Okay, you're lost me a bit, Brit. Where did you ever hear someone who believed in Intelligent Design say "Well, since God did it we shouldn't bother trying to figure it out."? To me, science is understanding how God works and I love that we learn new things everyday. Personally, from everything I've ever read in the Bible we've been created to do exactly what we're doing. Learn, deduce, understand, and unravel. I don't think Intelligent Deisgn is a cop-out as much as an explaination for the state (something we're probably not likely to discover just due strictly to the amount of time passed). I think when science suddenly figures something out and says "Ha! Now we know how it works! That means God didn't do this!" is absurd. To me science and God can go hand in hand. If Eistein believed this then who I am to think otherwise? Hell, imagine how bored we would be as a species if God created us then left us with nothing to do.
I think Science can find the answers to a lot of things, but I also think there are some things that they just hit a deadend with and can't find the past variable in the equation. That could be by design or by the fact that we just don't have the technology. I think some things may NEVER be answered unless we invent timetravel, personally.
Personally, from everything I've ever read in the Bible we've been created to do exactly what we're doing. Learn, deduce, understand, and unravel. I don't think Intelligent Deisgn is a cop-out as much as an explaination for the state (something we're probably not likely to discover just due strictly to the amount of time passed). I think when science suddenly figures something out and says "Ha! Now we know how it works! That means God didn't do this!" is absurd. To me science and God can go hand in hand. If Eistein believed this then who I am to think otherwise? Hell, imagine how bored we would be as a species if God created us then left us with nothing to do.
I think Science can find the answers to a lot of things, but I also think there are some things that they just hit a deadend with and can't find the past variable in the equation. That could be by design or by the fact that we just don't have the technology. I think some things may NEVER be answered unless we invent timetravel, personally.
The problem with this Creation vs. Evolution debate, is that the majority of creationists are content with saying "God did it". They spend most of their time coming up with silly reasons why evolution is wrong. They use attacks on evolution as a way of proving intelligent design. Just read any of the creationist websites.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Okay, you're lost me a bit, Brit. Where did you ever hear someone who believed in Intelligent Design say "Well, since God did it we shouldn't bother trying to figure it out."? To me, science is understanding how God works and I love that we learn new things everyday. Personally, from everything I've ever read in the Bible we've been created to do exactly what we're doing. Learn, deduce, understand, and unravel. I don't think Intelligent Deisgn is a cop-out as much as an explaination for the state (something we're probably not likely to discover just due strictly to the amount of time passed). I think when science suddenly figures something out and says "Ha! Now we know how it works! That means God didn't do this!" is absurd. To me science and God can go hand in hand. If Eistein believed this then who I am to think otherwise? Hell, imagine how bored we would be as a species if God created us then left us with nothing to do. I think Science can find the answers to a lot of things, but I also think there are some things that they just hit a deadend with and can't find the past variable in the equation. That could be by design or by the fact that we just don't have the technology. I think some things may NEVER be answered unless we invent timetravel, personally. Personally, from everything I've ever read in the Bible we've been created to do exactly what we're doing. Learn, deduce, understand, and unravel. I don't think Intelligent Deisgn is a cop-out as much as an explaination for the state (something we're probably not likely to discover just due strictly to the amount of time passed). I think when science suddenly figures something out and says "Ha! Now we know how it works! That means God didn't do this!" is absurd. To me science and God can go hand in hand. If Eistein believed this then who I am to think otherwise? Hell, imagine how bored we would be as a species if God created us then left us with nothing to do. I think Science can find the answers to a lot of things, but I also think there are some things that they just hit a deadend with and can't find the past variable in the equation. That could be by design or by the fact that we just don't have the technology. I think some things may NEVER be answered unless we invent timetravel, personally.
Personally, from everything I've ever read in the Bible we've been created to do exactly what we're doing. Learn, deduce, understand, and unravel. I don't think Intelligent Deisgn is a cop-out as much as an explaination for the state (something we're probably not likely to discover just due strictly to the amount of time passed). I think when science suddenly figures something out and says "Ha! Now we know how it works! That means God didn't do this!" is absurd. To me science and God can go hand in hand. If Eistein believed this then who I am to think otherwise? Hell, imagine how bored we would be as a species if God created us then left us with nothing to do. I think Science can find the answers to a lot of things, but I also think there are some things that they just hit a deadend with and can't find the past variable in the equation. That could be by design or by the fact that we just don't have the technology. I think some things may NEVER be answered unless we invent timetravel, personally.
The problem with this Creation vs. Evolution debate, is that the majority of creationists are content with saying "God did it". They spend most of their time coming up with silly reasons why evolution is wrong. They use attacks on evolution as a way of proving intelligent design. Just read any of the creationist websites.
I'd suggest for you to not say "most" creationist namely because of my belief that the most vocal parties in a debate are the one's it is wisest to ignore first. I don't know a single creationist that thinks that because God did it we should stop studying the human body and how it works.
Attacks are wrong period, but no one side holds patent on that. I've heard just as many Evolutionists use evolution as proof that God doesn't exist as I have heard Creationists use absurd arguements as to why evolution can't be right.
When you say "content with saying God did it" I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying they are just content with the idea that God is the absolute beginning of the genetic structure of mankind or that they think since "God did it" they no longer need to learn anything. If you're saying the latter then you know some odd creationists is all I can say, and that is coming from someone who believes in Intelligent Design.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Malachi1975 I think the shift has been the only thing keeping this country afloat for a long time. I see what you are saying and I am not disagreeing, just giving my sentiment as a Christian when it comes to the "shift". Until we can get someone that IS truly nuetral (and I don't know how realistic that is) the shift is a good thing that swing the pendulum back and forth every several years. I feel bad for those people that are upset when the shift comes along as well. To me it's logical right now. It's kind of like trying to delicately keep the scales in balance. From time to time the scales tend to tip one way or the other too far and it seems that the next swing generally corrects that to some extent. Shame more people don't see it that way.
So you'll be cool when the 2012 (?) Election finds a moderate-to-extreme Muslim voted in (well, Bush is more towards extreme than moderate Xtian), thus merely swinging the pendulum? hehe.
Hell, you never know!
But yeah, a small amount of FAITH on the Presidencial seat isn't a bad thing imo, it usually shows the person in charge has some morals and a sense of themselves. But when it gets to the point of Senators backing the Second Coming theory etc and it's a well supported theory, personally I find that as being too much Church in the State. I think (not bothered looking it up to be honest) that Bush and his cabinet, or whatever you call it in the US, have a strong support for this SCoJ (tm) theory.
That's my problem with religion. It's a trademark now. It's used to sell things. Wars. Defence as opposed to terrorism etc. That's not true religion. I mean you can't call GWB a true Christian. If Christ did actually exist and did happen to come back tomorrow, you honestly think he'd look at the state of the world, smile and crack open a can of lager with GWB? He'd be mortified.
And yeah, back on topic, I am in the "Creationism/ID is a major f'ing cop-out" group. I had this same argument in EQ2 recently, in one of the world channels. The people who were 'voting' for God were saying "Prove to me how it all started if not by God." And when I would say "I honestly don't know" (because I'm not so fking arrogant as to pressume I do) they would laugh. Then I asked them "So prove to me that your God exists and created everything" and they said "I just know, God is in me" wank wank etc etc, as though that was somehow more of an answer than "I can't prove it".
Of course when I tried to get that across that they were saying they had no more idea than I did, they wouldn't have a bar of it. Complete bollox as is usual in religious chatter.
That's the thing that gets me about it all... How can someone honestly have complete and utter faith in something they cannot prove, cannot see, cannot touch or feel or connect with, cannot prove it has ever existed? And to read from a book constructed 1900 years ago, under dubious circumstances, translated a dozen times before arriving in the version you buy in shops now...
Personally, I feel that anyone who reads and believes anything written in the Bible is in no place to critise someone for believing what they see on TV news (with the excuse it's manufactured to suit the Gov etc).
I just can't see how someone can put their 'faith' so blindly in something they'll never be able to prove... I guess some people just need that in their lives to feel needed or useful or to have a purpose to be here at all or something, I dunno.
Meh, I am happy to just not understand it at all I think. I have travelled and experienced enough religions to know it sure as hell isn't for me.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by baronviktor Let me clarify a bit, you are right Malachi1975, its how religion is used, I have no problem with a person with devout religious beliefs being in a position of power. What I do have a problem with is when it is used to dictate policy or curtail peoples' rights and freedoms, such as a leader declaring that something is morally wrong so it should be illegal as well.
See, I agree with you 1000% there. A president shouldn't say "I don't agree with abortion because it's against my religion, therefore you shouldn't agree with abortion either!" However, a president can NOT agree with abortion due to their religious beliefs but they leave it up to the people to decide.
The problem with morallity as it stands it that it's perspective. So someone is ALWAYS going to get their dander up by some moral decision. That's why I think leadership is fine in releasing ideas to be voted upon by the people but I don't think it's fine for them to dictate those ideas without the people's consent.
As in one man vito'ing Stem Cell research on the entire nation's behalf? (Or whatever it was that Bush vitoed resently)
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
"My issue with this is that I see it as a scientific reasoning cop-out. Saying that life is so complex that it was obviously thought-out by a higher power is throwing the white towel in on scientific discussion.
For that reasoning, then the entire universe itself is too complex to study. Heck, to hell with finding out how things work, who needs causality? Why bother even getting started at all, everything is so amazingly and overwhelmingly complex! :O"
Sounds like someone else was forced to read St. Augustine
"These questions are filosophy, NOT SCIENCE!"
Aye! Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with truths.
"You are right, evolution is a theory,..."
There is a huge difference between a scientific, peer reviewed, theory like gravity or evolution and some woowoo saying that water has memory or meat has toxins in it.
Originally posted by Arremus Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by baronviktor Let me clarify a bit, you are right Malachi1975, its how religion is used, I have no problem with a person with devout religious beliefs being in a position of power. What I do have a problem with is when it is used to dictate policy or curtail peoples' rights and freedoms, such as a leader declaring that something is morally wrong so it should be illegal as well.
See, I agree with you 1000% there. A president shouldn't say "I don't agree with abortion because it's against my religion, therefore you shouldn't agree with abortion either!" However, a president can NOT agree with abortion due to their religious beliefs but they leave it up to the people to decide.
The problem with morallity as it stands it that it's perspective. So someone is ALWAYS going to get their dander up by some moral decision. That's why I think leadership is fine in releasing ideas to be voted upon by the people but I don't think it's fine for them to dictate those ideas without the people's consent.
As in one man vito'ing Stem Cell research on the entire nation's behalf? (Or whatever it was that Bush vitoed resently)
Good example. And I disagree with Bush on that veto. I can see the arguements on how stem-cells are acrquired though. If they are being acquired by effectively creation an embryo then aborting said embryo to acquire the cells (which IS a common practice proposed) I cannot and will not agree with that. I think that's the first step in breeding people for body parts, personally (though that is extreme it is along the same lines in my eyes).
Veto'ing the entire idea of stem-cell research, however, is a crock. The problem is that neither side of the debate is willing to meet in the middle.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Arremus Originally posted by Malachi1975 I think the shift has been the only thing keeping this country afloat for a long time. I see what you are saying and I am not disagreeing, just giving my sentiment as a Christian when it comes to the "shift". Until we can get someone that IS truly nuetral (and I don't know how realistic that is) the shift is a good thing that swing the pendulum back and forth every several years. I feel bad for those people that are upset when the shift comes along as well. To me it's logical right now. It's kind of like trying to delicately keep the scales in balance. From time to time the scales tend to tip one way or the other too far and it seems that the next swing generally corrects that to some extent. Shame more people don't see it that way.
So you'll be cool when the 2012 (?) Election finds a moderate-to-extreme Muslim voted in (well, Bush is more towards extreme than moderate Xtian), thus merely swinging the pendulum? hehe. I think fanaticals altogether are the problem rather than their roots. :P
Hell, you never know!
But yeah, a small amount of FAITH on the Presidencial seat isn't a bad thing imo, it usually shows the person in charge has some morals and a sense of themselves. But when it gets to the point of Senators backing the Second Coming theory etc and it's a well supported theory, personally I find that as being too much Church in the State. I think (not bothered looking it up to be honest) that Bush and his cabinet, or whatever you call it in the US, have a strong support for this SCoJ (tm) theory.
That would be a mixed vote I think in the Senate. I think you might find alot of people on Capital Hill that will call themselves a Christian as a brand-name rather than actually being followers of Christ.
That's my problem with religion. It's a trademark now. It's used to sell things. Wars. Defence as opposed to terrorism etc. That's not true religion. I mean you can't call GWB a true Christian. If Christ did actually exist and did happen to come back tomorrow, you honestly think he'd look at the state of the world, smile and crack open a can of lager with GWB? He'd be mortified.
Actually, the Bible tells us he'll be pissed. Forget mortified :P
And yeah, back on topic, I am in the "Creationism/ID is a major f'ing cop-out" group. I had this same argument in EQ2 recently, in one of the world channels. The people who were 'voting' for God were saying "Prove to me how it all started if not by God." And when I would say "I honestly don't know" (because I'm not so fking arrogant as to pressume I do) they would laugh. Then I asked them "So prove to me that your God exists and created everything" and they said "I just know, God is in me" wank wank etc etc, as though that was somehow more of an answer than "I can't prove it".
Of course when I tried to get that across that they were saying they had no more idea than I did, they wouldn't have a bar of it. Complete bollox as is usual in religious chatter.
That's the thing that gets me about it all... How can someone honestly have complete and utter faith in something they cannot prove, cannot see, cannot touch or feel or connect with, cannot prove it has ever existed? And to read from a book constructed 1900 years ago, under dubious circumstances, translated a dozen times before arriving in the version you buy in shops now...
Personally, I feel that anyone who reads and believes anything written in the Bible is in no place to critise someone for believing what they see on TV news (with the excuse it's manufactured to suit the Gov etc).
I just can't see how someone can put their 'faith' so blindly in something they'll never be able to prove... I guess some people just need that in their lives to feel needed or useful or to have a purpose to be here at all or something, I dunno.
Meh, I am happy to just not understand it at all I think. I have travelled and experienced enough religions to know it sure as hell isn't for me.
Well, you seem to have a bit of an issue with faith but it seems to come from the fact that you just can't understand it rather than you think it's out and out wrong. I can't say anything against that at all and I agree with you. It sounds to me that you've had some really bad experiences with some Intelligent Design followers and Christians. As much as it sucks, there really is a bad VOCAL majority out there. But that can be said for most things.
Now when you say putting our faith in somthing we'll "never be able to prove" that may not be the case. *IF* Christianity and The Bible are correct then there will be a time things are proven. As for putting faith in that blindly, blind faith is bad. Even Jesus proports questioning. I can only speak about my faith from a personal standpoint through experiences I've had in my life. Unfortunately, those experiences are going to mean nothing to anyone else and that's just the way it is.
You sound like a good person to me and you have your head firmly on your shoulders. Personally, it's people like you that I LOVE having around because it keeps me on my toes and forces me to always learn. We're both in the same boat...we just don't know. All we can do is try to figure out what we can and believe in what we believe in.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Techleo Well shoot. Almost the end of my day at work. I have to retire from this discussion. Good fortune in the defense of your ideas Malachi hehe.
Have fun at home *wave*. I got caught up in some replies but I didn't want you to think I didn't see your farewell
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
You sound like a good person to me and you have your head firmly on your shoulders. Personally, it's people like you that I LOVE having around because it keeps me on my toes and forces me to always learn. We're both in the same boat...we just don't know. All we can do is try to figure out what we can and believe in what we believe in.
Hehe likewise. It's nice to actually hear someone speaking from a 'religious' standpoint with a sense of... relative calm I guess. The "I believe this, I hope you will challenge me on it so we can grow together" sort of deal.
It's not like I've had a run of bad experiences with religions etc, I've travelled through Indo, India, Nepal, visiting shamans, temples, religious leaders etc, was raised a Catholic and decided on my own terms it's just not for me. I think to be honest (and hopefully not sounding arrogant) I've just got to the point in my life and self-understanding that a religious belief is simply not something I need.
I have a God, an inspiration, and it is Nature. I channel the love and inspiration I get from travelling throughout this living, breathing world into writing music and being creative. To me that's 'God' enough.
And I agree with your comment That would be a mixed vote I think in the Senate. I think you might find alot of people on Capital Hill that will call themselves a Christian as a brand-name rather than actually being followers of Christ which in turn plays in to my comment about I feel religion has been turned into a trademark (or yes, brand-name) used to win votes and money for bombs etc. But yeah, just my opinion.
To be honest, I would personally consider someone like yourself a person of Faith, rather than someone "who is religious".
(And at 6am I better hit the hay. Take it easy)
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 I'd suggest for you to not say "most" creationist namely because of my belief that the most vocal parties in a debate are the one's it is wisest to ignore first. I don't know a single creationist that thinks that because God did it we should stop studying the human body and how it works. Attacks are wrong period, but no one side holds patent on that. I've heard just as many Evolutionists use evolution as proof that God doesn't exist as I have heard Creationists use absurd arguements as to why evolution can't be right. When you say "content with saying God did it" I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying they are just content with the idea that God is the absolute beginning of the genetic structure of mankind or that they think since "God did it" they no longer need to learn anything. If you're saying the latter then you know some odd creationists is all I can say, and that is coming from someone who believes in Intelligent Design.
I'm not saying that creationists believe that we should stop practicing science. I'm saying that they use arguments from incredulity as a way of dismissing evolution. Which is not much better in my eyes are they are dismissing one of the major theories of Biology.
A lot of anti-evolution claims follow this line of reasoning (This is just an example): DNA is too complex to have randomly evolved on it's own therefore it is proof of intelligent design. The logic here is that because one percieves it to be too complex, it must have been designed.
Take a look at this real claim: "Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity in organisms indicates they were designed." (Behe, Michael J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.) A prime example of an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, if you will.
Here's a whole list of them dealing with various topics.
Being a college grad and having attended parochial schools before that I do not understand why evolution and creation theory can not co-exist.
God, if there is a God, by whatever name a person or group of people want to give him, is by very nature outside the bounds of time and space. Therefore a day to God could be 1 hour to us, or 10 billion years to us, nowhere does God ever say that 1 day = 24hours. Therefore one can conclude that 6 days could have been any number of millions or billions of years.
Creation theory says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. This sounds like as good an explanation of the big bang. "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. " Why could this event not have been started by a god or gods?
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. According to science as the gasses started to coalesce and form into the sun it became dense, very dense. ENough to generate its own gravitational field which captured asteroids into an orbit. Some of these asteroids were destroyed others stabilized and were of sufficient mass to have their own gravitational fields. the planets themselves gathered their own fair share of gases etc while the sun continued to grow into a star and then the solar system is born. (yes its been overly simplified but I do not want to get into the discussions of nuclear fission etc as they arent important to this discussion.) Each of the planets have their own orbits and rotations so tada we have the first morning and night.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. Fastforward a couple billion or so years the molten surface of the earth begins to harden, as it continued cooling, water vapor began to escape and condense into the earths early atmosphere. Clouds began to form and storms ranged.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. As the Storms raged rain began to fall, and the sea was formed. We must remember that science has concluded that there was one continent a couple billion years ago called Pangea, and one huge ocean. Again science and the creation story are still going hand in hand.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day. Here is a bit of an error, as this should have all happened back on day 2 before the molten surface of the planet had cooled as that is when science has said that the moon had formed, from a HUGE asteroid collision with the earth.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Science has determined that life originated from the oceans. and dinosaurs evolved into birds. Just because they didnt name everything in between doesnt mean they are completely wrong. The creation story (which in itself is older than the judeo/christian religions) was an explanation given the knowledge of the day.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
And here the creation story ends but it still follows the evolutionary model. Several hundred million years ago there were sea creatures that came up on land, evolved into birds or went back to the ocean. Then creatures came back from the sea and took to the surface, evolved into the life that we have today. Yes there are some minor inconsistencies etc but it doesnt take a freakin rocket scientist to see that the ancient creation myths werent far from the truth of evolution, big bang etc etc etc. The one thing that has stayed the same for thousands of years is the creation myth while the theories of evolution are still theories as they try to fill in the missing pieces. Both are important and should be taught but evolution belongs in science class, and creation belongs in humanities. Intolerance from either side of the debate can only serve to hurt future generations.
Originally posted by severius Being a college grad and having attended parochial schools before that I do not understand why evolution and creation theory can not co-exist.
God, if there is a God, by whatever name a person or group of people want to give him, is by very nature outside the bounds of time and space. Therefore a day to God could be 1 hour to us, or 10 billion years to us, nowhere does God ever say that 1 day = 24hours. Therefore one can conclude that 6 days could have been any number of millions or billions of years.
Creation theory says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. This sounds like as good an explanation of the big bang. "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. " Why could this event not have been started by a god or gods?
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. According to science as the gasses started to coalesce and form into the sun it became dense, very dense. ENough to generate its own gravitational field which captured asteroids into an orbit. Some of these asteroids were destroyed others stabilized and were of sufficient mass to have their own gravitational fields. the planets themselves gathered their own fair share of gases etc while the sun continued to grow into a star and then the solar system is born. (yes its been overly simplified but I do not want to get into the discussions of nuclear fission etc as they arent important to this discussion.) Each of the planets have their own orbits and rotations so tada we have the first morning and night.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. Fastforward a couple billion or so years the molten surface of the earth begins to harden, as it continued cooling, water vapor began to escape and condense into the earths early atmosphere. Clouds began to form and storms ranged.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. As the Storms raged rain began to fall, and the sea was formed. We must remember that science has concluded that there was one continent a couple billion years ago called Pangea, and one huge ocean. Again science and the creation story are still going hand in hand.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day. Here is a bit of an error, as this should have all happened back on day 2 before the molten surface of the planet had cooled as that is when science has said that the moon had formed, from a HUGE asteroid collision with the earth.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Science has determined that life originated from the oceans. and dinosaurs evolved into birds. Just because they didnt name everything in between doesnt mean they are completely wrong. The creation story (which in itself is older than the judeo/christian religions) was an explanation given the knowledge of the day.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
And here the creation story ends but it still follows the evolutionary model. Several hundred million years ago there were sea creatures that came up on land, evolved into birds or went back to the ocean. Then creatures came back from the sea and took to the surface, evolved into the life that we have today. Yes there are some minor inconsistencies etc but it doesnt take a freakin rocket scientist to see that the ancient creation myths werent far from the truth of evolution, big bang etc etc etc. The one thing that has stayed the same for thousands of years is the creation myth while the theories of evolution are still theories as they try to fill in the missing pieces. Both are important and should be taught but evolution belongs in science class, and creation belongs in humanities. Intolerance from either side of the debate can only serve to hurt future generations.
/applause
That was EXCELLENTLY written. It's good to know another has joined the ranks here at MMORPG.COM that doesn't think that God and Science need be mutually exclusive.
(Oh, it's also nice to see someone else other than me that likes to write small novels as posts :P )
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
[quote]Originally posted by severius Both are important and should be taught but evolution belongs in science class, and creation belongs in humanities. Intolerance from either side of the debate can only serve to hurt future generations.
[/b][/quote]
bloody *^&%$*&#@ editor!
u said it well, evolution in science, creation in humanities, that's exactly it.
I have no beef with creationists/ID followers, I myself am a hardcore science follower but also an agnostic because I recognize that if there was to exist such a being as God, it doesn't matter what we observe empirically. It could all have been created NOW, this very moment, and still look as real and logical as it does. However, this is an impossible and circular debate, since to prove these claims one would have to "step outside" of reality and observe god at work. It's impossible, we're stuck "in here". None of these views will ever be proven or disproven because they are impossible to do so either way. It all comes down to a person's gut feeling. Just like Eisntein said "there are 2 ways to go about life.. etc, etc" (u are all familiar with that awesome quote, yeah?) But this is philosophy, pure, abstract philosophy.
It doesn't belong in a science lecture, that is all.
Come up with an alternative coherent, factual, and empirical theory of how all this biodiversity exists, without using "magic", and science will be glad to take it into consideration and debate. If it holds ground, it can even be taught!
There is no evidence to support God. Which kind of puts a hamper on the whole Intelligent Design thing.
Then there is the Miller-Urey experiment and others like it.
Then again, maybe God seeded the Earth with amino acids? Or maybe God created the right environment for amino acids to form and let things work out by themselves?
Who knows or cares anymore? These debates are nothing more than a discussion of one person's philosophical beliefs. Without scientific evidence we might as well discuss which color is better, blue or grey? I always liked blue myself.
Originally posted by heartless Originally posted by severius A lot of stuff. There is no evidence to support God. Which kind of puts a hamper on the whole Intelligent Design thing. Then there is the Miller-Urey experiment and others like it. Then again, maybe God seeded the Earth with amino acids? Or maybe God created the right environment for amino acids to form and let things work out by themselves? Who knows or cares anymore? These debates are nothing more than a discussion of one person's philosophical beliefs. Without scientific evidence we might as well discuss which color is better, blue or grey? I always liked blue myself.
indeed. red and orange for me please! Like the tie-dye I'm wearing to work today
The problem should say non US evolutionists have a lack of spirituality!
For me its simple. Evolution which is completely different from a faith can coincide with God. In fact if you believe in GOD, evolution is GODs tool!! Just most anti-semitics and atheists dont want or even visualize such a concept. A good reason why so many evoltionary atheists hate quantum physics! Because its blows that ideology out into limbo!
Just think if there is a all powerful, ALL KNOWING OMNIPRESENT ENTITY, who are we to even think we could comprehend such a probability out of the infinite we go thru each day! In the universe which is vast and unknown for the most we are on a little spec in some spec of some star in a solar system of the vast milkyway galaxy.. And we have the elitist view that we are the edifice of supremacy! GET FOOKING REAL!!!@
Thats kinda like we are ants and are trying to figure out what that foot is coming down on us before we get splatted!
So really there is no basis for a argument. You have those who are Anal-Retentive and those who are not! ENJOY!
I believe the children are our future. Teach them evolution and let them lead the way. Show them all the dangers that religion hides. Give them the sense to be snide to the preachers. And expect childrens laughter at how we used to be. Everybody's searching for a halo. People need to know that's no way to go. Look around at the Earthmans many breeds. A bone dug up is proof enough for me. So I learned to transcend religious antiquity.
Originally posted by reavo I believe the children are our future. Teach them evolution and let them lead the way. Show them all the dangers that religion hides. Give them the sense to be snide to the preachers. And expect childrens laughter at how we used to be. Everybody's searching for a halo. People need to know that's no way to go. Look around at the Earthmans many breeds. A bone dug up is proof enough for me. So I learned to transcend religious antiquity.
I don't know why, Reavo but for some reason there I expected you to also say "Crack is cheap!"
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by reavo I believe the children are our future. Teach them evolution and let them lead the way. Show them all the dangers that religion hides. Give them the sense to be snide to the preachers. And expect childrens laughter at how we used to be. Everybody's searching for a halo. People need to know that's no way to go. Look around at the Earthmans many breeds. A bone dug up is proof enough for me. So I learned to transcend religious antiquity.
I don't know why, Reavo but for some reason there I expected you to also say "Crack is cheap!"
-- "Do I look okay Bobby? Seriously, how do I look?"
The problem should say non US evolutionists have a lack of spirituality!
For me its simple. Evolution which is completely different from a faith can coincide with God. In fact if you believe in GOD, evolution is GODs tool!! Just most anti-semitics and atheists dont want or even visualize such a concept. A good reason why so many evoltionary atheists hate quantum physics! Because its blows that ideology out into limbo!
Just think if there is a all powerful, ALL KNOWING OMNIPRESENT ENTITY, who are we to even think we could comprehend such a probability out of the infinite we go thru each day! In the universe which is vast and unknown for the most we are on a little spec in some spec of some star in a solar system of the vast milkyway galaxy.. And we have the elitist view that we are the edifice of supremacy! GET FOOKING REAL!!!@
I kinda almost agree with some of what powder said here...'cept the god stuff.
Spirituality? Yes, absolutely! I truly beleive in a universal force - more akin to the force in star wars than the diety concept we find in most religions today - that is the life blood of all the gods, devils, angels, and demons that man has manufactured throughout the millennia.
Religion? No way! Nothing is more lethal than religion; it is ,by far, the most hideous and harmful of all of mankinds inventions! It has always been used by malignant leaders as a tool of control and manipulation.
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." - Aldous Huxley
Hahaha reavo, been laughing all day over this one. Is just spot on. Man.. talk about drugged up delusion. Hahah don't worry 'bout nuthin'.
And to pp, love the quote mate I'm a big fan of the one that someone here has under their avatar; something like "Only man could create a God that hates all the same people they do".
Sums it up for me really.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush. Oh. My. God.
Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by reavo I believe the children are our future. Teach them evolution and let them lead the way. Show them all the dangers that religion hides. Give them the sense to be snide to the preachers. And expect childrens laughter at how we used to be. Everybody's searching for a halo. People need to know that's no way to go. Look around at the Earthmans many breeds. A bone dug up is proof enough for me. So I learned to transcend religious antiquity.
I don't know why, Reavo but for some reason there I expected you to also say "Crack is cheap!"
-- "Do I look okay Bobby? Seriously, how do I look?"
Originally posted by Techleo I for one have been a proponent of Inteligent Deisgn for many years so this doesnt realy surprise me. Mind you Im also a creationist. The two theories arent nescarilly to be combined because the source of the Design doesnt nescarilly need to be a omnipotent inteligence. The core of the theory can be purely scientific. In anycase americans tend to be wishy washy so theyll sway.
So inteligent design all the science apart who made us god or an alien race?
Originally posted by heartless The problem with this Creation vs. Evolution debate, is that the majority of creationists are content with saying "God did it". They spend most of their time coming up with silly reasons why evolution is wrong. They use attacks on evolution as a way of proving intelligent design. Just read any of the creationist websites.
Spot on.
As in any discussion such as this I will have to go with the people that are actually trying to find answers rather then the ones that tries to find that the opposing side is wrong.
Religion of any kind, is and have always been the lazy mans way out, an easy explanation for everything requiring nothing but faith.
Be it that the universe gets harder and harder to understand as we make progress, things like super gravity, string theory, or lately M-theory is hard to grasp and instead of making an effort to understand it one just trows the hands in the air and says "God did it".
Not true for every religious person of course, Einstein was deeply religious for example, though that was why he never could grasp or wanted to grasp quantum mechanics, "God does not throw dice" he used to say.
As the human intellect and mind grows we will se less and less religion of that I am sure, there just will not be any need for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
The problem with this Creation vs. Evolution debate, is that the majority of creationists are content with saying "God did it". They spend most of their time coming up with silly reasons why evolution is wrong. They use attacks on evolution as a way of proving intelligent design. Just read any of the creationist websites.
The problem with this Creation vs. Evolution debate, is that the majority of creationists are content with saying "God did it". They spend most of their time coming up with silly reasons why evolution is wrong. They use attacks on evolution as a way of proving intelligent design. Just read any of the creationist websites.
I'd suggest for you to not say "most" creationist namely because of my belief that the most vocal parties in a debate are the one's it is wisest to ignore first. I don't know a single creationist that thinks that because God did it we should stop studying the human body and how it works.
Attacks are wrong period, but no one side holds patent on that. I've heard just as many Evolutionists use evolution as proof that God doesn't exist as I have heard Creationists use absurd arguements as to why evolution can't be right.
When you say "content with saying God did it" I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying they are just content with the idea that God is the absolute beginning of the genetic structure of mankind or that they think since "God did it" they no longer need to learn anything. If you're saying the latter then you know some odd creationists is all I can say, and that is coming from someone who believes in Intelligent Design.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Hell, you never know!
But yeah, a small amount of FAITH on the Presidencial seat isn't a bad thing imo, it usually shows the person in charge has some morals and a sense of themselves.
But when it gets to the point of Senators backing the Second Coming theory etc and it's a well supported theory, personally I find that as being too much Church in the State.
I think (not bothered looking it up to be honest) that Bush and his cabinet, or whatever you call it in the US, have a strong support for this SCoJ (tm) theory.
That's my problem with religion. It's a trademark now. It's used to sell things. Wars. Defence as opposed to terrorism etc. That's not true religion. I mean you can't call GWB a true Christian. If Christ did actually exist and did happen to come back tomorrow, you honestly think he'd look at the state of the world, smile and crack open a can of lager with GWB?
He'd be mortified.
And yeah, back on topic, I am in the "Creationism/ID is a major f'ing cop-out" group.
I had this same argument in EQ2 recently, in one of the world channels. The people who were 'voting' for God were saying "Prove to me how it all started if not by God."
And when I would say "I honestly don't know" (because I'm not so fking arrogant as to pressume I do) they would laugh.
Then I asked them "So prove to me that your God exists and created everything" and they said "I just know, God is in me" wank wank etc etc, as though that was somehow more of an answer than "I can't prove it".
Of course when I tried to get that across that they were saying they had no more idea than I did, they wouldn't have a bar of it. Complete bollox as is usual in religious chatter.
That's the thing that gets me about it all... How can someone honestly have complete and utter faith in something they cannot prove, cannot see, cannot touch or feel or connect with, cannot prove it has ever existed? And to read from a book constructed 1900 years ago, under dubious circumstances, translated a dozen times before arriving in the version you buy in shops now...
Personally, I feel that anyone who reads and believes anything written in the Bible is in no place to critise someone for believing what they see on TV news (with the excuse it's manufactured to suit the Gov etc).
I just can't see how someone can put their 'faith' so blindly in something they'll never be able to prove... I guess some people just need that in their lives to feel needed or useful or to have a purpose to be here at all or something, I dunno.
Meh, I am happy to just not understand it at all I think. I have travelled and experienced enough religions to know it sure as hell isn't for me.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
See, I agree with you 1000% there. A president shouldn't say "I don't agree with abortion because it's against my religion, therefore you shouldn't agree with abortion either!" However, a president can NOT agree with abortion due to their religious beliefs but they leave it up to the people to decide.
The problem with morallity as it stands it that it's perspective. So someone is ALWAYS going to get their dander up by some moral decision. That's why I think leadership is fine in releasing ideas to be voted upon by the people but I don't think it's fine for them to dictate those ideas without the people's consent.
As in one man vito'ing Stem Cell research on the entire nation's behalf? (Or whatever it was that Bush vitoed resently)
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
"My issue with this is that I see it as a scientific reasoning cop-out. Saying that life is so complex that it was obviously thought-out by a higher power is throwing the white towel in on scientific discussion.
For that reasoning, then the entire universe itself is too complex to study. Heck, to hell with finding out how things work, who needs causality? Why bother even getting started at all, everything is so amazingly and overwhelmingly complex! :O"
Sounds like someone else was forced to read St. Augustine
"These questions are filosophy, NOT SCIENCE!"
Aye! Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with truths.
"You are right, evolution is a theory,..."
There is a huge difference between a scientific, peer reviewed, theory like gravity or evolution and some woowoo saying that water has memory or meat has toxins in it.
See, I agree with you 1000% there. A president shouldn't say "I don't agree with abortion because it's against my religion, therefore you shouldn't agree with abortion either!" However, a president can NOT agree with abortion due to their religious beliefs but they leave it up to the people to decide.
The problem with morallity as it stands it that it's perspective. So someone is ALWAYS going to get their dander up by some moral decision. That's why I think leadership is fine in releasing ideas to be voted upon by the people but I don't think it's fine for them to dictate those ideas without the people's consent.
As in one man vito'ing Stem Cell research on the entire nation's behalf? (Or whatever it was that Bush vitoed resently)
Good example. And I disagree with Bush on that veto. I can see the arguements on how stem-cells are acrquired though. If they are being acquired by effectively creation an embryo then aborting said embryo to acquire the cells (which IS a common practice proposed) I cannot and will not agree with that. I think that's the first step in breeding people for body parts, personally (though that is extreme it is along the same lines in my eyes).
Veto'ing the entire idea of stem-cell research, however, is a crock. The problem is that neither side of the debate is willing to meet in the middle.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
So you'll be cool when the 2012 (?) Election finds a moderate-to-extreme Muslim voted in (well, Bush is more towards extreme than moderate Xtian), thus merely swinging the pendulum? hehe. I think fanaticals altogether are the problem rather than their roots. :P
Hell, you never know!
But yeah, a small amount of FAITH on the Presidencial seat isn't a bad thing imo, it usually shows the person in charge has some morals and a sense of themselves.
But when it gets to the point of Senators backing the Second Coming theory etc and it's a well supported theory, personally I find that as being too much Church in the State.
I think (not bothered looking it up to be honest) that Bush and his cabinet, or whatever you call it in the US, have a strong support for this SCoJ (tm) theory.
That would be a mixed vote I think in the Senate. I think you might find alot of people on Capital Hill that will call themselves a Christian as a brand-name rather than actually being followers of Christ.
That's my problem with religion. It's a trademark now. It's used to sell things. Wars. Defence as opposed to terrorism etc. That's not true religion. I mean you can't call GWB a true Christian. If Christ did actually exist and did happen to come back tomorrow, you honestly think he'd look at the state of the world, smile and crack open a can of lager with GWB?
He'd be mortified.
Actually, the Bible tells us he'll be pissed. Forget mortified :P
And yeah, back on topic, I am in the "Creationism/ID is a major f'ing cop-out" group.
I had this same argument in EQ2 recently, in one of the world channels. The people who were 'voting' for God were saying "Prove to me how it all started if not by God."
And when I would say "I honestly don't know" (because I'm not so fking arrogant as to pressume I do) they would laugh.
Then I asked them "So prove to me that your God exists and created everything" and they said "I just know, God is in me" wank wank etc etc, as though that was somehow more of an answer than "I can't prove it".
Of course when I tried to get that across that they were saying they had no more idea than I did, they wouldn't have a bar of it. Complete bollox as is usual in religious chatter.
That's the thing that gets me about it all... How can someone honestly have complete and utter faith in something they cannot prove, cannot see, cannot touch or feel or connect with, cannot prove it has ever existed? And to read from a book constructed 1900 years ago, under dubious circumstances, translated a dozen times before arriving in the version you buy in shops now...
Personally, I feel that anyone who reads and believes anything written in the Bible is in no place to critise someone for believing what they see on TV news (with the excuse it's manufactured to suit the Gov etc).
I just can't see how someone can put their 'faith' so blindly in something they'll never be able to prove... I guess some people just need that in their lives to feel needed or useful or to have a purpose to be here at all or something, I dunno.
Meh, I am happy to just not understand it at all I think. I have travelled and experienced enough religions to know it sure as hell isn't for me.
Well, you seem to have a bit of an issue with faith but it seems to come from the fact that you just can't understand it rather than you think it's out and out wrong. I can't say anything against that at all and I agree with you. It sounds to me that you've had some really bad experiences with some Intelligent Design followers and Christians. As much as it sucks, there really is a bad VOCAL majority out there. But that can be said for most things.
Now when you say putting our faith in somthing we'll "never be able to prove" that may not be the case. *IF* Christianity and The Bible are correct then there will be a time things are proven. As for putting faith in that blindly, blind faith is bad. Even Jesus proports questioning. I can only speak about my faith from a personal standpoint through experiences I've had in my life. Unfortunately, those experiences are going to mean nothing to anyone else and that's just the way it is.
You sound like a good person to me and you have your head firmly on your shoulders. Personally, it's people like you that I LOVE having around because it keeps me on my toes and forces me to always learn. We're both in the same boat...we just don't know. All we can do is try to figure out what we can and believe in what we believe in.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
It's not like I've had a run of bad experiences with religions etc, I've travelled through Indo, India, Nepal, visiting shamans, temples, religious leaders etc, was raised a Catholic and decided on my own terms it's just not for me.
I think to be honest (and hopefully not sounding arrogant) I've just got to the point in my life and self-understanding that a religious belief is simply not something I need.
I have a God, an inspiration, and it is Nature. I channel the love and inspiration I get from travelling throughout this living, breathing world into writing music and being creative. To me that's 'God' enough.
And I agree with your comment That would be a mixed vote I think in the
Senate. I think you might find alot of people on Capital Hill that will
call themselves a Christian as a brand-name rather than actually being
followers of Christ which in turn plays in to my comment about I feel religion has been turned into a trademark (or yes, brand-name) used to win votes and money for bombs etc. But yeah, just my opinion.
To be honest, I would personally consider someone like yourself a person of Faith, rather than someone "who is religious".
(And at 6am I better hit the hay. Take it easy)
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
I'm not saying that creationists believe that we should stop practicing science. I'm saying that they use arguments from incredulity as a way of dismissing evolution. Which is not much better in my eyes are they are dismissing one of the major theories of Biology.
A lot of anti-evolution claims follow this line of reasoning (This is just an example): DNA is too complex to have randomly evolved on it's own therefore it is proof of intelligent design. The logic here is that because one percieves it to be too complex, it must have been designed.
Take a look at this real claim: "Systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity in organisms indicates they were designed." (Behe, Michael J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.) A prime example of an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, if you will.
Here's a whole list of them dealing with various topics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
God, if there is a God, by whatever name a person or group of people want to give him, is by very nature outside the bounds of time and space. Therefore a day to God could be 1 hour to us, or 10 billion years to us, nowhere does God ever say that 1 day = 24hours. Therefore one can conclude that 6 days could have been any number of millions or billions of years.
Creation theory says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. This sounds like as good an explanation of the big bang. "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion
of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point
of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one
point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is
a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion
but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the
embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually
consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of
a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped
together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. " Why could this event not have been started by a god or gods?
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light
from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called
"night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. According to science as the gasses started to coalesce and form into the sun it became dense, very dense. ENough to generate its own gravitational field which captured asteroids into an orbit. Some of these asteroids were destroyed others stabilized and were of sufficient mass to have their own gravitational fields. the planets themselves gathered their own fair share of gases etc while the sun continued to grow into a star and then the solar system is born. (yes its been overly simplified but I do not want to get into the discussions of nuclear fission etc as they arent important to this discussion.) Each of the planets have their own orbits and rotations so tada we have the first morning and night.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to
separate water from water." So God made the
expanse and separated the water under the
expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and
there was morning--the second day. Fastforward a couple billion or so years the molten surface of the earth begins to harden, as it continued cooling, water vapor began to escape and condense into the earths early atmosphere. Clouds began to form and storms ranged.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to
one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters
he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
As the Storms raged rain began to fall, and the sea was formed. We must remember that science has concluded that there was one continent a couple billion years ago called Pangea, and one huge ocean. Again science and the creation story are still going hand in hand.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the
sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs
to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give
light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the
day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the
earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from
darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth
day. Here is a bit of an error, as this should have all happened back on day 2 before the molten surface of the planet had cooled as that is when science has said that the moon had formed, from a HUGE asteroid collision with the earth.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures,
and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Science has determined that life originated from the oceans. and dinosaurs evolved into birds. Just because they didnt name everything in between doesnt mean they are completely wrong. The creation story (which in itself is older than the judeo/christian religions) was an explanation given the knowledge of the day.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures
according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the
ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the
livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move
along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was
good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature
that moves on the ground."
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Andface of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in
it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the
air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that
has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And
it was so.
there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
And here the creation story ends but it still follows the evolutionary model. Several hundred million years ago there were sea creatures that came up on land, evolved into birds or went back to the ocean. Then creatures came back from the sea and took to the surface, evolved into the life that we have today. Yes there are some minor inconsistencies etc but it doesnt take a freakin rocket scientist to see that the ancient creation myths werent far from the truth of evolution, big bang etc etc etc. The one thing that has stayed the same for thousands of years is the creation myth while the theories of evolution are still theories as they try to fill in the missing pieces. Both are important and should be taught but evolution belongs in science class, and creation belongs in humanities. Intolerance from either side of the debate can only serve to hurt future generations.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
/applause
That was EXCELLENTLY written. It's good to know another has joined the ranks here at MMORPG.COM that doesn't think that God and Science need be mutually exclusive.
(Oh, it's also nice to see someone else other than me that likes to write small novels as posts :P )
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
[quote]Originally posted by severius
Both are important and should be taught but evolution belongs in science class, and creation belongs in humanities. Intolerance from either side of the debate can only serve to hurt future generations.
[/b][/quote]
bloody *^&%$*&#@ editor!
u said it well, evolution in science, creation in humanities, that's exactly it.
I have no beef with creationists/ID followers, I myself am a hardcore science follower but also an agnostic because I recognize that if there was to exist such a being as God, it doesn't matter what we observe empirically. It could all have been created NOW, this very moment, and still look as real and logical as it does. However, this is an impossible and circular debate, since to prove these claims one would have to "step outside" of reality and observe god at work. It's impossible, we're stuck "in here". None of these views will ever be proven or disproven because they are impossible to do so either way.
It all comes down to a person's gut feeling. Just like Eisntein said "there are 2 ways to go about life.. etc, etc" (u are all familiar with that awesome quote, yeah?) But this is philosophy, pure, abstract philosophy.
It doesn't belong in a science lecture, that is all.
Come up with an alternative coherent, factual, and empirical theory of how all this biodiversity exists, without using "magic", and science will be glad to take it into consideration and debate. If it holds ground, it can even be taught!
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
indeed. red and orange for me please! Like the tie-dye I'm wearing to work today
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
The problem should say non US evolutionists have a lack of spirituality!
For me its simple. Evolution which is completely different from a faith can coincide with God. In fact if you believe in GOD, evolution is GODs tool!! Just most anti-semitics and atheists dont want or even visualize such a concept. A good reason why so many evoltionary atheists hate quantum physics! Because its blows that ideology out into limbo!
Just think if there is a all powerful, ALL KNOWING OMNIPRESENT ENTITY, who are we to even think we could comprehend such a probability out of the infinite we go thru each day! In the universe which is vast and unknown for the most we are on a little spec in some spec of some star in a solar system of the vast milkyway galaxy.. And we have the elitist view that we are the edifice of supremacy! GET FOOKING REAL!!!@
Thats kinda like we are ants and are trying to figure out what that foot is coming down on us before we get splatted!
So really there is no basis for a argument. You have those who are Anal-Retentive and those who are not! ENJOY!
Teach them evolution and let them lead the way.
Show them all the dangers that religion hides.
Give them the sense to be snide to the preachers.
And expect childrens laughter at how we used to be.
Everybody's searching for a halo.
People need to know that's no way to go.
Look around at the Earthmans many breeds.
A bone dug up is proof enough for me.
So I learned to transcend religious antiquity.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
-- "Do I look okay Bobby? Seriously, how do I look?"
-- "Mmmmmm, yeah baby you look good. Don't worry 'bout nuthin'."
Spirituality? Yes, absolutely! I truly beleive in a universal force - more akin to the force in star wars than the diety concept we find in most religions today - that is the life blood of all the gods, devils, angels, and demons that man has manufactured throughout the millennia.
Religion? No way! Nothing is more lethal than religion; it is ,by far, the most hideous and harmful of all of mankinds inventions! It has always been used by malignant leaders as a tool of control and manipulation.
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." - Aldous Huxley
-- "Mmmmmm, yeah baby you look good. Don't worry 'bout nuthin'."
Hahaha reavo, been laughing all day over this one. Is just spot on.
Man.. talk about drugged up delusion. Hahah don't worry 'bout nuthin'.
And to pp, love the quote mate
I'm a big fan of the one that someone here has under their avatar; something like "Only man could create a God that hates all the same people they do".
Sums it up for me really.
"(The) Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." - George W Bush.
Oh. My. God.
-- "Do I look okay Bobby? Seriously, how do I look?"
-- "Mmmmmm, yeah baby you look good. Don't worry 'bout nuthin'."
WTF??!!!??
LOL!!!!
I thought you were "Weird Al-ing" Whitney, but I wasn't sure. Hahahaha. Then I scrolled down.
That's funny.
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well if we were created by a big bang, would the big bang be considered our god, our creator?
playing eq2 and two worlds