@cystic:
do they debate things in Europe? Do they consider all sides to an issue before going about with the latest “fad” in any respect? Is one study enough? Is some evidence law?
And this is not so much a deformation of thermodynamics rather than simply forgetting that we are not in a closed system. We do not try to “prove” creation by intentionally violating Newtonian laws, so much as test evolution by means and tools at our disposal. But i guess that since Europeans feel that there is no need to test and debate new theories once an arbitrarily determined amount of evidence has been revealled, then they are obviously more scientific than us, and obviously not as subjected to nearly as much “Christian propaganda”.
(naturally i feel the opposite - that we - at least in my circles - are extremely scientific in nearly all respects - particularly with regards to physics, chemistry and biological sciences, as well as their real-life applications, particularly in aerospace and medicine. Mind you, what do we know?)
do they debate things in Europe ?
Sure we have debates, but no, I’ve never heard debate Evolutionism vs Creationism, nor debates about geocentrism vs heliocentrism, maybe those debates exist but I’m just not in the “right” place. I’ve heard debate about blacks holes, about how evolution occur (movement in the theory of complexity), the number 0, well, about lots of things, but about the flood or creationism ? wow ! But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too, we could invite the President of the Flat Earth Society to a conference, no ? You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument. Otherwise we have no reason to listen to every religious people, and their story about a virgin having a child, a god raping another god, zombie walking in the street or shaman casting curse. Fanatics that believe the bible is true because it’s true will probably not help science a lots by making “omissions” and deformation. Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
I see nothing to debate about the issue. I have yet to see a single non-religious arguement to deny evolution. I have not seen a single spec of proof showing a Young-Earth. Christian (And Jewish/Islaamic) Religious theory is no different from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Chineese, or Aztecian lore. Evolution is unbiased and proven by factual evidence.
Fisternis/Falk/Yanny?GeZe, why does evolution contradict creationism?
did I hear my name?
Quote:
Oh, science is based on observation, right? Just clarifying.
Yes, it is… while faith is based on believing… and i put my trust on seeing approaching cars or no approaching cars before i cross a street… and not on whether i believe there are any or none.
then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
and where did the first elements come from? do you assume that they were pre-existent like Creationists say God is? because the only difference between your elements and my God is that my God is supernatural.
so, in conclusion, your belief in evolution is only faith.
dIfrenT wrote:
Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating.
It does not say that.
then please enlighten (in slightly simpler terms than you may otherwise use because i always look at this forum when i’m tired from school) me on what it does say.
But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too
please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.
Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
please, do give an example.
You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument.
as long as we have to give a deep, logical argument for a pre-existent God, you’re obligated to give us a deep, logical argument for pre-existent elements or whatever it was that evolved into more and more complex organisms.
Christian (And Jewish/Islaamic) Religious theory is no different from Norse, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Chineese, or Aztecian lore. Evolution is unbiased and proven by factual evidence.
there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.
Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)
no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.
there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.
Go ahead, explain
then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
Naked Mole Rat
please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.
Rev 7.1; Reference to the “four corners of the earth”. I don’t know if creationist have sphere with corners (not that i would be surprised), but i don’t. If the context is changing the way to interpret please say me why…
Luke 4:5 - Jesus sees “all the kingdoms of the worlds”.
Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
please, do give an example.
Kronecker, he believe all irrational numbers were abobination, he believe “god” was in natural number. He make several move to stop Cantor from being admit to the university of berlin, cantor finish his live in a mental hospital, he was one of the best mathematican. Time prove Cantor was right.
Aristotle (most christians philosopher base their philosophy on his); he believe infinity and zero were abomination, even if his logic was flawed he simply could’nt accept it. The christian church condem the 0 and the concept of infinity, so we, occidental, suffured from a big slowdown, while the arab and the indian were advancing.
there is a difference. you could give some evidence for this instead of offering nothing but a dogmatic statement. you get into some doctrinal differences here, but i know you don’t want to talk about that.
Anyway, even if creationism was real (and there’s nothing exept the bible to caution it), the finnish mythology would explain it better. Mountain were formed by the blood of the troll, and species too (it could explain why our DNA is so close).
no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.
it’s not about flaws, it’s about entropy. We have some cells in a warm liquid, then tada, 9 month year later, we got a beautiful baby, but it’s not a closed system ! Thermodynamic is’nt magic, it’s a differential equation. Anyway, we are not a closed system, like f_alk said.
FinsterniS, it appears that your arguement against God is limited not to god himself, but to Christianity. If you successfully win the arguement against Christianity, and perhaps do a little research on some other religions, then you can attempt to argue agianst them. AS it stands, it appears you are attempting to paste Christian beliefs and ideals onto other religions.
then please tell me who actually witnessed macro-evolution? has someone watched an ape turn into a human? or a fish turn into a frog? all your “facts” are based on geological evidence that can be interpreted either way.
Naked Mole Rat.
big non-hairy deal. that’s like “canola”
please tell me where it says this, and don’t take the reference out of context.
Rev 7.1; Reference to the “four corners of the earth”. I don’t know if creationist have sphere with corners (not that i would be surprised), but i don’t. If the context is changing the way to interpret please say me why…
Not fair. This was a way to make things simple and relevant to the people of that day - people who did not see the earth as a near-sphere, but people who dealt with what they saw and understood. This was not meant to be a geographical standard that people need to adhere to. Once again, the bible is not a scientific document. Much of it is written in metaphors and simple, occassionally poetic language. Refering to the “4 corners of the earth” as being a foolhardy statement is like trashing a poet for coining “to the ends of the earth”, “from the bottom of my heart” “to the pit of my stomach” (it’s not a pit, but more of a greater curviture).
Luke 4:5 - Jesus sees “all the kingdoms of the worlds”…
again metaphor. Jesus didn’t say that the world was flat, but the quote (which you took out of context) goes that the devil showed him “all the kingdoms of earth in a moment of time”. A “moment of time” implies that a special device was used to show Jesus this as otherwise it wouldn’t be possible.
Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.
please, do give an example.
Kronecker, he believe all irrational numbers were abobination, he believe “god” was in natural number. He make several move to stop Cantor from being admit to the university of berlin, cantor finish his live in a mental hospital, he was one of the best mathematican. Time prove Cantor was right.
Aristotle (most christians philosopher base their philosophy on his); he believe infinity and zero were abomination, even if his logic was flawed he simply could’nt accept it. The christian church condem the 0 and the concept of infinity, so we, occidental, suffured from a big slowdown, while the arab and the indian were advancing…
Again FinsterniS? I don’t get it. this is more of your “A Christian acted like a jerk therefore there is no God” argument. Need i remind you that we may apply this “christians and dogmatic persons slow down science” thing to “Germans killed innocent people by the millions”, or “Communists killed innocent people by the millions”? really. this was pointless
no. from the time a child is conceived he/she is growing older. his/her system is already developing flaws that will show up sooner or later.
it’s not about flaws, it’s about entropy. We have some cells in a warm liquid, then tada, 9 month year later, we got a beautiful baby, but it’s not a closed system ! Thermodynamic is’nt magic, it’s a differential equation. Anyway, we are not a closed system, like f_alk said.
here i agree with you. Christians do not need to “prove” that God created the world. We couldn’t, and using a flawed argument like “thermodynamically it’s not possible” does not help the creationist argument.
Hi,
I came across this anonymous quote on another website, and it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would toss it into the discussion and see what others thought about it. I’m atheist BTW:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours” - Anonymous
@Anonymous:
Hi,
I came across this anonymous quote on another website, and it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would toss it into the discussion and see what others thought about it. I’m atheist BTW:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours” - Anonymous
The system logged me out for some reason when I posted this. :evil:
For the last 2000 years, Christianity has been the biggest burden upon science in Earth’s history. Judaism was never big enough to impede science. Islam greatly advanced all sciences as we know them today. Until the Christians took over, the Greeks were at the pinacle of science and philopsophy. The Chineese were able to develope countless things (Gunpowder) with the help of their religion.
However, the Christians have hampered science everywhere. It was the Christians who almost ended Western Science as a practice in the Dark Ages (except for Alchemists). Any new idea of science was immediately deemed herecy and the people behind it were punished. Anyone with the slightest experimental curiosity was accused of witchcraft.
Significant Scientific advances have only come when the Church fell from power.
Not fair. This was a way to make things simple and relevant to the people of that day - people who did not see the earth as a near-sphere, but people who dealt with what they saw and understood. This was not meant to be a geographical standard that people need to adhere to. Once again, the bible is not a scientific document. Much of it is written in metaphors and simple, occassionally poetic language. Refering to the “4 corners of the earth” as being a foolhardy statement is like trashing a poet for coining “to the ends of the earth”, “from the bottom of my heart” “to the pit of my stomach” (it’s not a pit, but more of a greater curviture).
“Jesus” could have told them, some brilliant scientist like Thales prove the earth was not flat. I think it show us how “human” the bible is, if we look how much it look like a normal book of the time, not a book inspired by an higher being. It just seem like a book of stories, like those about how Zeus rape Hera or those about Belenos… I can understant that when you are christians it seem otherwise, but with a little objectivity, is the book so special ?
Again FinsterniS? I don’t get it. this is more of your “A Christian acted like a jerk therefore there is no God” argument. Need i remind you that we may apply this “christians and dogmatic persons slow down science” thing to “Germans killed innocent people by the millions”, or “Communists killed innocent people by the millions”? really. this was pointless
hmmm… As i matter of fact… as a… well i am out of words. No seriously, you are right, i have to admit i am not very proud, it was fallacious and unfair, i should’nt use that kind of arguments as a tool against religion; it does’nt prove anything. While i still think religion is not of good help for science, it was sometime a good motivation, and anyway i could’nt blame all christians just for some fanatic. I said i could give exemple of fanatism in religion, Ident ask why (it was legitimate), i give some exemples (anecdotal evidence, no real values), so i was wrong. I’m sorry.
here i agree with you. Christians do not need to “prove” that God created the world. We couldn’t, and using a flawed argument like “thermodynamically it’s not possible” does not help the creationist argument.
I always say that as long as christianism does’nt get involve in science there is no problem.
FinsterniS, it appears that your arguement against God is limited not to god himself, but to Christianity. If you successfully win the arguement against Christianity, and perhaps do a little research on some other religions, then you can attempt to argue agianst them. AS it stands, it appears you are attempting to paste Christian beliefs and ideals onto other religions.
I does’nt believe in any god that with intelligence of conscience*, in short in a god with some of our traits, it’s irrational. Because as i see it, religion is created by LOTS of factors, i don’t say it’s for power, nor because of fear or ignorance, it thinks it’s lots of factors. One of this factors is very clear, people want a stable explanation of the universe, and using anthropomorphic trait is making all much easier. Just see how eager people where to claim someone draw a human face in mars surface, we easily recognise what is human, using a being with human trait; intelligence, conscience, is easier than believing in an inhuman nature; it’s too far, too hard to understant. Just look how often people, in a formal debate about god, will use anthropomorphic argument, they say “a design need a designer”, they say we need a first cause, and it seem impossible to consider a first cause without intelligence of conscience. I just see no reason to believe something with intelligence or conscience design us, but i see reasons to believe otherwise, also i believe it’s VERY, VERY hard for someone committed to “god” to question his own believe rationally.
ahhhhh Plautdietsch
the smokin’ redman-wrestlin’ fan-pick-up drivin’-bass-fishin’ black sheep of Germanic languages :)
@Anonymous:
Hi,
I came across this anonymous quote on another website, and it struck a chord with me, so I thought I would toss it into the discussion and see what others thought about it. I’m atheist BTW:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours” - Anonymous
it doesn’t work like that. A person is religious for a few reasons. They include the following:
For the last 2000 years, Christianity has been the biggest burden upon science in Earth’s history. Judaism was never big enough to impede science. Islam greatly advanced all sciences as we know them today. Until the Christians took over, the Greeks were at the pinacle of science and philopsophy. The Chineese were able to develope countless things (Gunpowder) with the help of their religion.
However, the Christians have hampered science everywhere. It was the Christians who almost ended Western Science as a practice in the Dark Ages (except for Alchemists). Any new idea of science was immediately deemed herecy and the people behind it were punished. Anyone with the slightest experimental curiosity was accused of witchcraft.
Significant Scientific advances have only come when the Church fell from power.
and i’d say that since the beginning of time Jerks have been the biggest impediment upon everything good in the world’s history - whether they claim to be Christians (i.e. using the church as a political structure), communists, capitalists, Americans, Hindus, Visigoths, Huns, Mongols, and beer-drinkers. It was the church’s power that gave some the impetus and ability to hinder science, not its basic beliefs and teachings (not if they are Christ-based).
My parents were catholic, therefore i am. This, in my mind, makes one no more a Christian than being born in a chicken hatch makes one a hen or a rooster. At the same time, it is a reason for being religious. It also likely applies to atheism.
Horrible reason. If it were this way, half the south would own slaves and the other half would be slaves. There would never be any change in the world. If one was going to choose a religion, they would most likely choose their parents religion because of the biasness of their parents.
- A person is touched in the greatest possible way by a loving caring God. They realize that they may have their sins forgiven and have a relationship with God. They are compelled to Christianity because of feelings of love and acceptance. If this happened with atheism, i’d be very curious if this person realized what atheism meant.
I’m not here for argueing with Atheism. However, I am argueing against any established religion. Your going to gain a lot more satisfaction with friends and family then spending time praying to some false deity. Established Religion is nothing more than another power struggle in the world. True Religion, like us Agnostics, comes from within.
- It is the en vogue thing to do. Similar with atheism.
Glad I’m not either.
- It makes sense to them - also similar with atheism.
It only makes sense because of a preconceived bias which has been drilled into their minds since birth. Parents are the real problem here, brainwashing their kids into believing a false religion.
That works I guess…
IMO, a person becomes a Christian (a bible following, Christ loving Christian) via number 2 - not 1, 3, or 4 simply by definition. One does not become an atheist by this method, or as i said there is something wrong with them and/or their definitions
One becomes a Non-Believer by common sense and an understanding of history. Religion has always been and will always be the most deadly, horrible, driving force in the world. Those who look to within, and learn to depend upon humans and not gods, are ones who truely prosper. People were caught dead in Pompeii when Mt. Vesuvius erupted because they sat down to pray to their gods. The smart “Athiests” got out alive.
hyperbole much? religion has been the source of as much good as bad in the world. Also it has been abused by power-seekers, as has so much else that is good in the world
and its uncommon sense that drives us to believe in something. common sense is useful for other things.
All good things that Religion has claimed it has done was actually done by good-hearted people who looked into themselves and decided to help their fellow man. They would have done it with or without the Church. However, those who used to Church to corrupt the minds of millions could not of done it without the influence and control of the Church.
- They are mentally disturbed individuals.
Those who suffer from schizophrenia often speak with god, see god, and think that they are god’s special prophet. Then they take pills (lithium?). In fact in some culture they are highly considerated because of their ability of shaman, to speak with spirits and for their visions.
@F_alk:
Well, we have watched moths turning from white to black and back. I mentioned it somewhere earlier in this thread.
Wasn’t that found to be a hoax?
