Deuce 1 #101 May 27, 2005 Good arguments, and I suspect we'll have a definitive answer in our lifetimes. If we carry Cro-magnon DNA, then it's evolution. If we don't maybe it's creation. It's fascinating to watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #102 May 27, 2005 >If we carry Cro-magnon DNA, then it's evolution. Did you mean Homo Habilis DNA? We _are_ Cro-Magnons; the term is generally used to mean early (stone-age) Homo Sapiens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #103 May 28, 2005 Quote Science and religion are only at odds with each other when fanatics at either end of the spectrum overstep the boundaries that are well understood by most people. Science does not tell people how to live spiritually, and religion does not try to solve the mysteries of the physical world. The Vatican does not deny that Evolution is a fact, and Science does not try to disprove the existence of anyone's chosen diety. ------------------------------------- I dont agree at all. For example in Genesis the bible tells us that the sun, tthe stars and the moon were created after the creation of day and night, after the creation of water, after the creation of plants. Science says the sun and the stars existed before the Earth. One does not have to be a fanatic to say the two are contradictory only one is right. Religious texts need to give us a reason to worship their gods. The reason is generaly given is that their god is the creator and so they give an account of creation. If that account is shown to be false - and it is - then their texts lose credibility. Faith is belief without evidence. I see nothing more illogical to believe something without evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites fallingchip 0 #104 May 28, 2005 QuoteLet's keep in mind that Kansas is the Gateway to Munchkinland. Yes...I forgot about that. That's why I wont ever set foot in Kansas, sexist basterds. I still can't belive they never gave Dorthy the credit for that find...______________________________________________ "A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #105 May 30, 2005 >For example in Genesis the bible tells us that the sun, tthe stars >and the moon were created after the creation of day and night, after > the creation of water, after the creation of plants. Once again - the bible is not a science book. It does not contain scientific facts. It contains the framework of a religion, and the basics of morality. It has been used by millions of people to create a moral framework they can live by. If you are to judge it, judge it by what it has done, not by its scientific value. Judging it by its scientific value is like judging a cookbook by the validity of its moral messages. The parable of the prodigal son is not real. There was likely no such person. But if you say "hey, I did an exhaustive study of Roman history and discovered no trace of this supposed son!" then you're missing the point. It's a story intended to convey a powerful message, one that is not weakened by there not actually being such a person. The story of Noah's Ark is not literally correct. The world was not really covered in water 7000 years ago. But for a small group of people - the people who live in the area that is now the Black Sea - the flooding of their farms _was_ a very real event, and one family that survived the flood went on to tell a story that has been passed down for centuries. And again, there is value in that story. Taking the Bible as scientific truth is like taking Newton's Principia as a moral guide to your life. Swap the two and things would make a lot more sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #106 May 30, 2005 QuoteOnce again - the bible is not a science book. To quote Richard Dawkins Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science. Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false. QuoteIf you are to judge it, judge it by what it has done, not by its scientific value. There is plenty of evidence that religion can turn people into fundamentalist nut jobs capable of truly terrible acts of violence. On a slightly more benign level, some only want to redefine words so they can get their brand of The Truth (TM) taught in science class. There is significantly less evidence that religion actually makes the world or the people contained therein, any better. I fear that if you were to judge religion based solely on what it has done, it would not compare favourably. QuoteThe parable of the prodigal son is not real. ...snip... The story of Noah's Ark is not literally correct. Then maybe when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he actually meant that in the same way as "like, dude, we're all the 'son of god'". Maybe when he said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth", he was being cynical and only meant six feet of it. If the bits of the Bible that can be verified are found to be false (and they have been), then it has no more value than Homer's Odyssey and should be treated as such. If you want a book to teach morals, perhaps a law book would be better. It is at least based on reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #107 May 30, 2005 thousands if not hundreds of thousands have been killed for claiming that bill... arent you glad you live in a society that is enlightened, has pushed religious beliefs away from the process of governance enough that you can question them at all and state that such religious texts are simply 'stories' and are mistaken about some of the basic facts of existence?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #108 May 30, 2005 QuoteTOPEKA, Kan., May 5 -- . Gaps in the science, they argued, leave open the possibility that a creator, or an unidentified "designing mind," is responsible for earthly development.--------------------- It has been people puzzling over the "why?" in those gaps in our knowledge that has propelled scientific knowledge forward for millenia. Now if you say "God did it" you've just shut down further investigation. If someone later comes up with a rational explanation, do you have to burn them at the stake as a heretic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kflying 0 #109 June 5, 2005 Quote>then please tell me why the new definition is not acceptable. Because science is the study of natural, not supernatural, phenomena. What defines the difference between between "natural" and "supernatural"? If one works from the postulate that the working of God is a "natural" thing, would not "science" include the study of things often considered to be "religious"? Please remember, once "science" "proved" the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. A real scientist keeps her/his mind open. And I ain't no scientist! -A male pilot is a confused soul who talks about women when he's flying, and about flying when he's with a woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #110 June 6, 2005 >What defines the difference between between "natural" and > "supernatural"? Natural means caused by forces or processes we understand in the universe, like electromagnetism, gravity, oxidation, genetic expression of proteins, etc. Supernatural means caused by a force outside the natural universe, like God, or faith, or Yawheh, or Allah, or the power of prayer, or you name it. >If one works from the postulate that the working of God is a "natural" > thing, would not "science" include the study of things often considered >to be "religious"? If you defined "god" to be the source of the big bang (for example) then there is no conflict at all under the NOMA principle. If it then turned out the the source of the big bang was really a fluctuation in another universe's vacuum energy, though, then you have to abandon god at that point and go with the vacuum energy thing. If at that point you say "Naah, it was god because I have faith and I believe" then you have left the realm of science and entered the world of religion. If you define god as a sentient omniscient omnipotent discorporeal being that meddles in his creation to fix his mistakes, then you've defined him as supernatural from the outset - and hence he's outside the realm of science. >Please remember, once "science" "proved" the earth was flat and that >it was the center of the universe. Those misconceptions came from the bible and early oral traditions, not science. From the days of Ptolmey we knew the earth was round. >A real scientist keeps her/his mind open. But a real scientist is also good at knowing what is worth pursuing and what's not. Imagine where we would be today if Ptolmey, or Newton, or Lister, or Einstein had heard a priest say "it's not nature, god did it!" and had dedicated their lives to that idea, rather than the idea that natural events have natural causes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites br0k3n 0 #111 June 6, 2005 Quote arent you glad you live in a society that is enlightened, has pushed religious beliefs away from the process of governance enough that you can question them at all and state that such religious texts are simply 'stories' and are mistaken about some of the basic facts of existence? I'm glad I think its quite easy to state that all religious texts are nothing but "stories" .. as nobody has proved otherwise.. I remember as a kid I used to believe in this chap called Santa Claus, as im sure millions of other kids did around the world did and still do. Now you ask anyone over the age of lets say 20, do they believe in Santa Claus, do they believe the story that every year on the 25th December a chubby fella in a red suit is going to descend their chimney and leave presents under a tree, and I bet it’s a fairly resounding NO they don’t believe anymore… I mention this as eventually religion will surely die out same way, as a child you where happy with blind faith, you were happy to believe the Santa Claus story, believe that somehow the laws of time and physics didn’t apply to this chap. However the older you got the more you began to question, the more you began to realize that the story was just that, a story, no evidence, no sightings, ultimately no proof. So why believe any more….so you don’t… Imagine in say another 1000, 2000 years time, when we are still unable to present any evidence for the existence of any God, are people still going to continue to believe.. What about in 5000 years, 10’000 years..----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #112 June 6, 2005 No Santa Claus R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 5 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
fallingchip 0 #104 May 28, 2005 QuoteLet's keep in mind that Kansas is the Gateway to Munchkinland. Yes...I forgot about that. That's why I wont ever set foot in Kansas, sexist basterds. I still can't belive they never gave Dorthy the credit for that find...______________________________________________ "A radical man is a man with both feet firmly planted in the air." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #105 May 30, 2005 >For example in Genesis the bible tells us that the sun, tthe stars >and the moon were created after the creation of day and night, after > the creation of water, after the creation of plants. Once again - the bible is not a science book. It does not contain scientific facts. It contains the framework of a religion, and the basics of morality. It has been used by millions of people to create a moral framework they can live by. If you are to judge it, judge it by what it has done, not by its scientific value. Judging it by its scientific value is like judging a cookbook by the validity of its moral messages. The parable of the prodigal son is not real. There was likely no such person. But if you say "hey, I did an exhaustive study of Roman history and discovered no trace of this supposed son!" then you're missing the point. It's a story intended to convey a powerful message, one that is not weakened by there not actually being such a person. The story of Noah's Ark is not literally correct. The world was not really covered in water 7000 years ago. But for a small group of people - the people who live in the area that is now the Black Sea - the flooding of their farms _was_ a very real event, and one family that survived the flood went on to tell a story that has been passed down for centuries. And again, there is value in that story. Taking the Bible as scientific truth is like taking Newton's Principia as a moral guide to your life. Swap the two and things would make a lot more sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #106 May 30, 2005 QuoteOnce again - the bible is not a science book. To quote Richard Dawkins Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science. Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false. QuoteIf you are to judge it, judge it by what it has done, not by its scientific value. There is plenty of evidence that religion can turn people into fundamentalist nut jobs capable of truly terrible acts of violence. On a slightly more benign level, some only want to redefine words so they can get their brand of The Truth (TM) taught in science class. There is significantly less evidence that religion actually makes the world or the people contained therein, any better. I fear that if you were to judge religion based solely on what it has done, it would not compare favourably. QuoteThe parable of the prodigal son is not real. ...snip... The story of Noah's Ark is not literally correct. Then maybe when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he actually meant that in the same way as "like, dude, we're all the 'son of god'". Maybe when he said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth", he was being cynical and only meant six feet of it. If the bits of the Bible that can be verified are found to be false (and they have been), then it has no more value than Homer's Odyssey and should be treated as such. If you want a book to teach morals, perhaps a law book would be better. It is at least based on reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #107 May 30, 2005 thousands if not hundreds of thousands have been killed for claiming that bill... arent you glad you live in a society that is enlightened, has pushed religious beliefs away from the process of governance enough that you can question them at all and state that such religious texts are simply 'stories' and are mistaken about some of the basic facts of existence?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #108 May 30, 2005 QuoteTOPEKA, Kan., May 5 -- . Gaps in the science, they argued, leave open the possibility that a creator, or an unidentified "designing mind," is responsible for earthly development.--------------------- It has been people puzzling over the "why?" in those gaps in our knowledge that has propelled scientific knowledge forward for millenia. Now if you say "God did it" you've just shut down further investigation. If someone later comes up with a rational explanation, do you have to burn them at the stake as a heretic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kflying 0 #109 June 5, 2005 Quote>then please tell me why the new definition is not acceptable. Because science is the study of natural, not supernatural, phenomena. What defines the difference between between "natural" and "supernatural"? If one works from the postulate that the working of God is a "natural" thing, would not "science" include the study of things often considered to be "religious"? Please remember, once "science" "proved" the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. A real scientist keeps her/his mind open. And I ain't no scientist! -A male pilot is a confused soul who talks about women when he's flying, and about flying when he's with a woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #110 June 6, 2005 >What defines the difference between between "natural" and > "supernatural"? Natural means caused by forces or processes we understand in the universe, like electromagnetism, gravity, oxidation, genetic expression of proteins, etc. Supernatural means caused by a force outside the natural universe, like God, or faith, or Yawheh, or Allah, or the power of prayer, or you name it. >If one works from the postulate that the working of God is a "natural" > thing, would not "science" include the study of things often considered >to be "religious"? If you defined "god" to be the source of the big bang (for example) then there is no conflict at all under the NOMA principle. If it then turned out the the source of the big bang was really a fluctuation in another universe's vacuum energy, though, then you have to abandon god at that point and go with the vacuum energy thing. If at that point you say "Naah, it was god because I have faith and I believe" then you have left the realm of science and entered the world of religion. If you define god as a sentient omniscient omnipotent discorporeal being that meddles in his creation to fix his mistakes, then you've defined him as supernatural from the outset - and hence he's outside the realm of science. >Please remember, once "science" "proved" the earth was flat and that >it was the center of the universe. Those misconceptions came from the bible and early oral traditions, not science. From the days of Ptolmey we knew the earth was round. >A real scientist keeps her/his mind open. But a real scientist is also good at knowing what is worth pursuing and what's not. Imagine where we would be today if Ptolmey, or Newton, or Lister, or Einstein had heard a priest say "it's not nature, god did it!" and had dedicated their lives to that idea, rather than the idea that natural events have natural causes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #111 June 6, 2005 Quote arent you glad you live in a society that is enlightened, has pushed religious beliefs away from the process of governance enough that you can question them at all and state that such religious texts are simply 'stories' and are mistaken about some of the basic facts of existence? I'm glad I think its quite easy to state that all religious texts are nothing but "stories" .. as nobody has proved otherwise.. I remember as a kid I used to believe in this chap called Santa Claus, as im sure millions of other kids did around the world did and still do. Now you ask anyone over the age of lets say 20, do they believe in Santa Claus, do they believe the story that every year on the 25th December a chubby fella in a red suit is going to descend their chimney and leave presents under a tree, and I bet it’s a fairly resounding NO they don’t believe anymore… I mention this as eventually religion will surely die out same way, as a child you where happy with blind faith, you were happy to believe the Santa Claus story, believe that somehow the laws of time and physics didn’t apply to this chap. However the older you got the more you began to question, the more you began to realize that the story was just that, a story, no evidence, no sightings, ultimately no proof. So why believe any more….so you don’t… Imagine in say another 1000, 2000 years time, when we are still unable to present any evidence for the existence of any God, are people still going to continue to believe.. What about in 5000 years, 10’000 years..----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #112 June 6, 2005 No Santa Claus R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)