The bible..
- Started
- Last post
- 571 Responses
- kelpie0
thanks Kuz, flaggy, means a lot to me. I have a point system for my self esteem
- ********0
excellent post kelpie.
Thank you for the reference.
I have a hard time distinguishing anyone who belongs to a given religious group from any other religious group. I mean regardless of if you are worshipping zeus and athena, allah, or jesus you are one in the same.
I don't see how anyone can adhere to, follow, and especially devote their life to a concept 'god' that is so obviously weak and superstitious.
I will give buddha a bit more props but if anyone ever bothered to listen to him buddhism would not exist.
- gramme0
Faith always seems a retarded fairy tale to those who do not possess it. I used to feel exactly the same as tonx and kelpie.
"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness", and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
—1 Corinthians 3:18-20
- Mimio0
I love when the bible quotes itself.
- flagellum0
tonx: If you would examine the unique claims of Christ and the historical evidence which backs up those claims, you would know why it is a reasonable decision to receive/follow Christ. It is a faith based on evidence.
Christ is set apart as the only figure who claimed to be God in the flesh and the only one who claimed to deal with humanity's deepest need: sin. He is also the only figure who proclaimed that salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned (in contrast to the world's religions).
- gramme0
ultimately it's God that opens eyes, not men.
*Permanently exits thread for real this time. Got a lot of work to do.
- M0NEYCIDE0
You're trying to segragate science and religion. It's an arbitrary distinction when you compare history of them both together, not to mention current understandings of religious thought and modern science's coorelations. Astonomers were monks, likley some of the same folks who worked on and translated the Bible. What you're reiterating is a 200 year old political prejudice instilled in europe. "We are Man, we have logic, we are unique and made of atoms. No more intellegnce beyond mind. We conquer existance with rationality." God don't work that way, never did, ask Jesus, ask Abraham, ask Godel, ask Ghandi and Bush. Neither does history by the way. Even muhamad preached the glory of nature as truth, it's a pretty scientific perspective.
Just some docs I've let ooze into my conciousness while working...playing in the background at 2 in the morning.
http://video.google.com/videopla…
http://video.google.com/videopla…
http://video.google.com/videopla…
Newton rejected the trinity but never spoke of his beleif in one true God...he was practically a fundamentalist...
http://video.google.com/videopla…
All these esteemed rational minds were quite infatuated with prospects of GOd and metaphysical worlds...convinced I should say...
http://video.google.com/videopla…
Tonx you don't have a clue. Religions simply don't 'worship', they are basic approaches to reality and human experience including social and metaphysical aspects. Buddha wasn't unique in his views just distinct and influential, he was influenced by the current spitualities of the day, Budhism mixed with Chinese philosophy and hinduism subsequently creating many versions and perspectives all over the world. And God was never really superstitious so much as evident, it was the earth and nature, your soul was union of Man and the universe, not a destinct and unique to yourself.
- cphunk0
Fictional literature is always ever-so exciting.
- planet010
(18) For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (20) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21)For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (22) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (ESV)
- Mimio0
That's all well and good Moneycide but there's a point where dogma is an affront to fact and the distinction thereafter is anything but arbitrary.
- M0NEYCIDE0
it's arbitrary in that the distinction was imposed by political and social factors outside ourselves and being perpetuated for other reasons rather than defining the two worlds of science and religion as themselves. it's inaccurate to say science and religion are incompatible and have always been in conflict in other words. that distinction is not apart them in and of themselves. no different than a lot of social anomolies and events throughout history are arbitrary.
- ephix0
hey guys, it's a tie ok?
- edd-e0
387!!!
guess who i ignored!!!
try it and do the 388th post!! ive lost so much time reading that babble.can i have it back?? god?? you there?? those kids say that you are there, so hook a jew up!! we did write "their" book for you first!!
eh?
- ********0
god = hatred
- pandasthumb0
Greetings all, I'm new to the site and just joined having been directed to this thread by a friend (who shall remain nameless). He sent me an email with some quotes from members here regarding evolution theory and creationist "science". As a biologist, I get a little distressed when I hear about the distortion and misrepresentation of science, and particularly evolution theory, that continues to be carried out by proponents of ID and other creationist pseudoscience. Normally I don't get drawn into these debates, since they really pose no genuine threat to real science, but every now and again i get bored and decide to muck in. My aim here is not to get into a theological discussion, per se, just to try and set the record straight on a couple of technical issues. I don't particularly have a problem with religion - people are free to believe whatsoever they wish as far as i'm concerned, but when religion is dressed up as science, it's a different story. You may or may not be surprised to hear that my arguments are aimed particularly at flagellum and gramme. By the way, flagellum - the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be manifestly reducible (think type-3 secretory system), so you might want to name yourself after a different fallacious argument from incredulity. I haven't heard the anti-science argument involving gramme-pos/gramme-neg bacteria, but I imagine it is as much bunkum as Behe's flagellum nonsense. Anyway, on with the show:
"chossy: the Bible teaches that the affects of sin have left nothing in the universe untouched."
Entropy happens.
flagellum
(Oct 12 07, 08:30)Entropy happens, but it has nothing to do with sin. I would be interested to hear what you think entropy actually means and even more interested in seeing some independently verifiable data showing even the slightest correllation between the execution of sinful acts and increases in entropy. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
"Pre-flood green canopy theory. No UV rays, people aged much more slowly. The idea is that there was a dense liquid water "dome" in the upper reaches of our atmosphere that created this canopy. It would have also meant that the entire planet, pole to pole, would be warm and temperate year round. Scientists have done tests that show a planet with an upright polar axis (relative to its sun's position) would have such a canopy surrounding it. Rotate the planet just a couple degrees off it's axis (as in our current axis), and the poles freeze, the canopy collapses creating a massive worldwide flood, and all the harmful rays of the sun flood in.
I'm no scientist, but I think that's more or less how the theory goes."
gramme
(Oct 12 07, 08:49)Hmmmm... where to start? First of all, WHICH scientists have shown that this imaginary shell of liquid water would ever have existed? Show me your sources. Did these mystery "scientists" publish this fantasy in a genuine peer-reviewed scientific journal, or on a creationist website like answers in genesis? Have they heard of something called gravity? How do the authors propose that this canopy of water defied it in this way? Bear in mind that if this canopy is the supposed source of the waters of the great flood, you are talking about one helluva lot of water. A quick back-of the envelope calculation tells me that in order to cover the earth up to its highest point (the top of mt. everest) God would have had to rain down somewhere in the region of 4.525×10^9 km^3 of water, or in other words 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, remember that at STP, water weighs 1g/cubic centimeter (by definition), so 4.525×10^9 km^3 = 4.525×10^21 kg (that's 45 250 00 000 000 000 000 00Kg). Exactly what was supposed to have made this utterly monumental amount of H2O levitate in the way that you describe? Oh - I forgot: you're not a scientist are you? As an aside, that amount of water, falling to earth over a period of 40 days and 40 nights would have released something in the region of 1.73584×10^25 joules/day of energy as heat (I can show you the calculation if you wish), thereby raising the earth's ambient temperature to approximately 1800 Kelvin - Noah, as someone once remarked, would have been poached, along with just about everything apart from fused quartz. The simple fact is that the biblical flood is impossible, unless you start talking about miracles, at which point you forfeit any scientific basis for you arguments whatsoever.
"not to mention, gramme, that sin has had a progressively deleterious effect. Entropy. Back then, lifespans were longer for this reason as well."
flagellumHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"No, BonSeff, schools in Kansas object to their children being taught Darwin's synthesis as fact. That is a far cry from denying "evolution"."
flagellumEvolution is taught as theory - it is way beyond the level of mere fact. In science, a fact or observation is the lowest level of understanding of a given phenomenon that one can have. Laws are a level up from facts, as they mathematically describe patterns that facts and observations follow. When you propose a self-consistent and testable explanation that unites and explains a given set of laws and observations, then you have a theory. In science, a theory is the absolute highest level of understanding of a subject that one can have. If you go to university to study the atom you study atomic theory, not atomic fact. However, you are right in saying that evolution theory is taught as being true. This is because of the staggering amount of evidence that supports it - to the point where the correctness of evolution theory is really no longer in any doubt. For well over 100 years, evolution has been opposed and attacked on numerous fronts, yet it has survived every one of those attacks and no serious argument to challenge it has ever been raised. Going back to the subject of atomic theory for a moment, it's interesting to note that atomic theory is equally as well evidenced as evolution theory (overwheliming well evidenced, I should add), but the cretinists (spelling?) never seem to have a problem with it. Why should that be I wonder?
"PonyBoy: You're way too simplistic. There are 3 acceptable interpretations of Genesis:
1. Literal 6 Day
2. Day/Age
3. Noetic FrameworkAll of these (yes, even Literal 6 Day) allow for speciation events. Just not Darwinian speciation events (because that would be unguided, blind and gradaulistic)."
flagellumRight. So exactly what kind of speciation events are you talking about, and what mechanisms for them do you propose? Evolutionary speciation events are quite well defined, as are their mechanisms.
"I'm no scientist, but I think that's more or less how the theory goes. "
Quote of the day.
Milan
(Oct 12 07, 09:09)So are you a scientist, chief?"
He might not be, chief, but I am.
"If God is who he claims to be, then he is infinitely powerful. If he is infinitely powerful, then he can create a universe or billion. If he can create a universe, he most likely does not need billions of years to put it all together.
So really, who cares how long it took God to create the world. Could have happened in six minutes for all I care. The only thing worth arguing about, IMHO, is whether science allows room for the possiblity of ID. I won't delve any further into that can of worms, as it has been flogged and flayed into oblivion on this quaint little corner of the interweb."
grammeScience, by definition, does not allow for ID because ID is manifestly untestable and unfalsifiable. Furthermore, the "designer" is an unnessessary term, as the diversity of life on earth can be explained perfectly well by naturalistic processes that we know to exist (i.e. organic chemical processes, genetic mutation, recombination and natural selection). ID thus fails the test of logical parsimony (AKA Occam's razor). On top of this, ID cannot be used to make useful predictions about the natural universe and is therefore utterly useless as a theory. You really don't explain anything by saying "God did it" (sorry - "the designer") because you have no idea HOW God did it. Evolution theory, on the other hand, lays everything out precisely and completely, in terms of just a handful of simple, elegant principles.
"you're charming, version6. But one must define what one means by "evolution". My understanding of the issue in Kansas was that they are, as I stated above, opposed to their children being taught Darwin's synthesis as fact.
Evolution can mean:
1. Change over time / speciation.
or
2. Darwinian Blind-Watchmaker type gradualism.
flagellum "Really?. In all my years of studying biology I have never heard of this dichotomy. Evolution (in a biological context) is quite clearly and explicitly defined in any highschool biology textbook. It can be summarised as follows:
1) There is a built in mechanism for the generation genetic diversity in populations of organisms (mutation/recombination).
2) The resultant genotypic variation leads to phenotypic variation between organisms of the same species.
3) External environmental pressures favour certain phenotypic characteristics over others.
4) Those organisms with characteristics better suited to reproduction in their environment will produce more offspiring, thus passing their genes on to the next generation of organisms.
5) This leads to changes in the composition of the gene pool with each generation. Genes which confer advantageous phenotypes become more prevalent in the gene pool and, over vast periods of time, these changes in gene pool composition can result and significant changes in the morphology and physiology of the species.
5) If a reproduction barrier is introduced, preventing gene flow between two or more groups within a population, this process will occur in each group independently. Eventually, after many generations, the differences between the groups will be great enough that individuals of different groups will not interbreed. At this point, the groups are considered different species.
There may be better ways to put it, but that's it in a nutshell, off the top of my head (as someone who studies biology and actually knows what he's talking about).
"That species can change over time, is indesputible."
flagellumSo what's your problem with evolution theory, other than that it has no need of your God?
"version6: what do common sense and religion have to do with teaching good science in schools? The reason that Darwin's synthesis is challenged and will continue to be, is because it lack's supporting evidence. This issue isn't about religion, it's about the data."
flagellumBullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You demonstrate either complete scientific ignorance or willful dishonesty in this statement. It never ceases to amaze how creationist will dismiss out of hand the mountain of evidence for evolution, yet will eagerly buy into a ridiculaous fantasy like the green-canopy "theory" (or whatever it's called) because it agrees with the mythology of their religion (oh but of course, this is about data, not religion, right? yeah, riiiiight). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and conclusive. I suggest you take the time to educate yourself about evolution theory - using reputable scientific sources - before trotting out this kind of tripe. Evidence for evolution includes, but is not limited to, the ubiquity of the genetic code; morphological, genetic and molecular inter-species homology; patterns of species geo-location; the presence of non-functional genes and organs in extant species; "bad design" in organisms; transitional sequences in the fossil record; and on and on and on. Simply because you are too stubborn or lazy to examine the evidence objectively does not mean that it isn't there. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to do your own research and reading on this (there are dozens of reputable popular science books that you can read on the subject and the talk origins archive has a wealth of information on evolution that you can access for free). Then, once you are familiar with the evidence for evolution, you will be qualified to challenge that evidence on scientific grounds. At present it is patently obvious that you arguing against something that you do not properly understand.
"In 7,000 some odd years of recorded human history, a new species has yet to evolve from out of the ranks of another species.
Whaddaya know? Another baseless, fraudulent claim. You might want to check this page for examples of observed instances of evolution (including speciation): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/… . One particularly good example is the evolution of a strain of flavobacterium which can metabolise nylon, a material which was only invented in the 1930's. Kind of puts the kibosh on your above horseshit statement, eh?
"Of course we, and the animals, adapt and change over time. People have generally gotten taller, longer lived, our brains have grown in weight if not intelligence. That has been irrefutably observed and catalogued. Nobody denies micro evolution."
grammeMicroevolution, the logical consequence of which (when we extrapolate over long periods of time) is macroevolution.
"I want to know the evidence. I will go where the evidence leads. So far, the evidence has led me to Intelligent Design. One cannot honestly examine the evidence and conclude otherwise, unless one has an almost pathological commitment to a materialistic philosophy."
flagellumIf you really want to know the evidence, i suggest you do your research. So far, you quite clearly haven't.
"ain't nothin version6. Check out the lovely things done under the atheistic regimes of Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin."
flagellumMao, Pol Pot and Stalin did those "lovely things" in the name of communism, not atheism. The fact that they were atheists is beside the point. And in any case, two can play that game - ever heard of the attrocities carried out in the name of God during the Crusades? Or perhaps I should remind you that Hitler was a devout and practicing catholic (I don't mention this to try to cast religion in a bad light, simply to underline the fact that your argument here is utterly fallacious).
"atheism = secular humanism = worshipping ourselves."
Buy a fucking dictionary - wrong on both counts.
"Atheists are every bit as dogmatic as the most wild-eyed, snake handling, Montana militia members. Now show me an agnostic and I'll show you someone who may not have faith, but has at least thought things through a bit more thoroughly."
grammeYou're completely ass-backwards here - not believing in something for which there is not a shred of evidence is logical, not dogmatic. Your grasp of the English language is obviously rather tenuous.
"Most YEC's, regardless of what you may read on Wikipedia, believe that speciation occured after the flood, and evolved from generic "kinds" into the varieties of animals."
Uh oh, more pseudo-science. Baraminology is a laughable excuse for a taxonomic system. I challenge you to give a single self-consistent definition (without resorting to using examples) of what one of these supposed "kinds" actually is. Let's be honest here - baraminology was invented to cirumnavigate the impossibility of Noah being able to build a boat big enough to hold 2 members of every animal species on earth.
"Incredulosity is the word you are looking for."
Nope, the word he's looking for is incredulity.
Anyhoo, that's all I can be arsed with for now. I haven't read through the entire thread - to do so would take forever - but I've tried to answer as many points as possible. I hope I wasn't too offensive in my tone, but hey! I'll start being nicer when you start being smarter.
Cheers,
Pandasthumb
- ********0
i am not going to read that. not on a friday.
- ********0
Enter response:I am just watching and waiting for this thread to get to 665.
- detritus0
"I'm new to the site and just joined having been directed to this thread by a friend (who shall remain nameless). As a biologist, I get a little distressed when I hear about the distortion and misrepresentation of science".
Shit! I wish I'd thought of doing this - I've got loads of professional scientist friends.. Well done, whoever the bright spark here is.
pandasthumb - welcome! I hope you don't spend the entirety of your stay here arguing with Flagellum - he's been doing it for years and relies upon the fact that most people here are designers who don't share the same extremes of his conviction or don't really have the academic absolutes that are required to cut through his spurious claims in the judicial fashion that would be needed to get him to Just Shut The Fuck Up (myself included, as much as I may read up on 'science').
Thank you very much for your input - if there were more people here with your level of certainty and education, it would quickly quash this tired an ever-mored debate.
- detritus0
'ever-mired' debate, even.