Religion

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Apr 25 2006, 01:55 PM) [snapback]244931[/snapback]</div>

What "evidences" are you talking about? I am a marine scientist, and I have examined ice cores that are over a million years old. All of the scientific evidence supports that the earth's geologic age is 4.6 billion years old. If you believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or whatever, that's fine, but that is based on your faith. Don't tell me that, as a scientist, I am disregarding "evidences."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 25 2006, 12:47 AM) [snapback]244707[/snapback]</div>

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The OLD TESTAMENT is about God and the Jews...it DOES NOT APPLY TO CURRENT TIME. Don't quote old testament stuff with regard (ONLY) to current state of Grace.

You just don't get it. Sorry I am unable to make you understand because...in the biblical sense...you are blind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 25 2006, 05:21 PM) [snapback]245119[/snapback]</div>

Wait wait wait...so HALF of the book doesn't apply to the current time....but the other half does. :blink: AH I see, because the first half is not the word of god...er....work with me here.

 

the more i see people trying to explain christianity, the less sense it makes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 24 2006, 08:37 PM) [snapback]244677[/snapback]</div>

Knock it off - it's a SIMPLE question: How does one know what parts of the bible to ignore (slaying children who talk back, for example) and what parts to abide by?

You haven't even tried to answer that question, but you have twice tried to put me in the wrong for daring to ask it, twice deriding me as "ignorant" as if it were a crime, and implying that such "ignorance" put me among the "most dangerous" people in the world. Insults I can take, but not ducking an issue. It's not a frivolous question. The bible is repeatedly and consistently touted as the ONLY guide. But no one kills children who talk back, as commanded in the bible, so what tells you to quietly ignore that command?

It is clear that my skepticism marks me in your mind as close minded, which you regard with obvious disapproval. But we are a pair of skeptics, you and I. The following statement is a species of skepticism even more close minded:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 24 2006, 08:37 PM) [snapback]244677[/snapback]</div>

You demand "respect" for your beliefs, but express deep disdain and disrespect for any belief not your own. With an attitude like that I wouldn't be hard on skeptics, if I were you.

 

A virus changing form into another virus with or a virus with better defenses is not an example of evolution merely a form of adaptation. Better bone up on yer theories.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Apr 25 2006, 09:24 AM) [snapback]244874[/snapback]</div>

Nor in my church that what you are speaking of was however, was quite pronounced in the Catholic Church until Luther came along some 600 years ago. So what these people are talking about has not been the norm for 6 centuries. Weak argument and no basis in fact for the most part in this age.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Apr 25 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]244822[/snapback]</div>

by calling it a "church" of evolution you've gotten it all wrong. church= blind faith, proud to believe in something you can't see.

educated scientists believe nothing unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate its existence. this is the world in which I live.

we question evolution every day. we come up with more evidence to support evolution every time we question it. science is the questioning of nature. we question everything. those who go around without questioning are not scientists and should not be counted as such.

the world of science uses the word "theory" in a very different manner than the general public. do you also believe that newton's "theory" of gravity is questionable? go ahead, hold a glass in the air and let go. all evidence says it falls to the floor. is there a chance that one time you do it, it won't fall? sure. but i think the world will run out of glasses before that happens. i have seen my cat test this theory at least a thousand times by knocking objects off of tables.

the theory of matter (iirc it's the theory of matter) says that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. you can walk toward a wall and knock your head, but you won't walk through it. again, you can do this a couple million times and maybe you will get through that wall. but you'll have a headache long before that happens.

after a few attempts at coming up with a way to explain this, i ran across this on wikipedia. i think it says it pretty well. a theory is a well-substantiated idea that is widely accepted across the scientific community but still subject to revision and development.
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena, which originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 25 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]245143[/snapback]</div>

I don't know of anything in the Bible that says kill children for talking back? The Bible has many verses but you really can't make an informed decision on just one verse. Read the whole thing and then come back and tell me that God advocates killing children because they talk back. Some judge God like this and it is tantmount to Judging a Book by its Cover.

Wildkow

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 9:36-37 And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

 

genetic safeguards?

and microevolution is the only thing we can observe in our own lifetimes. how do you know that's not a very small part of a larger trend?

 

Science works. Science gives us technology and technology (for better or for worse) gives us stuff that works: Computers, airplanes, penicillin, etc.

Religion gives us myths that have fallen one by one. Religion gives us nothing but intolerance and strife.

On another matter:

I like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. They are totally bonkers, but I much prefer the company of crazy people (being a bit wacky myself) as long as they are polite and peaceful, which all the JH's and Mormons I've met are. My one regret about my present house is that it's in a community that is posted against solicitors, so the JH's and Mormons don't seem to come in.

The Mormons I've talked to have been crazier than the Jehovah's Witnesses, which makes them (the Mormons) more fun. But they're both fun and I like talking to them. Especially when they are young, female, and attractive. But even the guys are entertaining.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 25 2006, 08:03 PM) [snapback]245192[/snapback]</div>

Daniel,

that's a healthy way looking at it, LOL :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM) [snapback]245181[/snapback]</div>

Blind Faith was a great band, though B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2006, 04:59 PM) [snapback]245189[/snapback]</div>

I'd gag trying to read the whole thing. Anyway it's not necessary. Five minutes on Google found 4 consecutive verses in Deuteronomy 21:18 to 21:21, dictating that sons who don't heed their parents are to be hauled into the city square and stoned to death. There are other equally vile examples of preposterous punishments to meted out for trifles, and meted out to innocents along with the "guilty." Disgusting, bloody precepts that no modern society would tolerate, but were "normal" in primitive societies thousands of years ago.

And no one has yet answered my question. What is so difficult about answering that question?

What guide tells you what must be ignored in the bible and what must be heeded? I can't make the question much plainer than that.

Surely SOMEONE is willing to stand up for what he/she believes in and provide an answer, instead of scuttling around avoiding the issue. It doesn't make religion look good if its representatives can't be forthcoming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 25 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]245262[/snapback]</div>

I know I'm not an expert, and so my answer will be incomplete. But here is a stab at it:

There are volumes upon volumes of books dedicated to finding that answer. There are schools of thought within each faith community and, as you can expect, there is a slightly different flavor to each of them. Every Sunday in thousands of churches that question is addressed with an expository sermon that takes a verse, explains the context, examines the culture it sprang from, and interprets it. For the lay person, there are Bible Commentaries (I have a couple), books on specific books of the Bible outlining context, history and issues with the text, etc. Theologians, from Augustine on, have written extensively on this. Walk into any religious bookstore and ask to see their Bible Study aids. Or just Google that phrase. It is half or more the conservative Christian experience, and cannot be reduced to a few simple phrases.

Our Jewish cousins tell me they also have theologians who have contributed to their understanding of their scriptures, men like Maimonides, and modern Rabbis. Again, their understanding of their scriptures takes more than a few lines to explain.

Much like evolution takes more than a few statements. Theology is a branch of human knowledge, much like philosophy, that takes a lifetime to learn. And few master it.

One of the distressing things about the religion/science debates is that both sides give the other side short shrift when it comes to intelligence. Does the Creationist really think that buzz words like "irreducable complexity" destroy thousands upon thousands of journal articles? Does the evolutionist really believe that all people of faith are ignorant country bumpkins?

Stephen Jay Gould had the right idea; both science and faith exist, both are inhabited by intelligent people of good will, but they operate in different spheres, with esoteric language. You can't understand science by reading the Bible, and you can't understand the Bible by reading a scientific journal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM) [snapback]245181[/snapback]</div>

The examples you give tells me that you have miss the point of what I was saying. I do not, I repeat I do not question science when they are talking about the present (here and now) such as the examples that you give the theory of gravity and theory of matter. But, I do question science when we are talking about a "one time event" that happened in the "past" long long time ago and where there was "no humans present" to record what happened as it was happening or after it has happened.
Now todays Evolutionist Scientist as smart as they are is very limited when they are studying the theory of the Origins of the Earth and Man. For it is an event, that they "will never ever be able to repeat" in their laboratories. Does this not fall under your definition of faith which is "proud to believe in something you can't see". Unless the Evolutionist Scientist has built a time machine to go back in time, they will never ever see the earth or man when it "first came into existence". So the Evolutionist Scientists is limited by their "finiteness". Even though "eternal" God never mentions how old the earth is. If He did, you would say that to believe the age that He gave would be "blind faith" and yet when "finite" man who "was not there" says the Earth is 4.5 billion years old "you" say that this is a "fact" and not "faith".
How do you "know" what the Evolutionist Scientist tells you is "true"? It seems to be circular reasoning to me, you believe that it is a "fact" that the Earth is 4.5 billion year old "because" the Evolutionist Scientist "tells" you this based on their scientific studies. But, to make it a "fact" and not "theory" is to say that the Scientist are "not" capable of making a "mistake" or over looking some important information in their calculations. Another words, it is to ascribe some type of "deity" to the Evolutionist Scientist.

 

Religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system." In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals.

Occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restrictive sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion,

There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of an awareness of the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

William Alston has suggested that the presence of a number of the following characteristics would make a set of practices a religion: 1) Belief in supernatural beings (gods), 2) a distinction between sacred and profane objects, 3) ritual acts focused on sacred objects, 4) a moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods, (5) characteristically religious feelings, 5) prayer and other forms of communication with gods, 6) a world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein, 7) a more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view 8), a social group bound together by the above (Alston 1967, pp. 141–142).

As taken from wilpeidia
While the above indicates a set of beliefs and practices, Asian religious traditions, on the other hand, generally emphasize an inner state of realization instead of a merely instrumental rite or doctrine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 25 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]245262[/snapback]</div>

Disclaimer: I do not believe in the Bible.

The answer to your question is simple to say, but requires tremendous mental gymnastics to perform: First you decide what you want to do or to believe. Then you search the Bible (a painstaking task if you wish to be thorough) to find as many isolated and out-of-context passages as you can, that support or seem to support the decisions you've already made. If you are consciencious about it (as many believers are) you include in your search contradictory passages and search out yet other passages that give some reason or justification for ignoring the contradictory passages. You must, of course, gloss your contradictory passages so that you can argue that their "literal" meanings are other than what the words actually say, and sometimes you must even do the same with your primary passages, especially if you are determined to believe something that's not there at all.

A very broad example is shown by Shmika when he insists (as many christians do) that even though the Old Testament is the literal word of the same god, it may be ignored because it's old, while the New testament needs to be followed because it's less old. Another example that I've encountered in discussions with fundies, but which I have not seen here on PC, is the assertion that the words of Jesus should be ignored because he spoke in incomprehensible parables, and the words of Paul should be followed because he spoke in plain language.

Religious and non-religious people speak past each other because they operate in such diffeent modes: The non-believer reads something and tries to understand what it means. The believer reads something and tries to figure out how he can twist it to fit his prior beliefs. And both groups are absolutely convinced that their approach is the right one. For the believer, faith is more important than fact.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ Apr 26 2006, 02:40 AM) [snapback]245386[/snapback]</div>

and apparently the misunderstanding was reciprocal as i was using those examples to explain the word "theory" not about whether it's in the past or present. most people take gravity for granted, as a fact. however it's a theory as much as it pretty well fits the bill. i'm saying that evolution has also achieved the status of "theory."

you're talking about the coming into existence of the earth. it always comes to that with you people. look, we don't have an answer we can prove. you don't have an answer you can prove. how about we both leave that out for the time being until someone comes up with more answers. unless you build that time machine you're talking about and SEE the hand of god reaching out of the nonexistent-at-that-time sky... you're not convincing me of anything. as far as i'm concerned i accept no current answer that has been offered regarding where the earth came from.

however, when we're talking about the evolution of organisms- that we have loads of evidence to support.

earth, yes. man, no. plenty of evidence, again, to show where humans came from. or are fossils a big conspiracy theory?

actually no, i believe in what the evidence says. i can look up evidence and analyze it myself.

show me evidence god made the earth. oh wait- there is none. excepting for negative evidence which the creationists are excellent at citing...

now look. i'm not even getting into how the earth came into existence. i'm talking about the origin of species stuff here. evolution refers to organisms not a hunk of rock. rocks cannot adapt or experience genetic mutation and all those qualities of living things.

evidence. it's all about evidence. i never said the word fact. you're putting words into my mouth. scientists never take anything as fact until it has been proven without a doubt and reproduced. it's a fact that g protein coupled receptors are recycled through the endocytic pathway. however... evidence says. evidence points to. evidence demonstrates. evidence suggests... that the earth is really freakin' old.

carbon dating is a great thing to have.

again. "fact" does not enter the equation. i told you before. the ones going around claiming "fact" are not scientists. they do not understand the word "theory" as applied to scientific endeavors. as i was trying to explain to you, it means something entirely different but the word "fact" is not so much as associated with the word theory except in the negative sense.

why do you keep using that word when it's completely irrelevant? i've explained this multiple times.

science is about finding answers through a systematic series of investigations, not telling people how to live. noone here thinks any scientist is a deity, that's just foolishness.

and when you talk of omissions, errors in interpretation, miscalculations... that's what peer review is for. and no research will see the light of day without undergoing some real scrutiny and revisions first.

 

We have become a society that needs to be shown/proven to before we can believe in something, is blue really blue , or is it what somone showed us and said it was blue blue could really be black. but science says blue is blue so wetake in as true then blue is really blue..

What is science?

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Most scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well.

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena including biology;
Social sciences, the systematic study of human behaviour and society.
Mathematics has both similarities and differences compared to other fields of science, and is sometimes included within a third, separate classification, called formal science. Mathematics is similar to other sciences because it is a rigorous, structured study, (of topics such as quantity, structure, space, and change). It is different because of its method of arriving at its results. Mathematics as a whole is vital to the sciences — indeed major advances in mathematics have often led to major advances in other sciences. Certain aspects of mathematics are indispensable for the formation of hypotheses, theories and laws in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, the application of research to human needs.

Science~
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 26 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]245477[/snapback]</div>

that example is ridiculous.

and that part you put in bold about science rejecting the supernatural... of course we do. because otherwise we'd still attribute the most common natural phenomena to the gods stomping around in the clouds and etc, when there are perfectly earthly reasons for these things to happen. we aren't in ancient greece, we have the power to understand things without making stuff up.