Creationists Go Round And Round

[YHR 0]

Exactly my point! We USED to rip out peoples hearts, but that seems quite barbaric now. Why? How do you know their god(s) was not the true god? What makes your biblical god any more valid than theirs?

If I told you that your god is false and that Zeus and his gang are the true gods and that the sun is really Apollo and his chariot going across sky, you would (rightfully so) say that's ridiculous. Why? Science and observation has shown us the true nature of the sun. You (I hope) accept the math and physics that allowed us to slam the door on the Greek Gods, however, you choose to ignore the same math and physics that chip away at the bible?

As far as the "science of the day" reference above goes:

Back in the day, religion WAS science. It was the only way we had to explain the things we saw that were beyond our understanding. As the true nature of the universe began to slowly reveal itself to us, the nature of reality and the supernatural began to contradict one another.

Do you realize that the catholic church only just recently apologized (after 300 years!)to Galileo for excommunicating him and imprisoning him in his home for the rest of his life for the revelations he made (which we have all known to be true for quite a while)!! When was the last profound theological discovery that has propelled mankind forwards - either in quality of life or understanding of life? Religious dogma is a broken record that forces our eyes closed in the face of the blinding light of truth.

---On edit, I always get sucked into this argument which is (and always has been) pointless. Nothing I can say will change your mind and vice-versa. If believing what you do makes you feel good - then enjoy! If you're right, we'll know when we die. If I'm right, we wont. LOL

You are really on to something there.

[Schumikonen 2]

Exactly my point! We USED to rip out peoples hearts, but that seems quite barbaric now. Why? How do you know their god(s) was not the true god? What makes your biblical god any more valid than theirs?

If I told you that your god is false and that Zeus and his gang are the true gods and that the sun is really Apollo and his chariot going across sky, you would (rightfully so) say that's ridiculous. Why? Science and observation has shown us the true nature of the sun. You (I hope) accept the math and physics that allowed us to slam the door on the Greek Gods, however, you choose to ignore the same math and physics that chip away at the bible?

As far as the "science of the day" reference above goes:

Back in the day, religion WAS science. It was the only way we had to explain the things we saw that were beyond our understanding. As the true nature of the universe began to slowly reveal itself to us, the nature of reality and the supernatural began to contradict one another.

Do you realize that the catholic church only just recently apologized (after 300 years!)to Galileo for excommunicating him and imprisoning him in his home for the rest of his life for the revelations he made (which we have all known to be true for quite a while)!! When was the last profound theological discovery that has propelled mankind forwards - either in quality of life or understanding of life? Religious dogma is a broken record that forces our eyes closed in the face of the blinding light of truth.

---On edit, I always get sucked into this argument which is (and always has been) pointless. Nothing I can say will change your mind and vice-versa. If believing what you do makes you feel good - then enjoy! If you're right, we'll know when we die. If I'm right, we wont. LOL

The problem here in what was done before by religious groups was not what the bible command them to do, Jesus came and was killed and he didn't even fight for his life, Peter tried to fight but Jesus stopped him, the Jews brought a sinner woman who was soppose to be killed because of the law and Jesus set her free, Peter, Paul and many others christians died without fighting like Jesus did, Jesus said "whoever loose his life because of me will have eternal life" he never told anyone to fight, to defend himself or to kill anyone, I can tell you that all religions are corrupted by men commadments some in a worse way than others but even teh groups I congregate with have this commandments that they call church commandments and I don't agree with certains things they do and I let them know that, what I do is this, I don't participate in thoses things I don't agree with and I try to let as many people as I can to know what is wrong and why.

like you said catholic church apologized for that and many other things when they did that and many other things like Crusades they were not based on the bible and that is why they are apologizing today, because today's people knows that, at that time bible was not a common book and many people was killed just for having a bible that was that time problem, today we know what Jesus said, what he did and what we should do, there are still a lot of people who don't understand this in church but they are being thought about it.

[Max Mosley 2]

Faith and knowledge are incompatible becuase faith requires trust on unknowable things. If they were knowable, they would not require faith.

When I speak of not thinking or questioning, I am not talking about shutting down one's brain but about the necessity to avoid questioning the dogmas and precepts of one's religion. I don't mean to say that it is impossible for you to question your religion. I mean to say that if you do so with honesty, you will eventually give up on your faith. Again, this is not because there is something wrong with religion but because religion is meant to be followed not understood.

Observe what YHR says. He demands "When it is proven as law, let me know". Image if he were to apply the same demands of proof to his religion. Thus, my advice to him.. have faith and let it go.

No, I disagree, at least to some extent. Some (most?) religious leaders would indeed have you follow them without thinking, but religion doesn't have to be that way. Religion would be better if people were encouraged to question the dogmas of their leaders. We would have fewer suicide bombers and fewer cases of AIDS in Africa. Obviously we can't prove that God exists, but there is no strong argument to believe that He doesn't, either, so faith or hope in some kinds of God(s) is not incompatible with our intelligence and conscience. Conversely all human knowledge requires trust or choice on some very fundamental level.

I don't mean to be rude (for once) but intelligence is an under-used resource in religion. When choosing your interpretation of Christianity for example, you should apply your own (in that case God-given) intelligence and conscience to the problem, rather than simply hoping that a book is perfect, even when it goes against your own sense of right and wrong. These criteria could be used to vastly improve Christianity and most religions imho.

Personally I suspect that many religious leaders understand all the above, but choose not to make it public knowledge for a variety of reasons. Someone like Rowan Williams probably doesn't say it because some Anglicans need to believe in the paraphernalia literally. Some evangelicals probably don't say it because it would hurt ticket sales.

As I said I haven't got the energy to debate this. There is no reason to believe anything is going to be accomplished by carrying this on.

Thought that might happen. And the school system doesn't mislead people. Evolution is certainly a theory, and they told me so in school, both in science lessons and in religious education. Btw laws are just theories too - for example, we now know that Newton's laws of motion are not always true. Laws are not proven in any sense of the word. (If you want to understand this properly, read Karl Popper on falsifiability.)

[YHR 0]

Thought that might happen. And the school system doesn't mislead people. Evolution is certainly a theory, and they told me so in school, both in science lessons and in religious education. Btw laws are just theories too - for example, we now know that Newton's laws of motion are not always true. Laws are not proven in any sense of the word. (If you want to understand this properly, read Karl Popper on falsifiability.)

It can and does.

It has been a good discussion, other then the personal jabs I've suffered. I just can't spend the proper time required to go further with this.

Maybe you were given a one liner about how evolution was a theory , but I bet it wasn't much more then that. They should spend equal time teaching and discussing the holes in the evolution theory as well. I know that doesn't happen where I live.

The human capability to understand everything in the universe is limited by our intellegence and our sensory abilities. Does a person blind from birth have any real perception of color, and yet, you and I know it exists. We are a product of our environment and naturally limited by what we have the ability to understand. There maybe things that are outside of that?

Your last post here is pretty agreeable to me. A lot of people have made assumptions about me and my beliefs because I choose to present the alternative. I believe in the wisdom of Jesus Christ, and I believe in God, because IMO to do otherwise is self limiting, and frankly to finite for me.

[Minchia! 0]

It can and does.

It has been a good discussion, other then the personal jabs I've suffered. I just can't spend the proper time required to go further with this.

Maybe you were given a one liner about how evolution was a theory , but I bet it wasn't much more then that. They should spend equal time teaching and discussing the holes in the evolution theory as well. I know that doesn't happen where I live.

The human capability to understand everything in the universe is limited by our intellegence and our sensory abilities. Does a person blind from birth have any real perception of color, and yet, you and I know it exists. We are a product of our environment and naturally limited by what we have the ability to understand. There maybe things that are outside of that?

Your last post here is pretty agreeable to me. A lot of people have made assumptions about me and my beliefs because I choose to present the alternative. I believe in the wisdom of Jesus Christ, and I believe in God, because IMO to do otherwise is self limiting, and frankly to finite for me.

I hope you took no offense at anything I said. Its all in the name of a good debate and discovery (for all parties involved). That being said, I will offer one final nugget for you all to chew on (and then I promise to shut up).

I am fully willing to give up my scientific conclusions, in fact, I would abandon my whole understanding of science and physics in light of new evidence (be it scientific or divine) that proves the other obsolete. Just as we have discovered that the earth is not flat and that it is not the center of the universe, we could be wrong about a great many things. The nature of science is to constantly try to make sense out of the observable world. I agree with evolution because it is the theory that is the most consistent with the evidence that we have to work with at this time in history, not because I have faith or believe in it. In this way I am not limited to one way of thinking. My goal is to understand what is occurring in the world around me, not to comfort my self in a mentality that has no foundation in reality.

What would it take for you to abandon your belief in the biblical god and his version of creation? Frankly, if you give me any answer other than "nothing" then I think you are being dishonest to yourself and your religion. By picking and choosing which parts of your religion you choose to believe, you invalidate it. Either believe every word of it or believe none of it.

Ciao!

[Schumikonen 2]

No, I disagree, at least to some extent. Some (most?) religious leaders would indeed have you follow them without thinking, but religion doesn't have to be that way. Religion would be better if people were encouraged to question the dogmas of their leaders. We would have fewer suicide bombers and fewer cases of AIDS in Africa. Obviously we can't prove that God exists, but there is no strong argument to believe that He doesn't, either, so faith or hope in some kinds of God(s) is not incompatible with our intelligence and conscience. Conversely all human knowledge requires trust or choice on some very fundamental level.

I don't mean to be rude (for once) but intelligence is an under-used resource in religion. When choosing your interpretation of Christianity for example, you should apply your own (in that case God-given) intelligence and conscience to the problem, rather than simply hoping that a book is perfect, even when it goes against your own sense of right and wrong. These criteria could be used to vastly improve Christianity and most religions imho.

Personally I suspect that many religious leaders understand all the above, but choose not to make it public knowledge for a variety of reasons. Someone like Rowan Williams probably doesn't say it because some Anglicans need to believe in the paraphernalia literally. Some evangelicals probably don't say it because it would hurt ticket sales.

Thought that might happen. And the school system doesn't mislead people. Evolution is certainly a theory, and they told me so in school, both in science lessons and in religious education. Btw laws are just theories too - for example, we now know that Newton's laws of motion are not always true. Laws are not proven in any sense of the word. (If you want to understand this properly, read Karl Popper on falsifiability.)

I really like this post, if evolution is a theory and there is not a strong argument to believe that God doesn't exist then the creation can not be discarded yet, I guess in the end we all have to say the same "we don't know how we got here" we cna have all the ideas but in the end there's no way to make sure we have the right point of view, some peole believe in evolution by itself, other believe in creationism in six literal days (I am against that, I think thoses six day were periods intead of 24 hours, it couldn't be 24 when in one fo thoses period the sun came to be and so there was no days or nights before that point) I beleive in both together I believe God created everything even evolution and he controlled it, but thoses are just theories too, I also believe that the bible was written that way because that way could understood from people from all times.

[Oli 1]

I beleive in both together I believe God created everything even evolution and he controlled it, but thoses are just theories too

That is a perfectly reasonable belief- I don't happen to believe in God myself but that's a perfectly acceptable POV to have. It's the curious idea (particularly prevelant in the USA) that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive that annoys most secular people who feel that evolution should be taught in schools as our best available theory of species development based on overwhelming observable evidence.

[YHR 0]

I hope you took no offense at anything I said. Its all in the name of a good debate and discovery (for all parties involved). That being said, I will offer one final nugget for you all to chew on (and then I promise to shut up).

I am fully willing to give up my scientific conclusions, in fact, I would abandon my whole understanding of science and physics in light of new evidence (be it scientific or divine) that proves the other obsolete. Just as we have discovered that the earth is not flat and that it is not the center of the universe, we could be wrong about a great many things. The nature of science is to constantly try to make sense out of the observable world. I agree with evolution because it is the theory that is the most consistent with the evidence that we have to work with at this time in history, not because I have faith or believe in it. In this way I am not limited to one way of thinking. My goal is to understand what is occurring in the world around me, not to comfort my self in a mentality that has no foundation in reality.

What would it take for you to abandon your belief in the biblical god and his version of creation? Frankly, if you give me any answer other than "nothing" then I think you are being dishonest to yourself and your religion. By picking and choosing which parts of your religion you choose to believe, you invalidate it. Either believe every word of it or believe none of it.

Ciao!

I told myself I was done with this Oh well.

Some people are lucky enough to have God moments in life that defy explanation. Have one of those and your view point might change.

Because I believe our species may be incapable of grasping the complexity of it all, I will always consider the existence of God. Are you so sure in human intelligence and sensory perception that you are willing to consider nothing outside of that????? To do that would be like the ant who has no idea of the other world around it because it doesn't have the tools nor the intellect to make sense of what you and I know. Because the ant doesn't understand internal combustion ,nor has the physical attributes to conduct the experiments necessary to determine the possibility doesn't mean internal combustion is not possible.

If science teaches us anything, it is the wonder of awe and discovery. Look at the world around you. Understand that all the species perception of reality is based on it's ability to understand its environment. Science tells us that we are just another species. So do we say that reality perception does not affect us. That wouldn't make much sense would it, when it matters to every other species around us????

Think about it.

[HandyNZL 1]

I told myself I was done with this Oh well.

Some people are lucky enough to have God moments in life that defy explanation. Have one of those and your view point might change.

Because I believe our species may be incapable of grasping the complexity of it all, I will always consider the existence of God. Are you so sure in human intelligence and sensory perception that you are willing to consider nothing outside of that????? To do that would be like the ant who has no idea of the other world around it because it doesn't have the tools nor the intellect to make sense of what you and I know. Because the ant doesn't understand internal combustion ,nor has the physical attributes to conduct the experiments neccesary to determine the possibility doesn't mean internal combustion is not possible.

If science teaches us anything, it is the wonder of awe and discovery. Look at the world around you. Understand that all the species perception of reality is based on it's ability to understand its environment. Science tells us we just another species. So do we say that reality perception does not affect us. That wouldn't maske much sense would it, when it matters to every other species around us????

Think about it.

So are you saying that we are not "just another species"?

[YHR 0]

So are you saying that we are not "just another species"?

I'll be damned if a do and damned if I don't Doesn't really matter in the context it was delivered.

[maure 1]

That may be true. However, faith and patriotism, considered by many to be virtues, only widen the gaps between our cultures and ideologies. They give the corrupt and the greedy an easy platform to persuade the masses. Any hope we have as a species depends (in my armchair sociologist opinion) on our ability to evolve beyond this way of thinking. Religion was useful in its time as a way of establishing order and consensus, but in this age of information and communication, it seems obsolete.

For exapmle, there are some 1 billion muslims in the world. If Islam were to be responsible for entitlement to terrorism (as Al Qaeda claims), the world would be over in minutes.

Also, consider that the worst catastrophies in history (in terms of human suffering and amount of deaths) have been the two World Wars and Communism, which account for well over 100 million lives exterminated. None of these were motivated by religion.

The ugliest aspects of religion are but an expression of the ugliest aspects of humanity. Interestingly, religion often serves to moderate the worst in people... for some people.

Patriotism is a different matter.

[maure 1]

1.IS there something perverse about pointing out the difference between theory and Law and the importance of knowing the difference????

It is perverse to claim that christians are told by the bible to question the existence of god, the resurrection of chirst, etc, etc, and the veridity of the bible itself. It is perverse to claim that the bible asks christians to question the word of god.

It is futile to claim that "law" needs to make sense and it is a profound misunderstanding of science to _believe_ that theories have anything to do with law.

Last, if you were to demand proof of everthing from your religion to science, you would have no choice to abandon religion and to embrace science. Religion requires and needs no evidence. Science requires and needs evidence. Your insistence on the faults of science is a manifestation of your brutal misunderstanding of what science is. Have you ever published in an academic journal? I have. No one believes _anything_ in science. If a theory can be disproved, it is. If it survives, it is because no one can challenge it. If creationist had anything solid to contribute, the scientific community would be thankful.

2.This is a generalization you could make up about some Christians but certainly not me. On the contrary, I have been taught one thing and considered it and am know giving the other side a fair shake, and I am seeing some things that are troubling to me. In a sense I feel I have been lied to by the popular education system. They taught me things as truth and should have been more up front with some of the assumptions that go into the theory they are so quick to teach. What's even worse is I 've allowed them to teach my Children the same thing. Now that I am approaching things from the Christian viewpoint, I can honestly say the Public school system does not allow freedom of religion, and in fact undermines it. Who gave them this authority???? You see I have walked both sides of the road, and now clearly see the inequality of how things are presented.

There is no generalization. At no point have you questioned your religion and, again, you are not doing so in this argumentation.... in fact, you are doing the same thing you have been doing everywhere else, namely, attack everything and everyone that you perceive is a challenge to your faith.

3.Who honestly wouldn't????

Where is your faith? And, more importantly, where are you looking for it?

4.Yes OK. It would be pretty hard not to applaud an event like that.

Ask yourself then why it is that when the theory does not match your beliefs, you are not applauding. Maybe it is because you don't care about understading anything and, rather, you only accept what is in agreement with what you think your faith demands of you.

5.This is comical. A scientist considers the possibilities, and I gamble my faith. Teaching an unproven 200 year old theory as law to young children is criminal. You don't see a problem with this???? Is seems a little perverse to me. I don't even give a rats a## if they consider creationism a viable counter theory. I would just be happy if they clearly identified the assumptions that are being made when they spoon feed this stuff to children and young adults.

The theory of evolution is 200 years old for a reason, namely, it has not been disproven by any evidence.

Interestingly, you do not complain about teaching _as_law_ a 2,000 year old manuscript (and yes, the bibile is law and nothing else).....

Possibly, the reason for your double standards is that you have no problem when it is your faith what is "spoon feed"....

My faith is strong and unshakable, for this reason I am happy to explore whatever science has to offer. But I call a spade a spade when I see it. Personally I have a very hard time with the 10,000 year old earth theory. However I was a little taken aback when I discovered the mechanics of carbon dating. Why didn't they teach more about the quality of the measuring stick while I was in school. They conveniently left things out. So now I am at least questioning the science that we use to determine the things that are taught. Seems like a worthwhile exercise to me.

If it is true that your faith is strong, it doesn't show. You claim that you question the existence of god, the resurrection of christ, the commandments, even the veridity of the bible itself. You claim to be entitled to question the word of god.

What difference does it make if the earth is 10,000 years or 10 billions year old.

And your position keeps getting more and more extreme....

[maure 1]

No, I disagree, at least to some extent. Some (most?) religious leaders would indeed have you follow them without thinking, but religion doesn't have to be that way. Religion would be better if people were encouraged to question the dogmas of their leaders. We would have fewer suicide bombers and fewer cases of AIDS in Africa. Obviously we can't prove that God exists, but there is no strong argument to believe that He doesn't, either, so faith or hope in some kinds of God(s) is not incompatible with our intelligence and conscience. Conversely all human knowledge requires trust or choice on some very fundamental level.

I don't mean to be rude (for once) but intelligence is an under-used resource in religion. When choosing your interpretation of Christianity for example, you should apply your own (in that case God-given) intelligence and conscience to the problem, rather than simply hoping that a book is perfect, even when it goes against your own sense of right and wrong. These criteria could be used to vastly improve Christianity and most religions imho.

Personally I suspect that many religious leaders understand all the above, but choose not to make it public knowledge for a variety of reasons. Someone like Rowan Williams probably doesn't say it because some Anglicans need to believe in the paraphernalia literally. Some evangelicals probably don't say it because it would hurt ticket sales.

Perhaps religion should be different, perhaps it should be as you say.... but it isn't, my friend, it isn't.

Because religion has claims on the unknowable, it requires divinity for its dogmas. These are a "take it of leave it" situation. Either you accept the word of god as his messengers have given it to you, or you move on with your live.

[maure 1]

I really like this post, if evolution is a theory and there is not a strong argument to believe that God doesn't exist then the creation can not be discarded yet, I guess in the end we all have to say the same "we don't know how we got here" we cna have all the ideas but in the end there's no way to make sure we have the right point of view, some peole believe in evolution by itself, other believe in creationism in six literal days (I am against that, I think thoses six day were periods intead of 24 hours, it couldn't be 24 when in one fo thoses period the sun came to be and so there was no days or nights before that point) I beleive in both together I believe God created everything even evolution and he controlled it, but thoses are just theories too, I also believe that the bible was written that way because that way could understood from people from all times.

You are correct, creationism cannot be discarded. The issue has to do with confusing religion with science (creationism is not science) _AND_ seeking to undermine science for the sake of religion (mainly because science will always win if the fight is in its own ground).

[YHR 0]

1.IS there something perverse about pointing out the difference between theory and Law and the importance of knowing the difference????

It is perverse to claim that christians are told by the bible to question the existence of god, the resurrection of chirst, etc, etc, and the veridity of the bible itself. It is perverse to claim that the bible asks christians to question the word of god.

It is futile to claim that "law" needs to make sense and it is a profound misunderstanding of science to _believe_ that theories have anything to do with law.

Last, if you were to demand proof of everthing from your religion to science, you would have no choice to abandon religion and to embrace science. Religion requires and needs no evidence. Science requires and needs evidence. Your insistence on the faults of science is a manifestation of your brutal misunderstanding of what science is. Have you ever published in an academic journal? I have. No one believes _anything_ in science. If a theory can be disproved, it is. If it survives, it is because no one can challenge it. If creationist had anything solid to contribute, the scientific community would be thankful.

2.This is a generalization you could make up about some Christians but certainly not me. On the contrary, I have been taught one thing and considered it and am know giving the other side a fair shake, and I am seeing some things that are troubling to me. In a sense I feel I have been lied to by the popular education system. They taught me things as truth and should have been more up front with some of the assumptions that go into the theory they are so quick to teach. What's even worse is I 've allowed them to teach my Children the same thing. Now that I am approaching things from the Christian viewpoint, I can honestly say the Public school system does not allow freedom of religion, and in fact undermines it. Who gave them this authority???? You see I have walked both sides of the road, and now clearly see the inequality of how things are presented.

There is no generalization. At no point have you questioned your religion and, again, you are not doing so in this argumentation.... in fact, you are doing the same thing you have been doing everywhere else, namely, attack everything and everyone that you perceive is a challenge to your faith.

3.Who honestly wouldn't????

Where is your faith? And, more importantly, where are you looking for it?

4.Yes OK. It would be pretty hard not to applaud an event like that.

Ask yourself then why it is that when the theory does not match your beliefs, you are not applauding. Maybe it is because you don't care about understading anything and, rather, you only accept what is in agreement with what you think your faith demands of you.

5.This is comical. A scientist considers the possibilities, and I gamble my faith. Teaching an unproven 200 year old theory as law to young children is criminal. You don't see a problem with this???? Is seems a little perverse to me. I don't even give a rats a## if they consider creationism a viable counter theory. I would just be happy if they clearly identified the assumptions that are being made when they spoon feed this stuff to children and young adults.

The theory of evolution is 200 years old for a reason, namely, it has not been disproven by any evidence.

Interestingly, you do not complain about teaching _as_law_ a 2,000 year old manuscript (and yes, the bibile is law and nothing else).....

Possibly, the reason for your double standards is that you have no problem when it is your faith what is "spoon feed"....

My faith is strong and unshakable, for this reason I am happy to explore whatever science has to offer. But I call a spade a spade when I see it. Personally I have a very hard time with the 10,000 year old earth theory. However I was a little taken aback when I discovered the mechanics of carbon dating. Why didn't they teach more about the quality of the measuring stick while I was in school. They conveniently left things out. So now I am at least questioning the science that we use to determine the things that are taught. Seems like a worthwhile exercise to me.

If it is true that your faith is strong, it doesn't show. You claim that you question the existence of god, the resurrection of christ, the commandments, even the veridity of the bible itself. You claim to be entitled to question the word of god.

What difference does it make if the earth is 10,000 years or 10 billions year old.

And your position keeps getting more and more extreme....

??????

you win

[Jez 0]

Can you compounded sub-atomic particles with an opinion quit yer bickering?

[Quiet One 15]

Can you compounded sub-atomic particles with an opinion quit yer bickering?

That was a good one!

[Jez 0]

Loving the new quote in your sig Andres!

[Schumikonen 2]

You are correct, creationism cannot be discarded. The issue has to do with confusing religion with science (creationism is not science) _AND_ seeking to undermine science for the sake of religion (mainly because science will always win if the fight is in its own ground).

The issue also have to do with taking the bible so literally when it talks about the beggining, many people in religion believe that everything in the bible is literal, thoses people believe that science is incorrect just because they don't match what the bible and science say but I believe both are possible and on the science side if they accept the idea of God creating everything there wouldn't be much to do with it, God would be the answer for every unknown situation, I think the best thing we can do is to accept that science needs to work by itself and we, if we really believe there is a God should let science work and wait at the end science will find God, if everything came from him science won't be able to explain everything without him, churches should be theaching this point, science is a tool that God created to show how great is his creation and one day science will find God. I have faith in this.

[Max Mosley 2]

Perhaps religion should be different, perhaps it should be as you say.... but it isn't, my friend, it isn't.

Because religion has claims on the unknowable, it requires divinity for its dogmas. These are a "take it of leave it" situation. Either you accept the word of god as his messengers have given it to you, or you move on with your live.

Your own religious beliefs are what you make them. Every Christian chooses their own variety of Christianity, from young-earth creationists to people like Don Cupitt, one of surprisingly many Anglican priests who don't believe God really exists at all. In between you have folk like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury who take some of the Bible literally but interpret other passages metaphorically, and even reject some parts outright. I understand what you're saying, but a "take it or leave it" attitude is really damaging imho. That view is encouraged by literalists for obvious reasons but it's what causes all the problems from religion. We're all free to choose what we believe; we have no choice but to choose! We should use the brains and conscience God gave us to do so.

[goferrarigo 0]

??????

you win

You don't see that everyday....

[Schumikonen 2]

I found a news today, it says that american scientist discarded the benefits of drink 8 glasses of water at day, they don't know were that info about drinking tons of water came from, the news is in spanish for thoses who can read it http://www.elperiodicomediterraneo.com/not...asp?pkid=370417 I always thought that this came from science as doctors are always recommending to drink a lot of water, now "nobody" knows where this came from, we take things for granted and suddenly they are not like that anymore and we have to reconsider everything again, but this is science, is the same about eggs, they were bad for your health but not anymore, I am also recieveing some article about saturated fat they say now that maybe eating saturated fat may be good fos us, if this continues like this Burger King will be the healthiest food on earth.

[Rainmaster 7]

Andres, like you I have been resisting posting, but I will do so and keep it short:

There is one fundamental problem with religion and science - people. History has shown that elements of both the "divine word" and science are often selectively chosen, interpreted, presented and used by people to back up their own arguments/beliefs/politics or campaigns.

At their core, both science and religion *are* compatible; what is not compatible is the intepretations that people apply. Taking science or religion too literally can be dangerous - treating something as the absolute truth can and will lead to problems.

What's important imho is to keep an open mind and to question your beliefs.

I have no more ability to understand the machinery that is the universe or the reasons for its existance than a single celled organism has the ability to comprehend a game of cricket, so I certainly do not claim that anyone who has a sense of spirituality or connection with a greater power/purpose is an idiot. That being said, the man-made, corrupted morass of congealed mucous that is organized religion is what gets me fired up.

Here are my problems with organized religion:

1. Arrogance.

Do you really think it is possible that an intelligence that supposedly created the ENTIRE universe and everything in it could possibly give a flip that little Tommy had sex before he was married or that he stole a cupcake from the grocery store??!! The vast infinite universe was created only for us and that "god" is deeply interested in the pathetic drama that is occurring on this little blue speck of dust?

2. Pettiness.

God created us so we could worship him? That sucks! We have to follow these very particular and specific rules and rituals or we burn for all eternity? Sounds like god is a kid with a complex to me. If your cancer goes into remission, you thank god for his grace - yet, if an asteroid vaporizes a childrens hospital, its gods will. It seems like he makes out like a hero no matter what.

3. Infallibility.

Because of the nature of faith, there is no way to prove god doesn't exist. If some major scientific breakthrough showed us that it is impossible for god to exist, or aliens landed on earth and told us that we were just some kids science project that went wrong, a person of faith would just say that god wanted it to appear that way. He can't lose! I could tell you that there are 6 cyborg, neo-nazi hookers floating around every person, all the time, but they are invisible and there is no way to detect them. If I can convince enough people to believe this, I have a religion.

4. (My favorite) Hypocracy

I used to know this girl who was a fanatic in a particular faith (to stay PC, I won't name it). She was not allowed by her parents to attend science class because they did not believe in molecules or some such nonsense. They completely shunned and denounced all forms of science, yet they dropped their daughter off to school in their big SUV and microwaved their lunch and used their cell phones. Do they think those things are powered by god? If they lived in a cave and hunted their own food, I would give them credit. On the other hand, scientists are the first to admit that they are wrong if new data emerges to prove otherwise. Thats the nature of science - to constantly re-examine and refine theories in search of the elusive and often unattainable truth.

So believe who/what you want! Just don't try to sell it to me.

Faith and knowledge are incompatible becuase faith requires trust on unknowable things. If they were knowable, they would not require faith.

When I speak of not thinking or questioning, I am not talking about shutting down one's brain but about the necessity to avoid questioning the dogmas and precepts of one's religion. I don't mean to say that it is impossible for you to question your religion. I mean to say that if you do so with honesty, you will eventually give up on your faith. Again, this is not because there is something wrong with religion but because religion is meant to be followed not understood.

Observe what YHR says. He demands "When it is proven as law, let me know". Image if he were to apply the same demands of proof to his religion. Thus, my advice to him.. have faith and let it go.

In all truth, you are the one denying possibilities other than ones offered by your religion. You say this once and again. You believe what you believe without need for proof or explanation while everything else is suspect or erroneous, again without need for proof or explanation. Your mistake is not on your faith but on your necessity to undermine all else to maintain your faith.

Further, your claim that "I've opened my mind to other possibilities" is, again, perverse. Are you saying that the existence of god and the veridity of the bible are questionable?

Consider that if a scientist were to demonstrate that chimps and humans do not have common ancestors by means of a valid alternative theory, (s)he would win a Nobel Prize. The scientific community would rejoice with the breakthrough.

A scientist considers the possibility of an outcome while you are gambling your faith on certainties (in this case, that modern humans were roaming the earth alongside dinosaurs). Let it go. Keep your faith.

These are just a few of the posts I enjoyed reading.

Maybe 'God' is the one who threw the stone into the pond, and the ripples are evolution.........or not

[Schumikonen 2]

Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

LiveScience Staff

LiveScience.com

Thu Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET

Earth's first animal was the ocean-drifting comb jelly, not the simple sponge, according to a new find that has shocked scientists who didn't imagine the earliest critter could be so complex.

The mystery of the first animal denizen of the planet can only be inferred from fossils and by studying related animals today. To get to the bottom of that, scientists analyzed massive volumes of genetic data to define the earliest splits at the base of the animal tree of life.

The tree of life is a hierarchy of evolutionary relationships among species that shows which groups split off on their own evolutionary path first.

The new study surprisingly found that the comb jelly was the first animal to diverge from the base of the tree, not the less complex sponge, which had previously been given the honor.

"This was a complete shocker," said study team member Casey Dunn of Brown University in Rhode Island. "So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong."

Dunn's team checked and re-checked their results and came up with the same result every time: the comb jelly came first. The results are detailed in the April 10 issue of the journal Nature, a journal that, like most respected journals, requires other scientists review a paper prior to publication.

Unlike sponges, comb jellies have connective tissues and a nervous system, and so are more complex. Though squishy and tentacled, they are not, however, true jellyfish as they lack the classic bell-shaped body and characteristic stinging cells.

The finding was unexpected because evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first. Dunn says that two evolutionary scenarios can explain why the comb jellies would actually have been first among animals. The first is that the comb jelly evolved its complexity independent of other animals after branching off to forge its own path.

The second is that the sponge evolved its simpler form from the more complex form. This second possibility underscores the fact that "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," Dunn said.

Though scientists can say which animal branched off first, they can't date precisely when this early comb jelly diverged away. "Unfortunately, we don't have fossils of the oldest comb jelly," Dunn said. "Therefore, there is no way to date the earliest jelly and determine when it diverged."

Though comb jellies are a common creature in the seas today, these modern specimens likely look very different from their early ancestors.

Dunn and his team hope that their approach will fill other gaps in the tree of life, including where the branches of many of today's species belong.

Other researchers involved in the study, funded by the National Science Foundation: Gonzalo Giribet of Harvard University, Mark Martindale of the University of Hawaii and Ward Wheeler of the American Museum of Natural History.

10 Amazing Things You Didn't Know About Animals

Greatest Mysteries: How Many Species Exist on Earth?

Life's Little Mysteries

Original Story: Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex

Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s, Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!

As we can see not all in science is as it looks or as they think it is, now we have to rethink evolution once more, move some piece to another part of the chain and this is just with the knowledge we have now, a few years from now maybe a new animal will have that honor, maybe science will give up and say that this fisrt animal is so complex that have be to form another planet where maybe evolution was the way they thought it was and that animal can here in a comet or something like that, just to protect their theory, just keep watching there's a lot more coming, stay tuned.

PS:the title says ON EARTH maybe they are already thinking about life coming form another planet and I forgot to include the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200804...risinglycomplex

[Max Mosley 2]

It's an interesting article but I think you still don't understand that scientific explanations are totally different to religious ones. The fact that scientific explanations change as we learn more is not a bad thing. If all you want is an explanation that will remain unchanged, I can easily give you one: Nature made us. That explanation is as detailed as the religious one, and it is as unchanging. There you go. I have solved all the problems in science once and for all.