not be completely orderly, because repeated experements do not always produce the same results, even under tight controls/ It is assumed this because of unknown varriables, but that is an assumption based on the assumption of an ordered universe.
Why, no? It would indicate that we do not understand everything yet.
The assumption that the universe is ordered is the starting point od Science, everything else rests upon it and in that sense it qualifys as a belief.
Yes, it's an assumption. If observations should show us that things are indeed not ordered, then there's a time for re-evalutaion. :smash: But still, apples do fall to the ground thanks to gravity.
From a theological standpoint Nacv was correct when he said that God could have created the Earth with age, he could even have done it two second ago. The question then arises though as to why he would have done this and why he hides the fact from us, if the Bible is meant to be God's direct and irrefutable word why does he lie to his creation and yet ask us to believe him? Why does he say it is his irrefutable word (thw whole text rather than select passages).
Why would he not? Why does he have to be good? :shrug: After all, isn't all this beyond us poor creatures' capability of understanding?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-24-2008, 18:54
bin Laden got as much to with this as Dawkins. There is no such scientific community; there are a lot of scientists in a lot of fields that might be bound together by the relevant theories and publications for the field; but "the scientific community"? C'mon. Does the stance of Dawkin, if wrong, prove that your computer does not work? That tomorrow's weather forecast is incorrect, and that all previous weather forecasts also have been? Absurdness.
I'm sorry what? Do you think I'm a creationist or something?
Dawkins is indictive of a tpe of mindset prevelent among a segment of the scientific community, or proffession if you prefer, which chucks out all religion, faith and unaccountable phenomona because there is no supporting evidence. "Prove its real or it isn't"
Did you see the "experiement" where he tried to disprove water divinng? He burried six cans in a field, one with water in a five with sand in. The chance of the diviners finding the cans was apparently no better than chance and Dawkins claimed this proved that diving was a hoax.
Except here's the thing:
He had no theory of how diving might work, so nothing to actually disprove.
No way of differentiating between a diviner and a normal person, so no way to tell if he had real diviners.
No control group
All the cans were metal, a subsatnce which diviners claim affects their craft.
In all six places the ground was disturbed, which can also affect diving.
So all he proved was that diviners can't differentiate between can full of sand burried in a field and a can full of water. What would have been more interesting would have been if he had burried six cans, relaid the turf and charged the diviners with finding them without telling them how many there were. If in a whole acre field they failed to find anything without diggin up half the field he might have had a case.
Look back over my posts, I object to men like Dawkins because they antagonise religious people and demand they give up their religion, not because they are scientists. Dawkins and others like him damage the relationship between religion and science, which is a great shame because it means that a great many people turn away from one or the other when they don't need to.
If Dawkins tells a devout Christian "evolution disproves God's existance" that Christian will reject evolution, not God, and they may reject the rest of science as well if they believe one fundamental theory is totally wrong.
Why, no? It would indicate that we do not understand everything yet.
It does not have to indicate that, it could equally be that there is no understanding to be had and chaos reigns. You believe that there is more yet to understand and that belief is the lense through which you see the world. Regarding apples and gravity it has now been swown that Newton's calculations were essentially wrong, they just usually produced the right results, until they didn't.
Why would he not? Why does he have to be good? :shrug: After all, isn't all this beyond us poor creatures' capability of understanding?
I don't know that it is completely beyond out understanding but to answer your question; I would say that God created this world and us with certain values and that since He instilled these values in us not only inately but also through His teachings these are the values that are Good by his definition.
In a religious context, and particually a Christian one, Good is defined as God's will and Evil is defined as disobedience to God.
There is a third unquestioned principle in Science, that I have already mentioned. Science assumes that the universe is essentially ordered and regular, measure something perfectly twice and you will get the same result both times. 1 ton will be 1 ton until something else acts to affect a change.
I would argue that is not an unquestioned principle so much as it is a working assumption. We're essentially saying "suppose the universe is ordered, what then would follow from that assumption?". To take the example of GUTs, there is no reason to assume that gravity and the electroweak/strong forces must be explained by a single underlying mechanism rather than one being due to curvature of space-time and the other due to exchange of virtual bosons; however surely it is worth having a look to see whether such an explanation could exist, and whether it might even make some testable predictions?
If we found significant evidence that attempting to characterize the Universe as orderly were an inherently flawed approach it would have to be binned. Although that does rather raise the question of what we would do next, given that the opposite premise (that the Universe is impossible to understand) is essentially an existentialist dead end and doesn't really help us with making aeroplanes and microwave ovens and the internet and stuff.
It's actually covered under my first assumption, I should have phrased it better. It should have been more along the lines of "Assume that the Universe is not set up in such a way as to systematically deceive us."
Incidentally, you talk about experiments which can be repeated but produce different results; could you be more specific? If you mean chaotic systems then my understanding was that the very nature of such systems means that repeating an experiment exactly is impossible, so it's not really fair to describe such experiments as being repeated and producing different results. If on the other hand you mean normal statistical error, then the premise that it is caused by the innate disorderliness of nature somewhat falls down when we consider that the error can be reduced sometimes all the way down to the Heisenberg uncertainty limit simply by buying better equipment.
Speaking of the Heisenberg uncertainty limit, it does rather get me thinking; if we accept it as fact, does it not rather rule out the possibility of an omniscient creator, stating as it does that there are some things which it is fundamentally impossible to know with complete certainty? And does this not make the idea of hard and fast concepts of "Good" and "Evil", with Good being anything in agreement with God and evil being anything in disagreement, rather problematic, given that there are apparently some question to which even God does not know the answer?
Must we come up with Quantum Theory of Morality, in which we allow for things being simultaneously both Good and Evil (as distinct from simply being morally neutral)?
Papewaio
09-25-2008, 03:28
I think that Kukri is on the right track but paridigm would be a better description of science than "religion". Science is a lense through which you view the world, it sees the world as essentially ordered. Observation indicates that the world may not be completely orderly, because repeated experements do not always produce the same results, even under tight controls/ It is assumed this because of unknown varriables, but that is an assumption based on the assumption of an ordered universe.
Depends what you mean by ordered Universe. The clockwork variant died about the same time we went from Analog mechanical clocks to Digital quartz clocks.
The Uncertainty Principle kind of removes how ordered we think the universe is. So would any in depth look at air pressure, chaos and predicting the weather.
The other main reason I would suggest for science not being a religion is that science does not prescribe a moral code, whereas this is the main point (and in my view only legitimate domain) of religion.
Of course science is a religion that prescribes a moral code, at least when it comes to secular/Darwinist scientists (there are Creation scientists who follow the moral code of the Bible).
The moral code prescibed by science is: a complete absence of any morals whatsoever. The 'teaching' that anything technology is able to do, should be allowed and is 'progress' no matter what, even if it involves the most vile acts imaginable such as murder (Ie: abortion, stem cell research, mass-produced test tube babies by which many get killed etc. etc.). In addition to the idea that humans should just do whatever their natural desires call for, no matter how immoral, since they are just animals who's only real purpose is to gratify their natural desires at any costs.
Advocating the complete lack of any morals, as science does, is indeed a moral code in and of itself.
Most people in the US do not, in fact believe in creationism; as defined herein with the earth being created by god in six days. If for example, most people in the US did believe so, it would be universally taught in American schools, no?
Actually, that quoted post is incorrect, yes, most people in the USA do in fact believe in Creationism instead of Darwinism, or at the very least it's an even divide in terms of numbers of people who believe in either one. In fact that is why the battle has never ended even though Darwinists hoped and wished it would have ended way back at the Scopes trial and are bewildered why they can never achieve a 100% belief rate in Darwinism despite the fact that they have a near-monopoly to constantly promote their religious propaganda of Darwinism in the classrooms of all so-called educational institutions and every form of media. But the number of godly persons in the US is high, therefore the majority of them don't have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily and convert to belief in Darwinism despite the overwhelming bombardment of propaganda urging them to do so. :2thumbsup:
Here are some articles that prove it. A little old, but still accurate:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1571157/Devil-more-popular-than-Darwin-in-America.html
Devil more popular than Darwin in America
More Americans believe in the existence of hell and the devil than Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to a nationwide poll.
Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of US residents polled said they believed in a literal hell and the devil, 60 per cent said they believed in the virgin birth.
Only 42 per cent of those surveyed, however, said they believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution, or “natural selection”. The results reflect the deep divide in American society between those who believe in Darwin’s theory and those who favour creationism or intelligent design, the idea that life is too complex to have evolved by chance and must be the work of a divine being. Some 39 per cent of respondents said they believed in creationism.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process
CountArach
09-25-2008, 11:07
Advocating the complete lack of any morals, as science does, is indeed a moral code in and of itself.
Science does not prescribe any such lack of moral code. Here you are mistaking Scientists for Philosophers. Philosophers, such as the Existentialists and Nihilists, have discussed the lack of morality you are referring to. Scientists never did.
Exactly.
Science itself has nothing to say about morality.
That is not the same as saying that science advocates amorality.
If Dawkins tells a devout Christian "evolution disproves God's existance" that Christian will reject evolution, not God, and they may reject the rest of science as well if they believe one fundamental theory is totally wrong.
I still struggle to find too much relevance to the topic at hand. There's such an incredible greater chance of the creationist pseudo science appearing in schools than Dawkins and similar person's views.
It does not have to indicate that, it could equally be that there is no understanding to be had and chaos reigns. You believe that there is more yet to understand and that belief is the lense through which you see the world. Regarding apples and gravity it has now been swown that Newton's calculations were essentially wrong, they just usually produced the right results, until they didn't.
I assume that there is more to understand because the world does indeed appear regular. If the world is chaos, then so be it. That would also be knowledge. Newton's interpretations might have been wrong, but gravity itself has not changed.
I don't know that it is completely beyond out understanding but to answer your question; I would say that God created this world and us with certain values and that since He instilled these values in us not only inately but also through His teachings these are the values that are Good by his definition.
In a religious context, and particually a Christian one, Good is defined as God's will and Evil is defined as disobedience to God.
Disregard the 'puny human'; I see now that it was a straw man. :shame:
The question as of why God would have to be good was spurred by your relativistic take on science and the world as we view it. Only because he promises salvation doesn't necessarily means that he'll fulfil the promise. Since humans like to give their gods human-like attributes; one would wonder why he could not be sadistic. I don't expect an answer; more like it, it's relativity backfiring.
Of course science is a religion that prescribes a moral code, at least when it comes to secular/Darwinist scientists (there are Creation scientists who follow the moral code of the Bible).
Pure bull. Evolutionary science only seeks to find man's origins; it does not prescribe any morality whatsoever.
The 'teaching' that anything technology is able to do, should be allowed and is 'progress' no matter what, even if it involves the most vile acts imaginable such as murder (Ie: abortion, stem cell research, mass-produced test tube babies by which many get killed etc. etc.).
Certain forms of science and scientifical experiments could go against certain people's moral views. But with as many moral views that exist in this world, that does not require much.
In addition to the idea that humans should just do whatever their natural desires call for, no matter how immoral, since they are just animals who's only real purpose is to gratify their natural desires at any costs.
Again, nothing to do with science, but how people choose to interpret science.
Reverend Joe
09-25-2008, 17:43
Of course science is a religion that prescribes a moral code, at least when it comes to secular/Darwinist scientists (there are Creation scientists who follow the moral code of the Bible).
The moral code prescibed by science is: a complete absence of any morals whatsoever. The 'teaching' that anything technology is able to do, should be allowed and is 'progress' no matter what, even if it involves the most vile acts imaginable such as murder (Ie: abortion, stem cell research, mass-produced test tube babies by which many get killed etc. etc.). In addition to the idea that humans should just do whatever their natural desires call for, no matter how immoral, since they are just animals who's only real purpose is to gratify their natural desires at any costs.
Advocating the complete lack of any morals, as science does, is indeed a moral code in and of itself.
Again: everything I learned about evolution, I learned from a man who is a devout Catholic who has read the bible cover to cover, and who still believes so wholeheartedly in evolution that he teaches a class devoted to proving that Evolution is, effectively, a fact.
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 20:39
Again: everything I learned about evolution, I learned from a man who is a devout Catholic who has read the bible cover to cover, and who still believes so wholeheartedly in evolution that he teaches a class devoted to proving that Evolution is, effectively, a fact.
Agreed, I attended religious pre-college schools (grade school Protestant, high school Catholic) and I learned all about physics and biology and reproduction and evolution and carbon dating. I think that as a general rule, the false choice of "religion vs. science" as a mutually exclusive proposition is just a political wedge issue created by politicians, church leaders, a few atheism extremists and people who've had very bad experiences with religion, and a big swath of (I'm sorry) undereducated people who mostly haven't read the Bible and just think being a good Christian means denying progress, or something. And you put all those groups together and I think they are basically a small minority. The rest of us I think don't have a tremendous issue thinking that you can be both (science minded and religious), or any combination or variant of both.
Rhyfelwyr
09-25-2008, 20:46
In ancient Greece, it used to be science and religion went hand-in-hand in proving universal truths, while politics was the rational way of explaining things in a relative manner.
Nonetheless, there are atheists committed to destroying religion. Today a lecturer was giving a presentation on the Reformation, and he said the word "religion" with such venom you would have thought it was a swear word. Anyway, in the sixteenth century when peoples heads were filled with "religion and superstition", religion apparently was to blame for everything wrong in the world. Apparently the Reformation was an excuse for opportunists to gain power, and Rome was filled with nothing but corruption (well he wasn't entirely off the mark :wink:). He mention Luther but barely touched on the issue of salvation through faith alone, and even mentioned Calvin's name but without a word on the doctrine of predestination.
Then half the lecture consisted of explaining how Europe wasn't filled with nation states as it is today - well done I've known that since I was 10.
Very poor. :no:
Koga No Goshi
09-25-2008, 20:51
When you look, though, at any actual EXAMPLES of what people mean when they say there is a systematic attempt to "destroy religion" in America, it's always things religious people are trying to shove into inappropriate places and getting spanked for. Like prayer in public schools, a bronzed Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, a pharmacist refusing to do his job on "moral grounds", or customers making complaints that the Wal Mart greeter said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." I know of absolutely no instance of an organized effort to go and shut down private churches, quite the opposite is true, people are just beginning to grapple with how much private churches have ABUSED their tax exempt status to organize politically and form lobbying firms (pretty much anything with "Family" or "Family Values" in the title is usually a tax-exempt, Church-based lobbying firm trying to push something like anti-gay legislation into the government) to always shove the boundary of separation of church and state. I think the argument could much more easily be made that religion is trying to destroy secularism in this country, rather than the other way around.
Actually, that quoted post is incorrect, yes, most people in the USA do in fact believe in Creationism instead of Darwinism, or at the very least it's an even divide in terms of numbers of people who believe in either one. In fact that is why the battle has never ended even though Darwinists hoped and wished it would have ended way back at the Scopes trial and are bewildered why they can never achieve a 100% belief rate in Darwinism despite the fact that they have a near-monopoly to constantly promote their religious propaganda of Darwinism in the classrooms of all so-called educational institutions and every form of media. But the number of godly persons in the US is high, therefore the majority of them don't have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily and convert to belief in Darwinism despite the overwhelming bombardment of propaganda urging them to do so.
Devil and the details, read again please...
Most people in the US do not, in fact believe in creationism; as defined herein with the earth being created by god in six days.
have to run
CmacQ
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 00:18
Cmacq, you would contribute more to this discussion if you did not just answer some blaha and then run away...
Take some time and sort through the posts you have missed:)
Papewaio
09-26-2008, 01:28
Couple of things to note:
a) Science is not a democracy, it does not bend its knees to majority rule based on what they chose to believe. The majority of people can believe that they are immune to the laws of physics and will survive jumping off a ten story building onto concrete. So far not many of our stockbrokers er lab rats have done so. So the mere belief in something does not make it a physical reality.
b) Separate item. Most areas of science do not concern itself with morality. The spectrum of light, the weight of water, the boiling point of water at altitude... the physical sciences don't tend to look at morality. Science has a series of discrete disciplines that are highly specialised, while some scientists are multidisciplinary, they all do tend to look at single aspect of science. There are areas of science that brush up against morality... game theory in economics as applied to humans, or evolutionary strategies in biology. But science isn't giving a moral code nor saying what technologies that are based on science should be used. Science is just explaining why some things work with a certain degree of certainty.
Reverend Joe
09-26-2008, 02:08
In ancient Greece, it used to be science and religion went hand-in-hand in proving universal truths, while politics was the rational way of explaining things in a relative manner.
Nonetheless, there are atheists committed to destroying religion. Today a lecturer was giving a presentation on the Reformation, and he said the word "religion" with such venom you would have thought it was a swear word. Anyway, in the sixteenth century when peoples heads were filled with "religion and superstition", religion apparently was to blame for everything wrong in the world. Apparently the Reformation was an excuse for opportunists to gain power, and Rome was filled with nothing but corruption (well he wasn't entirely off the mark :wink:). He mention Luther but barely touched on the issue of salvation through faith alone, and even mentioned Calvin's name but without a word on the doctrine of predestination.
Then half the lecture consisted of explaining how Europe wasn't filled with nation states as it is today - well done I've known that since I was 10.
Very poor. :no:
Well, he just sounds like a bad professor. And anyway, Koga No Goshi is right; there's really a lot more religious nuts trying to destroy rational thought and replace it with their dictations.
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 05:27
In ancient Greece, it used to be science and religion went hand-in-hand in proving universal truths, while politics was the rational way of explaining things in a relative manner.
Nonetheless, there are atheists committed to destroying religion. Today a lecturer was giving a presentation on the Reformation, and he said the word "religion" with such venom you would have thought it was a swear word. Anyway, in the sixteenth century when peoples heads were filled with "religion and superstition", religion apparently was to blame for everything wrong in the world. Apparently the Reformation was an excuse for opportunists to gain power, and Rome was filled with nothing but corruption (well he wasn't entirely off the mark :wink:). He mention Luther but barely touched on the issue of salvation through faith alone, and even mentioned Calvin's name but without a word on the doctrine of predestination.
Then half the lecture consisted of explaining how Europe wasn't filled with nation states as it is today - well done I've known that since I was 10.
Very poor. :no:
To his defense, it is VERY hard to study history with any respect for christianity intact... Still eh should have been more respectful though, as you never know when there is someone religious in the classroom.
If you look at the church from a historical perspective, it becomes rather clear that it's been used more like a tool to get power, than anything else.
I'm not saying the initial idea was not good though.
Cmacq, you would contribute more to this discussion if you did not just answer some blaha and then run away...
Sorry Kada-gar, sometimes I move too fast for some...
... or maybe its my very bad english?
One may have observed that the state, in one form or another, has an inherent predisposition to abuse its legal authority.
As the mandate for formal education is nearly universal, this topic actually represents the states attempt or desire to manipulate, engineer, or redesign the traditions and opinions of the citizenry, via it's Kinder. Regardless of the intent, and albeit distilled to some silly debate about competing belief systems, one must have noticed that this strikes at the very heart of Western Civilization. After all, this topic is really about the emanation of power and authority. For example the Republican Romans claimed that the citizenry was the source whence power of action imitated, while authority to use that power rested only in the hands of the state. In other words, does the state exists to serve the needs of the citizenry or, visa versa?
Right,
and by the state, we actually mean, a very few elites.
I’ve so little free time right now; I hope you’re not set in your ways and just want to argue for its own sake. I also hope you understand, when one advocates in such a manner on behalf of the state, one stands on the wrong-side of a free exchange, and the wrong-side of history.
CmacQ
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 09:17
For the fourth time then...
You claimed BS was teached in schools, I asked you for examples... four times? I still wonder what this BS is, and on what basis you claim it to the BS.
Fourth time's the charm:)
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 09:19
For the fourth time then...
You claimed BS was teached in schools, I asked you for examples... four times? I still wonder what this BS is, and on what basis you claim it to the BS.
Fourth time's the charm:)
The b.s. I learned in school was:
Algebra
Geometry
Calculus
Chemistry
Biology
Anatomy
Physics
English
U.S. History
World History
Geography
With all that junk I was taught anyway, I'm sure we could toss some and make room for stories about humans being made out of clay.
Possibly, its not what one was taught, rather it’s what one has not yet, learned?
I’m sorry, although most likely very well schooled, neither seem able to understand the true nature of the topic. I don’t seem to have the time nor the disposition to bring those trailing thus, up-to-speed on this subject.
CmacQ
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 09:40
The b.s. I learned in school was:
Algebra
Geometry
Calculus
Chemistry
Biology
Anatomy
Physics
English
U.S. History
World History
Geography
With all that junk I was taught anyway, I'm sure we could toss some and make room for stories about humans being made out of clay.
Basicly everything but religion? Planning to dig a bunker and waiting for the world to end, are you?
cmacq, seems like you failed to to explain yourself again... I will however stay positive, fifth time's the charm:D
cmacq, seems like you failed to to explain yourself again... I will however stay positive, fifth time's the charm:D
? You have never questioned anything, you were taught in school???
Perspective
With some understanding of what happened before your day, one can see how little the ancient really understood the workings of the world and that their science was no more than a crude religion. Now, in our time one may believe that everything taught in school was, in fact the ‘unchanging universal precepts of the cosmos?’ Then at some point one may come to understand that our day will soon be long passed, and those that follow in the distant future, will see us, as we once saw the ancients. And they may comment, that for all our pride, how little we actually understood the universe and indeed, although we called it science, it was not but a crude religion.
One may wonder if those that educate, understand the truth of what they teach, is at best fleeting? This is the best I'll do for you boys...
Without doubt, I am not a religious person, yet; Judge not, lest ye be judged, and take care you don't Render unto Caesar, more than is due.
CmacQ
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2008, 10:15
Of course I question things I learned in school...
Like, my history teacher when speaking about the black plague used old sources, so in class I cited some newer ones and he stood corrected. I wouldnt call his teaching "BS" though... He had just not yet read the latest scientific reports.
I don't really understand why you are avoiding the question? I mean, why go on about philosophical arguments instead of just, well, mentioning some stuff you thought was BS?
Yes, in 3000 years hopefully the then modern schoolar will see us as barbarians... Is your point that we should wait with our learning untill everything is known, or what?
Science is not static, it is fluid. What you learn one day might be wrong the next, so you need to keep up, and use your own mind.
However, this thread is about creationism... So I just wonder, when you argue against todays science, are you saying we should toss it out and make room for a religious approach of the world around us?
Or what?
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 10:16
Basicly everything but religion? Planning to dig a bunker and waiting for the world to end, are you?
cmacq, seems like you failed to to explain yourself again... I will however stay positive, fifth time's the charm:D
I went to protestant grade school and catholic high school, so I took religion as well. I was just being sarcastic. However, I cannot say that anything I learned in religion classes over 13 years helped me in any way except to be able to argue with religious fanatics. I find frequently I'm more familiar with the Bible than they are.
OK, black plague? explain?
You may have been taught that our modern Western Science has its roots in the ancient world; however that is not the truth. In fact, that claim is a deliberate lie, designed to promote false credence in the method. In its most basic precepts and applications modern Western Science is a relatively recent innovation. This has to do with inductive vs deductive reasoning. One may call that an example of BS? History clearly demonstrates that geopolitically and over extended periods, Educational Traditions or major Schools of Thought are rather predatory, non-evolving, and strive to be mutually exclusive. For example, upon the conquest of the Mexica what did the Iberian educational authority do? Right, it destroyed the Mexica educational system and as many of the Mexica books as they could find. This is of course not an isolated example.
CmacQ
LittleGrizzly
09-26-2008, 14:19
To be honest religion was one of the most useless things i learned in school, most of what they taught us on christianity i knew from my indoctrination at a young age, and what i can remember from the other religions they taught us about is very basic knowledge anyway.... Science on the other hand was probably one of the most useful things i learnt, although i haven't really had a practical application from just discussing it and using it to further my education it has had immeasurable benefits....
So my 2 cents being lets not replace science lessons with some bible story, if it is that essential we teach this creationism version it should get put into R.E class with the creation stroys of islam and judaism, science classes are for science not for storys...
And museums shouldn't preach creationism, unless im mistaken museums are publically funded buildings ? creationism indoctrination should be left up to the churches i see no reason for the state to help out in this matter...
Not to draw too fine a point, however innovation and invention are often mistaken for modern Western Science. They simply are not. I may add that due to the absence of any direct evidence, the scientific creation myth should be placed in the R.E class, as well. The tired old reply that the scientific creation myth is the best explanation available is just not good enough. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is simply not known.
I say, in order to prevent the perversion of yet another generation, keep both scientific and religious creation myths out of sight and the reach of the young and impressionable.
CmacQ
I say, in order to prevent the perversion of yet another generation, keep both scientific and religious creation myths out of sight and the reach of the young and impressionable.
You are talking about the first creation here and not the forming of our solar system around x billion years ago?
I find the scientific and religious creation story, when it comes to our solar system, very similar.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-26-2008, 16:19
You know, it's really inderesting reading people's responses. When I joined this forum, about three years ago now I think, I was an avowed atheist. It was actually through these sorts of discussions and sparring with posters like Adrian that I realised atheism wasn't for me. IA may be right that religious people can't concieve of a life without faith but I would posit that everyone has to have faith in something, otherwise I can't see how anyone could have any hope. Everyone has some form of belief to keep them going, even if it is that there is nothing to believe in and life is what you make it.
Anyway, the problem with dealing with Creationists is that if you believe in an all powerful Creator he can do whatever he wants. You'll never convince Nav of something like evolution because he sees it as going against God, so it must be wrong. This was my point about the damage Dawkins does (and whatever people may think he gets a lot of air-time over here, he's had two tv series this year alone), if you present a devout Christian with proof God does not exist he simply won't believe you. He, or she, will never entertain the possibility that you might be right because you are contradicting the fundamental fact of christian reality, so you must be wrong.
Does that make sense?
Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 16:32
When I joined this forum, about three years ago now I think, I was an avowed atheist. It was actually through these sorts of discussions and sparring with posters like Adrian that I realised atheism wasn't for me.
Funny you should say that. I came to these forums thinking somewhat about the possibility of God existing, although to be honest I wasn't much more than an agnostic leaning in that direction. It was Adrian that actually told me I should really read the Bible, and now I did it makes perfect sense to me.
The Backroom is better at evangelising than any creationist museum. :laugh4:
Not to draw too fine a point, however innovation and invention are often mistaken for modern Western Science. They simply are not. I may add that due to the absence of any direct evidence, the scientific creation myth should be placed in the R.E class, as well. The tired old reply that the scientific creation myth is the best explanation available is just not good enough. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is simply not known.
I say, in order to prevent the perversion of yet another generation, keep both scientific and religious creation myths out of sight and the reach of the young and impressionable.
CmacQ
It's tought because it's the leading scientific theory in the field. The religious creation myths are simply stating "this is how it is", while evolution says "this is what it appears to be like". Scientific theories are open for amendment, while religious myths are anything but that. Giving merit to them because of their sheer age is nothing short of ridiculous
Funny you should say that. I came to these forums thinking somewhat about the possibility of God existing, although to be honest I wasn't much more than an agnostic leaning in that direction. It was Adrian that actually told me I should really read the Bible, and now I did it makes perfect sense to me.
The Backroom is better at evangelising than any creationist museum. :laugh4:
Funny thing. I joined this forum as a firm believer in Lutheran Christianity because my parents are rather religious, and so made me also. That was until I started applying critical thought, and the Backroom undoubtedly helped me alot on that matter.
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 20:42
Again I think one's faith or lack thereof is totally irrelevant to whether or not one embraces science. Plenty of people have no trouble doing both.
And if there are people who feel that they HAVE to irrationally deny evolution or the scientific explanations of our reality out of an emotional obligation to God or religion, on no basis other than "it's not the exact account from the Bible so it must be AGAINST that account", then they are merely victims of a movement I call the Art of Stupid in this country, and the attempt to destroy critical debate and replace it with emotional wedge issues to get people divided on things they really shouldn't or needn't be divided on.
I still believe a majority have no problem reconciling both, or any combination of both. It's only hardline ideologues, mostly on the religious side, making this an issue. There is no need to have creationism taught in public schools nor is it appropriate or even legal, especially in the way that hardcore religious would want it taught. They wouldn't want it taught in a comparative religion class also featuring Buddhism, Sikhism Judaism and Islam. They'd want it taught like it was an exclusive truth. And that's unacceptable in a democratic free society which preaches freedom of religion.
My 48 cents again.
Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 22:06
Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
Of course, most things we are taught should be fine. No problems with physics (at a school level anyway), chemisty, and most of biology...
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
Yes.
You're quite entitled to disagree with the scientific consensus for religious reasons, but it does mean you probably shouldn't be pursuing a career in biology.
Similarly a vegetarian probably wouldn't do to well on an exam to be a butcher.
'Course, it is quite possible to obtain a high mark in GCSE or A level biology even if you get no marks whatsoever on the questions on evolution.
Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 22:26
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
Why can't evolution and Christianity go together? It's worked for me......
Yes, hence why you can still pass the exam.
Become a biochemist or something. But if you don't believe in evolution it's hard to see how exactly you would pursue a career as an evolutionary biologist.
To pick another analogy, would I be likely to pass exams to be ordained as a vicar if I maintain throughout that I do not believe in God?
Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
What? Your freedom of religion is to be able to worship openly without government persecution. It is not your freedom to put religion into public schools because you want to. Not everyone thinks like you do, not everyone prays to the same God or read the same scripture. I've been forced to write papers on things I did not agree with, I did it anyway, I passed. When you're in a school, you must expect to be told what to do. I'm sure there are plenty of private schools that will teach religion to kids in Britain, but in a public school, not everyone believes the same thing. This is where the line is drawn.
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
How do you know God will judge you for writing about evolution? You deny evolution, write the damned paper anyway. It all comes down to what you believe in, be it the Bible or the Textbook. If you feel strongly about failing a class because you didn't want to write one paper on a subject you don't agree with, then you deserve to fail the class.
Ironside
09-26-2008, 23:19
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
It should require the knowledge of the evolutionary theory though... :juggle:
Otherwise you can throw subjects like history out of the window as well.
Koga No Goshi
09-26-2008, 23:52
Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
Of course, most things we are taught should be fine. No problems with physics (at a school level anyway), chemisty, and most of biology...
I already addressed this. I said that plenty of people have no trouble doing both. Lots of kids are already "indoctrinated", as you would put it, in the Christian religion YEARS before they are public school students learning about evolution. So, going with your line of argument, if their faith is so weak that mere exposure to evolution without the teacher saying "now now, remember that creationism is the real truth and we just have to teach this evolution baloney" that they would completely lose their religion over it, then it wasn't that sincere to begin with was it?
What I think people would have trouble doing in the present educational structure is being an ignorant fundamentalist. Which, if that is the aim of shoving creationism into schools, is even more abhorrent.
Rhyfelwyr
09-26-2008, 23:52
Not everyone thinks like you do, not everyone prays to the same God or read the same scripture.
Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
Anyway I wasn't a Christian when I took biology so I'm talking hypothetically.
Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
There is a lot of evidence to back up evolution, while Christianity has our Bible.
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
I believe evolution to be God's way of changing the ever changing environment, if that makes any sense. About humans, I am undecided. I mean, for all we know, Eve being created from the rib of Adam could very well be a metaphor of evolution in itself :dizzy2:.
Koga No Goshi
09-27-2008, 00:03
Evolution is PROVEN. We can't say with absolute 100% certainty exactly what humans came from, or sharks came from, or whatever. That part is guesswork and research. But we do know evolution is real. Diseases are evidence of it, and the fact that diseases are becoming resistant to medications and treatments. Bacteria and viruses go through generations so much faster than macroorganisms that we can see the evolutionary changes they go through whereas change is much slower relatively speaking for organisms that live years at a time. To deny that it is real and occurs in living things is the worm resisting the wheel.
Goofball
09-27-2008, 00:09
Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
Anyway I wasn't a Christian when I took biology so I'm talking hypothetically.
(Bold added by me)
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
If you want your kids to take a religion class where they are taught based on faith (rather than the scientific method) that intelligent design is the most plausable explanation for why they are what they are, then that's fine. But stop trying to inject your mythology into my kids' science class.
Christ-almighty, if I went into Sunday school with a science book and started explaining to children that everything their pastor was teaching them about God was absolute lies because none of it was testable via the scientific method, you'd lose your fricking mind. So why should you be free to try to inject your religion into science classes?
Koga No Goshi
09-27-2008, 00:12
(Bold added by me)
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
If you want your kids to take a religion class where they are taught based on faith (rather than the scientific method) that intelligent design is the most plausable explanation for why they are what they are, then that's fine. But stop trying to inject your mythology into my kids' science class.
Christ-almighty, if I went into Sunday school with a science book and started explaining to children that everything their pastor was teaching them about God was absolute lies because none of it was testable via the scientific method, you'd lose your fricking mind. So why should you be free to try to inject your religion into science classes?
If faith-based thinking is an acceptable substitute for science I would like to know how the faith-based community intends to solve problems such as energy dependence and disease. Prayer doesn't count. :)
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 00:47
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
Gah! I believe evolution occurs within species (and over to macroevolution), but it is simply not a FACT that humanity evolved from lower forms of species. So why was I brought up believing it was? Oh yes, its because that it what I was taught at school, that it was 100% true that we evolved from tiny organisms.
Now I realise this is not a FACT. It is rather an assumption based off our analysis of the evolutionary process taking place within other species, which is not in itself conflicting with scripture.
m52nickerson
09-27-2008, 01:20
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
Gah! I believe evolution occurs within species (and over to macroevolution), but it is simply not a FACT that humanity evolved from lower forms of species. So why was I brought up believing it was? Oh yes, its because that it what I was taught at school, that it was 100% true that we evolved from tiny organisms.
Now I realise this is not a FACT. It is rather an assumption based off our analysis of the evolutionary process taking place within other species, which is not in itself conflicting with scripture.
Well if you were taught what a theory was it would have been clear to you. Know evolution as a whole is theory, has more evidence supporting it then any other scientific theory. It is only a theory because there are many specifics that are not known. Some large concepts such as all life has and is evolving is fact. That includes Homosapiens.
Just returned from the field.
Some may think that (biological) evolution is tied to the origin of life and creation of the universe. Again, it simply is not.
The basic tenets of biological evolution are:
populations, Mutations, and the factors that enhance or deter survivability.
The origin of life and creation of the universe are beyond the purview of biological evolution. Any theories offered on these topics under the guise of biological evolution are at best, speculative. I can see no reason why such theories should be taught in the public school system. That is no reason, other than the desire of a small minority of elites to use the public school system to legitimize an ideology that is not supported by science itself. If one was educated in a school system that claimed evolution provides a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, as was I, then one has a first-hand example of BS foisting.
The origin of life and creation of the universe would naturally fall within the field of Physics. Although a number of theories have been posited, these have many problems and can not be considered reliable in any stretch of the imagination. I see no need for Physicists to extend explanations beyond the means to apply the scientific method, so that an elite minority may have its ideology legitimized by the state. If one was educated in a school system that claimed Physics can offer a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, again more BS.
CmacQ
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
What else should the biology teachers spend their time discussing?
They could spend the whole time talking about Occam's razor, inductive vs deductive logic and such but some could argue it's:
*Splitting hairs.
*A bit beyond GCSE level (I didn't study any philosophy of science until the third year of my undergraduate degree).
*Not terribly useful if you never get around to learning any actual science.
In school science pretty much everything is taught as if it were irrefutable fact. Of course many pupils come to realise as I and my classmates did that the theory being taught as fact actually gets replaced every two years by a harder theory, and so the assurances that it is irrefutable fact should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. For instance, at key stage 3 we were taught that light consists of rays which move in straight lines. At GCSE we were taught that light is a wave which can diffract. At A level we were introduced to the concept that light is made of particles called photons, and it was hinted at that there was something called "wave-particle duality".
It wasn't until I got to the first year of my PhD that I was actually taught the current theory describing light with nothing dumbed down and no holds barred. It's a little baby called Quantum Electrodynamics and it really is horrendously complicated (and even then it's a simplification of a simplification which only applies under certain ideal conditions). Are you saying that they should lead with it in year 9 science?
School science is necessarily going to be a simplification on the real thing, the aim is mostly to give a feel for the important concepts and an overview of the prevailing theories and ideas. Suppose we spent every lesson pointing out "oh, by the way, none of this stuff is actual beyond-all-doubt FACT in the sense of the word as you understand it since that type of fact simply doesn't exist, get used the idea, by fact we merely mean that there is virtually no doubt about this given the current evidence." It would take forever, not to mention reduce the number of students going on to pursue a career in science, which you must admit does fulfill a fairly useful role in making all sorts of useful stuff even if it does have some rather funny ideas about the Universe.
EDIT:
Any theories offered on these topics under the guise of biological evolution are at best, speculative.
Fixed for you.
However the degree of certainty we have in that speculation is important, wouldn't you say?
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a reply in our little discussion on Compton scattering in the Science forum. Hope you can find some time for it soon.
Reverend Joe
09-27-2008, 02:23
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
Thank you sir, as you are of course correct. About the Compton scattering, it makes my head hurt to think about it (the number of factors involved). However,
School science is necessarily going to be a simplification on the real thing, the aim is mostly to give a feel for the important concepts and an overview of the prevailing theories and ideas. Suppose we spent every lesson pointing out "oh, by the way, none of this stuff is actual beyond-all-doubt FACT in the sense of the word as you understand it since that type of fact simply doesn't exist, get used the idea, by fact we merely mean that there is virtually no doubt about this given the current evidence." It would take forever, not to mention reduce the number of students going on to pursue a career in science, which you must admit does fulfill a fairly useful role in making all sorts of useful stuff even if it does have some rather funny ideas about the Universe.
Milk before meat so to speak. I think we all can understand this consept, even cmacq ... :beam:
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
You try to make a hospitable world out of dust and Hydrogen and see how long it takes .. :smartass2:.
But seriously given all this talk about being critical, why not take another look at Genesis and maybe compare it with Bereshit (http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=1&chapter=1&verse=1&portion=1) (yeah it is spelled correctly); the Torah version of Genesis... or rather what Genesis is based on.
Note there are different versions too ... but all notable older than the Bible as we have it.
The link is the Elohist version ... which IMO is rather interesting (see the use of Elohim for God[s]).
Well if you were taught what a theory was it would have been clear to you. Know evolution as a whole is theory, has more evidence supporting it then any other scientific theory. It is only a theory because there are many specifics that are not known. Some large concepts such as all life has and is evolving is fact. That includes Homosapiens.
Let's not forget that a theory will alway be a theory regardless of evidences supporting it.
If one was educated in a school system that claimed evolution provides a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, as was I, then one has a first-hand example of BS foisting.
CmacQ
If that's what you meant by 'scientific creation myths', then you should've been selecting your words more carefully on a topic with 'creationism' in its title, IMO.
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 13:26
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
I don't think He did wait 4 billion years. I believe evolution occurs within species since after He put them on earth. So they didn't all originate from tiny organisms.
If that's what you meant by 'scientific creation myths', then you should've been selecting your words more carefully on a topic with 'creationism' in its title, IMO.
Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
Indeed many people may think they understand somethimg very well, however upon closer inspection, they may descover that there was neither meat nor milk to what they once thought was a solid truth.
CmacQ
m52nickerson
09-27-2008, 14:39
Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is bring taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
CmacQ
What scientific theory is this "scientific creation myth"? You see creationist lump the origin of the universe and the beginning of life in one hypothesis. Science does not.
Evolution is science. The Big Bang theory is science. No myth about them only evidence to support them.
What scientific theory is this "scientific creation myth"? You see creationist lump the origin of the universe and the beginning of life in one hypothesis. Science does not.
Evolution is science. The Big Bang theory is science. No myth about them only evidence to support them.
Sorry sir, you're wrong on all counts. You might want to research this in a bit more depth.
CmacQ
m52nickerson
09-27-2008, 14:55
Sorry sir, you're wrong on all counts. You might want to research this in a bit more depth.
CmacQ
Really, care to explain how I'm wrong. If you read early in the thread I lied out exactly how the study evolution fit into the scientific method. That makes it science. Every website or argument I've ever seen, yes I've seen quite a few, that tries to say evolution is not science misrepresents the theory, misrepresents science and or misrepresents the evidence. I find that most people who argue against evolution do not understand the theory. The same goes with the Big Bang.
So, if you feel I'm wrong please point out exactly were and them I will show you that I am not.
Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is bring taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
Indeed many people may think they understand sometime very well, however upon closer inspection, they may descover that there was neither meat nor milk to what they once thought was a solid true.
CmacQ
It would be nice if you were a bit more concrete. What are you referring to? The Big Bang theory? Theory of evolution? Something else? More importantly, can you give examples that does not conflict with religious views?
ShadesPanther
09-27-2008, 15:41
I don't think He did wait 4 billion years. I believe evolution occurs within species since after He put them on earth. So they didn't all originate from tiny organisms.
That is possibly the silliest dodge I have ever seen for accepting evolution.
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 17:21
That is possibly the silliest dodge I have ever seen for accepting evolution.
We see evolution happening, most Christians accept this. Where in the Bible does it say "creatures shall not adapt to their surroundings". Of course humans did NOT evolve from lower creatures as some suggest, because they were created directly by God.
Since God commanded all animals to spread over the earth from Babel, it would surely be necessary they have the ability to evolve biologically to adapt to their surroundings.
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
m52nickerson
09-27-2008, 17:39
We see evolution happening, most Christians accept this. Where in the Bible does it say "creatures shall not adapt to their surroundings". Of course humans did NOT evolve from lower creatures as some suggest, because they were created directly by God.
Since God commanded all animals to spread over the earth from Babel, it would surely be necessary they have the ability to evolve biologically to adapt to their surroundings.
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
It is a little more complicated then that.
By the way, were is your evidence that Humans have not evolved, cause the fossil record as well as other evidence says your wrong.
Oh boy another evolution thread
To but it simply Darwin's theory is sound because it is based upon the study of two important aspects.
Natural Selection based upon his study of the Gallepos (SP?) Islands and the unique species he found there. He also confirmed his theory by studing Artifical Selection which is what man has been doing with domestic animals for thousands of years.
If your in a religious dilemina because of the theory stick with the actual science that Darwin's theory is based upon and dont attempt to interpet down to the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe.
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
I dont remember reading that Darwin actually stated that. He was a much more detailed on what his thoery implied then that.
For instance man has evolved over time, take a look at the average height of humans back in the year 1000 compared to the average height now. That growth is a direct corrulation with evolution. Then there is the simple fact that the human race has different skin colors and fat content based upon where there ancestors lived before mass migration was common place as it is now.
And finally if God wanted to condemn us for believing in the theory of evolution - we would have a world run by communists......LOL just joking
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
~:wacko:
For instance man has evolved over time, take a look at the average height of humans back in the year 1000 compared to the average height now. That growth is a direct corrulation with evolution.
I'm pretty certain that that is caused by better nutrition; which must not be confused with evolution where it is the specie in itself that changes (change in DNA etc.).
Kadagar_AV
09-27-2008, 20:24
I must say I don't quite understand why religious people are afraid of science...
Science, as it is, is out to seek the truth of the universe, does anyone argue this?
My conclusion would be, and I think this is something we all can agree on, atheists and believers alike: IF God exists, and did indeed create the humans, earth, universe and so on... Than, would not science end up with that conclusion too?
IF religious people REALLY believe God exists, should they then not support science in its quest to find the truth of the matter?
There would be two arguments against this, both are (in my oppinion) insane.
1. God created the universe in a way to fool mankind to believe he does not exist.
2. Scientists all have a secret agenda to fool humanity.
Can someone point out any error in my reasoning?
:logic:
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 20:42
I just disagree with areas of scientific research that directly contradict scripture.
I didn't call for scientific research to be stopped, I just said that current theories should not be taught as FACT to children in schools.
Koga No Goshi
09-27-2008, 20:46
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
I had to write about what laissez-faire economics was in papers, and monopolistic capitalism (like Robber Baron era), and Jim Crow... does that mean I was being indoctrinated to believe all of those things?
Kadagar_AV
09-27-2008, 20:55
I had to write about what laissez-faire economics was in papers, and monopolistic capitalism (like Robber Baron era), and Jim Crow... does that mean I was being indoctrinated to believe all of those things?
I have had to write a paper on christian dogma, history and so on... i also had bibel studies.
Doesnt force me to believe it though:)
I just have to know exactly WHAT I dont believe in..... same with science, religious fanatics should at least understand what it is they dont believe:)
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 20:58
I had to write about what laissez-faire economics was in papers, and monopolistic capitalism (like Robber Baron era), and Jim Crow... does that mean I was being indoctrinated to believe all of those things?
Capitalist views are basically forced into people's mentalities in many areas of the world, look at the USA and the whole "Red under the bed" scenario. Still you are only being indoctrinated into the idea if you were taught say that capitalism is beyond all doubt superior to socialism, for example.
In any case you don't need to worry that Adam Smith or whoever is waiting for you in the after-life to judge you for what you write.
Koga No Goshi
09-27-2008, 21:06
Capitalist views are basically forced into people's mentalities in many areas of the world, look at the USA and the whole "Red under the bed" scenario. Still you are only being indoctrinated into the idea if you were taught say that capitalism is beyond all doubt superior to socialism, for example.
In any case you don't need to worry that Adam Smith or whoever is waiting for you in the after-life to judge you for what you write.
I have never had an "advocate" teacher who went out of his or her way to insist that evolution was true and religion was false. Ever. I think we're not being totally accurate if we pretend that is the scenario. I think that fundamentalist groups merely don't like that something they feel is not their belief is taught in schools.
And I think the idea that God is going to get mad that we found fossils and wondered where those animals went is ridiculous. You make God out to be an incredibly petty entity. Even if evolution was totally wrong I would think, at worst, he'd find it a very amusing story we came up with.
~:wacko:
I'm pretty certain that that is caused by better nutrition; which must not be confused with evolution where it is the specie in itself that changes (change in DNA etc.).
[/quote]
the species for a man from Africa that has black skin and low body is the same as the species for a man with white skin and higher body fat. This difference is what the environment did to create the difference in skin tone to survive the environment, which is what Darwin Studied and postulated with his theory. Now that we are growning taller can be because we are getting better nutrition, and that in itself proves Darwin's point about natural selection - we adjust based upon our environment.
I just disagree with areas of scientific research that directly contradict scripture.
Scripture was written by man and has been adjust by man to fit what the individual wanted it to be. The Big Bang Theory does not contradict the creation theory in itself. If you believe that the universe was created by God, why can't you allow the unbelievers to believe that the Big Bang created the universe. As a believer in God - I think the scientific explanation of the Big Bang actually can explain how God created the universe. But then I am not a fundmentalist in my religion.
But then I am cycnial of fundmentalist preachers who preach christian values while wearing expensive cloths, driving expensive cars, and not upholding the same beliefs that they preach from the doomsday aspect of their religion.
God truely must be ashamed of many of us - because of our inability to get the basic fundmental message of Jesus - forgiveness and allowing everyone to have freewill to believe or not to believe.
I didn't call for scientific research to be stopped, I just said that current theories should not be taught as FACT to children in schools.
Why should they not be taught - last time I was in school the theory of evolution was taught as a theory that explains how life most likely evolved according to the scientific research. Is your postion that they are teaching something different?
Given that my son is in High School, and I saw the Kansas Text book on this subject - I dont see it being taught as fact - in fact - I see it being taught as a scientific theory that provides a logical explanation on the evolution process.
But then I also grew up on the farm and particed artifical selection in the breeding of livestock.
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 21:56
Scripture was written by man and has been adjust by man to fit what the individual wanted it to be. The Big Bang Theory does not contradict the creation theory in itself. If you believe that the universe was created by God, why can't you allow the unbelievers to believe that the Big Bang created the universe. As a believer in God - I think the scientific explanation of the Big Bang actually can explain how God created the universe. But then I am not a fundmentalist in my religion.
I'm not sure about the Big Bang theory. I believe God to be infinate and having always existed beyond our ideas of time. It could be His way of creating the physical universe. In any case scripture was divinely inspired by God.
But then I am cycnial of fundmentalist preachers who preach christian values while wearing expensive cloths, driving expensive cars, and not upholding the same beliefs that they preach from the doomsday aspect of their religion.
Of course, I've always been troubled by the idea of the 'religious right'. I think I remember arguing for the case of socialism against you in another thread.
God truely must be ashamed of many of us - because of our inability to get the basic fundmental message of Jesus - forgiveness and allowing everyone to have freewill to believe or not to believe.
I'm sure He is. Although I am less certain of our free will in salvation, I'm currently considering the doctrine of predestination and the more I think about it the more sense Calvin's views make to me.
Why should they not be taught - last time I was in school the theory of evolution was taught as a theory that explains how life most likely evolved according to the scientific research. Is your postion that they are teaching something different?
Given that my son is in High School, and I saw the Kansas Text book on this subject - I dont see it being taught as fact - in fact - I see it being taught as a scientific theory that provides a logical explanation on the evolution process.
But then I also grew up on the farm and particed artifical selection in the breeding of livestock.
Maybe it is because I live in the UK but very little respect is shown to religion. There is a campaign by liberals (not in the US sense) and tartan-nationalists to change Scotland's history and make it ashamed of its true Calvinist past. Anyway before I derail, I always remember being taught evolution as a fact, or as much a fact as anything can technically be.
Koga No Goshi
09-27-2008, 21:59
God truely must be ashamed of many of us - because of our inability to get the basic fundmental message of Jesus - forgiveness and allowing everyone to have freewill to believe or not to believe.
So, because of your exposure to the theory of evolution, you have been stripped of your free will to believe or not? This is a very weak argument.
Reverend Joe
09-27-2008, 22:16
No, I think he's just saying fundamentalism is bad.
the species for a man from Africa that has black skin and low body is the same as the species for a man with white skin and higher body fat. This difference is what the environment did to create the difference in skin tone to survive the environment, which is what Darwin Studied and postulated with his theory.
Yeah, skin colour is a genetic difference, so I let that part out of my quote.
Now that we are growning taller can be because we are getting better nutrition, and that in itself proves Darwin's point about natural selection - we adjust based upon our environment.
Not so, because if we put todays humans on an ancient menu, they'd also be short. Thus no evolution. If it was natural selection, then it would be favourable to be long for some reason; such that long people would have a greater chance of spreading their genes than shorter people.
HoreTore
09-27-2008, 22:58
I just disagree with areas of scientific research that directly contradict scripture.
....why?
Why do you demand so much evidence on a scientific theory, while you are perfectly capable of accepting some old book without question?
m52nickerson
09-27-2008, 23:30
I'm not sure about the Big Bang theory. I believe God to be infinate and having always existed beyond our ideas of time. It could be His way of creating the physical universe. In any case scripture was divinely inspired by God.
Do you have any proof that the bible was inspired by God? If it was why does it say Pi = 3, did God make a mistake?
So, because of your exposure to the theory of evolution, you have been stripped of your free will to believe or not? This is a very weak argument.
Joe got the jest of it - exposure to theory of evolution does not weaken my faith - it helps me to understand how the physical world works.
I detest Fundmentalism for the basic reason that it desires to take away the very lesson that the religion is suppose to have.
man has freewill to believe or not to believe.
Yeah, skin colour is a genetic difference, so I let that part out of my quote.
Skin color and height can be similiar in the eyes of genetics
Not so, because if we put todays humans on an ancient menu, they'd also be short. Thus no evolution. If it was natural selection, then it would be favourable to be long for some reason; such that long people would have a greater chance of spreading their genes than shorter people.
If we but today's human's on the ancient menu they would be different then the ancient humans. Our genetics have developed toward taller and taller bodies.
This is what artifical selection also allows. As man grows taller - he normally will mate with taller and taller females. The genetics begin to grow toward that. For instance how do you explain in a single family how the off spring from the same parents can have a spread of height greater then 6 inches.
if it was all about nutriention only - the height of each individual eating the same type of food would be similiar to each other. evolution from the nutrietion intake has to be considered.
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 23:40
....why?
Why do you demand so much evidence on a scientific theory, while you are perfectly capable of accepting some old book without question?
Without knowing God, I used to believe the Bible was just supersition, and basically had the same views as most people here. But now when I read the Bible and pray for guidance, then it makes perfect sense to me.
I didn't come into Christianity with a bias. I had wondered if even Islam was the 'correct' religion when I felt the call as it were, however once I looked into some religions I realised that the Bible was different from the rest. And for a while I was actually quite concerned I wasn't Catholic as I thought it must be the natural Christian church. However since I've read the scriptures God has guided me and now I realise that its Calvinism that makes sense to me and has the most scriptural backing, and I do believe therefore that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.
When you have a relationship with God and can feel Him working in your life, it puts a completely different perspective on the Bible. And so if a scientist comes at tells me that everything I have read concerning God is a lie then I am inclined to demand some serious evidence.
Rhyfelwyr
09-27-2008, 23:42
man has freewill to believe or not to believe.
I'm not sure he does. Check my sig, especially the "and that not of youselves" part. To deny God's sovereignty is to deny the ultimate glory of salvation.
I'm not sure about the Big Bang theory. I believe God to be infinate and having always existed beyond our ideas of time. It could be His way of creating the physical universe. In any case scripture was divinely inspired by God.
Notice what you stated - inspired does not equate to dicated by God. Inspired leaves the scripture events to be interpated by the man that was initially writing it. The very fact that the scripture has been copied down the ages from different languages also leave the fact that man's interpation of man's language will cause so error. To belief in the divine is completely correct in my opinion, to hold that the scripture has not been corrupted by man would be incorrect. The lessons of the scripture are important, the meaning is up to the individual as they are inspired by the words and the divine. To claim that they have been correctly interpated throughout the ages by man - is a weakness of the fundmental religious position.
Of course, I've always been troubled by the idea of the 'religious right'. I think I remember arguing for the case of socialism against you in another thread.
Any hard left or right position is extremely hard to defend or even hold. Fundmentalism in any aspect creates more problems, because it does not allow room for individuals to compremise with each other.
I'm sure He is. Although I am less certain of our free will in salvation, I'm currently considering the doctrine of predestination and the more I think about it the more sense Calvin's views make to me.
Personally I like a mix of Calvin, Luther, and even some of the more moderate Popes through the ages. Salvation is through the belief that Jesus died for your sins, and that you accept Jesus as your savior, no where have I read that one must give up one's freewill to be saved.
Maybe it is because I live in the UK but very little respect is shown to religion. There is a campaign by liberals (not in the US sense) and tartan-nationalists to change Scotland's history and make it ashamed of its true Calvinist past. Anyway before I derail, I always remember being taught evolution as a fact, or as much a fact as anything can technically be.
Difference in education standards - one should teach science theory as science theory, and fact as fact. Evolution has aspects that are indeed facts, for instance the science of animal breeding is one examble of the theory of evolution actually having a lot of fact included in it.
One should teach religion as religion. The two are not necessarily incompatable - one must understand that one deals with the physical the other deals with the spritual
I'm not sure he does. Check my sig, especially the "and that not of youselves" part. To deny God's sovereignty is to deny the ultimate glory of salvation.
salvation does not equate to the lose of free will. For instance how does accepting God's sovereignty forfeit your ability to have free will. You have the free will to accept his sovereignty or not to accept. Now in Christianity not accepting his sovereignty and Jesus salvation leads to one being cast into limbo or hell in the afterlife.
So in essence you still have the ability to accept or deny. This is the essence of freewill - because you get to make the choice.
Rhyfelwyr
09-28-2008, 00:07
salvation does not equate to the lose of free will. For instance how does accepting God's sovereignty forfeit your ability to have free will. You have the free will to accept his sovereignty or not to accept. Now in Christianity not accepting his sovereignty and Jesus salvation leads to one being cast into limbo or hell in the afterlife.
So in essence you still have the ability to accept or deny. This is the essence of freewill - because you get to make the choice.
The thing is we never have that free will in the first place. Remember, we are born as slaves to sin and so are incapable of accepting God. It is only through God's grace that we can come to acquire faith.
The thing is we never have that free will in the first place. Remember, we are born as slaves to sin and so are incapable of accepting God. It is only through God's grace that we can come to acquire faith.
well...if you have to be "controled" into it then it isn´t faith at all....
you´re just twisting yourself into a pretzel with this freewill thing....you either have freewill or you´re basically saying you´re a puppet with god or whoever pulling the strings.
Rhyfelwyr
09-28-2008, 00:36
The transformation that salvation creates in an individual is such that they follow God willingly as soon as the change happens, directly from God's grace. God grants us freedom from Satan's chains, the chains that keep us from realising the glory of God and accepting Him with all our hearts. Only God can cut the chains, then we follow Him willingly. Salvation is irresistable, He chooses us, not vice-versa. Having been cut free from Satan, no-one would reject God.
m52nickerson
09-28-2008, 01:00
The transformation that salvation creates in an individual is such that they follow God willingly as soon as the change happens, directly from God's grace. God grants us freedom from Satan's chains, the chains that keep us from realising the glory of God and accepting Him with all our hearts. Only God can cut the chains, then we follow Him willingly. Salvation is irresistable, He chooses us, not vice-versa. Having been cut free from Satan, no-one would reject God.
....and those beliefs are fine. They do not however come with any type of proof.
Tribesman
09-28-2008, 02:32
I just disagree with areas of scientific research that directly contradict scripture.
So you think the sun stars and planets revolve around the earth and that if your house has problems with damp you need to call a rabbi instead of a building engineer ?:inquisitive:
How about if a scientist said you couldn't fit or keep all the animals in the ark and you couldn't build such a vessel anyway because of hogging ?:inquisitive:
Nearly 2000 years ago the leading minds of the faith that you claim to follow said that those who took literal interpretations of scripture that were contrary to science were practicing idiocy .
Kadagar_AV
09-28-2008, 02:44
The transformation that salvation creates in an individual is such that they follow God willingly as soon as the change happens, directly from God's grace. God grants us freedom from Satan's chains, the chains that keep us from realising the glory of God and accepting Him with all our hearts. Only God can cut the chains, then we follow Him willingly. Salvation is irresistable, He chooses us, not vice-versa. Having been cut free from Satan, no-one would reject God.
Oooook... Source?
Reading this thread I sometimes feel like I am back in the medieval times....
EDIT: No, a 2000+ year old book is not seen as a reliable source in modern society. Sure, it would be if it was written by god singlehandeldly, but it is NOT. It has been writen by humans, and revised by humans. So how could you possibly put any faith into it?
Reading this thread I sometimes feel like I am back in the medieval times....
That's where we're heading.
I fear the public have lost patience with the hard to understand, messy truths of rational science and are instead turning back to the clarity and moral certainty of fanatical absolutism.
Well, the Enlightenment was nice while it lasted.
Koga No Goshi
09-28-2008, 05:46
Joe got the jest of it - exposure to theory of evolution does not weaken my faith - it helps me to understand how the physical world works.
I detest Fundmentalism for the basic reason that it desires to take away the very lesson that the religion is suppose to have.
man has freewill to believe or not to believe.
Got it, misunderstood the original quote. Sorry about that.
That's where we're heading.
I fear the public have lost patience with the hard to understand, messy truths of rational science and are instead turning back to the clarity and moral certainty of fanatical absolutism.
Well, the Enlightenment was nice while it lasted.
I was wondering how to say that? Well put. Absolutism, 'for in the end there can be, only one.'
CmacQ
Rhyfelwyr
09-28-2008, 12:22
I don't think you'll find anyone had my views in medieval times.
In any case don't worry PBI, religion will adapt to scientific theory, and there will be a growth in deism, universalism, and New Age religions because they make people feel better.
I also believe that despite the panic about Islam, these will form the one world religion that the Bible prophecies in the end times.
People here may think I am a fundamentalist nut (even though I'm not exactly a standard fundamentalist), but IMO there is nothing more ridiculous than believing in the Judeo-Christian God and saying "Oh, but I don't actually believe everything He ever told us and I only like to pick out bits of scripture I like but the rest don't count lalala" *skips off into distance*
If we but today's human's on the ancient menu they would be different then the ancient humans. Our genetics have developed toward taller and taller bodies.
This is what artifical selection also allows. As man grows taller - he normally will mate with taller and taller females. The genetics begin to grow toward that. For instance how do you explain in a single family how the off spring from the same parents can have a spread of height greater then 6 inches.
if it was all about nutriention only - the height of each individual eating the same type of food would be similiar to each other. evolution from the nutrietion intake has to be considered.
Spread of six inches within the same family sounds genetic yes, but you do not only find spread in height within families; as children are not clones of their parents, and different combinations of genes end up with different results. This does not indicate evolution in a certain direction.
What better nutrition means, is that any human regardless (well, let's not deal with absolutes..) of its set of genes would be taller than what it would have been, such that dwarves would have been even shorter; even if the difference wouldn't be significant.
So to sum up: genetics make up the foundation upon which the enviroment makes a final touch. Height is genetical, but the increase since ancient times I believe is not. For there to have been a genetical change, a "selection" as one call it, shorter people would have to have been removed from the gene pool such that genes leading to taller people became more abundant. This removal hasn't happened.
That's where we're heading.
I fear the public have lost patience with the hard to understand, messy truths of rational science and are instead turning back to the clarity and moral certainty of fanatical absolutism.
Well, the Enlightenment was nice while it lasted.
I can't quite make myself agree; but we do not live in the same country. :book:
Spread of six inches within the same family sounds genetic yes, but you do not only find spread in height within families; as children are not clones of their parents, and different combinations of genes end up with different results. This does not indicate evolution in a certain direction.
Your correct and this genetic trait in itself is a form of natural selection which is the basis of Darwin's theory. You can argue that its not evolution in itself, and you might even be correct, the point though is that its part of the process never the less/
What better nutrition means, is that any human regardless (well, let's not deal with absolutes..) of its set of genes would be taller than what it would have been, such that dwarves would have been even shorter; even if the difference wouldn't be significant.
Expect that over time the hieght of humans has been steadily increasing.
So to sum up: genetics make up the foundation upon which the enviroment makes a final touch. Height is genetical, but the increase since ancient times I believe is not. For there to have been a genetical change, a "selection" as one call it, shorter people would have to have been removed from the gene pool such that genes leading to taller people became more abundant. This removal hasn't happened.
So its just a believe that height is not influenced by genetics and evolution. Sorry if I take a breed of horses and continuily to breed it solely for height - I have done a bit ofr artifical selection which is the foundation of Darwin's Theory of evolution. New groups with the species of equine have been developed through this genetic breeding - while they are still horses they have a trait that is different from the initial breeding pair.
If its true for horses, and other animals - its also true for man.
So no for the selection to be valid does not require short people to be removed from the gene pool.
Apples to oranges I know but to simiply state nutrition is the cause of height increase in humans is not correct. Several things have influenced the fact that on average the height of mankind has been increasing over time - to include breeding (genetic's).
Expect that over time the hieght of humans has been steadily increasing.
I've never actually had a look at the data; I doubt that the increase is linear.
So its just a believe that height is not influenced by genetics and evolution. Sorry if I take a breed of horses and continuily to breed it solely for height - I have done a bit ofr artifical selection which is the foundation of Darwin's Theory of evolution. New groups with the species of equine have been developed through this genetic breeding - while they are still horses they have a trait that is different from the initial breeding pair.
If its true for horses, and other animals - its also true for man.
So no for the selection to be valid does not require short people to be removed from the gene pool.
Not quite sure where you're heading. If you breed horses, you pick those with favourable traits and have them mate while you let those with not so favourable traits not mix with your breeding race. Sure there's natural selection going on among humans, but it does certainly not favour height to such an incredible extent. You need a mechanism that explains why taller people are favoured when it comes to reproduction.
Apples to oranges I know but to simiply state nutrition is the cause of height increase in humans is not correct. Several things have influenced the fact that on average the height of mankind has been increasing over time - to include breeding (genetic's).
Well, mainly I was trying to say that the change in height isn't genetical, but rather caused by such things as better nutrition and health care (which is what one could call the environment. the genetical foundation remains largely the same).
That's where we're heading.
I fear the public have lost patience with the hard to understand, messy truths of rational science and are instead turning back to the clarity and moral certainty of fanatical absolutism.
Well, the Enlightenment was nice while it lasted.
I can't quite make myself agree; but we do not live in the same country. :book:
Seemingly unbeknownst,
I believe his comments were in part directed at those of your ilk. By its very nature, Biology (with the subdiscipline Biological Evolution) can say nothing about ‘the origin of life’ or 'the creation of the cosmos.’ In contrast, geology and chemistry (which have not once been cited herein) can be used to address only ‘the origin of life’ issue. However, due to our limited understanding as well as the remote nature and our inability to directly observe the event, any conclusion is at best extremely speculative (very soft science). The only science that can be used to address the creation of the cosmos element is Physics. Again, for the same reasons stated above, conclusions should be viewed as very speculative and extremely unreliable (again very soft science).
Anyone claiming that Biological Evolution can be used to prove anything about the origin of life (aka animation of matter) or creation of the cosmos, may claim a certain level of comprehend, yet in fact they do not understand even the most basic tenets of this science. The messy truth of rational science is that there is little or no truth, just probabilities.
CmacQ
I should clarify, my earlier comment was not aimed at any participants in this discussion, I hope nobody took offense since none was intended.
I was more talking about the general impression I get that the public at large at least in this country are increasingly tending to distrust and dislike science, and regard it as esoteric and irrelevant. For example, the furore over the MMR vaccine in spite of repeated scientific assurances that the risk is negligible, the frequent criticism I hear of the LHC experiment as being either dangerous or a waste of money, or the consistently declining rates of people choosing to take degrees the physical sciences in spite of the high employability of such qualifications.
Perhaps I am alone in perceiving this trend, and I hope I am wrong.
No you're not alone, yet I sense a qualitative as well as quantitative element as well. This fault may fall on the failure of educational systems (over extension, over simplification, incorrect information, and the predisposition towards the social engineering of what are deemed lower classes)?
Well then, it seems I took your words out of context. Yet, as my field is Anthropological, a softer science I may add, I may understand the ebbs, flows, and trends of societal change, past and present. In this context, and in the direction which I expanded, I found your words particularly apt.
See humanities herd/pack/troupe mentality and a history that demonstrates a clear trend towards the consolidation of knowledge, power, and authority in the hands of elite minorities.
CmacQ
Seemingly unbeknownst,
I believe his comments were in part directed at those of your ilk. By its very nature, Biology (with the subdiscipline Biological Evolution) can say nothing about ‘the origin of life’ or 'the creation of the cosmos.’ In contrast, geology and chemistry (which have not once been cited herein) can be used to address only ‘the origin of life’ issue. However, due to our limited understanding as well as the remote nature and our inability to directly observe the event, any conclusion is at best extremely speculative (very soft science). The only science that can be used to address the creation of the cosmos element is Physics. Again, for the same reasons stated above, conclusions should be viewed as very speculative and extremely unreliable (again very soft science).
Anyone claiming that Biological Evolution can be used to prove anything about the origin of life (aka animation of matter) or creation of the cosmos, may claim a certain level of comprehend, yet in fact they do not understand even the most basic tenets of this science. The messy truth of rational science is that there is little or no truth, just probabilities.
CmacQ
No such connections were mentioned before you entered the thread. Personally, I have never heard of the absurdities before.
Not really sure I get your drift?
Are you referring to the use of evolutionary theory to promote the so-called scientific version of ‘creation?' Actually, if one cares to review, these connections were made repeatedly on the first page of this tread. Conversely, I did not join this discussion until page eight, after it became clear these absurd assertions were totally out of line. Or possibly, you’re implying that ‘the origin of life’ and 'the creation of the cosmos’ are neither included within nor representative of the Creationism topic? If so, be reassured that as individual subjects, ‘the origin of life’ and 'the creation of the cosmos’ are indeed central to the topic of Creationism, professed scientifically or otherwise. All inherent absurdities notwithstanding.
CmacQ
Tribesman
09-29-2008, 04:03
but IMO there is nothing more ridiculous than believing in the Judeo-Christian God and saying "Oh, but I don't actually believe everything He ever told us and I only like to pick out bits of scripture I like but the rest don't count lalala"
There lies the problem , the problem of the fundamentalists , its not that they believe in God and the scriptures , its that they interpret scriture in a literal sense .
How ridiculous is that when he people who gave them the books through translation state that literal interpretation of scripture is idiocy .:dizzy2:
I absolutely detest the mindset of "christians" who prattle on about scripture yet havn't the faintest idea about scripture , and when someone who has no understanding of scripture or science talks of science and scripture it really is beyond a joke .
Koga No Goshi
09-29-2008, 05:33
If any Christian, ANY, tells you he doesn't pick and choose what parts of scripture to follow and which ones not to, he's a liar. Most fundies eat pork, don't they? Well, that's from the same "usually ignored" part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality.
Not really sure I get your drift?
Are you referring to the use of evolutionary theory to promote the so-called scientific version of ‘creation?' Actually, if one cares to review, these connections were made repeatedly on the first page of this tread. Conversely, I did not join this discussion until page eight, after it became clear these absurd assertions were totally out of line. Or possibly, you’re implying that ‘the origin of life’ and 'the creation of the cosmos’ are neither included within nor representative of the Creationism topic? If so, be reassured that as individual subjects, ‘the origin of life’ and 'the creation of the cosmos’ are indeed central to the topic of Creationism, professed scientifically or otherwise. All inherent absurdities notwithstanding.
CmacQ
The only debate that I am able to see in this thread is evolution vs. no evolution. The topic of how life originated is untouched as it's totally unrelated to evolution.
No, I do not get your drifts either, and that's why I asked you a question on a page back to try to understand what exactly you're getting at. So, in an attempt to make things clear; do you oppose students being teached the theory of evolution?
The original question was…
post #1
Anyway, since this is the backroom I was thinking about creationist schools. Do people here think they should be allowed? Or, as some in the article suggest, would this be considered brainwashing? Personally, I think that schools should at least acknowledge creationist theories, rather than leading children to believe that Darwin's ideas are facts, as they tend to do.
Creationism is a religious belief that is defined by four components; 1) creation of the cosmos, 2) creation of the earth, 3) origin of life, and 4) decent of human kind. Of these the most important elements are ‘the creation of the cosmos’ and ‘origin of life,’ as the others play but a subsidiary role. Now there are creation myths, of which Creationism may be considered one form and soft scientific theories can be objectively viewed as other examples.
As with creationist schools vs public schools, is it possible that the use of the term, Creationism, was not fully appreciated?
CmacQ
If any Christian, ANY, tells you he doesn't pick and choose what parts of scripture to follow and which ones not to, he's a liar. Most fundies eat pork, don't they? Well, that's from the same "usually ignored" part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality.
I am sorry to inform you that the eating of forbidden foods where changed with a revelation given Peter in the New Testament and from that point it was legal to do so. It is also noted that from that point the gospel was preached to the gentiles, which were not lawful.
Rhyfelwyr
09-29-2008, 11:14
If any Christian, ANY, tells you he doesn't pick and choose what parts of scripture to follow and which ones not to, he's a liar. Most fundies eat pork, don't they? Well, that's from the same "usually ignored" part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality.
The ban against eating pork only applied to Jews, because God says that it will serve as "a statute unto your people".
Also Tribesman please don't tell a Christian to call a rabbi when his house has problems with damp because you think we're told to in scripture, and then tell that same person they know nothing about scripture. :dizzy2:
Creationism is a religious belief that is defined by four components; 1) creation of the cosmos, 2) creation of the earth, 3) origin of life, and 4) decent of human kind. Of these the most important elements are ‘the creation of the cosmos’ and ‘origin of life,’ as the others play but a subsidiary role.CmacQ
The origin of life has simply not been within the scope of this debate, no matter how many scientific theories creationism should oppose.
Tribesman
09-29-2008, 14:21
Also Tribesman please don't tell a Christian to call a rabbi when his house has problems with damp because you think we're told to in scripture, and then tell that same person they know nothing about scripture.
So is that one of the bits of scripture you choose to ignore ?
"Oh, but I don't actually believe everything He ever told us and I only like to pick out bits of scripture I like but the rest don't count lalala" :oops:
Rhyfelwyr
09-29-2008, 15:03
So is that one of the bits of scripture you choose to ignore ?
"Oh, but I don't actually believe everything He ever told us and I only like to pick out bits of scripture I like but the rest don't count lalala" :oops:
Am I Jewish?!?! Many of the points in the Old Testament are specifically given to Jews, as a stature unto their people. Even then, a number of covenants have been made since many of the things said in the Old Testament that change how we are supposed to act and worship God.
By your logic I should still be offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings for my sins. But things have changed since then, Jesus died so that we would be forgiven for our sins. The scripture covers a period of several thousand years, things have changed since the first books were written.
The origin of life has simply not been within the scope of this debate, no matter how many scientific theories creationism should oppose.
Not particularly honest nor honorable, yet very convenient. Possibly because the topic was not fully understood or some sensed a greater chance of success and deliberately kept the discussion narrow? It might seem that some care little about sincere debate and want only to isolate and hammer while denying another, a right they choose for themselves; to believe as they wish.
CmacQ
Am I Jewish?!?! Many of the points in the Old Testament are specifically given to Jews, as a stature unto their people. Even then, a number of covenants have been made since many of the things said in the Old Testament that change how we are supposed to act and worship God.
If we buy into the Judeo-Christian story, we should assume that the same God might have given different sets of governing instructions to different dispensations (a new word I learned). What would save Adam and his family might have been different from Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses. But the salvation would be the same. True, the Jews had a strict code to follow and it was because of iniquity (ref the ungodliness and the golden calf).
The mosaic law was like a house arrest which should teach the Jews (the people of God) to become a righteous people. And it was all a preparation for the coming of Him that should save humanity (ref the offerings and the passover).
When this Saviour finally came, he fulfilled this law and what became later Christianity, was supposed to be the new order of Judaism. The strict code was abolished and they (the Jews) was supposed to live the religion of God like Enoch did.
This is how I interpret the Biblical texts.
m52nickerson
09-29-2008, 16:34
Not particularly honest nor honorable, yet very convenient. Possibly because the topic was not fully understood or some sensed a greater chance of success and deliberately kept the discussion narrow? It might seem that some care little about sincere debate and want only to isolate and hammer while denying another, a right they choose for themselves; to believe as they wish.
CmacQ
Just because creationist lump everything in to one hypothesis does not mean that science has to. There are multiple theories of abiogenesis which do have evidence that supports them. The Big Bang theory has much more evidence supporting it then any creation story.
It is the creationist who misrepresent evolution as covering all of these parts. Not science.
Tribesman
09-29-2008, 16:58
Many of the points in the Old Testament are specifically given to Jews, as a stature unto their people.
So jewish people have a different sort of damp then:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The scripture covers a period of several thousand years, things have changed since the first books were written.
Yes they have , like....errrrrr..... science:yes:
As I said
Nearly 2000 years ago the leading minds of the faith that you claim to follow said that those who took literal interpretations of scripture that were contrary to science were practicing idiocy . and now things have changed to the extent that more people are taking literal interpretations
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are....that wouldn't be the patron saint of Christian theologians saying your views are idiocy would it , especially your view on the literal interpretation of Genesis:yes:
Kadagar_AV
09-29-2008, 17:00
Viking, du må ikke fodre troldene..;)
On topic: As far as I get it... The difference is:
Creationism has a 2000 year old book to back up its claims.
Evolution has the scientific world supporting its claims.
Did I get it right?
Viking, du må ikke fodre troldene..;)
And thou shalt not post in the Backroom in a language only an elite minority understands. ~;)
Goofball
09-29-2008, 18:16
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
Gah! I believe evolution occurs within species (and over to macroevolution), but it is simply not a FACT that humanity evolved from lower forms of species. So why was I brought up believing it was? Oh yes, its because that it what I was taught at school, that it was 100% true that we evolved from tiny organisms.
Now I realise this is not a FACT. It is rather an assumption based off our analysis of the evolutionary process taking place within other species, which is not in itself conflicting with scripture.
No, you are missing the point yet again. It is not taught as a fact. It is taught (as I said before) as the most plausable theory based on observable evidence.
Is this ever going to sink in with you?
It's funny that you are takling this particular tact though. When Christians are trying to debunk evolution, normally their favorite tact to take is the old "It's really only a theory, so you shouldn't put any stock in it."
:wall:
HoreTore
09-29-2008, 19:50
And thou shalt not post in the Backroom in a language only an elite minority understands. ~;)
Just what language was that, really? :inquisitive:
Kadagar_AV
09-29-2008, 20:10
His danish flag isnt enough of a hint?
Wait.... right... I guess you are a american and have a flawed educationsystem, leading to creationism and inability to recognise flags?
Geez, I even managed to make it on topic!
:book:
On topic: As far as I get it... The difference is:
Creationism has a 2000 year old book to back up its claims.
Evolution has the scientific world supporting its claims.
Did I get it right?
Pretty much, in my book anway. Creationists might claim otherwise, but, uh...
Just what language was that, really? :inquisitive:
Svorsk? :juggle2: Or could it be an example of this wannabe Norwegian called Bokmål? ~;)
His danish flag isnt enough of a hint?
Or, perhaps it's the flag of Orkney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_Flag_of_Orkney.svg)in disguise? :juggle2:
Kadagar_AV
09-29-2008, 20:13
I still believe my answer was better:p
:sweden:
Koga No Goshi
09-29-2008, 20:18
My two cents, everyone please put on your conspiracy theory tin foil hats.
I think this creationism "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution is absolutely fabricated, unnecessary, and a cheap publicity tactic. That is not to say people do not REALLY believe this stuff, passionately. But that's the herd. I think that a few whackos put the idea out there and I think religion has been declining and facing increasing irrelevance in modern life for decades. And it got them big attention. And then people attacked it. And then other religious people, not anywhere near as whacko as the original guys, felt like it was faith itself or belief in god being attacked, and rallied defensively around the cause. And meanwhile more publicity is heaped on the topic. Fast forward to today, intelligent design, and thus indirectly God and Christian religion, is a dinner table topic that you can't get away from in politics anymore. Christianity may be, as an organized religion, close to irrelevant in modern life, but it has resurrected itself (sorry pun) in political life with a vengeance. I think the idea that you have to choose between thinking God did everything magically with power coming off His Fingertips and you must believe literally that, only that and nothing but that, or else you are an evolution science-religion atheist trying to destroy faith, is an utterly false choice. Controversial, yes. That gives it lots of public airtime as an issue when it's a non-issue, in my mind. A cheap ploy to stay relevant, stay in the headlines, stay in people's conscious thoughts everyday.
My two cents, everyone please put on your conspiracy theory tin foil hats.
I think this creationism "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution is absolutely fabricated, unnecessary, and a cheap publicity tactic. That is not to say people do not REALLY believe this stuff, passionately. But that's the herd. I think that a few whackos put the idea out there and I think religion has been declining and facing increasing irrelevance in modern life for decades. And it got them big attention. And then people attacked it. And then other religious people, not anywhere near as whacko as the original guys, felt like it was faith itself or belief in god being attacked, and rallied defensively around the cause. And meanwhile more publicity is heaped on the topic. Fast forward to today, intelligent design, and thus indirectly God and Christian religion, is a dinner table topic that you can't get away from in politics anymore. Christianity may be, as an organized religion, close to irrelevant in modern life, but it has resurrected itself (sorry pun) in political life with a vengeance. I think the idea that you have to choose between thinking God did everything magically with power coming off His Fingertips and you must believe literally that, only that and nothing but that, or else you are an evolution science-religion atheist trying to destroy faith, is an utterly false choice. Controversial, yes. That gives it lots of public airtime as an issue when it's a non-issue, in my mind. A cheap ploy to stay relevant, stay in the headlines, stay in people's conscious thoughts everyday.
No need for conspiracy theories. Parishioners pay for the expansion and support of their churches.
You may have an extremely cogent and apt thesis there, with a good deal of merit. However I may add that conversely, a small minority has passed themselves off as professionals/administrative types and pushed a so-called scientific version of creationism. Its important to note that these administrative types are supported by their constituency as well.
Still, I think "Intelligent Design" is an entirely different issue.
CmacQ
Ser Clegane
09-29-2008, 21:27
:focus:
Thanks
Rhyfelwyr
09-29-2008, 21:50
So jewish people have a different sort of damp then:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I've already explained this *sigh*
Yes they have , like....errrrrr..... science:yes:
As I said and now things have changed to the extent that more people are taking literal interpretations
Only our theories change...
...that wouldn't be the patron saint of Christian theologians saying your views are idiocy would it , especially your view on the literal interpretation of Genesis:yes:
To be honest I don't care what a Catholic theologian said, of course someone like Albert is popular nowadays but I don't really bother with the ideas of a theologian who thinks he knows better than scripture. Maybe he should have payed more attention to this:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
rory_20_uk
09-29-2008, 23:26
To be honest I don't care what a Catholic theologian said, of course someone like Albert is popular nowadays but I don't really bother with the ideas of a theologian who thinks he knows better than scripture. Maybe he should have payed more attention to this:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Does that mean the newly found material will be incorporated into the Bible?
~:smoking:
Alexanderofmacedon
09-30-2008, 01:12
I don't think the phrase "god created..." should really be used, but I notice all my teachers talk about evolution and science and always follow with "now I'm not preaching, just teaching!". Evolution can happen through god's power, right? I never fully understood the Christian argument on that one.
There are, however, certain parts of culture that come with Christianity that should be kept. In Europe it seems Islamic people are in general not overly pushy, but are...well...devout believers, which could lead to some culture shifts.
Tribesman
09-30-2008, 04:18
To be honest I don't care what a Catholic theologian said
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes I can understand that , when a scholar of scripture says your views are idiocy it is best to ignore it .
I like the way you choose a passage from Timothy though :yes: Could you have found a book in the new testament that is of more questionable provenance at all ? hebrews perhaps:dizzy2:
I've already explained this *sigh*
Yes you have , Jewish damp is different from other peoples damp:idea2:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
the 3:16 seems to be an important reference. Here is another:
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(2. Peter 3:16)
Rhyfelwyr
09-30-2008, 16:37
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes I can understand that , when a scholar of scripture says your views are idiocy it is best to ignore it .
I like the way you choose a passage from Timothy though :yes: Could you have found a book in the new testament that is of more questionable provenance at all ? hebrews perhaps:dizzy2:
When that scholar attempts to overule scripture, well then yes of course. Why should I care if the Pope decides to make a man a saint? Even the idea of a saint in the Roman Catholic sense is an abomination - should I then respect his writings?
Yes you have , Jewish damp is different from other peoples damp:idea2:
"Statute unto your people" - a phrase commonly used in the Old Testament to show that the law/commandment/idea refers specifically to Jewish people. In any case it is irrelevant since the coming of Christ as the many of the old laws no longer apply (or should no longer apply). I think its clear God didn't mean this was some sort of special ancient damp that only attacks Jewish households.
Tribesman
09-30-2008, 17:36
When that scholar attempts to overule scripture, well then yes of course.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Do you even know what theology is ?
Even the idea of a saint in the Roman Catholic sense is an abomination - should I then respect his writings?
So you have the catholics , episcopalians , eastern orthodox , the Lutherians , Coptic , Syriac, Armenian , Ethiopian , Malakara , Eritrean and Calvinist churches and they are all wrong because you don't like your views on science and scripture being called idiocy .
BTW the correct term is doctor not saint , since it is given to someone who studied extensively the scriptures in their many forms .
Rhyfelwyr
09-30-2008, 17:48
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Do you even know what theology is ?
Well apparently to many it is the art of taking the divinely inspired scriptures and then corrupting it to suit the attitudes of your society at the time, whether they be humanism or liberalism etc.
So you have the catholics , episcopalians , eastern orthodox , the Lutherians , Coptic , Syriac, Armenian , Ethiopian , Malakara , Eritrean and Calvinist churches and they are all wrong because you don't like your views on science and scripture being called idiocy .
BTW the correct term is doctor not saint , since it is given to someone who studied extensively the scriptures in their many forms .
Almost all Calvinist churches do not embrace the RC idea of a saint. If you are referring to the idea of the perseverance of the saints, this refers to the elect and not just St. Patrick etc.
And yes those churches are all wrong on many matters because they have clouded their theological positions with tradition, and admit it! That is no better than allowing modern liberalism to infiltrate your church. It doesn't mean they are going to Hell, of course if they accept God then they will be fine. They just should drop many of their traditions which are offensive to the Lord.
Koga No Goshi
09-30-2008, 17:50
Well apparently to many it is the art of taking the divinely inspired scriptures and then corrupting it to suit the attitudes of your society at the time, whether they be humanism or liberalism etc.
Oh man, are you seriously trying to assert this has not always been the case? Read the book of Paul, most of the stuff in there was hand-tailored for maximum effect at the target GREEK audience.
Well apparently to many it is the art of taking the divinely inspired scriptures and then corrupting it to suit the attitudes of your society at the time, whether they be humanism or liberalism etc.
which of course the people that wrote the "divinely" inspired book didn´t do in the first place....:saint:
ever considered that the people that wrote the stuff where "corrupt" to begin with???
Tribesman
09-30-2008, 18:23
Almost all Calvinist churches do not embrace the RC idea of a saint.
Do they accept the notion of a doctor of the church and a learned teacher of scripture ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
which of course the people that wrote the "divinely" inspired book didn´t do in the first place....
Well come on all the scriptures are the same aren't they~;) , I mean honestly which version does Rhyfwer accept ? which version was that taken from , and which version was that taken from? blimey even if you skip the various greek and latin versions and go all the way back to the Jewish scriptures there was three main distict versions of them .
Its a bit like Navaros with his scripture thing , he doesn't even know which version it is he accepts as truth or why .
Rhyfelwyr
09-30-2008, 18:53
Do they accept the notion of a doctor of the church and a learned teacher of scripture ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I'm pretty sure Albert the Great is not one of them, and no-one ever claimed Calvin's, Knox's, Beza's or whoever's writings were divinely inspired or worthy of similar respect to scripture.
Well come on all the scriptures are the same aren't they~;) , I mean honestly which version does Rhyfwer accept ? which version was that taken from , and which version was that taken from? blimey even if you skip the various greek and latin versions and go all the way back to the Jewish scriptures there was three main distict versions of them .
Its a bit like Navaros with his scripture thing , he doesn't even know which version it is he accepts as truth or why .
KJV is what I read as its all I could find in my house, so I read it because its what I've got! I'm not openly religious in RL because I need to learn more before I can be an effective witness. I don't come from the Bible belt and I'm not surrounded by Christians. I asked about this and was given the example of Paul training for three years for attempting to minister.
I understand that the KJV is very reliable, although I've been warned against some versions, for example the NIV being biased for your average conservative US evangelical.
Koga No Goshi
09-30-2008, 19:03
Am I being ignored on purpose? :inquisitive:
Banquo's Ghost
09-30-2008, 19:11
KJV is what I read as its all I could find in my house, so I read it because its what I've got! I'm not openly religious in RL because I need to learn more before I can be an effective witness. I don't come from the Bible belt and I'm not surrounded by Christians. I asked about this and was given the example of Paul training for three years for attempting to minister.
I understand that the KJV is very reliable, although I've been warned against some versions, for example the NIV being biased for your average conservative US evangelical.
I would echo the oft repeated words of our esteemed colleague Adrian II, who advises a wide reading around your chosen faith to illuminate the teaching of your bible.
And it may seem strange to you, but you could do a lot worse than ask Tribesman for guidance on reading material. His style is woefully confrontational, but he is like a Socrates here - he challenges, not provides, and those who care to take up his sometimes impenetrable challenges often find a great deal of useful information. I have found him to be especially well-read on scriptural matters and very well worth pursuing his tangents, most especially on the formulation and creation of the current biblical texts.
A strong faith benefits from a bit of challenge, methinks.
Rhyfelwyr
09-30-2008, 19:29
I'm a fairly new-ish Christian and I'm afraid that sometimes I'm not up to taking the challenges I get set here, especially when I've got to answer to half the Backroom. In the end that's why I sometimes have to bow out and accept I can't help here, but it won't change my belief in God and so when I retreat then there's the allegations of "fundamentalist nut won't listen to anyone".
I'm still learning, in the end I know the people here seem to have a lot more experience and knowledge than me. I do try to keep an open mind, currently my big issue is understanding the doctrine of predestination, I started a thread for it on the Christian forums I use and its now several thousand posts long!
I honestly wish I could present the Christian case better on these forums, maybe on day I will. I do hope to read several versions of the Bible in my lifetime. Until then, one step at a time.
Louis VI the Fat
09-30-2008, 21:25
I'm a fairly new-ish Christian and I'm afraid that sometimes I'm not up to taking the challenges I get set here, especially when I've got to answer to half the Backroom. In the end that's why I sometimes have to bow out and accept I can't help here, but it won't change my belief in God and so when I retreat then there's the allegations of "fundamentalist nut won't listen to anyone".You state your case well, and quite respectfully at that. :bow:
Tribes is Tribes, he does what he does. He's a bollox sniffing bloodhound. Which is both an insult and a compliment. ~;)
Your quest for a divine truth is not mine, but I wish you all the best with it. A quest for Christian salvation is often less about conversion of others as about an inward exploration of one's soul. If you find solace in it, then my blessing you have.
I'm not here to preach, or to scream 'nutter!' at others, or even to convince. We are here to read and marvel at the variety of opinions out there. What we do, is to learn about 'the others'. How else am I going to find out, through direct communication, what moves Christian fundamentalists? I mean, after all, I won't let you anywhere near my house and
It is herein that lies the value of a forum like this. i would say that nobody has ever posted something that did not change my mind.
Tribesman
09-30-2008, 22:03
KJV is what I read as its all I could find in my house, so I read it because its what I've got!
Ah , thats the one that is taken from 4 main different sources and written to agree mainly with two other versions but with changes of words and phrases to make them nicer to the ear isn't it .
Curiously one of those 4 sources is in the light of new discoveries considered the worst example to have used due to the fact that whoever wrote it must have been on the juice too much and did a very sloppy job . Its also strange that one of the doctors of theology you say doesn't know much about scripture had a role in the compilation of some of the material used .
Its just wierd that you can seem to imply to the absolute truth and divine inspiration of a collection of books when they have been altered so much and are still being altered today , and not only that but seem to have only one interpretation when Jewish , Christain and Islamc scripture still has massive schools worldwide dedicated to trying to interpret the scriptures(not even going to the work that is being undertaken with getting the dead sea scrolls readable and fitting them into the overall picture)
I honestly wish I could present the Christian case better on these forums
Well there is a challenge ,Christians have been argueing for 2000 years about what is the actual Christian case .
I do hope to read several versions of the Bible in my lifetime. Until then, one step at a time.
Fair play to ya :2thumbsup:
but he is like a Socrates here
Bollox
InsaneApache
09-30-2008, 22:20
but he is like a Socrates here
Whatever you do Tribes, do not accept a drink from that man! :laugh4:
Rhyfelwyr
09-30-2008, 23:03
Ah, this is a nice conclusion to a controversial topic. ~:grouphug:
I do try to keep an open mind, currently my big issue is understanding the doctrine of predestination, I started a thread for it on the Christian forums I use and its now several thousand posts long!
Hey if you ever want to read our thoughts on these matters, which might be a bit more challenging than those found on a Christian site btw, you know what to do :mellow:.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.