Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[FlyinGuy]

1. I will say it again.....there is no morality in science.

2. If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be.

 

[AirCobra]

There is no evidence a dinosaur existed last century. None. Show me the evidence, and I reevaluate what I believe to be true. I am perfectly able to change my mind if the evidence doesn't work anymore. Why would I believe a dinosaur existed last century? I can't say it's not true with 100 percent certainty, just like I couldn't say with absolute certainty that there is no god, or with absolute certainty that there is not a leprechaun living in my garden. All are equal in that they have no evidence for their existence.

Darwin's theory has been greatly refined with the more evidence we've acquired, just as Newton's theory of gravity has been refined through the theory of relativity. It doesn't mean they were wrong, it just means their initial theories didn't explain everything. Darwin had no idea about gene theory, just like Newton knew nothing of E=MC2. These later contributions enhanced, but did not disprove, the earlier work. Darwin believed species evolved through natural selection. It was his idea, but that has nothing to do with the science today, as it is much beyond his limited understanding of it. No one tries to make the ideas fit what he believed, just that his general idea of evolution through natural selection is correct based on the mountains of evidence that continue to support the theory.
You can point to everything you can to try to say Darwin didn't understand the entire process, but that doesn't change the fact that no one can disprove it, and it would be so easy to disprove. Of course he didn't understand. Hell, we didn't even know about DNA for another 100 years after his life. You guys think science has to be right all the time, 100 percent of the time, or it's bunk and your superstition wins. Let's make a list of every time science went against the church and check the scoreboard. Ummmm, my money's on science.

Back to the fossil record...Find me one dog buried in a strata older than a dinosaur, which should be easy to do if evolution is false. Find ONE. Just find ONE instance where a mammal is in an older strata. That's all it takes. You seem to think by trying to poke holes in the established science, by default, your crazy ideas are right. That's a logical fallacy, as it is clearly not a 50/50 outcome. There is science, and then there are literally thousands of competing crackpot claims. So stop throwing stones, and offer up what you think is correct, then give the evidence backing it up so we can test it for ourselves. Like I said, I'm completely open to new ideas, if they are backed up by evidence. 2000 year old spooky texts written by magic men high on peyote don't count as evidence, btw.

Don't let anti religious bigotry overcome you. Nothing I brought up had anything to do with religion. I think evolutionary fundementalists are preventing science from moving forward much more than any religion ever could.

So if you want to talk science well what about the Colecanth? Supposedly extinct for 65 million years when fish had supposedly "evolved" beyond a bony exoskeleton, but somehow the Coleocanth had forgotten to evolve. It doesn't prove anything about religion but it does prove how little we actually know about what species were around and when. So a Coleocanth fossil found in a 65 million year old layer of strata and one found swimming in the ocean of the coast of Africa surely is problematic to evolutionary theory, since it appears evolution seems to skip certain species. Oh but with you qualified strata with "mammal." I guess that means you know that things like tree trunks are found through several layers of strata which shows things contained in layers of strata are not limited to one time period. So the proof you need lies only in mammals, fish and plants don't count, is that what you are saying?

You did not mention the problems with Darwins sexual selection either. Darwin did not understand genes but sexual selection was all his own creation and an essential component in evolutionary theory and natural selection. How much Darwin needs to be shown not scientifically provable before we move on and stop trying to bend evidence to fit evolutionary theory?

What about Dr. Scwitzer? Her discoveries could upset everything we know about fossilization, and the age of fossils. That could mean we really don't know the age of things we find in any layer of strata. Not a crackpot theory at all.

What else have you not looked at? Dinosaur-bird theory which more and more scientists are calling into question, spontaneous RNA which despite thousands of experiements over several decades and manipulation experimental conditions no one can prove ever existed on earth still hasn't happened.

Well what do you say. "Oh it just hasn't been proven yet, but someday it will be?" Isn't that what any religious person says about their faith?

 

[AirCobra]

1. I will say it again.....there is no morality in science.

2. If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be.

That was Darwins dilemma, the lack of trasitional species in the fossil record. The search for transitional fossils has become an obsession with the scientific community. Seems like every couple of years their is a new missing link. A few years back it was "Lucy" who now has been shown with pretty good certainty to be a species of ape. I read with great interest how sad scientists who had lost their golden proof of a missing link resorted to again to trying to bend Lucy's failure into an evolutionary framework. They siad early species of humans were able to mate with early species of Chimp, that is why their is no missing link. Never mind there is no physical evidence of either species capable of mating in this way ever existed. Thus is the state of evolutionary science these days. Of course the evolutionary fundemetalist response will be "Its true, it just hasn't been proven yet" which is about as good science as what any fire and brimstone Pentacostal preacher will tell you about Revelation.

 

[psmd0311]

I am always amazed that creationists just seem to delude themselves and say “where is the evidence”

Go to a museum! Go and see!


Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens


You can see the migration if you want to, or you can just close your eyes and convince yourself that it cant be right as it doesn't fit in with your bible. I am appalled that you actually wrote

“If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be”

Wow! what bubble are you living in?

Shag, good luck in trying to convince people like this. They arent interested in learning, they are just clinging on to blind faith and nothing is going to change their minds.

 

[AirCobra]

I am always amazed that creationists just seem to delude themselves and say “where is the evidence”

Go to a museum! Go and see!


Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens


You can see the migration if you want to, or you can just close your eyes and convince yourself that it cant be right as it doesn't fit in with your bible. I am appalled that you actually wrote

“If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be”

Wow! what bubble are you living in?

Shag, good luck in trying to convince people like this. They arent interested in learning, they are just clinging on to blind faith and nothing is going to change their minds.

Creationist huh? Must be like a warm blanket to sterotype people rather than examine your own fundementalist dogma.

Neanderthals were also supposed to be a less evolved forms of humans until it was discovered Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. Same goes with Homo Habilis which you mentioned. There is little scientific consensus on Homo Habilis given the amount of fossils found coexisting with supposedly more evolved species. Don't believe me read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/08cnd-fossil.html?_r=1&ref=science

It is just more of the same, you are trying to fit the latest "missing link" into a Darwinain evolutionary framework. When you said "good luck in trying to convince people like this. They arent interested in learning, they are just clinging on to blind faith and nothing is going to change their minds" were you talking about yourself?

Why don't you do some reading and try again when you have better evidence.

EDIT-I must have mssied on the first pass but Lucy which I mentioned was Australopithecus. There are plenty of Evolutionists that believe if Australopithecus evolved into anything it would be a Gorilla and others who think Australopithecus is nothing more than an extinct speicies of ape. Hardly part of the the ironclad sequence of human evolution you put in your post. Were you just ignoring this too, or perhaps you should call the museum you went to let them know they haven't been giving you the whole story.

 

[whaleroast]

Ummmmm.....I don't get it. Explain maybe?

Thickens:

1 a : to become dense <the mist thickened> b : to become concentrated in numbers, mass, or frequency
2 : to grow blurred or obscure
3 : to grow broader or bulkier
4 : to grow complicated or keen <the plot thickens>
transitive verb
1 a : to make thick, dense, or viscous in consistency <thicken gravy with flour> b : to make close or compact
2 : to increase the depth or diameter of
3 : to make inarticulate : blur <alcohol thickened his speech>

Every wiccan i've ever seen is a thick fat chick.

 

[shagadelic]

Neanderthals were also supposed to be a less evolved forms of humans until it was discovered Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. Same goes with Homo Habilis which you mentioned. There is little scientific consensus on Homo Habilis given the amount of fossils found coexisting with supposedly more evolved species. Don't believe me read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/sc...=1&ref=science

Surprise surprise. We don't know everything. Nobody says we understand the entire process. That's science in general. You go with the best evidence available, and when new evidence comes up, you revise what you know. Only religion claims to know the absolute truth....wait a sec, I think I've just had an epiphany. You guys are right, science doesn't know everything, therefore, lets abandon it. I'm going for the spooky guy in the sky theory, at least then I know I'll be right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

 

[AirCobra]

Surprise surprise. We don't know everything. Nobody says we understand the entire process. That's science in general. You go with the best evidence available, and when new evidence comes up, you revise what you know. Only religion claims to know the absolute truth....wait a sec, I think I've just had an epiphany. You guys are right, science doesn't know everything, therefore, lets abandon it. I'm going for the spooky guy in the sky theory, at least then I know I'll be right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

You know when you debate an issue you are supposed to refute the other persons argument, not prove it. I said science shows their is a lot we don't know about everything from dinosaurs, to fossils, to the origins of man. You went on about evidence from Cambrian Strata, bunnies, and men, and dinosaurs, all to come back and tell me everything you just said may not be accurate given the nature of science. Well heck that is what I have been saying all along. All you are doing is saying I have no idea what is true, I just know whatever you are saying isn't true. That is why you can't be taken seriously, and these discussions are pointless. You have a simple obsession, you hate Religion. I still never brought up anything about Creationism or religion, but you can't keep it away from it can you? Why don't you just grow up? You want to talk science, then talk science.

 

[Nado]

1. I will say it again.....there is no morality in science.

Morality in science isn't the point. I HAVE TWO BRAIN CELLS TO RUB TOGETHER that tell me hitting my neighbor on the head is a bad thing. I don't need a space god to tell me that.

Look at the ten commandments for example. It is easy to see how in their times they were the ten necessary 'rules' needed to keep people in line through fear and threats of 'eternal damnation'. Many philosophers and scientists paid with their lives proposing thoughts and ideas that would loosen the churches grip on power.

I would submit that the first commandment should be changed to 'priests shall not fondle little boys and the Church should not cover up the fact that it happens' in keeping with our time, at least in the Catholic church.

In keeping things simple, once you accept the fact that god, or whatever you call him is a man made invention used to explain what at the time was unexplainable (earthquakes, eclipses, weather) and as a tool for priests to retain supernatural power over their flock, things become a lot clearer.

Atheists are selling uncertainty, and that is humble. Anyone who says they know what happens after they die is surely not telling the truth. How could they possibly, without any doubt, know this? They posses no special knowledge and thus for lack of a better word are not humble.

Perhaps the religious should examine why they are good. Is it because they are afraid of punishment from god, or are they naturally good?
Then why is an atheist good with no fear of retribution of a heaven or he**.

 

[AirCobra]

Morality in science isn't the point. I HAVE TWO BRAIN CELLS TO RUB TOGETHER that tell me hitting my neighbor on the head is a bad thing. I don't need a space god to tell me that.

Look at the ten commandments for example. It is easy to see how in their times they were the ten necessary 'rules' needed to keep people in line through fear and threats of 'eternal damnation'. Many philosophers and scientists paid with their lives proposing thoughts and ideas that would loosen the churches grip on power.

I would submit that the first commandment should be changed to 'priests shall not fondle little boys and the Church should not cover up the fact that it happens' in keeping with our time, at least in the Catholic church.

In keeping things simple, once you accept the fact that god, or whatever you call him is a man made invention used to explain what at the time was unexplainable (earthquakes, eclipses, weather) and as a tool for priests to retain supernatural power over their flock, things become a lot clearer.

Atheists are selling uncertainty, and that is humble. Anyone who says they know what happens after they die is surely not telling the truth. How could they possibly, without any doubt, know this? They posses no special knowledge and thus for lack of a better word are not humble.

Perhaps the religious should examine why they are good. Is it because they are afraid of punishment from god, or are they naturally good?
Then why is an atheist good with no fear of retribution of a heaven or he**.

Now only if you could find someone that this applies to. I can only speak for what I know about Christianity but the point there is that we all sin and fall short of the grace of God. A Christian is supposed to humble themselves before God and say they, like everyone else, they are not good, but sinners. Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good--except God alone." The Atheist you described is really an agnostic. The true Atheist says they KNOW God does not exist. It is the Atheist who displays the prideful boasting saying I don't need to humble myself. You got it all wrong as far as Christianity is concerned.

The other point you made and one I keep seeing is the "man made" thing. Like "nothing in the Bible can be true because it was written by men". How does this apply? You have faith that all sorts of man made things and concepts are real and true. Should I not believe in mathematics, physics or gravity because they are all man made? If you say that those things are provable then what about theoretical physics, theoretical mathematics, and probability. Are things like black holes and the speed of light unreal because they are based on theory and probability and thus man made?

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Wow... I disappear to take care of some family health issues for a couple weeks and the conversation is still going strong! Outstanding!

I am not sure where to dive in here since there is so much stuff that has been said since I was last here, but it would seem Shag is still on this "evolution disproves God" kick. Shag, what makes you think that the Bible is a science book? It is salvation history, not honors biology. Can we at least agree on that?

When your kids were little and they asked where babies came from, did you give them all the biological details or did you make things a little more age appropriate? So it is with the Bible. The mechanisms of creation are unimportant to the premise of the Bible, which is: God exists. God loves. God saves. Would the point not have been lost if the exact chemistry had been recorded? Remember we are asked to accept God by faith through our own free will. Would an exact timeline with the formulas and mechanics not dictate against accepting God through our free will? I would contend that it would and that would not make us human, but automatons incapable of love. But then again, love is a purely biological and evolutionary phenomenon and completely without meaning, according to you. I am still waiting to match wits with you on the NT, by the way. I am teaching Acts and Romans this week so the material is rather fresh in my mind.

Nado, I recall asking for your thoughts, so thanks for your candor. Again, I must try and remind you (as I reminded Shag) to differentiate between religion and faith. Remember, religion is a HUMAN construct whose purpose is the corporate worship of the divine. We all agree (albeit for different reasons) that humans are fallible and the human institution of religion is no different. Faith is entirely a different matter. When you use religion as an argument against God all you do is kill the messenger... Fallible and sometimes outright wrong he may be. To be intellectual honest, you must disengage human actions from the equation and consider without human bias the evidence for and against God and what His nature might be.

People do and have done all sorts of evil in His name. But since we are creatures of free will, does that really dictate against his existence? Or is it merely possible we have used His name to further our own narrow earthly goals?

As for the 10 Commandments, you might be right but for one important point. The first four commandments have nothing to do with keeping things in line or giving society reasonable rules to follow. They deal only with the sanctity of the one God. This was unique in that area of the world at this point in history (monotheism). Isn't it more likely that if the Hebrew people's leaders wanted organized rules they simply would have borrowed from the pantheon of gods in surrounding cultures? Why were these people so absolutely unique?

I have enjoyed everyone's input! Keep it up!

 

[mitsdriver]

For many, this seems to be the prevailing theme:

"I have not seen it. Therefore it does not exist."

Science goes only as far as current human knowledge and understanding, which is quite limited and incomplete in the grand scale of things. To think that we got everything figured out based solely on our current knowledge would be quite ignorant and arrogant in my humble opinion. There are many things on Earth and in universe which the human science has yet to fully explain or comprehend. Who knows what (or who) is out there? And who's to say that in the future, perhaps in hundreds or thousands of years, we won't discover something that invalidates every scientific law and theory known to man and force us to start from scratch and rethink everything?

Does God exist? Personally, I think so. Can we scientifically prove it? Of course not. Does that mean He doesn't exist for sure? You decide.

Call me naive. But my belief is that the Earth, the life on it, and the universe is just too refined, balanced, and complex to have come into existance simply by some accident or random event. Just my 02 cents.

 

[psmd0311]

When your kids were little and they asked where babies came from, did you give them all the biological details or did you make things a little more age appropriate? So it is with the Bible.

Most Kids get told a stork delivers babies through the bedroom window, but as we get older and less naive/gullible we grow out of these stories and learn the truth.

 

[AirCobra]

Most Kids get told a stork delivers babies through the bedroom window, but as we get older and less naive/gullible we grow out of these stories and learn the truth.

I seem to find the older people get the more versions of truth they create to satisfy their own needs.

 

[Basil]

If it's proof you want...

Behold, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ

 

[shagadelic]

It is salvation history, not honors biology. Can we at least agree on that?

We can, but a large percentage of your pew mates can not. They see it as the literal word of god.

They literally think that 6,000 years ago God made the first man out of dust - not even mud - and the first woman out of a bone; that God cursed the whole human race because a snake made the woman eat an apple; that God had a son by another man's wife, and that he had this son murdered in order to keep himself from sending all the human race to hell.

This son taught that any man who did not believe that piece of ignorance would go to hell and burn eternally in fire and brimstone.

So no, it's not a science book, and the entire idea of it is not compatible with science. If you want to believe in the magic, great. I don't have a problem with it. Keep it out of science class, and out of government, and I'll STFU. The problem is you've got your fundie nut jobs who won't stop until a bible is in every classroom.

So for that reason, when a christian cadet puts a cross in a wiccan holy site at USAFA, I will stand up and remind people that the wiccan site is just as valid (or non-valid) as the chapel, or the synagogue, or the mosque. They are all equal, you just happen to have been raised in one that your parents were raised in. Period.

Basil, very funny. Thanks!

 

[psmd0311]

Propcapt,

I am trying to understand christian beliefs, do you believe everything in the bible? That noah put every animal in the world on a boat and sailed away? The earth was made in seven days and man was walking around. Where do dinosaurs fit in with all of this? Was Adam walking around with them? If you believe in the bible surely you have to take it word for word as being correct or does it not work that way?

I think most non believers agree that people can worship and believe anything they want, just keep it out of the schools and politics. Its scary when world leaders are turning to their faith for answers.

 

[mitsdriver]

The problem is you've got your fundie nut jobs who won't stop until a bible is in every classroom.

Well, unfortunately, that goes both ways. There are also equal number of nut jobs who won't stop until every bible is destroyed.

I do agree with your stance on the said USAFA cadet. No one should repress or ridicule others' faith (or non-faith) just because it is different from his/her beliefs.

Won't the world be a much better place if everyone just minded their own faith and didn't care what the person next to them believes in?

I believe Jesus taught us to spread His message. However I don't believe that He said anything about FORCING His message upon others. It is up to each individual's free will whether to accept or reject Him after hearing His message.

I am a Christian but have many friends who are not. We don't let our differences in beliefs to come between us. We rarely talk about our faiths and certainly do not attemt to "convert" each other. Frankly, I don't get all worked up about what others believe in, whether it be God, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, Buddah, Confucius, Zeus, Eywa, Undertaker, sea people, or none.

 

[mitsdriver]

Propcapt,

I am trying to understand christian beliefs, do you believe everything in the bible? That noah put every animal in the world on a boat and sailed away? The earth was made in seven days and man was walking around. Where do dinosaurs fit in with all of this? Was Adam walking around with them? If you believe in the bible surely you have to take it word for word as being correct or does it not work that way?

I think most non believers agree that people can worship and believe anything they want, just keep it out of the schools and politics. Its scary when world leaders are turning to their faith for answers.

I don't think the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally. As someone already mentioned, that 7 days does not necessarily mean 7 Earth days.

When you read about how God took one of Adam's bones and created Eve from it, could it possibly mean that God took the DNA sample from Adam and modified it to create Eve? In other words, could Eve have evolved from Adam? Or something along those lines?

I believe the evolution takes place. However I also believe that God is the driving force behind it. Someone earlier have said that the DNA is like a computer program. In that case, I believe that God is the programmer.

 

[shagadelic]

There are also equal number of nut jobs who won't stop until every bible is destroyed.

Mits, I would like to ask who these people are, or what organizations they belong to. I'm a pretty strong atheist and would never advocate such a position, nor have I ever heard an atheist/agnostic/humanist ever take such a position. I'm sure there are those out there, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find them. Meanwhile, I can cite all day long people wanting to create a Christian nation to the exclusion of others.

I like a lot of your other points, and in fact I used to reconcile a lot of things in the bible the same way by saying they were not literal but just simplistic explanations given to those who wouldn't understand otherwise. The problem then becomes, what in the bible is real, and what are just simplistic stories? That's the problem I see Christians having, they can 1) believe everything in the bible is the inerrant word of god, which puts you in the preposterous position of believing in a flood that covered the earth and the Earth is 6000 years old earth garbage, etc etc or 2) it's a collection of stories designed to teach you a greater truth, but is not necessarily how it actually happened, as it is dumbed down for the masses. Number 1 is not really an option, except for the loonies, but number 2 leaves you wondering what exactly is real, and what are just the stories? How do we know? If the book is just a bunch of stories that we have no idea of knowing what's true and what is not, then what's the point of it in the first place? That doesn't even account for the fact that the bible is just one out of thousands of texts that supposedly contain the word of "god". We sometimes get arrogant and forget this is not the only myth based text out there....there are plenty more out there equally as fallacious.