Communism Gaining Ground?

[TonyC]

The theory of Creationism is based on the scripture of just one religion out of many religions.

...

But before you know it, the local Islamic and Jewish groups have lawyers filing suit over the minute differences in the interpretations of the origins class. They want their specific versions taught, as well.

I hate to pick on your apparent ignorance of Christianity and Judaism, but how exactly do you suppose the two's "interpretations" of creation differ? From what I can tell, the book of Genesis reads the same through either set of glasses.

I'll have to dust off my copy of the Khoran (if it even addresses the subject) but I think they might believe in the same God and the same creation.

I'm prepared to be enlightened.

 

[skyking1976]

We all understand the definition of "theory," right?

It's obvious that you don't...

From dictionary.com:

theory n.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

I see the error in your thinking. You see, evolution is a theory because the Scientific Method has been applied to establish a logical conclusion based on known facts. Creationism is a simple belief because is is a common view that is shared by several people. No one has tested the belief of creationism and returned with any provable theory that holds anything more than mythological value.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

wow, 2000 fawking 3 and some religious fanatics are still questioning the evolution

you should join your believing brethren in the middle east, do a crusade or something
your brothers in that part of the world seem to hold religious values highly as well, so I am sure you will find a lot in common or at the very least, die trying to prove that your god kicks more ass than theirs

 

[TonyC]

theory n.
A set of statements or principles devised ...

I see the error in your thinking.

What you don't see is what's right before your eyes. It's a THEORY because it can't be proven, can't be repeated, can't be observed. The scientific method requires repeatable, observable, predictable results. GENERAL Evolution cannot provide any of those. WERE we able to repeat, observe, and predict the outcomes, it would become LAW - - FACT - - indisputable.

You see, evolution is a theory because the Scientific Method has been applied to establish a logical conclusion based on known facts.

Again, it's a theory because it hasn't been - - can't be - - proven.

 

[skyking1976]

It's a THEORY because it can't be proven, can't be repeated, can't be observed. The scientific method requires repeatable, observable, predictable results.

Again, it's a theory because it hasn't been - - can't be - - proven.

You're making my point for me. And, yes, experiments have been contucted that suggest evolution. Do a search on ask.com and find out about evolution experiments. I'm sure that you will find enough evidence that the theory of evolution, general and specific alike, hold a good degree of scientific merit. Creationism, however...

I can observe similarites between early primates up through modern Homo Sapiens. Your example of dogs evolving into horses is illogical. Only through the understanding of the passage of time, verification by carbon dating and archeological/biological research are we able to develop the general evolution theory.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Tony, why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility that "big-E" Evolution is one of God's creations? Aren't we all told "He works in mysterious ways?" I'm not saying that it's true, but it does eliminate the need to ignore all the evidence that the Earth was not created in six days!

Once you stop taking the Bible literally, it all falls into place. It's a book of fables, folks, not a technical manual.

 

[skyking1976]

Once you stop taking the Bible literally, it all falls into place. It's a book of fables, folks, not a technical manual.

YES, brothers and sisters! We have a believer! Praise Darwin...

 

[TonyC]

You're making my point for me.

Perhaps there's confusion as to exactly WHAT point you're trying to make. To review, let's look again at where the conversation was when you interjected your first comment to me.

Isn't it better to stick to accepted scientific fact and leave mythology out of it?

Originally posted by TonyC
That works for me. We can begin removing the THEORY of General evolution from textbooks immediately.

We all understand the definition of "theory," right?

Now. Snakum suggested we stick to fact. I said that works for me, and pointed out that General Evolution is not fact.

What was your point??

 

[TonyC]

Tony, why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility that "big-E" Evolution is one of God's creations? Aren't we all told "He works in mysterious ways?" I'm not saying that it's true, but it does eliminate the need to ignore all the evidence that the Earth was not created in six days!

Once you stop taking the Bible literally, it all falls into place. It's a book of fables, folks, not a technical manual.

Interesting questions, and a very popular way to try to accomodate 2 diametrically opposed concepts.

Why is it so hard to accept "Evolution" as God's way of creating? Simple. Genesis. Genesis 1:1. Genesis Chapter 1:1 through 2:2. God created the earth in 6 days.

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbth day, and hallowed it."

If God did NOT create the earth in six days, we must throw out Genesis, and every book of the Bible that refers to it - - that'll leave us with only a few books -- might as well throw out the whole thing. In other words, if you deny the voracity of Genesis 1:1, you deny the voracity of the entire Bible.

Bible is a book of fables? Another interesting perspective, with a treacherous implication. The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. Not fables, not myths, not "guidelines" and suggestions, but the INSPIRED WORD of GOD. Now, since the Bible CLAIMS to be inspired, we are left with but TWO alternatives.

1) We accept that the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God. OR

2) We admit that the Bible is a complete fraud.

Yes, if it claims to be inspired, but it is in fact not inspired, it can only be described as a fraud. There's really no middle ground. It cannot possibly be "just a good book" full of "nice stories" and "healthy principles." It's a fraud, or it's the word of God.

I believe the latter.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Show me one example of any species creating another, and I'll change my mind.

This sentence--particularly the use of the word "creating"--proves that you've chosen to reject evolutionary theory without bothering to understand it.

We can begin removing the THEORY of General evolution from textbooks immediately.

Good idea. Let's tear out the heart of modern biology and replace it with magic and mysticism.

While we're at it, let's make our women wear veils and prohibit them from going to school.

If we work at it, maybe in a couple of decades some enlightened nation will come over and wipe out our oppressive regime so that our people can move into the future.

 

[Typhoon1244]

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God.

We've been down this road before. The Koran also claims to be the inspired word of god. How do you tell the difference? They're both equally effective at "moving" certain elements within the population. Does the real one glow in the dark?

Just like I said to Timebuilder, Tony, you're insisting on an extremist point of view:

...since the Bible CLAIMS to be inspired, we are left with but TWO alternatives.

1) We accept that the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God.

2) We admit that the Bible is a complete fraud.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be viewed as a summary of the beliefs of the men who wrote it? They weren't trying to trick anyone. They just wanted to share their message.

Yes, if it claims to be inspired, but it is in fact not inspired, it can only be described as a fraud. There's really no middle ground.

"There's really no middle ground." Why, because you say so? Admit it: there can be no middle ground because that would require open-mindedness...something which is very threatening to most religious faiths.

 

[TonyC]

I'm not saying that it's true, but it does eliminate the need to ignore all the evidence that the Earth was not created in six days!

Oops, I forgot to address this point in my prior post.

"[A]ll the evidence"????

What evidence? I mean, scientific evidence. Not conjecture, not hypothesis, not postulations, not theory... where's the cold, hard evidence?


Let me close with a quote.... I'll leave it to y'all to try to attribute the speaker.

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally written by ??????????

OK, name the author.

 

[TonyC]

Why can't it be viewed as a summary of the beliefs of the men who wrote it? They weren't trying to trick anyone. They just wanted to share their message.

IF they start out by claiming inspiration, and they aren't inspired, then the whole thing is predicated on a LIE. I don't know about you, but I find the idea of a bunch of liars handing out their ideas on life to be absolutely repulsive.

Kinda like Jesse Jackson giving Clinton advice on marital fidelity.

Kinda like Clinton giving your daughter advice about honesty.

Why is that so hard to see?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by TonyC
What evidence? I mean, scientific evidence. Not conjecture, not hypothesis, not postulations, not theory...where's the cold, hard evidence?

Does it matter, Tony? Look, I spent four years studying geology and geography. I could go into stratification and radiometric soil studies and a hundred other things...and it won't make a bit of difference because you can always just say "well, God made it that way." That's the beauty of religion: there's no need to understand anything. God is the answer to all questions. Anything else, no matter how rational, is heresy.

Tell me why your God would give us a mind capable of understanding such complexity...only to demand that we conform to simple-minded religions.

There was a time when human beings did exactly as you suggest, rejected rationality in favor of the "inspired word of God." It was called the "Dark Ages."

 

[Typhoon1244]

IF they start out by claiming inspiration, and they aren't inspired, then the whole thing is predicated on a LIE.

Or the whole thing is predicated on religious fervor. On misunderstanding.

Suppose your son tells you there's a yellow elephant in his closet because he really believes it's in there. Is he lying?

Suppose the appostle Paul had an epilectic seizure during which God appeared to speak with him, then he writes about it. Is he lying?

The answer is "no" to both questions.

Here's another example...you'll love this: three days after Christ's burial, his followers return to his tomb to find the cover removed and Christ's body gone. This suggested two possibilities:

(1) Somebody stole the body for some unknown purpose, or...
(2) Christ "rose from the dead."

Guess which one they went with.

Now the fact that they guessed wrong (for whatever reason) doesn't make them liars. They're not trying to pull one over on you when they tell their story.

Liars? No. Gullable...?

 

[TonyC]

This sentence--particularly the use of the word "creating"--proves that you've chosen to reject evolutionary theory without bothering to understand it.Good idea.

I notice you didn't offer an example - - I'll rephrase to make you happy, and then you can provide the example.

Show me one example of any species evolving from another, and I'll change my mind.

Let's tear out the heart of modern biology and replace it with magic and mysticism.

While we're at it, let's make our women wear veils and prohibit them from going to school.

Specious argument, and it really does nothing to further the edification of any of the parties to this discussion. LET ME RE-REVIEW. Snakum suggested that we stick to facts - - FACTS. I said OK, let's remove all the theories - - including the Theory of General Evolution. Nowhere did I suggest replacing facts with myths, or suggest the oppression of women. Give me a little bit of credit, or just a modicum of respect. If we can't discuss the topic like intelligent adults, why spend the time?

 

[TonyC]

Does it matter, Tony? Look, I spent four years studying geology and geography. I could go into stratification and radiometric soil studies and a hundred other things...and it won't make a bit of difference because you can always just say "well, God made it that way."

Go for it.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I notice you didn't offer an example...

Okay: whales.

Most modern balleen whales--the Right whale, for example--have teeth buds during the early stages of fetal development. As the infant matures, these buds gradually disappear...but why were they there in the first place? Did God make a mistake?

Or is this evidence, real concrete evidence, that balleen whales and toothed whales have a common ancestor? Add to it that there are whales in the "fossil record" that have both teeth and balleen, and Mr. Darwin's voice can be heard.

See, the trouble is that people think evolution entails an organism giving birth to a radically different organism. It doesn't work that way. A minor mutation takes place, and if the creature's environment favors it, the mutated animal survives. If not, it becomes extinct before it even had a chance to reproduce.

Toothed and balleen whales formed all over the world. In some seas, the food supply demanded that whales have teeth, and the plankton-strainers were wiped out. In other parts of the world, it went the other way.

It's actually a pretty elegant way of running an ecosystem...and it's a way of thinking that's way beyond the understanding of the authors of the Bible because they lacked the science to study the issue. They weren't lying, they just didn't know any better.

So what's so wrong--assuming you're going to insist on believing in God--with thinking that maybe God wound up the evolutionary clock and let 'er run?

 

[Typhoon1244]

(How the fukc did we go from Communist goals in '63 to balleen whales?)

 

[skyking1976]

I could BBQ or beer-jack this thread. Just say the word...