Aye! Aye! Precisely drawn! Thank you! :nod:
Printable View
Aye! Aye! Precisely drawn! Thank you! :nod:
Every source - you not least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
A gross and inaccurate over simplification - if you wish to argue against scientific theories, please have the courtesy to read those 'interested' sources and argue against the theories themselves and not just your infantile opinion of what you think they sort of might be. And I am not calling you infantile, just the tripe you posted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Why am I bothering - you already know everything worth knowing because it's all in your book. :rage:
For each individual who considers the seemingly apparent incompatibilities between religion and evolution, there always arise problems with reconciling the two. A lot of very good arguments have been made for both sides of the issue, and I wanted to address one or two of them and a few other points.
The first thing that I wanted to point out is that it is perfectly possible to equate the term “day” with whatever a person sees fit. If one was to (I’m not trying to be sacrilegious here) look at the Old testament from the perception of God (i.e. enlightened being) one would obviously realize that people who this work is being given to are in no condition to understand orders of magnitude on the billions of years. Even today we can’t begin to imagine things as small as atoms (at least the normal person would have problems) or as large as galaxies. Our brains simply cannot process that sort of size, which is logical since we don’t exactly exist on either of those scales. So I think that it is perfectly logical to say that the 6-day theory can be reconciled with whatever number you want. The problem, however, is not in the 6-day theory for genesis, but in the matter which it is told. Genesis, as has been previously stated, reverses the order for hypothetical creation into something that cannot be scientifically acceptable. Again we can assume that since we are dealing with primitive people, this subject was merely meant as a way to demonstrate the grandiosity and power of the universes creation. But seriously, from a modern perspective we know that earth could not possibly exist before light, or water before light, or anything of the above. Are we to assume now that this is a reference to God’s theoretical blueprint testing stage? Again this is possible. I’m sure that the list can go on forever, starting with the fact that light was there from the beginning and ending with the problems of there being no dinosaurs, explanations for the fossil record, and references to cattle, foul, and just about everything else that could not have possible existed within any relevant timeframe.
What I’m trying to say here is that we can take Genesis for a highly dramatized account designed for the uneducated and ignorant people of the time, which is logical. Any atheist will go on to say that the entire structure of genesis indicates the notion that it was written by uneducated priests (Jewish ones – no Christians yet) who had no concept of time and made it all up. A moderate or liberal religious person may take the allegorical argument, while the conservative may wish to view things as literal truth. But if one was to accept the allegory than evolution is no problem. Why? Well simply put evolution is scientific fact. I hope I’m not shocking people when I say this, and I assume anyone who has taken and introductory biology course (I think they teach this in the second term?) would know this. What isn’t fact (and has been stated above) is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. I.e. whether random chance threw the amino acids together to make proteins and RNA and then some membrane formed, etc., or divine will pushed these things along is the issue at hand. Science tries to come up with a natural explanation for the mechanism, and even if it shows that it happened as a – b – c – d and so forth, no logical scientist is ever going to go and say “Well this was definitely random chance or this shows god does not exist.” It will probably never be possible to tell if divine will or the chaos of the universe led to life. But it should not be a problem for most people to reconcile evolution with their religions. The only time this becomes a problem is when people are unable to accept that the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any other text, however much insight and joy they brings into life and love and so forth they may bring to a persons life are not completely accurate renditions of fact. At the worst they are false; at the best they are an attempt by a being of incomprehensible knowledge to share information and insight with a race who could not possibly understand a trillionth of the universes mysteries.
I think that it is time for people to move beyond centuries of religious backwardness and stagnation and realize that whatever transgressions of the past may have occurred – no divine being would want people to support something that logic tells them is plainly wrong (i.e. the allegorical nature of the religious texts). As society progresses and we uncover the secrets of the universe we, perhaps, move closer to understanding god and being enlightened beings ourselves. By remaining close-minded and unwilling to change we only hamper ourselves.
Right, thanks for reading all of that and pardon any grammatical errors or syntax/style. I typed this up very quickly - Dr. Who is coming on :banana:
Uh-Oh...I think I see more coming up...
Xamonas,Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
While I fully understand your frustration, please don’t try to do anything to discourage the contributions that argue against scientific fact. Having occasionally dipped into these threads, I have found no more convincing argument against Creationism and religious faith than the recrementitious piffle disgorged by those who defend them. I am satisfied that nothing we say could persuade people of the disturbing nature of religious dogma even a quarter as well as the output of those who spout it. I have used a few of them in class to show students how such dogma is not only incoherent and arrogant but also extremely dangerous and menacing. What many (not all, I admit) of those who churn out this garbage fail to realise is that not everyone is as stupid as they are.
um ah...just want to exist!!!sorry!!
Is this in response to my last post? If so, could you please explain why you suggest that such views as mine are not permitting you to exist? I want to exist, too (most of the time). And I would like to exist in an environment that is free from all forms of religious dogma. I do not have any problem with faith. All I can really do is recognise it but when it is used as an ideological weapon, I think it requires very close scrutiny as much as respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny explorer
Don’t forget that I am a non-believer who has been told precisely what will happen to me according to one of the religions represented above:
Quote:
Those who die as kafir (people commiting shirk) will spend their eternity in hell.
I'm with you! But comments like those give people like us a bad name. Offering blanket statements with no evidence whatsoever to back them up.... If too many teachers were like that, no wonder they pulled creation out of schools. Of course, I've heard plenty of people from the other side make equally awful statements, but they have the advantage of having the majority of the scientific community agree with you!
mrslizzydarcy,
Is this in response to my post? :confused:
Uh-Oh, I knew it, things are going to get more twisted :lol: What's a dogma anyway?
A carniverous canine quadriped - and don't call me Ma - I'm not your mother - we've been through this before! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by woeful painter
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Nice one! Nice one!
Amra, if you point me to the nearest mosque -- for scientific truth no less -- I'd have to point you in any direction that doesn't encourage flight up one's own backside.
Unamable,
If you told me, based on your atheistic belief, that after I die, that would be the end of it all, should I get mad at you? :D I just don't understand why you are upset about my beliefs? Why do you care what I believe will happen to you after you die, when you yourself believe that death is the end of it all? I don't care what you believe will happen to me after I die, nor do I start pathetic "arguments" trying to portray myself as a victim of your belief. I could believe that you would be a tree after you die, why would you care?
xamonas chegwe,
You don't this is an infantile, simplified portrayal of religious beliefs? My post about evolution was simply an answer to this statement that, if we wanted be unfair, and stay ignorant, could use to portray evolution as a failed theory. I merely used the same principle that you used to prove that things are not that black and white, and that both theories/beliefs are much more complex than we have here portrayed. Neither science nor theology have ever proven or disproven God in the way that would make both sides satisfied, and you might claim that science will eventually be able to do just that, when the time comes, but that argumet can be used both ways as well. My only point was that you cannot oversimplify things, and that if you choose to do that for one side, than don't be suprised when the other side does the same thing. I read an article recently about the scientific research regarding creation of the universe, and how it confirmed the theory of the Big Bang, which would mean that the universe was created in a split of second. This finding is not aligned with evolution theachings, as evolution is a long-term process in which things adapt/change/happen over a period of time. Big Bang is more supportive of the creationist view in which the universe was created in one single moment...Quote:
All you have is a book that says that God 'spoke' it all into existence - forgive me for finding that somewhat less convincing.
Not sure exactly what it is that some of you IDers are trying to accomplish; either that or I am and I continue to be disgusted with the meager attempts of a callous few to flex thier biblical muscles in vain attempts to push aside any views incongruent with thier own. Not surprised, though.
Fact is, our dna is all really quite similar and some of you dont want to believe or dont want anyone else to. Too bad. You lose.
I find no reason on disgussing science with people who will never show any interest in entertaining ideas that dont support thier own sheltered belief systems. Some of you are blatantly attempting to mislead some of the "flock" so as to further your own selfish ambitions, and dont deserve to be recognised.
Ive made numerous statements that are scientific and emotional and are there for your review, should any of you be interested.
My main initiative here is to speak for those who cannot speak, either of a different species, or are dead.
ID has no place in science classes and fortunately has been demonstrated. There is no debate.
Erecting "man" at the top of the food chain in a position where all the earths precious resources are available only to man to use by theological right is as ridiculous as are statements that claim the earth to be of of devine creation as stated in the King James version.
What is really at issue is the responsibility of a few people (parents) to fight tooth and nail to prove a moot point while ignoring that the earth is being destroyed by greedy malcntents about the dangers of deforestations and proliferation of the combustion fuels to certain destruction of our envrionment that we all share. Those of you who dont have kids cant be expected to understand.
No jobs on a dead planet.
SO
if you want to read the bible, go ahead, but
if you want to try pushing antiquated thought on innocent children in science class,
youve got me to deal with.
and im not alone.
Fight global warming
not each other
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Jollyollie, I have to say that you don't sound too jolly to me. Anyway, what would you have to say against Christian evolutionists who believe the same way you do with regard to science? There could be a God who uses evolution as His creative apparatus. What real argument do you have to present against this besides an ardent disagreement? Understand that I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I really want to know. My scientific beliefs are probably obviously the same as yours on many points. And while I also don't see man as the top of the food chain (aside: I'm at loss in knowing someone who does), man is the only intelligent species on earth (a fact all the scientific community concurs with). I even believe there may be other intelligent beings out in space (the Bible never makes mention of these, but the Bible wasn't intended to). I guess what I am trying to find out is whether you have a natural bias towards anyone who happens to believe in God and the Bible notwithstanding a belief system identical to yours (saving God and the Bible obviously). I don't see the two as irreconcilable. I too have also written my own expositions above if you would care to read them (these may even be the ones you're making an argumentative reference to above). I have a doctorate in Chemistry with an emphasis in physical chemistry (application of physics to chemistry on the atomic and subatomic level), have done post-doc work and research in cosmology and geology (the application of chemistry to both is crucial) and I must say, I have never run into any problem with what the Bible proposes provided that one reads it correctly (I can see you cringing at this sentence, but I would be more than happy to elucidate on the matter). Now, because I am a scientist, I would like to hear a substantiated argument based on logic and any works from the scientific enterprise (maybe I have missed something of note along the way). But please, please, please keep it free of barbs and heady invectives spawned from any natural aversion to Christendom and its practice. As a fellow servant of science, I think you will understand why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Amra,Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
I think you'll find that that is an extremely accurate summary of the biblical creation myth. If it is infantile and simplified then so are the statements from which it was summarised:
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
etc.
Your ridiculous allegation that the big bang theory contradicts evolution demonstrates that you have only the most rudimentary idea of scientific concepts. The big bang describes events over 13 billion years ago, before there was even matter let alone life.
As has been pointed out many times, you dismiss scientific thinking unless your dim grasp of it seems (to you) to back up your crackpot theories, in which case you vaunt it as 'evidence'.
Please keep your head buried in your book if you wish. I prefer to use mine to think with.
Amra, you read correctly but failed to interpret correctly. Xamanos (sorry if I misspelled) is trying to tell you that, yes the big bang was instantaneous and no everything wasn't created in the blink of an eye. This is a process. The Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago based on Doppler readings of the leftover energy (microwave/radio wave electromagnetic frequencies) from the Big Bang. Our planet wasn't "born" until about 4.5 billion years ago. If the story of the universe were formatted to a 24-hour day, we humans do not come on the scene until 30 seconds to midnight. We just got here. But I have no problem with this being a part of God's creative intentions.
So, it's all stated in the Bible, as per dictated by God, but since humans back then are less comprehensible than our present time, they of course couldn't narrate of the events correctly more over in exact detail. But there is science to verify the message and thus present the clear and detailed events of that very time. Thus they're just both going along together, is that it? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by woeful painter
A movie with matt damon, featuring the character Jay and Silent Bob. :D
what does DNA similarity prove or disprove?Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
You are also being hypocritical, why are you afraid to compare your precious science against a religious belief, or do you have so little confidence in your scientific faith?
Intelligent Design has not been proven, nor has it been disproven, so I am not sure what you are getting at.
Well, if the earth is not for the sentients to use, what would you suggest...mass suicide?
If you have ever taken the time to analyze anything christian, you will see that christianity preaches against the destruction of te earth, and preaches that man get along. Man is responsible for looking after the environment and eachother.
It appears to me that you are just a self righteous communist, who has nothing better to do than to attack something that you do not understand. I do not know why you ave such hatred for christians, certainly christians do not return that hatred to you.
And I would refrain from calling it a moot point, the issue has never been concreatly resolved, and biblical interpretation is just that, interpretation. I am suprised that you have so much hatred for the christian religions that you would not even care to see that perhaps the bible is an allegory of science, so that all people might understand it.
I hope that you will read, or do research, or something before posting again, because it seems to me that you read the word bible, and then froth at the mouth like you have rabies.
Since this thread has turned into a name calling session, it will be closed now.