Creationists Go Round And Round

[Quiet One 15]

Must...refrain...from...long...post...

[YHR 0]

Remember the Earth is only 7.000 yrs old.

And what does it matter with it is 7 thousand years old or 7 billion years old. You and everyone else will be lucky to get a 100 out if, so make the best of it. I know I am.

[YHR 0]

Must...refrain...from...long...post...

That is to bad. Might have been fun.

[Schumikonen 2]

Change that to "and theory" and we have agreement.

Our problem is our inherent superiority complex on both sides.

My theory is both sides are so far away from knowing much about anything the discussion is almost pointless. The universe is vast and our minds small. We do the best we can, but frankly it ain't much.

[Max Mosley 2]

I look at the science community and how some of it(certianly not all of it) looks down at creationists. But really with an attitude like that, who are the closed minded ones???? Those who believe in only what they understand???? Be very careful who you call stupid and naive.

No, pretty much all of the scientific community regards creationists as stupid. And rightly so.

Are you willing to bet the farm on only what you understand. What about the millions of things we don't understand. Are you just going to shrug you shoulders and say oh well, I don't understand it, so why do I care.

We don't have to bet anything. God doesn't want you to believe in a book over your own (God-given) intelligence and conscience.

Change that to "and theory" and we have agreement.

Our problem is our inherent superiority complex on both sides.

My theory is both sides are so far away from knowing much about anything the discussion is almost pointless. The universe is vast and our minds small. We do the best we can, but frankly it ain't much.

Nice try, but no cigar. Once upon a time Christians tried to force their views on everyone else. Now it is they who defend anyone's right to say anything, no matter how silly, or even how much it contradicts Christianity. With all logic against them, they try to pretend that all views are equally good (bad?). But it doesn't work like that my friend.

You see, most atheists have a good idea what Christianity is about. I myself was raised in a Christian family and attended Church most weeks until I was 22. I know more about Christian theology than most Christians (judging by my experience in Church). I'll wager people like Andres do too.

You are not trying to tell me that creationists know much about science? You think Ash has ever read a book on evolution? They strike me as being totally and utterly uneducated compared to people like Andres, who makes sure he understands both sides of an argument before forming a view. Look around at the evidence - creationists are just dumb people.

Now, on the matter at hand, you are trying to pretend that science and religion are equally dogmatic. It doesn't work like that. Go into any science lecture about a controversial topic like the Big Bang, stick your hand up and ask the lecturer what happened at the moment of the Big Bang and how sure he is about it all. Then go to any Church, stick you hand up and ask the preacher what the Muslims have to say about Jesus, and how sure he is that Jesus wasn't a con-man. You will get very different reactions. (I know because I've tried it.)

Must...refrain...from...long...post...

That is a great pity.

[Quiet One 15]

No, pretty much all of the scientific community regards creationists as stupid. And rightly so.

We don't have to bet anything. God doesn't want you to believe in a book over your own (God-given) intelligence and conscience.

Nice try, but no cigar. Once upon a time Christians tried to force their views on everyone else. Now it is they who defend anyone's right to say anything, no matter how silly, or even how much it contradicts Christianity. With all logic against them, they try to pretend that all views are equally good (bad?). But it doesn't work like that my friend.

You see, most atheists have a good idea what Christianity is about. I myself was raised in a Christian family and attended Church most weeks until I was 22. I know more about Christian theology than most Christians (judging by my experience in Church). I'll wager people like Andres do too.

You are not trying to tell me that creationists know much about science? You think Ash has ever read a book on evolution? They strike me as being totally and utterly uneducated compared to people like Andres, who makes sure he understands both sides of an argument before forming a view. Look around at the evidence - creationists are just dumb people.

Now, on the matter at hand, you are trying to pretend that science and religion are equally dogmatic. It doesn't work like that. Go into any science lecture about a controversial topic like the Big Bang, stick your hand up and ask the lecturer what happened at the moment of the Big Bang and how sure he is about it all. Then go to any Church, stick you hand up and ask the preacher what the Muslims have to say about Jesus, and how sure he is that Jesus wasn't a con-man. You will get very different reactions. (I know because I've tried it.)

That is a great pity.

Yes I am THAT great! So there! Q.E.D.!

What? Oh, yes...back on topic. Good points there (except rising me to demi god status, I deserve better).

Instead of boring you with my ramblings, I will make you a huge favor: go read a book by Isaac Asimov called "The relativity of Wrong". It's a short book, and Asimov was the best pen at the service of spreading science in the mind of ignorant blokes like me. He writes in a really easygoing way, and it never gets too complicated to understand even for someone who knows how to a## 2+2 and little else. You don't want to read even a small book? Fine, just read the essay in that book with the same name as the book.

If you still insist after reading it that science and religion are equally right or wrong about natural phenomena, and can reply with arguments that make as much sense as Asimov's then you will have in my another convert to the Creationist cause.

[pabloh20 1]

No, pretty much all of the scientific community regards creationists as stupid. And rightly so.

We don't have to bet anything. God doesn't want you to believe in a book over your own (God-given) intelligence and conscience.

Nice try, but no cigar. Once upon a time Christians tried to force their views on everyone else. Now it is they who defend anyone's right to say anything, no matter how silly, or even how much it contradicts Christianity. With all logic against them, they try to pretend that all views are equally good (bad?). But it doesn't work like that my friend.

You see, most atheists have a good idea what Christianity is about. I myself was raised in a Christian family and attended Church most weeks until I was 22. I know more about Christian theology than most Christians (judging by my experience in Church). I'll wager people like Andres do too.

You are not trying to tell me that creationists know much about science? You think Ash has ever read a book on evolution? They strike me as being totally and utterly uneducated compared to people like Andres, who makes sure he understands both sides of an argument before forming a view. Look around at the evidence - creationists are just dumb people.

Now, on the matter at hand, you are trying to pretend that science and religion are equally dogmatic. It doesn't work like that. Go into any science lecture about a controversial topic like the Big Bang, stick your hand up and ask the lecturer what happened at the moment of the Big Bang and how sure he is about it all. Then go to any Church, stick you hand up and ask the preacher what the Muslims have to say about Jesus, and how sure he is that Jesus wasn't a con-man. You will get very different reactions. (I know because I've tried it.)

That is a great pity.

Ok, you wrote a whole post with Andres as your 'point-maker'. If that doesn't explain the error of your ways, nothing will!

[Quiet One 15]

Ok, you wrote a whole post with Andres as your 'point-maker'. If that doesn't explain the error of your ways, nothing will!

BTW, one of Ash1's copypasted article that angered me the most was the one where that Macarthur guy attacked all other religions with amazing arrogance (and utter ignorance) saying that the Bible is far superior than the Koran or the Buddhist or Hindu religious books. ("Buddhism" is barely a religion, more akin to an agnostic philosophy but what would that electronic preacher know?).

Coincidentally, I found a wonderful article about how to interpret the Koran. It was written by Tariq Ramadan and is both a great introduction on how to approach the Koran both for Muslims and non-Muslims alike and a subtle criticism against all forms of fundamentalism. Find it here if you are interested.

[goferrarigo 0]

BTW, one of Ash1's copypasted article that angered me the most was the one where that Macarthur guy attacked all other religions with amazing arrogance (and utter ignorance) saying that the Bible is far superior than the Koran or the Buddhist or Hindu religious books. ("Buddhism" is barely a religion, more akin to an agnostic philosophy but what would that electronic preacher know?).

Coincidentally, I found a wonderful article about how to interpret the Koran. It was written by Tariq Ramadan and is both a great introduction on how to approach the Koran both for Muslims and non-Muslims alike and a subtle criticism against all forms of fundamentalism. Find it here if you are interested.

Speaking about the Quaran, I am not sure if it was mentioned earlier, but i saw the movie Faitma, that 15 min Dutch movie, and i was shocked at what that guy would do to show th worst of a religion.... All religion have their good and their bad, but to highlight one's bad so much in the name of freedom of speech is just wrong...IMO...

btw, how the hell do we always end up discussing religion on this forum, with Schumikenon and Graham posts??? I leave for a few days and there are at it again, might as well revive that ' Kimi will be back' thread and continue....

[YHR 0]

No, pretty much all of the scientific community regards creationists as stupid. And rightly so.

We don't have to bet anything. God doesn't want you to believe in a book over your own (God-given) intelligence and conscience.

Nice try, but no cigar. Once upon a time Christians tried to force their views on everyone else. Now it is they who defend anyone's right to say anything, no matter how silly, or even how much it contradicts Christianity. With all logic against them, they try to pretend that all views are equally good (bad?). But it doesn't work like that my friend.

You see, most atheists have a good idea what Christianity is about. I myself was raised in a Christian family and attended Church most weeks until I was 22. I know more about Christian theology than most Christians (judging by my experience in Church). I'll wager people like Andres do too.

You are not trying to tell me that creationists know much about science? You think Ash has ever read a book on evolution? They strike me as being totally and utterly uneducated compared to people like Andres, who makes sure he understands both sides of an argument before forming a view. Look around at the evidence - creationists are just dumb people.

Now, on the matter at hand, you are trying to pretend that science and religion are equally dogmatic. It doesn't work like that. Go into any science lecture about a controversial topic like the Big Bang, stick your hand up and ask the lecturer what happened at the moment of the Big Bang and how sure he is about it all. Then go to any Church, stick you hand up and ask the preacher what the Muslims have to say about Jesus, and how sure he is that Jesus wasn't a con-man. You will get very different reactions. (I know because I've tried it.)

That is a great pity.

I am surprised Murray. IF anyone should see the inequality in that observation it is you. The perception of what is at stake is infinitely different between the two camps. The sceintific community is not made up of the ignorant masses. Ask that same question in a high level bible study group, and I bet you get a much better reaction and discussion.

No one is perfect, and I will say sometimes the scientific community attacks religious belief with a vengence like their eternity depends on them being right. I have never been able to figure that out. Almost an underlying hatred that I would equate with ignorance . Quite surprising really. The reverse is true as well with some religious groups holding up scientists as devil worshippers. Again it is ignorance that is the enemy of man, not God or Science.

If you keep an open mind and choose which religious science to read, the case for religion can be quite compelling. Of course if you have the end in mind then you will quote and read that which supports your preconceived ideas regardless of which side of the fence you sit.

[Schumikonen 2]

Speaking about the Quaran, I am not sure if it was mentioned earlier, but i saw the movie Faitma, that 15 min Dutch movie, and i was shocked at what that guy would do to show th worst of a religion.... All religion have their good and their bad, but to highlight one's bad so much in the name of freedom of speech is just wrong...IMO...

btw, how the hell do we always end up discussing religion on this forum, with Schumikenon and Graham posts??? I leave for a few days and there are at it again, might as well revive that ' Kimi will be back' thread and continue....

I am inocent When I found this thread it was two pages long already.

[Max Mosley 2]

Ok, you wrote a whole post with Andres as your 'point-maker'. If that doesn't explain the error of your ways, nothing will!

Good point! I'll be looking up his recommendations - Isaac Asimov and Tariq Ramadan. Just to rubbish them, of course.

I am surprised Murray. IF anyone should see the inequality in that observation it is you. The perception of what is at stake is infinitely different between the two camps. The sceintific community is not made up of the ignorant masses. Ask that same question in a high level bible study group, and I bet you get a much better reaction and discussion.

You cannot be serious! You're telling me that if I go to a typical Bible study group, bring the Koran with me and argue that Islam is better than Christianity we'll all have a nice discussion about the evidence and arguments for each point of view? Perhaps I could lead a prayer to Allah at the end too? As usual you assume that I've never been to a Bible study group. In fact I have and I can tell the forum that they are just as dogmatic as the rest of the Church. On the other hand, you could go to a science lecture for the general public, and the scientist would give you a balanced answer. Try it.

Plus, why does it matter who the sermon or lecture is aimed at? If the preacher is not sure of his facts he should not pretend to be sure. I think you've let the cat out of the bag here, YHR. The Church brainwashes the masses, as I've already discovered for myself.

If you keep an open mind and choose which religious science to read, the case for religion can be quite compelling. Of course if you have the end in mind then you will quote and read that which supports your preconceived ideas regardless of which side of the fence you sit.

There is no good science supporting creationism. Only very badly mis-informed people think there is, and that is why they get attacked so vehemently by those who know better.

[Schumikonen 2]

Now, on the matter at hand, you are trying to pretend that science and religion are equally dogmatic. It doesn't work like that. Go into any science lecture about a controversial topic like the Big Bang, stick your hand up and ask the lecturer what happened at the moment of the Big Bang and how sure he is about it all. Then go to any Church, stick you hand up and ask the preacher what the Muslims have to say about Jesus, and how sure he is that Jesus wasn't a con-man. You will get very different reactions. (I know because I've tried it.)

That is a great pity.

I am pretty sure that you will not get the same reaction in every church as you will not get the same reaction for scientists and/or atheist regarding this kind of topics.

[Max Mosley 2]

I am innocent When I found this thread it was two pages long already.

The Lord your God will be the judge (and executioner) of that. I'll see you in Hell, my friend.

[Max Mosley 2]

I am pretty sure that you will not get the same reaction in every church as you will not get the same reaction for scientists and/or atheist regarding this kind of topics.

I challenge you to find me a Church where I can argue that the Koran is as right and as holy as the Bible.

And btw, any scientist will give the same answer to those questions I suggested asking.

[Schumikonen 2]

The Lord your God will be the judge (and executioner) of that. I'll see you in Hell, my friend.

I am not that sure that I will be allow to visit you threre

[Schumikonen 2]

I challenge you to find me a Church where I can argue that the Koran is as right and as holy as the Bible.

And btw, any scientist will give the same answer to those questions I suggested asking.

I can also suggest some question that will be answer in the same way in any christian church.

There are pleny of churches you can go and do that, but they will never accept your point of view because is not compatible with the bible and the bible is their law, as long as they believe in the bible you will not be successful in that argument because they have first hand experience with God and there's no way to deny that with words.

[Max Mosley 2]

Surely folk in Heaven will be able to talk to me down in Hell still? Wouldn't be much of a paradise without being able to chat to me now would it?

And I agree with your second post - Christians are far more dogmatic and sure of themselves than scientists, though I disagree that they have personal experience of God (many Christians don't even claim to; the others are perhaps imagining it) and either way, they still have to choose how to interpret the Bible even if they think they've had a religious experience.

[goferrarigo 0]

I am inocent When I found this thread it was two pages long already.

Sorry Schumikenon, as i said above haven't gone tthrought the thread in much detail (about Fitna). I saw you posting on this page and assumed you and Graham had got into it again.. Sorry my bad....

[maure 1]

Are you sure about that?????????? That is the trouble with science. Thye only tell you the side that substantiates the theory they are trying to present.

Change the atmospheric pressure and that water will boil at a much different temperature.

That's the point, my friend. Are you changing atmospheric pressure on faith? Nope. Atmospheric pressure is neither random nor a phantom variable. One can account for such discrepancies independently of the observer... thus, sicence,... and _no_ it has nothing to do with "substantiating" any theory.

I'll give you a simpler experiment for you to get to grips with the concept of science. I formulate the hypothesis that people have as many fingers as toes. I posit that one can verify this by the following methodology: "put a black mark on one unmarked finger and on one unmarked toe, then repeat, When you are out of fingers to mark, you are out of toes to mark". This methodology can be implemented by any human on earth in order to validate the hypothesis. There is no room for faith... and _no_ those people that have lost a finger or have an extra toe don't invalidate the generalizability of the hypothesis.

Issues of faith are, by definition, lacking in methodology and proof. If they had either, they would not be issues of faith...

[maure 1]

Yeah. What did the Romans science ever do for us?

Good grief, I agree with Maure. Must lie down.

The joy of being you.

[maure 1]

Ok I got a few minutes. Here are a few points to ponder. This is for people on both sides of the argument

With an open mind read the following litlle story

Suppose you have an ant farm and you want to leave instructions with your ants that will help keep them safe while you are out for the next 2 years. While you're at it explain the world as you know it to them, and touch on space travel as well. Communicate this to them in a form they understand. Try not to make any mistakes. Tell them you are going to send somebody back to check on them in about a year.

No lets say suppose( you really have to use your imagination here) you can turn your son into an ant for a week, and you send him back to the ants. You tell your son you better go down there and clue them in. I'm not so sure they understood what I was telling them. Just try and explain it to them because I'm too busy. Just call me on the communication device and let me know how things are going. Chances are you might have trouble with some, and they will probably want to kill you. However take this antitoxin, it will neutralize the ant bite and return you to your human status. During the week you son makes great progress living with the ants. He explains many things, and his knowledge of things they know nothing about amazes them. Now your son is making great progress giving them new instructions based on their new found knowlege. Now lets suppose while your son is being an ant, the queen ant has him taken out because she perceives you as a threat and that is how ants deal with threats. They don't know any different or don't understand anything else except being an ant. You kind of expected this might happen. So they bite your son and roll him in a hole. The antitoxin kicks in and your son begins the return to becoming a human. Its a four day process.

Now when readng the story above, and with a little imagination, doesn't that sound like a probable outcome

Image what a human would seem like to the ant. How accurately could you have communicated everything you know to these ants using their form of comminication . Your human knowledge of the world is impossible for them to comprehend. They just can't do it know matter how hard they try. They do they best they can, but they are frankly incapable of grasping some of the concepts.

Humans have a tendency to think that we are the highest order. We are after all the most intelligent species on the plant. We have been able to explain a lot of things, but I am a firm believer in you can only understand what you are capable of understanding. Human science frankly leaves too much unexplained. Like my little fairy tale above, I feel we are the ants, and I am not so foolish as to believe that all I know and undertand is all that there is to know and understand. Are you???? Our own history has shown us that. We keep turning pages, and the arrogance of our species is our worst enemy. Wasn't it in 1921 some science publication made the claim that there was nothing else left to discover!!!!! Good grief how wrong was that.

I look at the science community and how some of it(certianly not all of it) looks down at creationists. But really with an attitude like that, who are the closed minded ones???? Those who believe in only what they understand???? Be very careful who you call stupid and naive. Are you willing to bet the farm on only what you understand. What about the millions of things we don't understand. Are you just going to shrug you shoulders and say oh well, I don't understand it, so why do I care.

If you are still with me.

Try explain the color red to a blind man

Read the 1920 world book encyclopedia. Now tell me how accurate our scientific community is. This book is only 90 years old, and look at all the inaccuracies presented as truths. People who are ready to trust their lives to human science need to contemplate a little. Especially if you are going around calling people of faith stupid.

On the flip side creationist who think they know it all are making exactly the same mistake. The common ground in both camps is an unbelievable amount of unknowns.

You keep missing the point. This is not an issue of what is superior. This is an issue of different domains of knowledge and levels of explanation.

For example, no amount of psychological insight can substitute the engineering required to build a bridge... and neither can faith. Engineering and psychology are different domains of knowledge.

For example, no amount of musical dexterity can substitute the medical knowledge to carry out surgery... and neither can faith. Music and medicine are different domains of knowledge.

And, of course, no amount of expertise in thermodinamics can help a person that has lost a love one while faith in a heaven (or what not) can be a reasuring thought for some people.

Religion cannot, by definition, intrude in the sciences any more than it can ensure winnings at a blackjack table. Thus, creationism can be a creed and be a profoundly satisfactory one at that. But as science, it fails the first test... not because of lack of veridity but because its veridity is impossible to verify, something that is _unacceptable_ in the sciences.

[HandyNZL 1]

Circa 300AD Flavius Velerius Constantinus aka Constantine the Great converts to Christianity and in a fairly quick swoop Christianity becomes THE religion. So it takes 300-years, of barely written word, to become the "truth".

In 1859, Charles Darwin, a Anglican, and weary of a vengeful church, publishes "On the Origin of Species".

Humanity takes sides, creationism versus evolution. The race is on to find the "missing link".

Germans find Neanderthal man, with fossil records dating to 40,000 years in 1863, in the Neander Valley.

Much conjecture takes place at the time and a Dutchman, Bouvier (sp), goes in search of the missing link in the Dutch East Indies. After four years he (well, his team) discovers a skull cap and leg, and going by the consensus of the times, he works from a formula that the "missing link" must have a brain half the size of modern man, and twice the size of a modern ape. From his calculations his "apeman/manape" doesn't fit into this criteria, so he changes the formula. What he has discovered however turns out to be homo-erectus, circa 800,000 years ago.

Some years after that, the hoax, Piltdown Man is discovered in a drainage ditch. Now, the political background must be observed for this particular "discovery". It is 1912...the Germans have discovered Neanderthal Man, but the Brits have nothing, and these skull fragments, and jaw fit perfectly into the half size brain theory. No-one has ever been proved to have been the fraudster, but it was a fraud that offset science for almost 50-years, even though in that time, an Australian working in South Africa is delivered a crate containing fossilised remains of what becomes to be known as Taung Child, as they were found in the Taung Valley.

He is discredited, even though it is the 1920's, by the very same men that have accredited Piltdown Man. Taung Child dates to 2-2,500,000 years ago.

In the 50's, once Piltdown man is discredited, science now agrees that it is not necessarily true, that our ancestor that stands halfway between modern man, and ancient ape, need have brain size as the required marker, but that the use of tools (ie stone technology) should gauge the "link".

Again in Africa, TWO species are found in the same strata of rock, both amongst stoneage tools. One, with the size of a brain roughly half that as ours, but with a larger jaw, and one with more human like features, but with a much smaller brain. Either could have been the "toolmaker", but both appeared to use the tools. I forget the names given to these ancient men, but the guy that found them was 59....odd thing to remember...but i digress.

Of more importance was that both these men co-existed. That instead of thinking as human evolution to be a straight line, it should be viewed as a tree with branches. But all trees have one trunk....

So the search begins for the first trunk. In the mid 1970's, in Ethiopia, the eldest dated fossilised remains of ancient man are found, this time in rock strata of 3.5-4,000,000 years old. Of more importance is the completeness of the skeleton. Over 50% survived the years, and what was missing on one side, was present on the other side of the skeleton. This find was called "Lucy" in reference to the Beatles song, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds...a song played that night as the scientists celebrated their find for that day.

Lucy was about 3-1/2' tall, would have weighed about 35-40kg, and is envisaged as a tree dweller. What sets her apart from the apes is the one thing that actually separates mankind from ape (and why this thought never crossed anyones minds until the 1970's is beyond me) - she walked upright...the hands were developing as hands...not hands to walk on...and her feet were developing as feet to walk on, and not feet to swing from trees. Whilst there was no evidence of tools or tool use, there would be little doubt that she would have used simple tools, much in the same way that modern chimpanzees do by sticking a reed or stick into an ant hill like a dipstick to collect ants for eating.

Which brings us to 2008. Almost 150 years since Darwins first paper on evolution. Strangely also the relative halfway point of Christianity being accepted as the one religion throughout most of Europe. At that point, Christians were still being thrown the the lions. Today, scientists, as then, are being thrown to the "lions" by the Church.

So this begs the question, to me anyway, "what will happen by 2159? 300 years after Darwins revolutionary ideas?

Was Christianity, too, not just an idea when it started out?

The Church has worked very hard for 1700years to persecute those that stood against it. Thousands have died for having faith in something else, being heretics, having a free (open) mind. Wars have been waged based on religion. Innocent children murdered. Babies and infants drowned. All in the name of "religion".

How many have died in the last 150-years following the path mapped out by Darwin?

Humans have this need to feel safe, and not fear dying, so turn to a faith that says they will have an afterlife. This is a natural fear response. As Roosevelt once said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

I will back Darwin. I will back all those scientists that have walked along his path. I will believe in physical truths.

If you want to discredit science as devils play, or if you need to have a faith in an almighty "thing", then that is your choice. But do not persecute those that do not believe in what you believe in. Nor force feed them your views.

If you need to have something that gives you a meaning to life, then have a child, and look into your babies eyes, and tell me then, if that is not the very reason for you to be here.

[YHR 0]

Good point! I'll be looking up his recommendations - Isaac Asimov and Tariq Ramadan. Just to rubbish them, of course.

You cannot be serious! You're telling me that if I go to a typical Bible study group, bring the Koran with me and argue that Islam is better than Christianity we'll all have a nice discussion about the evidence and arguments for each point of view? Perhaps I could lead a prayer to Allah at the end too? As usual you assume that I've never been to a Bible study group. In fact I have and I can tell the forum that they are just as dogmatic as the rest of the Church. On the other hand, you could go to a science lecture for the general public, and the scientist would give you a balanced answer. Try it.Plus, why does it matter who the sermon or lecture is aimed at? If the preacher is not sure of his facts he should not pretend to be sure. I think you've let the cat out of the bag here, YHR. The Church brainwashes the masses, as I've already discovered for myself.

There is no good science supporting creationism. Only very badly mis-informed people think there is, and that is why they get attacked so vehemently by those who know better.

Yes I am absolutely serious. Remain respectful and you will be given the same courtesy in return. Again the failure of man is being used as the judgement against religion. Sorry your life experiences around religion have not been good, and I understand your opinion. Unfortunately a view shared by many. History shows men of religion have commited terrible crimes agains humanity. Unfortuntely the anger against these mortal men is directed at God, and used as proof and a tool to whip up hatred against anything religious. Flawed logic, but people seem content embracing it.

have a read

[cavallino 2]

Read the 1920 world book encyclopedia. Now tell me how accurate our scientific community is. This book is only 90 years old, and look at all the inaccuracies presented as truths. People who are ready to trust their lives to human science need to contemplate a little. Especially if you are going around calling people of faith stupid.

There is way too much to comment on in this thread, I'll concentrate on some bits, like this commonly held misbelief that science reversed itself about a hundred years ago and all the science before that is wrong. That is patently untrue. Classical physics isn't wrong, it was merely insufficient on very small scale and huge velocities to put it crudely. Classical physics worked and still works beautifully. The book from the 1920s is not inaccurate, it isn't wrong. Which is why as a science student I spend years learning pre - 1920 physics.

Open up the 90 year old book. Find out what doesn't work. Electromagnetism still works, still a beautiful, towering achievement in human understanding of the world, all in Maxwell's 4 little equations. Gravitation, newton's laws? They still work perfectly fine at any imaginable speed that anything human made has attained. Thermodynamics? Thermodynamics still works perfectly fine, and it is the first thing that crude metaphysical theories violate. Classical physics is limited, it is not wrong, it was never wrong. A lot of things that you use every day are designed and work based on classical physics.

It is absolutely laughable to compare the 'accuracy' of the scientific community to religions, who have never explained anything 'accurately'.