... is wrong.
http://chattingwithcharley.ncbcsrhigh.org/
Fascinating.
- Dave
Dave Grossman
Having watched five minutes of the first video I did not find one statement made to be true. How a religious person could tell so many lies in a row with a straight face baffles me. Do they feel it is OK to bear false witness in order to battle evolution??? I didn't know, "Thou shalt not listen to a man named Darwin" was one of the Ten Commandments, but I am certain bearing false witness is mentioned.
Grumpy
Having watched five minutes of the first video I did not find one statement made to be true. How a religious person could tell so many lies in a row with a straight face baffles me. Do they feel it is OK to bear false witness in order to battle evolution??? I didn't know, "Thou shalt not listen to a man named Darwin" was one of the Ten Commandments, but I am certain bearing false witness is mentioned.
Grumpy
The sad part is I think they really believe that their misunderstanding of science is what science actually says.
The scarey part is that they are teaching science classes.
The scarey part is that they are teaching science classes.
Either this guy doesn't understand what he talks about or deliberately lies.
For example, his "understanding" of the second law of thermodynamics could easily be used to "prove" that hurricanes can't be created naturally, therefore they are being created constantly by God.
For example, his "understanding" of the second law of thermodynamics could easily be used to "prove" that hurricanes can't be created naturally, therefore they are being created constantly by God.
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 1 2006, 08:03 AM)
... is wrong.
http://chattingwithcharley.ncbcsrhigh.org/
Fascinating.
- Dave
These people MUST believe they have their science down pat. Why else would anyone put themselves in the light only to be so easily slapped down with... oh, I don't know... FACTS?
I have my own thoughts about god and the possibility therein, but I would never put it in a scientific vein. By pure logic, a god HAS to stay beyond the bounds of science forever. They can't meet. God has to be "What came before what we can (EVER) understand".
If you choose to believe a god had something to do with your creation, you have to keep moving him back to before all that we can understand and prove, and stop trying to force the idea into what we already know. Bending/breaking the known laws of thermodynamics isn't doing a thing but making them look stupid.
http://chattingwithcharley.ncbcsrhigh.org/
Fascinating.
- Dave
These people MUST believe they have their science down pat. Why else would anyone put themselves in the light only to be so easily slapped down with... oh, I don't know... FACTS?
I have my own thoughts about god and the possibility therein, but I would never put it in a scientific vein. By pure logic, a god HAS to stay beyond the bounds of science forever. They can't meet. God has to be "What came before what we can (EVER) understand".
If you choose to believe a god had something to do with your creation, you have to keep moving him back to before all that we can understand and prove, and stop trying to force the idea into what we already know. Bending/breaking the known laws of thermodynamics isn't doing a thing but making them look stupid.
Versus this summary:
http://chattingwithcharley.ncbcsrhigh.org/...cture_notes.htm
Mostly recycled from Hovind and rebutted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html
As for argument that Humans have a special place on Earth, that is obvious. Why is it that these Young-Earthers are standing in the way of environmentalists who simply say that we have a special place on Earth and need to be the ones to take care of it?
As to Evolution discrediting Literal Biblical Inerrency, tough. LBI makes communion a gory ritual of canabalism. As a rule, i don't truck with cannibals, because Evolution treats it as a poor strategy for getting protein.
As for Evolution discrediting the "Big Picture" of Christianity, how could it? "Big Picture" Christians have actual faith, not a house of cards propped up by stage magicians and lawyers tricks.
Second Law: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Gaps in the Fossil Record, Transitional Fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Speciation has never been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Mutations are always harmful: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Io's Volcanos: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE230.html http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupite...al_heating.html
Neptune's Winds: Hey! A new creationist claim.
The lack of scientific citations makes it unclear what the claim is.
NASA has lots of data on Neptune's atmosphere: http://www.inspacepropulsion.com/tech/pubs...tan&Neptune.pdf and high winds are a special feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#Weather http://www.solstation.com/stars/neptune.htm -- There's no agreement on what the exact internal heat source of Neptune is, so I don't see how you can say it supports a 6000-year old universe. The math doesn't make sense to me. Planets are big, and cooling is slow.
No ice age, single catastrophe: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html
Scholarship is extremely weak, even by creationist standards. There is no "David Ropp" but there is Quote #25 by David M. Raup
http://chattingwithcharley.ncbcsrhigh.org/...cture_notes.htm
Mostly recycled from Hovind and rebutted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html
As for argument that Humans have a special place on Earth, that is obvious. Why is it that these Young-Earthers are standing in the way of environmentalists who simply say that we have a special place on Earth and need to be the ones to take care of it?
As to Evolution discrediting Literal Biblical Inerrency, tough. LBI makes communion a gory ritual of canabalism. As a rule, i don't truck with cannibals, because Evolution treats it as a poor strategy for getting protein.
As for Evolution discrediting the "Big Picture" of Christianity, how could it? "Big Picture" Christians have actual faith, not a house of cards propped up by stage magicians and lawyers tricks.
Second Law: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Gaps in the Fossil Record, Transitional Fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Speciation has never been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Mutations are always harmful: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Io's Volcanos: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE230.html http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupite...al_heating.html
Neptune's Winds: Hey! A new creationist claim.
The lack of scientific citations makes it unclear what the claim is.
NASA has lots of data on Neptune's atmosphere: http://www.inspacepropulsion.com/tech/pubs...tan&Neptune.pdf and high winds are a special feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#Weather http://www.solstation.com/stars/neptune.htm -- There's no agreement on what the exact internal heat source of Neptune is, so I don't see how you can say it supports a 6000-year old universe. The math doesn't make sense to me. Planets are big, and cooling is slow.
No ice age, single catastrophe: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html
Scholarship is extremely weak, even by creationist standards. There is no "David Ropp" but there is Quote #25 by David M. Raup
I like how his segment on stars and the speed of light basically worked against what he was trying to prove.
His description of woodpeckers has enlightening. I had no idea that according to the theory of Evolution, woodpeckers used to fly into trees until their beaks smashed backwards through their skulls into their brains, instantly killing them. This website has been very informational.
His description of woodpeckers has enlightening. I had no idea that according to the theory of Evolution, woodpeckers used to fly into trees until their beaks smashed backwards through their skulls into their brains, instantly killing them. This website has been very informational.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 2 2006, 06:00 AM)
As for Evolution discrediting the "Big Picture" of Christianity, how could it? "Big Picture" Christians have actual faith, not a house of cards propped up by stage magicians and lawyers tricks.
just for clarity's sake... what are "Big Picture" Christians? sorry, my connection is weak at the moment, so i cant look at the link.
just for clarity's sake... what are "Big Picture" Christians? sorry, my connection is weak at the moment, so i cant look at the link.
It's just my own term, so there are no references.
The late Pope John Paul II was a "big picture" Christian, becasue the most important thing was getting people to get into Heaven, the second thing was to get people to follow the Golden Rule (which as correlaries that War is bad) and that neither Genesis nor Revelation were important to the big picture.
Big Picture Christians don't have to reconcile "Turn the other cheek" with the story of Elijah and the children of Bethel. It's just not important to the "Big Picture". The have a broad overview about being nice to each other, and they have their faith, and it's not important the exact words in the Bible, because Jesus' summary of the law is more important than the law. Their faith doesn't require that the Bible be magic, ala Bible Code, or is disturbed by the machinations in which the Gospel of Judas written by the Gnostics was suppressed. (I mean, the Fundamentalists can believe that the orginal authors of the Bible may have been divinely inspired, but who believes Editors are not the tools of the Devil.
)
Big Picture Christians are easier for others to get along with because they don't get into nit-picking wars about which miracle prior to the 17th century was most relevant. They just want to be sure they are doing God's work and are pretty sure if God said "Don't Kill" then they shouldn't pick up bombs and guns. I think Big Picture Christians drafted the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Your opinions welcome.
The late Pope John Paul II was a "big picture" Christian, becasue the most important thing was getting people to get into Heaven, the second thing was to get people to follow the Golden Rule (which as correlaries that War is bad) and that neither Genesis nor Revelation were important to the big picture.
Big Picture Christians don't have to reconcile "Turn the other cheek" with the story of Elijah and the children of Bethel. It's just not important to the "Big Picture". The have a broad overview about being nice to each other, and they have their faith, and it's not important the exact words in the Bible, because Jesus' summary of the law is more important than the law. Their faith doesn't require that the Bible be magic, ala Bible Code, or is disturbed by the machinations in which the Gospel of Judas written by the Gnostics was suppressed. (I mean, the Fundamentalists can believe that the orginal authors of the Bible may have been divinely inspired, but who believes Editors are not the tools of the Devil.
)Big Picture Christians are easier for others to get along with because they don't get into nit-picking wars about which miracle prior to the 17th century was most relevant. They just want to be sure they are doing God's work and are pretty sure if God said "Don't Kill" then they shouldn't pick up bombs and guns. I think Big Picture Christians drafted the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Your opinions welcome.
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 1 2006, 11:03 AM)
... is wrong. http://chattingwithcharley.ncbcsrhigh.org/ Fascinating.
Aether Wave theory (AWT) as a quintessence of evolutionary mechanism based on simple wave equation and mass-energy equivalence principle can explain the stepwise & "anti-thermodynamical" character of evolution, not just the biological one.
Aether Wave theory (AWT) as a quintessence of evolutionary mechanism based on simple wave equation and mass-energy equivalence principle can explain the stepwise & "anti-thermodynamical" character of evolution, not just the biological one.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 4 2006, 10:22 PM)
Ooooohh ... mesmerizing .... must ... obey ... Zephir .... obey ...
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 4 2006, 08:20 AM)
It's just my own term, so there are no references.
The late Pope John Paul II was a "big picture" Christian, becasue the most important thing was getting people to get into Heaven, the second thing was to get people to follow the Golden Rule (which as correlaries that War is bad) and that neither Genesis nor Revelation were important to the big picture.
Big Picture Christians don't have to reconcile "Turn the other cheek" with the story of Elijah and the children of Bethel. It's just not important to the "Big Picture". The have a broad overview about being nice to each other, and they have their faith, and it's not important the exact words in the Bible, because Jesus' summary of the law is more important than the law. Their faith doesn't require that the Bible be magic, ala Bible Code, or is disturbed by the machinations in which the Gospel of Judas written by the Gnostics was suppressed. (I mean, the Fundamentalists can believe that the orginal authors of the Bible may have been divinely inspired, but who believes Editors are not the tools of the Devil. )
Big Picture Christians are easier for others to get along with because they don't get into nit-picking wars about which miracle prior to the 17th century was most relevant. They just want to be sure they are doing God's work and are pretty sure if God said "Don't Kill" then they shouldn't pick up bombs and guns. I think Big Picture Christians drafted the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
ok.... although i'm Protestant and not an American..... i think i see the point in that.
i've always believed that Christians aren't well welcomed into the world in general is because they show and distort the wrong side of things....
anyway, here's my opinion (please, just tone down the flames, i'm on mental fatigue mode at the moment)
1. ergh.... talk about mental fatigue... i've been sitting here for two minutes
.
1. i'm a Christian, no question. true, i slip on the moral high road (a LOT, by the way, no use hiding that), but i still believe it's every Christians job to, well, forgive the term, convert people to Christianity (as in followers of Christ, i mean).
2. referring to above, there's still right and wrong, so you can't do the above properly if you do wrong (ex. Crusades). again, "Golden Rule" applies.
3....... errrr..... being a bit of a Fundamentalist myself, i can be a bit of a nit-picker then, but really, a belief system can rise and fall on the details. so i guess that you can't blame some of them for trying to...... "mother" everything Christian related.... i can understand what they feel....
oh well....
"Love God above all else" (first three - or was it four? - Commandments)
*next*
"Love your neighbor (everyone else)" (next seven - or six? can't seem to remember :smile:)
--Jesus Christ - the Son of God Almighty, Savior from our sins (please, be nice, i need a break from the flames)
anything that deviates from the above is just wrong.
ok, just give your detailed argument (ex, harboring criminals, saving terrorists, cloning, etc. and stuff like that) to what i said and i'll defend it, as any good debate would go
anyway, i'd definitely LOVE to add more of my opinions, but really, you have go to hate it when you haven't slept 3 nights straight (architecture student thing). it's normal to some, but not to me.... well, not yet anyway.
The late Pope John Paul II was a "big picture" Christian, becasue the most important thing was getting people to get into Heaven, the second thing was to get people to follow the Golden Rule (which as correlaries that War is bad) and that neither Genesis nor Revelation were important to the big picture.
Big Picture Christians don't have to reconcile "Turn the other cheek" with the story of Elijah and the children of Bethel. It's just not important to the "Big Picture". The have a broad overview about being nice to each other, and they have their faith, and it's not important the exact words in the Bible, because Jesus' summary of the law is more important than the law. Their faith doesn't require that the Bible be magic, ala Bible Code, or is disturbed by the machinations in which the Gospel of Judas written by the Gnostics was suppressed. (I mean, the Fundamentalists can believe that the orginal authors of the Bible may have been divinely inspired, but who believes Editors are not the tools of the Devil.
)Big Picture Christians are easier for others to get along with because they don't get into nit-picking wars about which miracle prior to the 17th century was most relevant. They just want to be sure they are doing God's work and are pretty sure if God said "Don't Kill" then they shouldn't pick up bombs and guns. I think Big Picture Christians drafted the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
ok.... although i'm Protestant and not an American..... i think i see the point in that.
i've always believed that Christians aren't well welcomed into the world in general is because they show and distort the wrong side of things....
anyway, here's my opinion (please, just tone down the flames, i'm on mental fatigue mode at the moment
)1. ergh.... talk about mental fatigue... i've been sitting here for two minutes
.1. i'm a Christian, no question. true, i slip on the moral high road (a LOT, by the way, no use hiding that), but i still believe it's every Christians job to, well, forgive the term, convert people to Christianity (as in followers of Christ, i mean).
2. referring to above, there's still right and wrong, so you can't do the above properly if you do wrong (ex. Crusades). again, "Golden Rule" applies.
3....... errrr..... being a bit of a Fundamentalist myself, i can be a bit of a nit-picker then, but really, a belief system can rise and fall on the details. so i guess that you can't blame some of them for trying to...... "mother" everything Christian related
.... i can understand what they feel.... oh well....
"Love God above all else" (first three - or was it four? - Commandments)
*next*
"Love your neighbor (everyone else)" (next seven - or six? can't seem to remember :smile:)
--Jesus Christ - the Son of God Almighty, Savior from our sins (please, be nice, i need a break from the flames)
anything that deviates from the above is just wrong.
ok, just give your detailed argument (ex, harboring criminals, saving terrorists, cloning, etc. and stuff like that) to what i said and i'll defend it, as any good debate would go
anyway, i'd definitely LOVE to add more of my opinions, but really, you have go to hate it when you haven't slept 3 nights straight (architecture student thing). it's normal to some, but not to me.... well, not yet anyway.
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 5 2006, 02:15 AM)
Ooooohh ... mesmerizing .... must ... obey ... Zephir .... obey ...
lol.... Dave... if it comes to sarcasm and funny witicisms... you're the best
must... obey.... Zephir..... chant with me !.... must... obey.....
lol.... Dave... if it comes to sarcasm and funny witicisms... you're the best
must... obey.... Zephir..... chant with me !.... must... obey.....
QUOTE (ragnarpendon+Sep 5 2006, 02:23 AM)
lol.... Dave... if it comes to sarcasm and funny witicisms... you're the best
must... obey.... Zephir..... chant with me !.... must... obey.....
Thanks.
When it comes to groovy gif animations, Zephir is the best. I generally don't try to read his posts because I'm not experienced enough to judge their accuracy.
- Dave
must... obey.... Zephir..... chant with me !.... must... obey.....
Thanks.
When it comes to groovy gif animations, Zephir is the best. I generally don't try to read his posts because I'm not experienced enough to judge their accuracy.
- Dave
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 5 2006, 03:30 AM)
I'm not experienced enough to judge their accuracy.
- Dave
you're talking to someone who has next to zero experience in any of the stuff here in Physorg....... my scientific knowledge only extends to the VERY basics
hehe, i just signed in cuz i like it here. i get to think a lot, even if i do get flamed every other time.
- Dave
you're talking to someone who has next to zero experience in any of the stuff here in Physorg....
... my scientific knowledge only extends to the VERY basics hehe, i just signed in cuz i like it here. i get to think a lot, even if i do get flamed every other time
.
QUOTE (Dave Grossman+Sep 5 2006, 06:30 AM)
...I generally don't try to read his posts because I'm not experienced enough to judge their accuracy...
The evolutionary principle is simple enough for understanding. It's a result of hysteresis or avalanche behavior of multicomponent system: you need the system get over-saturated to make some change, but after then the change proceeds a quite quickly. By such way, the gradualistic epoch alternates with the short creationistic "revolutionary" periods.
The evolutionary principle is simple enough for understanding. It's a result of hysteresis or avalanche behavior of multicomponent system: you need the system get over-saturated to make some change, but after then the change proceeds a quite quickly. By such way, the gradualistic epoch alternates with the short creationistic "revolutionary" periods.
In the not too distant future, maybe fifty, a hundred years from now the general and major consensus by those who live on earth will be that, if there is a Creator then IT did the act of creating the universe by and through the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of biology, genetics, etc., mindful now the future people will be that the Creator was the actual cause who had set these laws into motion. The big questions will return as to how the Big IT did do it in actuality, returning everyone to the wonders of discovering the mechanisms IT used to create the universe and everything in it. So at this future time it will be seen that the secular scientists of today will have won, and then all will be more than less reconciled and everyone can get back to the nuts and bolts of researching into the mechanisms of how IT did it all.
Given the rational bias and scientific frame of mind people of today are cultured in, the Bible is taken by many to be a fantasy, to say the least. But if Jesus did do those miracles written in that there book, than the Creator is doing something that a lot of people are missing the boat to.
I was mildly shocked when I first began to read the Catholic New American Bible. I began to realize the Catholic hierarchy, as a whole, actually think a lot more rationally than they act in public. Read this prologue to the Pentateuch in the New American Bible. That Bible those bishops et al., wrote is presented so rationally ...! like a breath of fresh air in comparison to most of the Protestant type of fantasy presentation of things I was accustomed to.
I like to think of myself as one who keeps a rational frame of mind to the world, and doing so day to day. I invite one to wander into the world of the Catholic bishops who wrote that NAB Bible. A superficial familiarity to all world religions still leaves me with the (hopefully still rational) thought, 'If Jesus did do those miracles, than He trumps and surpasses all.'
I know it can be hard to believe, but if Jesus did do those miracles written in that book, than He is the dude. One has to put their Sherlock Holmes cap on before they begin to read the things said in there though; investigate what and how things are presented in the Bible with a somewhat critical though accepting frame of mind. I mean, William Shakespeare would be impressed if the whole story was a concoction, n'est ce pas?
Maybe keep this in mind too, if and as you purview the book. Jesus picked certain people to hang out with Him for the three years He was roaming around. The fact being some people did become His personal friends, and others at the time did not. It can be said then that the Creator does choose people. The Creator may now be nudging you to hang out with Him too.
Given the rational bias and scientific frame of mind people of today are cultured in, the Bible is taken by many to be a fantasy, to say the least. But if Jesus did do those miracles written in that there book, than the Creator is doing something that a lot of people are missing the boat to.
I was mildly shocked when I first began to read the Catholic New American Bible. I began to realize the Catholic hierarchy, as a whole, actually think a lot more rationally than they act in public. Read this prologue to the Pentateuch in the New American Bible. That Bible those bishops et al., wrote is presented so rationally ...! like a breath of fresh air in comparison to most of the Protestant type of fantasy presentation of things I was accustomed to.
I like to think of myself as one who keeps a rational frame of mind to the world, and doing so day to day. I invite one to wander into the world of the Catholic bishops who wrote that NAB Bible. A superficial familiarity to all world religions still leaves me with the (hopefully still rational) thought, 'If Jesus did do those miracles, than He trumps and surpasses all.'
I know it can be hard to believe, but if Jesus did do those miracles written in that book, than He is the dude. One has to put their Sherlock Holmes cap on before they begin to read the things said in there though; investigate what and how things are presented in the Bible with a somewhat critical though accepting frame of mind. I mean, William Shakespeare would be impressed if the whole story was a concoction, n'est ce pas?
Maybe keep this in mind too, if and as you purview the book. Jesus picked certain people to hang out with Him for the three years He was roaming around. The fact being some people did become His personal friends, and others at the time did not. It can be said then that the Creator does choose people. The Creator may now be nudging you to hang out with Him too.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Sep 10 2006, 02:58 PM)
Given the rational bias and scientific frame of mind people of today are cultured in, the Bible is taken by many to be a fantasy, to say the least.
Rationality and science have nothing to do with religion. In fact, there is a well known judicial restraining order barring religion from coming within 500 yards of science. (see the case of the People vs. Lisa Simpson)
- Dave
Rationality and science have nothing to do with religion. In fact, there is a well known judicial restraining order barring religion from coming within 500 yards of science. (see the case of the People vs. Lisa Simpson)
- Dave
Any and all bridges connecting religion, rational thought and the presently known dogmas of mankind which further the understanding, and to better the world are not being built with the proper materials to maintain themselves.
No one can prove there is a Creator. No one can prove there is not a Creator.
Using the two best methods devised for establishing truth, the judicial and scientific methods, one would not use as evidence or establish hypothesis with any of the thoughts relevant to today's religious denominations to determine yes or no or possibly is there a Creator.
But supposing there is someone who just can not reconcile the existence of DNA, folding proteins, inanimate molecules forming into a biological cell from the primordial soup on earth three or four billion years ago, and this said person goes looking for evidence for a designer for it all. This Western cultured person is open minded; maybe there is and maybe there is not a Cause. This person then will spend some time and attempt to find evidence, placing anything found together to build a case (only to his or herself maybe) a rational answer to this type of question.
Well, as far as I'm concerned it's true that little can or will be gleaned from most of today's religious writings (other than, for instance things like the first and quite interesting quote (it is interesting that the verse is the opening verse) from the Bible, "In the beginning, God ..." but this isn't evidence nor a basis to establish the truth or fallacy of an hypothesis.) Excuse me for saying no one today, in their right mind (or who expects to find the truth), who puts forth a sincere effort to present a case for the existence of a Creator would ever think of using any of the worlds religions to establish to him or herself a "based on Western rationales" basis to answer the question. Where should such a brave pioneer of modern science turn to find evidence?
To those whom this question is not important enough to even bother taking the time to properly address and then eventually have answered, one way or another, ... hey, so be it.
No one can prove there is a Creator. No one can prove there is not a Creator.
Using the two best methods devised for establishing truth, the judicial and scientific methods, one would not use as evidence or establish hypothesis with any of the thoughts relevant to today's religious denominations to determine yes or no or possibly is there a Creator.
But supposing there is someone who just can not reconcile the existence of DNA, folding proteins, inanimate molecules forming into a biological cell from the primordial soup on earth three or four billion years ago, and this said person goes looking for evidence for a designer for it all. This Western cultured person is open minded; maybe there is and maybe there is not a Cause. This person then will spend some time and attempt to find evidence, placing anything found together to build a case (only to his or herself maybe) a rational answer to this type of question.
Well, as far as I'm concerned it's true that little can or will be gleaned from most of today's religious writings (other than, for instance things like the first and quite interesting quote (it is interesting that the verse is the opening verse) from the Bible, "In the beginning, God ..." but this isn't evidence nor a basis to establish the truth or fallacy of an hypothesis.) Excuse me for saying no one today, in their right mind (or who expects to find the truth), who puts forth a sincere effort to present a case for the existence of a Creator would ever think of using any of the worlds religions to establish to him or herself a "based on Western rationales" basis to answer the question. Where should such a brave pioneer of modern science turn to find evidence?
To those whom this question is not important enough to even bother taking the time to properly address and then eventually have answered, one way or another, ... hey, so be it.
QUOTE
I was mildly shocked when I first began to read the Catholic New American Bible. I began to realize the Catholic hierarchy, as a whole, actually think a lot more rationally than they act in public.
Actually, the Catholic Church acts fairly rationally in public too....
This most frequent misunderstanding about the "rationality" of Catholicism is in its absolute views on certain ethical issues...i.e. abortion, birth control, divorce.
When you realize that they literally approach all of these positions with an extreme "err on the side of caution" moral position, and that they dont actually believe in the absolute "truth" of their position...its a logically rational view.
The Catholic Church has two advantages over most of the Protestants when it comes to issues of "Crazy". The Catholic Church is organized, so if one group starts to act crazy...there is some authority to smack them down. The Catholic Church is also very old....and they have been through all of the cycles that modern protestants are currently experiencing(absolutism, corruption, etc)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was mildly shocked when I first began to read the Catholic New American Bible. I began to realize the Catholic hierarchy, as a whole, actually think a lot more rationally than they act in public. |
Actually, the Catholic Church acts fairly rationally in public too....
This most frequent misunderstanding about the "rationality" of Catholicism is in its absolute views on certain ethical issues...i.e. abortion, birth control, divorce.
When you realize that they literally approach all of these positions with an extreme "err on the side of caution" moral position, and that they dont actually believe in the absolute "truth" of their position...its a logically rational view.
The Catholic Church has two advantages over most of the Protestants when it comes to issues of "Crazy". The Catholic Church is organized, so if one group starts to act crazy...there is some authority to smack them down. The Catholic Church is also very old....and they have been through all of the cycles that modern protestants are currently experiencing(absolutism, corruption, etc)
In the not too distant future, maybe fifty, a hundred years from now the general and major consensus by those who live on earth will be that, if there is a Creator then IT did the act of creating the universe by and through the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of biology, genetics, etc., mindful now the future people will be that the Creator was the actual cause who had set these laws into motion.
I beg to differ....strongly beg to differ.
About 300 years ago...there was a strong movement for this position. This position was known as Deism. This "view" led to much of the scientific revolution and the modern world we live in. The idea however severly repressed fanatical religious views. People enjoy "bat *** crazy" religions. Some people just enjoy religion(for no theological reason). They find comfort and solice in religion.
After the major deism movement(a popular position held by many founding fathers) we transitioned back into an insane period of religion(millerites, mormons, fundamentalists, 7th day adventists). We slowly transitioned back into an era of non-religion. Currently we stand at a crossroads, either we will shift back to an era of enlightened religiously-independent thought or an era of hyper-religious crazy.
Those who side with religion have already made the push. Christianity, especially psychotic versions of it, are on the rise in the US. Science has fallen by the wayside.
I think you will see a lot of "religious superiority" before we see a decline in creationism. The only variable I have not considered is the fluency of the information age. While originally I would have perceived this to be an advantage for those who uphold the factual side of debate....recent evidence has proven that disinformation is almost as powerful as information.
QUOTE
No one can prove there is a Creator. No one can prove there is not a Creator.
Actually this is incorrect.
No one can prove a creator, if one of the conditions of the creator is that it can manipulate reality to hide himself.
One can possibly disprove a creator, no matter what the conditions....
In the famous words of Douglas Adams
I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
What is so difficult to understand? A Creator caused the existence of all the observable laws of science to be what they are. Two plus two does not equal the square root of negative one for a reason; and the Creator caused the existence of the electron, of every electron to behave, and maintain this behavior, in the manner it does over all time. All we do is discover these laws over time. What does Deism philosophy/religion have to do with this?
Encouraging laity to kneel and pray in front of and towards statues is not rational. They are not votive candles, they are distracting candles. Other examples are too numerous to mention without becoming ...? sad. They put together an excellent Bible though.
As of the year 2006 there is no credible proof for the existence or nonexistence of a Creator ... yet.
Encouraging laity to kneel and pray in front of and towards statues is not rational. They are not votive candles, they are distracting candles. Other examples are too numerous to mention without becoming ...? sad. They put together an excellent Bible though.
As of the year 2006 there is no credible proof for the existence or nonexistence of a Creator ... yet.
QUOTE
In the not too distant future, maybe fifty, a hundred years from now the general and major consensus by those who live on earth will be that, if there is a Creator then IT did the act of creating the universe by and through the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of biology, genetics, etc., mindful now the future people will be that the Creator was the actual cause who had set these laws into motion. The big questions will return as to how the Big IT did do it in actuality, returning everyone to the wonders of discovering the mechanisms IT used to create the universe and everything in it. So at this future time it will be seen that the secular scientists of today will have won, and then all will be more than less reconciled and everyone can get back to the nuts and bolts of researching into the mechanisms of how IT did it all.
etc,etc,etc.
ergh.... i'm starting to feel age at twenty. I know i have an answer to this, it's just in the back of my mind....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In the not too distant future, maybe fifty, a hundred years from now the general and major consensus by those who live on earth will be that, if there is a Creator then IT did the act of creating the universe by and through the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of biology, genetics, etc., mindful now the future people will be that the Creator was the actual cause who had set these laws into motion. The big questions will return as to how the Big IT did do it in actuality, returning everyone to the wonders of discovering the mechanisms IT used to create the universe and everything in it. So at this future time it will be seen that the secular scientists of today will have won, and then all will be more than less reconciled and everyone can get back to the nuts and bolts of researching into the mechanisms of how IT did it all. etc,etc,etc. |
ergh.... i'm starting to feel age at twenty. I know i have an answer to this, it's just in the back of my mind....
I was mildly shocked when I first began to read the Catholic New American Bible. I began to realize the Catholic hierarchy, as a whole, actually think a lot more rationally than they act in public. Read this prologue to the Pentateuch in the New American Bible. That Bible those bishops et al., wrote is presented so rationally ...! like a breath of fresh air in comparison to most of the Protestant type of fantasy presentation of things I was accustomed to.
eh? my dad and the rest of the people in my (Protestant) church are the most rational people i've ever known..... you just sounded like you placed an entire religious branch in a box...
anyway, please, ease my curiosity, can you quote the passage you mentioned? thanks.
QUOTE
As of the year 2006 there is no credible proof for the existence or nonexistence of a Creator ... yet
i dunno if it's credible proof, but statistically, or maybe if you look at it a little, the Jews should have been wiped out by now. i mean, Israel has absolutely NOWHERE to go for an escape route when it gets attacked (sorry if i sounded political there)
also, according to the New Testament, the Jews are cursed (again, sorry if struck some/a lot of nerves) in a way. "His blood be on us and on our children", "we have no king but ceasar", every time something happens to that little country in the Middle East, those words come to mind (pogroms, Nazis...... Mel Gibson
)anyway, i'm sure there are other "floating proofs" are out there, but my dad knows more than i do on that kind of thing, too bad i can't let him these kinds of discussions though,
on a side note.... i am in NO WAY anti-semitic ...... so please, don't beat me up about what i said
QUOTE
i dunno if it's credible proof, but statistically, or maybe if you look at it a little, the Jews should have been wiped out by now. i mean, Israel has absolutely NOWHERE to go for an escape route when it gets attacked (sorry if i sounded political there)
Umm...are you saying Israel=Jews?
Cause there are a lot of non-jews living in Israel...and a lot of Jews who live outside of israel....
So your point that a country that is in a shitty spot, but backed by most of the western world...hasnt been eliminated yet as some freakish cold war holdover....
What is your point?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i dunno if it's credible proof, but statistically, or maybe if you look at it a little, the Jews should have been wiped out by now. i mean, Israel has absolutely NOWHERE to go for an escape route when it gets attacked (sorry if i sounded political there) |
Umm...are you saying Israel=Jews?
Cause there are a lot of non-jews living in Israel...and a lot of Jews who live outside of israel....
So your point that a country that is in a shitty spot, but backed by most of the western world...hasnt been eliminated yet as some freakish cold war holdover....
What is your point?
eh? my dad and the rest of the people in my (Protestant) church are the most rational people i've ever known..... you just sounded like you placed an entire religious branch in a box... unsure.gif
Hmmm...he did....
For the most part Protestant churches are founded as a rebuttal to a belief.
Either that or they are founded on a ludicrous belief that no one previously endorsed because it is insane and irrational.
He also wasnt referring to the "people"...it sounded as if he was actually talking about the "church". The thinkers of the religion....not the faithful congregation.
The St. Thomas Aquinas and his ilk. Those who rationally and philosophically approach their religion without the strong and strange assumptions that their believes be assumed a priori before any other conversation progresses.
QUOTE
As of the year 2006 there is no credible proof for the existence or nonexistence of a Creator ... yet.
True...but there is also no credible proof for or against unicorns....
Even though most of us can admit that their existence is highly unlikely.
Hey, fella's, I thunk the word rational is being interpreted differently, and out of context. For example, when a police officer, detective sifts through the clues to find the who, what, where, when, how and why for it all, let's just be brief and simple and say the guy is in a rational frame of mind, which simply means the guy was trained to, and is using a formal heuristic method to establish fact ..., eventually to have other people present these facts ("Just the facts, ma'am") in an arena (court of law) where rules govern the presentation of the facts. So let's not have everyone start bugging out because Protestants, or anyone isn't so formal, and such a stickler for rules as they go about the day to day things they do in life. Watching baseball games aren't rational activities either; neither is throwing stones at some pillar in Mecca, but if people get their jollies doing stuff like this, rational or not, it doesn't matter.
Let's hope no detective starts looking for elfs under the bed in the course of the investigation though. And if someone is looking for the Creator to maybe explain biological phenomena, no rational person should expect to find any facts in the writings of any of today's religious denominations.
Comprendé? If anyone is still outraged that they're not rational all the time, then go jump in the lake.
I gotta go.
Let's hope no detective starts looking for elfs under the bed in the course of the investigation though. And if someone is looking for the Creator to maybe explain biological phenomena, no rational person should expect to find any facts in the writings of any of today's religious denominations.
Comprendé? If anyone is still outraged that they're not rational all the time, then go jump in the lake.
I gotta go.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.