Another Way to Use Religion for Political Purposes

[RetiredGySgt]

Thanks for the character reference.

Vatican II which commenced under Blessed John XXIII rehabilitated the brilliant palaeonotoligst and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In his "The Phenomenon of Man", Chardin presented his (then) almost heretical views and did so with an intellectual power that blasts the Creationists into the ether. I've spent a lot of time reading his (posthumously published) book. I don't pretend to understand most of it. I do stand in awe of his intellect. I am not going to give credence to simplistic thinking represented by the fundie Creationist brigade. If I want to believe that rubbish I'll move to Topeka.

If your calling me a Fundamentalist Christian, you would be so wrong as to be laughable. Have you not been paying attention? Ask Chips why he thinks thats laughable.

If I showed up at a Fundamentalist meeting they would likely tar and feather me and no not because I am a Mormon, though I am sure that doesn't help.

There is absolutely no reason science and religion can not AND IN FACT DO exist side by side. I suggest you do a study of Lawyers, Doctors, Graduate students, Phd's, Scientists and others with educational credentials, you will be shocked to find how many also are religious.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that contradicts the Bible at all. Nothing that is actually proven to exists that is. Isn't it telling that Science can not come up with a credible, workable, testable theory of how life began?Every group has extremists, Religion and Science are not immune to that. Fortunately for us extremists in either group do not actually hold much real sway or power over those groups or their beliefs and work. They do make for convenient boogie men to throw out though do they not?

 

[Diuretic]

If your calling me a Fundamentalist Christian, you would be so wrong as to be laughable. Have you not been paying attention? Ask Chips why he thinks thats laughable.

If I showed up at a Fundamentalist meeting they would likely tar and feather me and no not because I am a Mormon, though I am sure that doesn't help.

There is absolutely no reason science and religion can not AND IN FACT DO exist side by side. I suggest you do a study of Lawyers, Doctors, Graduate students, Phd's, Scientists and others with educational credentials, you will be shocked to find how many also are religious.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that contradicts the Bible at all. Nothing that is actually proven to exists that is. Isn't it telling that Science can not come up with a credible, workable, testable theory of how life began?Every group has extremists, Religion and Science are not immune to that. Fortunately for us extremists in either group do not actually hold much real sway or power over those groups or their beliefs and work. They do make for convenient boogie men to throw out though do they not?

If I was going to call you a fundamentalist Christian I'd come right out and say it. I was referring in general to those who hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. You'll have to forgive me. As a young 'un I was steeped in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and I wasn't just attentive to my studies, I was right into it. The whole idea of learning about God and Jesus Christ and the universe through revealed texts and exegesis was exciting to me.

I didn't know you were a Mormon. Not that that would worry me, I played basketball in a rural city in my state with a team that had a couple of Elders on missionary duties. They were pretty damn good players and nice blokes into the bargain. Anyway my point is that someone's religion isn't something I fling back into their face.

My point was exactly as you've put it, which tells me I stuffed it up. Science and religion can co-exist. I admire Chardin for doing that. I still admire the Blessed John XXIII (yes I was an altar boy at the time of the commencement of the Second Vatican Council) for bringing his progressive theological ideas to his papacy (as a kid I remember I much preferred him to his cold, aloof predecessor, Pius the Something but I bet it had XX's and IIIs and not xxxx's and ooooo's - yay Trisha - in his title). The fundies don't get it. They think everyone in a white coat wielding a microscope is out to destroy their ideas of God. Rubbish. That the idea that evolution might be part of God's will (not that I believe it for a moment but never mind) doesn't cross their minds. Instead they have to go for the most mind-boggling stupidity that calls itself "Creation Science." Well excuse me while I spit. They can't even give credence to the idea that God gave us the ability to think so that we could find these things out for ourselves, oh no, it has to be all wrapped up and written down and He said it, I believe it and that settles it. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed 6000 years ago. Spare me the bullshit. If someone wants to believe that, fine, no problems but I don't have to swallow it when they shove it my way and I have no compunction in taking on those fundie ideas.

That is all.

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry Larkinn... If I was in the mood for this level of debate... I would wake up my 9 year old... You'll have to see Ruby or Maineman or chips rafferty if your looking for a below academic level debate...

no place for you here...sorry

oopps... forgot to include you on the list jillian... my bad

You haven't had an academic level debate in your life.

 

[Larkinn]

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that contradicts the Bible at all. Nothing that is actually proven to exists that is. Isn't it telling that Science can not come up with a credible, workable, testable theory of how life began?\

A lot of people seem to think there is something that contradicts the Bible which is why they try so hard to disprove it.

As for it being telling that science cannot come up with a testable theory of how life began...are you serious? You know that to test something you actually do it...that would entail scientists creating life. Regardless...any random mutation will be impossible to test in that manner...and as you would no doubt support, because something is not testable does not mean it is incorrect.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If I was going to call you a fundamentalist Christian I'd come right out and say it. I was referring in general to those who hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. You'll have to forgive me. As a young 'un I was steeped in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and I wasn't just attentive to my studies, I was right into it. The whole idea of learning about God and Jesus Christ and the universe through revealed texts and exegesis was exciting to me.

I didn't know you were a Mormon. Not that that would worry me, I played basketball in a rural city in my state with a team that had a couple of Elders on missionary duties. They were pretty damn good players and nice blokes into the bargain. Anyway my point is that someone's religion isn't something I fling back into their face.

My point was exactly as you've put it, which tells me I stuffed it up. Science and religion can co-exist. I admire Chardin for doing that. I still admire the Blessed John XXIII (yes I was an altar boy at the time of the commencement of the Second Vatican Council) for bringing his progressive theological ideas to his papacy (as a kid I remember I much preferred him to his cold, aloof predecessor, Pius the Something but I bet it had XX's and IIIs and not xxxx's and ooooo's - yay Trisha - in his title). The fundies don't get it. They think everyone in a white coat wielding a microscope is out to destroy their ideas of God. Rubbish. That the idea that evolution might be part of God's will (not that I believe it for a moment but never mind) doesn't cross their minds. Instead they have to go for the most mind-boggling stupidity that calls itself "Creation Science." Well excuse me while I spit. They can't even give credence to the idea that God gave us the ability to think so that we could find these things out for ourselves, oh no, it has to be all wrapped up and written down and He said it, I believe it and that settles it. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed 6000 years ago. Spare me the bullshit. If someone wants to believe that, fine, no problems but I don't have to swallow it when they shove it my way and I have no compunction in taking on those fundie ideas.

That is all.

There are not a whole lot of Christians that believe the world is only 6000 years old. But I agree anyone that believes that is loony tunes. Creation does not mean one teaches the world is 6000 years old, it means one teaches that a large segment of the human race believe that a supreme being created everything. What is threatening about that?

 

[Shogun]

"I love your signature by the way... Thats funny... I love the cigarette..."

Thank you. I think it is not only funny but true.


"I'm not out to take anything away from Darwin...
As a matter of fact I think that if Darwin was alive today he might be pointing ot the connections between the big boom theory and the book of Genesis... Its pretty intersting stuff..."

Who knows. I'd like to think that minds like his would not be netted down by opinions and bickering and conventional wisdom since his Beagle observations bucked the conventional wisom of the time. Perhaps he would associate origin with the bible.. if he found evidence to suggest as much. Hell, if he had found the Garden of Eden with the flame sword wielding angel instead of observing the golopogos islands then id hope he would base his theory on what evidence he could observe. It may very well be the case that the big boom happened along with evolution because of a god that designed life as something HE was experimenting with.. who knows.


"But anyway in response to your post... Any source I provide, you will say its invalid, without even reading it, so I wont waist my time..."


If you would provide something that is not automatically biased then I would consider it. I am no scientist. However, I am sure that, in the entire population of science professionals, the easy hands down majoirty do not believe that evolution is mere baseless theory. If you can show me how this is untrue then please do so. My point in mentioning bob jones university is that your source, the ICR, is about as unbiased as a klansman at a lynching. I'm not interested in seeing creationists attack evolution and present such as evidence. I'm interested in the same level of evidence that can be seen in the evolution of the horse sonsidering how we understand husbandry. I want you to show me something as indicative as the similarities between feathers and scales. I want you to show me evidence that proves that the grand canyon was produced in 400 days and 40 nights instead of the geologic time that we see in striated layers of earth. I want you to show me evidence that can compete with the skeletal reality of the neanderthal. evidence that we can hold, see, prove. What I DONT want is to be directed to the bible as the single piece of evidence. I DONT want to hear something that is specualtion based off a criticism of evolution. I dont care if creationists think Lucy was a monkey with arthritis. Show me YOUR evidence. I am a reasonable person. Science must follow the path of evidence. Thank Francis Bacon for that.


"Do some research on your own and come to your own conclusions...
Most people come to conclusions about life and never challenge thier own beliefs so they stop learning..."

Ill agree with that. And I have come to my own conslusions based on the evidence provided to me. And I come down firmly on the side of evolution. However, I won't deny that there may be a larger picture involved that our human frailty keeps us from seeing. Perhaps evolution is the method god uses. Perhaps earth is gods petrie dish and we are the agar eating bacteria from his sneeze culture. Hell, people believed in phrenology, for christs sakes! Scientific people! At the end of the day, science is a matter of evidence and proof; not belief. This is why we have stepped away from junk science like reflexology and four humours and must require a standardof evidence. I dont want dr. jarvik transplanting my heart because he BELIEVES he knows where it is at. show me your evidence, as you understand it. Dont just give me a link to an organization that is clearly biased. I offered a list of evidence earlier in this thread that I believe validates evolution. I'm not judging you. Im asking for the same type of evidence in return. I dont want to hear what THEY say. I want to see what you can provide as evidence.


"Darwin would be a good example of this as a matter of fact... He challenged his own beliefs and changed the direction of science... Challenge yours, or you'll end up like vintij.... he has all the answers already...so there is no more to learn..."


see above. a good scientist must not be afriad to debunk his own beliefs as evidence dictates. I don't think that atheism is a prerequisite for be an observer of the scientific method. Once again, it comes back to the evidence. I've posted some of mine. from sources that you can dipsute if you think they are biased. However, bias is not a matter of mere disagreement with your views. Just remember, without evidence scientists are no more than charlatains. I'll hold my side to that standard if you can abide by the necessary requirments of the scientific process.

 

[Diuretic]

There are not a whole lot of Christians that believe the world is only 6000 years old. But I agree anyone that believes that is loony tunes. Creation does not mean one teaches the world is 6000 years old, it means one teaches that a large segment of the human race believe that a supreme being created everything. What is threatening about that?

I'm not threatened about it and it doesn't fuss me. People are entitled to their creation myths, there's a lot of them around. People are also entitled to believe a Deity created the universe too. I'm entitled to wonder how the Deity got there.

 

[Vintij]

If your calling me a Fundamentalist Christian, you would be so wrong as to be laughable. Have you not been paying attention? Ask Chips why he thinks thats laughable.

If I showed up at a Fundamentalist meeting they would likely tar and feather me and no not because I am a Mormon, though I am sure that doesn't help.

There is absolutely no reason science and religion can not AND IN FACT DO exist side by side. I suggest you do a study of Lawyers, Doctors, Graduate students, Phd's, Scientists and others with educational credentials, you will be shocked to find how many also are religious.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that contradicts the Bible at all. Nothing that is actually proven to exists that is. Isn't it telling that Science can not come up with a credible, workable, testable theory of how life began?Every group has extremists, Religion and Science are not immune to that. Fortunately for us extremists in either group do not actually hold much real sway or power over those groups or their beliefs and work. They do make for convenient boogie men to throw out though do they not?

Why do you position yourself against science in general? You will lose. Everything you do, everything you read, everything you interact with is either because of science, or explained rationally using the scientific method.

SO why must you position your opinion above science in general as if you know something that Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Darwin, Higgs, Hubble, Galilao....etc. didnt know.

You have one book compiled of thousand year old scriptures written in a language (hebrew) of hundreds of different meanings for many words. That is your foundation.

Secondly, you are correct on one thing. Some scientists do believe in god or a creator of the initial state of the universe. BUT! Do not say that evolution does not contradict anything written in the bible....that is plain wrong. Evolution disproves MANY statements in the bible written by the apostles.

Here are a few
1. The Earth is scientifically PROVEN to be older than 6 thousand years using sophisticated radiological dating and carbon dating.

2. Premise number 1 disproves the notion that the entire universe (17 billion light years across) could not have been created in 7 days and took more like 13 billion years to expand. How do we know? Its called the cosmological constant. Discoverd many years ago that the universe is expanding at a slow but increasing rate.

3. Abraham did not live to be 800 years old, or whatever it says in the bible. That is proven not only using the scientific method, but also something called common sense.

4. It was scientifically proven that in order to fit every single species on a single "arc" as noah did, the arc would have to fit over 5 billion different species and would have to be the size of NORTH AMERICA. Noah did not build a boat the size of NORTH AMERICA.

Shall I go on and name a few other things that the scientific method and evolution disprove?


And by the way, science does have a credible thoery of how life began. The big bang theory, and biological evolution. It took hundreds of years to find out that everything in the universe (matter/energy) comes from 12 elementary particles and 4 energy carrying particles. Thats it. From that, any matter can be formed. Even the essential matter for life (water)

Amoebas did not just pop out of nowhere, amino acids clump together (just like all matter) and form simple "single cells" which are all the building blocks of biological evolution that you need.

The standard model proves this. It is not the big picture you should be looking at, but the smaller picture (Particle physics) that damn near PROVES evolution does exist.