No worries, No rushGabrielman wrote:Okay! I will resume later with this, as I am tired right now and my head hurts! But I will be more than happy to pm you about it!CeT-To wrote:
HAHAHAH Yes! my fav ...hello kittyBut yes that would be excellent gabrielman! thaaaank youuu
so that god could play Epic Real time strategy against satin.CeT-To wrote:sorry to butt in the convo but if i may ask a question.. Why were dinasaurs created?
I guess Francis Collins, of the human genome project is just stupid then? Lol, he's a theistic evolutionist, as are many scientists. You need to state your biases and opinions as your own, instead of stating them as fact, as you did above. Or, actually look at what some theistic scientists have to say, and not just state unfounded psuedofacts (your personal assessments about the compatibility of science and faith) to begin with. If you don't actually want to discuss anything, but just want to tell us how "it is," then this board is not for you.It appears that you have done some reading - but obviously not enough. Keep at it - the penny will drop eventually. You still don't quite understand how evolution works. But when you do you will realise that there is no way you can reconcile this knowlege with any religious ideas.
And equating Christianity with Islamic extremism is not only highly uneducated, but very hateful and shows a mind willing to accept all manner of stereotypes.This all seems harmless enough - why not. The trouble is this kind of faith based thinking breeds an environment where believing in things that are untrue (or at least unprovable) is considered a virtue. Once you have established that idea, then it is only a short step to 72 virgins and a rucksack full of explosives...
Realist wrote:Evolution? - no question mark required.
You asked for feedback Jenks703.
Firstly Darwin was not a Christian in his later life. He struggled with the idea of a creator because of what he had discovered, and his wife was a devout Christian, so he wanted to avoid hurting her feelings. Also he delayed publishing his book for some 20 years - and only released it when he became aware that another man called Wallace had come to the same conclusion and was about to publish his own book.
We have a few things now that Darwin didn't. Namely mitochondrial DNA and numerous, correlating dating techniques like radioactive carbon 14. We can now understand how the process of evolution works and what timescales are involved.
The mistake you are making is to give religious doctrine the same credibility as demonstrable scientific fact. We know that scientific understanding is a provable way to understand the difference between fact and speculation. Biblical scriptures do not make this distinction. How can the bible be anything but the musings of a simple-minded ancestor trying to explain what he sees around him. In those days, the first idea that fits was taken as true. No-one had ever thought to test a theory to see if it stood up to scrutiny. Hence, creation myths were born. Every culture has its own mythical version of how life began - and every single one of them made up on the spot by primitive minds. Why should the Christian idea of how life began be any more valid than the Hindu myth or the Chinese myth? All completely different!
But - strangely enough - Chinese planes still fly - because science is universally true.
To say that evolution is only a "theory", is like saying that the idea that the world is a sphere is only a "theory". Few people have been out into space and seen the curvature of the Earth with their own eyes, yet no sane person would dispute it. But evolution CAN be seen with your own eyes. Farmers have exploited evolution to grow better crops and livestock by selective breeding, as do dog breeders and pigeon fanciers. Micro-biologists and geneticists study the fruit fly because it has a gestation period of only a few days, so they can see the results of genetic experiments happening quickly. Bacteria and viruses can be seen to go through many stages of evolution and mutation in a single host.
You mention about "gaps not being bridged" in the evolution of humans. You are referring to the fossile record - which obviously has many gaps because fossils are an unlikely event (very few creatures produce a fossile when they die) BUT - our understanding of a "family tree of all life forms" is based on DNA evidence and dating methods. You don't need to have all the "links" in order to know that one species evolved from another, and to even know when this happened!
Noah's arc!!!!! PLEASE! If ever there was a ludicrously mythical story - this is it! Give me one good reason to think this story has any merit - but you can't say anything stupid like "But its in the bible, so it must be true" which is a circular argument. Just think for a minute - what if the "Jack and The Beanstalk" fairytail had got mixed up with the Noah's Arc story when Emperor Constantine was deciding which stories were going to be put in the bible. Do you think you might be defending that story instead? - maybe God changed the laws of physics for a little while to allow giants to live in the clouds and for geese to lay golden eggs.
Big Bang theory now? Firstly, its a misnomer, there was no bang because there was no medium (ie air) to transmit sound - but anyway - through a great deal of very complicated physics we can now say with a fair deal of certainty how the Universe came into existence right back to about a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. The problem when you try to go back further is that the laws of physics that govern the way things are now, don't apply when all the matter in the Universe is condensed to something smaller than a single atom. Nonetheless, that is no reason to dispute the whole theory. The trouble is the maths involved is incredibly complex - so it is impossible for the average human to understand. Tell you what, how about a giant fairy waved her magic wand and it just happened - yeah!
Dinosaurs
This is a great topic, but you seem to have a few facts wrong though. When the meteor hit the Yacatan peninsula 65 odd million years ago - it didn't wipe out all life. The largest creatures (ie dinosaurs) were too specialised and couldn't adapt to the new darker, vegetation sparse landscape. But insects and smaller creatures continued to live - some of them underground - and we evolved from a creature back then that resembled a modern shrew.
Dinosaurs are a fun topic for creationists - when they try to understand how they fit into the biblical account of things. A rational person might ask why the dinosaur episode was missed out of the bible, or why nothing seemed to happen for 63 million years - God was apparently twiddling his thumbs wondering what to do. Assuming that a spiritual deity would have thumbs. Here's a funny thought, "God created man in his own image" Think about that for a bit. This suggests that a God, a spiritual being, not of this earth, not made of the "stuff" that we are made from, actually has hands and feet and fingers and thumbs, eyes, ears, a nose, some hair, a mouth, ahh, but probably not internal organs - I don't know maybe. I think it's a bit more likely that MAN created god in HIS own image don't you think.
It appears that you have done some reading - but obviously not enough. Keep at it - the penny will drop eventually. You still don't quite understand how evolution works. But when you do you will realise that there is no way you can reconcile this knowlege with any religious ideas.
Think about this. If you accept that we have evolved from simpler life forms - which itself contradicts the biblical account of man being created in God's image - and you also believe there is a heaven, and that it is a place where humans go when they die (if they have been good), and that animals and insects and plants do not go to heaven (because they don't have a soul) Then WHEN exactly did humans earn the right to get into heaven? Our ancestral ape relatives didn't go to heaven, so somewhere along the line there must be a "cut off point".
While I am on the subject of souls. We know quite a lot now about how the brain works. We now know that brain and mind are the same thing. Everything we know, all our memories, are stored as patterns of neuron connections. If a soul exists, then in order for the soul to have any resemblence to the person, then it must have some way of representing all those same connections. Otherwise how are you going to "know" who you are when you are just a spirit or recognise your loved ones when you get to heaven. So, accepting that somehow the soul has some way of representing all this information and preserving your mind after you die, then what about Alzheimer's victims? They have lost most of their memories and do not know who they are or recognise any of their family members because those all-important neural connections have been lost - does it all come back to them when they become a detached soul? Doesn't really work does it.
I will close with this. Religion is "nice". It's a nice thing to tell old people when they are about to die, that there is a better place to go. Who am I to deny them this comforting thought? Far be it from me to suggest that maybe, seeing as we don't exist before we are born, then just maybe we don't exist after we die. Its also a convenient way to control large masses of people when you don't have the benefit of an effective police force, or forensic science to administer justice to bad people. What do you do when you are the ruler of an anarchic nation over which you have no control. Like a parent who tells his child to be good all year round - and then Father Christmas will bring them presents (ignoring the difficulties of visiting 100 million homes in one night - or the flying reindeer bit) - the parallels are obvious!
This all seems harmless enough - why not. The trouble is this kind of faith based thinking breeds an environment where believing in things that are untrue (or at least unprovable) is considered a virtue. Once you have established that idea, then it is only a short step to 72 virgins and a rucksack full of explosives...
cslewislover wrote:I guess Francis Collins, of the human genome project is just stupid then? Lol, he's a theistic evolutionist, as are many scientists. You need to state your biases and opinions as your own, instead of stating them as fact, as you did above. Or, actually look at what some theistic scientists have to say, and not just state unfounded psuedofacts (your personal assessments about the compatibility of science and faith) to begin with. If you don't actually want to discuss anything, but just want to tell us how "it is," then this board is not for you.It appears that you have done some reading - but obviously not enough. Keep at it - the penny will drop eventually. You still don't quite understand how evolution works. But when you do you will realise that there is no way you can reconcile this knowlege with any religious ideas.
And equating Christianity with Islamic extremism is not only highly uneducated, but very hateful and shows a mind willing to accept all manner of stereotypes.This all seems harmless enough - why not. The trouble is this kind of faith based thinking breeds an environment where believing in things that are untrue (or at least unprovable) is considered a virtue. Once you have established that idea, then it is only a short step to 72 virgins and a rucksack full of explosives...
Yes, I think from what I've read and encounter all the time, that "many" have faith. I think that probably considering the attitude in academia (your attitude is a very prime example), they choose not to talk about it much. Why don't you read Francis Collins' book; he was (and maybe still is) the head of the Human Genome project. I think he knows a bit about evolution.Realist wrote:Francis Collins? Yes I think I saw something on him once.
"he's a theistic evolutionist, as are many scientists"
This is a misuse of the word "many" I don't know the true figure but it is a very small percentage - like around 5%. But as soon as any scientist declares any religious beliefs they are then thrusted into the limelite as if to say "See". There are no doubt some very intelligent people who have these beliefs and I have some ideas (which are purely my own speculation) about how this can be so.
Again, you are highly uneducated on the subject. Many Christians, and people of other faiths, do just accept their faith without questioning anything or knowing why they supposedly believe. But others, like the members here, strive to know why they believe. The kind-of environment you speak of is one where there is little critical thinking (and perhaps not much to read) and perhaps little hope, as well (like Nazi Germany or Maoist China). You really need to look into the history of Christianity. LOL. Christians started universities, hospitals, etc. You're not open-minded if all you read is stuff that puts faithful people down by using the worst examples in the media. What you said was just really absurd and mean-spirited (why would anyone with a heart and brain take you seriously?). I suppose that's the kind of stuff you read. When I was in university, the professors liked to put down the Catholic Church, yet there were good things that came out of it, that they admitted. Most of us aren't Catholic here, but there is an educational legacy that stems from Catholicism. Protestants of course played their role in the printing press and more, as already mentioned."equating Christianity with Islamic extremism is not only highly uneducated"
This is not what I was doing - I was in fact saying that all forms of faith based thinking are a bad idea (ref Sam Harris, "The End Of Faith") because you end up with an environment where anyone can be made to believe anything.
cslewislover wrote:Yes, I think from what I've read and encounter all the time, that "many" have faith. I think that probably considering the attitude in academia (your attitude is a very prime example), they choose not to talk about it much. Why don't you read Francis Collins' book; he was (and maybe still is) the head of the Human Genome project. I think he knows a bit about evolution.Realist wrote:Francis Collins? Yes I think I saw something on him once.
"he's a theistic evolutionist, as are many scientists"
This is a misuse of the word "many" I don't know the true figure but it is a very small percentage - like around 5%. But as soon as any scientist declares any religious beliefs they are then thrusted into the limelite as if to say "See". There are no doubt some very intelligent people who have these beliefs and I have some ideas (which are purely my own speculation) about how this can be so.
Again, you are highly uneducated on the subject. Many Christians, and people of other faiths, do just accept their faith without questioning anything or knowing why they supposedly believe. But others, like the members here, strive to know why they believe. The kind-of environment you speak of is one where there is little critical thinking (and perhaps not much to read) and perhaps little hope, as well (like Nazi Germany or Maoist China). You really need to look into the history of Christianity. LOL. Christians started universities, hospitals, etc. You're not open-minded if all you read is stuff that puts faithful people down by using the worst examples in the media. What you said was just really absurd and mean-spirited (why would anyone with a heart and brain take you seriously?). I suppose that's the kind of stuff you read. When I was in university, the professors liked to put down the Catholic Church, yet there were good things that came out of it, that they admitted. Most of us aren't Catholic here, but there is an educational legacy that stems from Catholicism. Protestants of course played their role in the printing press and more, as already mentioned."equating Christianity with Islamic extremism is not only highly uneducated"
This is not what I was doing - I was in fact saying that all forms of faith based thinking are a bad idea (ref Sam Harris, "The End Of Faith") because you end up with an environment where anyone can be made to believe anything.
This may be hard for someone in the US to grasp, but I do not have a television - or read newspapers - for about 5 years now. I read books written by professors and download documentary videos from sources like the BBC, History Chan, Discovery Chan etc.You're not open-minded if all you read is stuff that puts faithful people down by using the worst examples in the media
You are pretty arrogant. Geesh. I do look into why I believe and have looked into it a long time. I didn't become a Christian until I was in my 30s, after getting a lot of education (MA from Univ of Ca). Your stuff is all just the same biased stuff we see again and again . . . BTW, I'll look into the academy stats. It really doesn't matter much. There's plenty of evidence to believe in the Christian faith, good historical evidence, and there are indeed many scientists who are faithful, whether they admit it to that academy or not (and I don't know where that academy even gets their info, so I'd need to see).I thought it was interesting how you claim to be a critical thinker, and question why you believe. How can you not come to the conclusion that it is an accident of birth that you are a Christian and not a Muslim or Hindu or any one of the thousands of religions that have been concocted by the human mind throughout history. Unless you spent many years researching ALL the possible religions - how can you be sure that you have the right one?
Just a small point, but oil comes mostly from vegetation. Technically anything that is carbon based (so dinosaurs are included) but significantly more of the bio-mass is vegetation. To suggest that God made dinosaurs for the purpose of making oil is a bit daft.Lol, you're not butting in. I thought I was kind-of talking to myself this afternoon. I don't know why dinosaurs were created. Maybe God liked to feel the earth shake every time one of the big ones walked around. Maybe He wanted us to have oil . . . "Consider plastic . . . ," He perhaps mused. Lol. I'm pretty bored, waiting for something.
I couldn't be any more clear...read through the guidelines and compare your intolerance to the audience that this board is intended for. Even in your defense your scorn shines through.Realist wrote:"Realist, please read through the discussion board guidelines. While we welcome good dialogue, you are quickly heading towards a ban unless you tone down your biases and closed mind. If you have any sincere reason for being here, then by all means you are welcome to stay, but this type of rhetoric is not welcome here."
Sorry, I saw the words "Evidence" and "Science" and thought we were discussing things about the real world. Could you be more specific? I am pretty sure I haven't said anything that is false or purely my own opinion - maybe I should have quoted some of my references i.e Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steve Jones, Brian Greene etc.
I am sorry if my tone appears a bit harsh, I have for a long time been very tolerant of all the different belief systems, but world events over the last decade or so have made me realise a few unsettling things about human nature that have made me a bit less tolerant.
I know oil is mostly from vegetation. I was having some fun, and otherwise, I'm not going to explain all I was thinking last night with my posts. You could ask more about it instead of saying I was daft. The only reason you're still here is because I wanted more members to be able to read your posts and respond, but it's very slow right now, which it tends to be on weekends.Realist wrote:cslewislover wrote:Just a small point, but oil comes mostly from vegetation. Technically anything that is carbon based (so dinosaurs are included) but significantly more of the bio-mass is vegetation. To suggest that God made dinosaurs for the purpose of making oil is a bit daft.Lol, you're not butting in. I thought I was kind-of talking to myself this afternoon. I don't know why dinosaurs were created. Maybe God liked to feel the earth shake every time one of the big ones walked around. Maybe He wanted us to have oil . . . "Consider plastic . . . ," He perhaps mused. Lol. I'm pretty bored, waiting for something.
Like I said, we get a lot of your bias around here . . . same old same old. The bible and what it teaches is actually pretty complicated, and, not everything is explained in it. We can only surmise some things. I'm not answering your question with this, just making a general observation.Can anyone tell me why God made cannabis plants and magic mushrooms, and then appointed leaders to declare it illegal to consume them? Weren't all plants created for man's consumption? (ref.Genesis).
I was thinking of providing that site too, Zoe. Cool. Citing that one hatumentary that he did . . . lol, good source (being sarcastic, in case anyone wonders).zoegirl wrote:
I couldn't be any more clear...read through the guidelines and compare your intolerance to the audience that this board is intended for. Even in your defense your scorn shines through.
There are plenty of Christians who are scientists, check out http://www.asa3.org for a good example. There are good examples of Progressive creationists as well as theistic evolutionists and if you cannot respect that you are quite welcome to leave. Now check your motive for being here and examine whether you are fulfilling the guidelines here. There have been and continue to be atheists who are welcome here and that is because they welcome civilized discussion. You, however, appear to simply be here to browbeat us and lord it over us how reasonable and rational you are. There are plenty of other boards for that.
