|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,483
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,483 |
Religious vs Scientific arguements are pointless.
Some poeple believe one thing,
others believe something else,
and others dont believe anything.
No amount of argueing will change anybodys mind.
Its a personal choice plain and simple.
But I must say, it is quite nice to see that most of the posts in this discussion have actually been ensightful and well thought out.
Frank McCoy aka Mod-deth aka Mid Life Crisis aka SVT Doood aka mcgainer is a SCAM ARTIST
Pre98 Zetec - Some Mods
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by BP:
the difference is i understand that context and meaning of scripture in both the bible AND the koran can be bastardized by people with an agenda or point to prove. that difference seems to escape comprehension by you and other religious extremist who say the koran/islam promotes violence/terrorism.
You obviously dont understand it if you think the Bible says it wants us to kill people. And again your calling me an extremist is really laughable. I'm not out telling people they deserve to die because they don't believe. Neither am I condemning anyone. If standing up for what the Bible says is an extremist, then yes, I am one.
You don't know what the Bible or the Koran say. You rely on people to tell you what they say. I dont. I have read both and studied dilligently on each.
I'll go a little farther even and call you an extremist for saying that the Bible promotes violence and the Koran does not.   
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 32 |
ancientsanskrit: Honestly my knowlegde on further experiments following Miller's is limited at best. I just wanted to point out the faults in this one specifically because it a lot of people use it as the confirmation of spontaneous life.
Another thing I wanted to say, about evolution in school: My problem is that in all sciences, the faults and issues with current theories and models are always brought to light and discussed. With evolution, from middle school through highschool, the curriculum has been strictly in support of the evolution theory and never about what could be wrong with it. never. Sigma made a good point about how teaching alternate theories isn't realistic, but I would be happy if a teacher ever showed a class the numerous shortcomings of the most popular academic origin theory in middle/highschool science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by jthursby:
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Because SCIENCE (dead sea scrolls, etc) have shown that the translation that we have today is ACCURATE when compared to the original text.
And you know this how? You witnessed it yourself in a previous life? No, It's because somebody TOLD you to believe it! It's called "blind faith" for that reason. There is nothing there you can put your finger on. Except the bible, which I have one too, and can put MY finger on an issue of Playboy just as easily! I saw a bumper sticker today that sumed up blind faith it read;
The big bang theory, God spoke and BANG! it happened! Sounds a little "blind" to me. Look, It's not that I don't believe in a superior being, it's that a lot of us think (me included) there's more to it than that. Science PROVES there's more to it than that. All one has to do is look at birds, frogs/tadpoles, and cavemen to know there is more to it than just creationism.
To believe otherwise is indeed blind faith.
As I've already said, if it were blind faith, I would have left my beliefs in the dust already, because blind faith = shutting off brain!!
And there's more to it than simply a designer? Doesn't creationism and the fact that there was a designer show that there is more to it than simply creationism? Obviously. Science, or our world, shows that God created the world in a very orderly way. It wasn't chaos, as evolution would have you think, that this world came out of. For example, look at how close our Earth is to the sun!! If it were even the smallest increment closer, we would FRY! And if it were even the smallest increment further away, we would FREEZE! Obviously, the creator knew what he was doing SCIENTIFICALLY when he DESIGNED AND CREATED THE WORLD!!
Blind faith would be like me looking at my Computer here on my desk and saying that it came out of GOO! I would say, there's no explanation for how it got here, but it's here! And you would look at me like I was crazy and say,"Dude, somebody designed EVERY little part of that computer, and somebody put that computer together by hand, and somebody went to the trouble of putting it in a shipping box, putting it on a truck, and delivering it here, and in then end, somebody even had to hook it up!"
I would never say that, because I don't believe that anything in this world just happened to get here!! EVOLUTION NEVER TOOK PLACE!! EVOLUTION NEVER COULD CREATE THE WORLD WE HAVE!! Somebody or something designed the world, and something or somebody took the time to put it together to sustain life. That doesn't discount the scientific research!!
Quote:
Originally posted by Woodencross:
All right, if you prefer a little more meat with your potatoes then start doing some research on this topic. Go seek out the scientific findings on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and on other proof of the validity of the scripture. There has never been a time in our existence that God has asked us to believe in Him on blind faith. He says to put it to the test, find out the truth. And SCIENCE is proving the scriptures on a daily basis. I don't need BLIND FAITH to believe in my God. I look around at this world and see all I need to see to believe that something created it. I start doing some minor research and quickly find that scripture is true, and valid.
I have done plenty.
Then I suggest you do a little more!!
You will find in the history books and science books now, that very well educated people are discussing the scientific findings and how they compare to the Biblical texts. Science has not once proven the Bible wrong, and in fact, continues to confirm the text as written.
Quote:
Originally posted by Woodencross:
As for your pastor, man......I don't know what to say besides the fact that even pastors are human and are imperfect. I'm sorry you were raised with that, but if you would go read the Bible, I challenge you to find a blind faith passage in there.
Since neither you or I where there when it was writen to verify the authenticity of the document, it IS blind faith, nothing more nothing less. Sorry, you cannot prove otherwise and all your ranting and raving will not change that.
If you make this...
**Since neither you or I where there when it was writen to verify the authenticity of the document, it IS blind faith, nothing more nothing less. Sorry, you cannot prove otherwise and all your ranting and raving will not change that.**
...the basis for verifying the authenticity of everything, then in all honesty, the only reality there is, is the reality that I have lived. In fact, WWII never happened, America never came into existence, and the world didn't exist prior to my birth! This is how silly this argument is. It simply does not make any sense to believe that the only "real" things out there are those that I can see and touch. IN fact, under this basis for verifying authenticity, when I leave work, the building no longer stands there. It isn't BLIND FAITH that causes me to GO BACK TO THE BUILDING EVERY DAY! No, it is experience, and knowledge of the reality of things past, present, and future that allows me to go back to the building everyday!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
You rely on people to tell you what they say. I dont.
so you understand all aspects of the bible and koran based on your own undirected interpretation of each? that explains it all. lol!
and for some reason it's hard for me to believe that a guy who once said "islam is a terroristic religion" would be able to read/comprehend the koran without bias.
Originally posted by BP:
the difference is i understand that context and meaning of scripture in both the bible AND the koran can be bastardized by people with an agenda or point to prove. that difference seems to escape comprehension by you and other religious extremist who say the koran/islam promotes violence/terrorism.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,130
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,130 |
 EVERYBODY CHILL OUT
Originally posted by Who the F are You?:
does your family tree not have any branches on it?
99SVT
235hp @ 6550rpm
212tq @ 5350rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,264
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,264 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
You either believe the Bible, or you don't...It's either complete or it's not...
So respect that and shut it. You mock people for having a different opinion than your own, why? If they werem't supposed to have opinions, they wouldn't now would they? 
I don't believe any of it, not even for a second. Even when I was a little kid and my mom tried to explain it to me, I didn't buy it. Does that mean I have a better explanation for where life came from? Nope. Do I give a [censored]? Not really no, I have better things to worry about like scratching my ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,710 |
Originally posted by BP:
so you understand all aspects of the bible and koran based on your own undirected interpretation of each? that explains it all. lol!
More than I can say for you. You choose to believe what Muslim schollars tell you and not what Biblical schollars tell you.
Originally posted by BP:
and for some reason it's hard for me to believe that a guy who once said "islam is a terroristic religion" would be able to read/comprehend the koran without bias.
Then perhaps you should go back and re-read that thread you are talking about, because I took that back.
Again, you are the one saying that the Bible promotes violence and the Koran does not.
- Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by Honkeytonk Monkey:
Originally posted by Woodencross:
You either believe the Bible, or you don't...It's either complete or it's not...
So respect that and shut it. You mock people for having a different opinion than your own, why? If they werem't supposed to have opinions, they wouldn't now would they?
I don't believe any of it, not even for a second. Even when I was a little kid and my mom tried to explain it to me, I didn't buy it. Does that mean I have a better explanation for where life came from? Nope. Do I give a [censored]? Not really no, I have better things to worry about like scratching my ass.
Only a little mocking, H. Monkey!! Only a little!! 
Other than that, don't tell me to shut my mouth, if you aren't going to tell the other side to do the same! This is a......CONVERSATION! It begins with one party saying something, and the other party responding. In this case, it happens to be several parties on different sides of the line. Pretty nice conversation I might add!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Evolution = science
Creationism = philosophy/theology
Teach one in science class, teach the other in philospohy class. Better yet, teach it in church.
Thus spake Viss1
I disagree, "evolution" though I hate to use that term because it encompasses a wide range of theories in reality, is pseudoscience, and also belongs in philosophy. Neo-darwinism is no longer just a biological theory, it has become the most important element in the religion of scientific naturalism. More often than not, scientific naturalism and neo-darwinists no longer use the rudimentary tools that are fundamental to science and in looking at the history of life, their methodologies have become tainted over time. Scientific naturalism now has it's own ethical agenda and it's own plan for salvation through social and genetic engineering. Many of the propositions of Darwinism and especially scientific naturalism go far beyond anything empirical science can demonstrate. So, to sustain the neo-Darwinist worldview, scientific naturalists have had to resort to tactics that Popper, a renouned and well known advocate of science, warned truth-seekers to avoid at all costs. The most important device in current use is the deceptive use of the vague term "evolution".
When any critic of evolution demands empirical evidence, neo-Darwinists just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed, or they avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms which relegate selection to a less important role (which fundamentally changes Darwins original theory BTW). The "fact" of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory.
If the purpose of neo-Darwinism is to persuade the public to believe that there is no purposeful intelligence that transcends the natural world (and that's what the mission has become), then this purpose implies two important limitations upon scientific inquiry. First, scientists may not consider all the possibilities, but must restrict themselves to those which are consistent with a strict philosophical naturalism. Second, scientists may not falsify an element of Darwinism, such as the creative power of natural selection, until and unless they can provide an acceptable substitute (like punctuated equilibrium, explanations for statis, etc.). This rule is an absolute necessity because advocates of naturalism must at all times have a complete theory at their disposal to prevent any rival philosophy from establishing a foothold.
Neo-Darwinists have taken the wrong view of science because they've been infected with the craving to be right. This has resulted in pseudoscientific practices primarily because most scientists do not understand that there is a difference between the scientific method of inquiry, as articulated by Popper, and the philosophical program of scientific naturalism. One reason this difference isn't realized is because the scientific naturalists fear the growth of any religious fanaticism if the power of naturalistic philosophy is weakened at all. The inherent problem here is that whenever we utilize science in any other cause - whether racial, religious, or political - the result is that the scientists themselves become fanatical.
Exposing Darwinism to possible falsification, in reality, won't imply support for any other theory, including any theory based upon religious beliefs. Returning to the truth of scientific inquiry at it's most basic level, merely means we're exposing ignorance whereever it may exist. This is not a defeat for science, it is in fact a liberation, because it removes the dead weight of prejudice, and frees us all to look for the real truth.
What we all should be interested in is the unbiased scientific investigation into the history of life, and in particular in reference to this subject about how the enormously complex organs of plants and animals came into existence. This work does not necessarily oppose evolution (or religion for that matter). The truth is that we know a great deal less than has been claimed. We do not know how the immensely complex organ systems of plants and animals could have been created by mindless and purposeless natural processes, as Darwinists say they must have been. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micromutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never once been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claim that biological creation occured in that way (in fact the fossil record dramatically proves stasis more than anything else). The philosophically important part of Darwinism - it's mechanism for creating complex things that did not exist before - is therefore not really part of empirical science at all, but rather a deduction from naturalistic philosophy. A "critic of evolution" therefore is someone who distinguishes between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, who opposes the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter.
I for one in my own personal investigation, see too many holes in Darwin's theory that no longer add up. The fossil record, which has grown greatly since Darwin's days, continues to promote statis more than anything else. In limited ways the fossil record has shown change within limits of certain phenotypes, but neither the fossil record nor any other empirical evidence has in any way come close to showing the means by which the phenotypes came into existence in the 1st place.
** Material attributed/borrowed/altered from a book I'm currently reading entitled "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson - highly recommended reading for anyone IMHO.
Last edited by cjbaldw; 09/05/05 06:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
