User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 112

Thread: the death of Christianity

  1. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes they may be from harvard but it also is from 1926. The picture quality is bad and makes it hard to judge its true dinosaur form. Also there are several other glyphs of "unknown" form which leads me to believe this painting may have a different meaning than a dinosaur. Also 12million(last dinos) minus ~10,000 (first humans in N. America) still leaves about 11 million 990,000 years between the last dino and the first humans that could have seen them. Something tells me this picture is not quite what its cracked up to be. Unless of coarse the clovis people had time machines. LOL
    "We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should." - Kurt Vonnegut

  2. #26
    Tropical Fish Enthusiast jimscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    18,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JustLikeAPill View Post
    I don't see why some Christians get so pissed at the theory of evolution. I don't see why God couldn't have made everything through evolution.
    I don't have a problem with that at all. We weren't there. We can't possibly know how He did things. He could have zapped things into existence, some 6,000 years ago, as the literalists theorize.... or he coulda done it over trillions of years time. My bet is on the latter. Does it really matter how he did things? The real is issue is whether He is the author of it all or not. I say He is and I don't care how He did things.

  3. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Except for the detail in the first definition you could argue that Darwinism is indeed a religion. It is a set of beliefs that scientist practice in explaining how our world and the universe works, and it is definitely agreed on by a large number of people. So if you stuck solely to the definition of religion you could say that darwinism is a religion. The definition says nothing of spirituality, that is just something that has been associated with religion. But people generally don't think of Darwinism as a religion. I was pointing out that the author if he had chosen to, could say Darwinism is a religion.
    Wrong. Next stupid assertion.

    Religion is based on faith, science is based on observation and experimentation. We have observed evolution, ergo it is science. And yes, we have *directly* observed evolution, including the origin of a new species from existing species.

    Could it just be one of those urban legends? If anyone has a site to shed light on this please post, like I said I found this interesting.
    It's called the "Lady Hope story", after the liar who started it. Yes, it is just an urban legend, or, more specifically, just one of the many blatant falsifications the creationist loons use to push there agenda.

    Such as...
    Maybe not the t-rex or the sort as it's not documented, but they've found cave drawings of dinosaurs.
    No, they did not. This is false information.

    ad a harder time doing that than finding something of value. Heck, they're a bunch of Harvard people.
    No, they aren't. The document is clearly falsified, as there is absolutely no record of it in the scientific literature. Your source is a creationist website, and, as they are already proven to lie in order to sell their fairy tales, cannot be trusted.

    The real is issue is whether He is the author of it all or not. I say He is and I don't care how He did things.
    Precisely - if I throw a ball at you, physics dictates the path, but I'm responsible for the action itself. I took action, but acted within physical laws to do so.

    Or, look at it this way - we're not gods, and we've invented machines to do our work for us. Do we really think god is so stupid he does everything manually, rather than setting up a system that will automatically do what he wants with only an invisible nudge every few million years?


    Honestly, I've been watching the whole creationism thing for decades, and they have not only failed to come up with any convincing argument or real data, but even worse are just recycling the same tired and disproved tropes they used 150 years ago.

    And, while I'm coming at things from a scientific perspective, don't think I wouldn't call BS if I saw it - I'm about to lay some serious smackdown on the entire field of primate locomotion because of flaws in some of the original papers. Puncturing existing theories is a great way to make a name in science, and it's a very competitive field. Do you seriously think that if there was some big secret, nobody would have tried to make their name by blowing the cover? If you do, you *clearly* have no idea how little cash a post-doc makes compared to faculty.

    Seriously, creationism is an embarrassment to religion. It's crappy theology supported by made-up stories.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  4. #28
    FarmerDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,355
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Except for the detail in the first definition you could argue that Darwinism is indeed a religion. It is a set of beliefs that scientist practice in explaining how our world and the universe works, and it is definitely agreed on by a large number of people. So if you stuck solely to the definition of religion you could say that darwinism is a religion. The definition says nothing of spirituality, that is just something that has been associated with religion. But people generally don't think of Darwinism as a religion. I was pointing out that the author if he had chosen to, could say Darwinism is a religion.
    Wrong. Next stupid assertion.

    Religion is based on faith, science is based on observation and experimentation. We have observed evolution, ergo it is science. And yes, we have *directly* observed evolution, including the origin of a new species from existing species.
    Well I don't entirely believe that what you're saying is true.
    Isn't religion a way of life?
    So if you decide to live your life a certain way because of your beliefs then wouldn't you be living by your religion?
    If one were to think of Darwinism as a religion then wouldn't that be their religion?
    because even if you don't think of it as a religion it still is if there is at least one believer.
    So, even if it is proven with scientific fact doesn't that mean that there is more sense into believing in that certain religion?

  5. #29
    JRFxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    536
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, because I beleive the sun will rise tomorrow and thats not a religion. Its been observed and proven as a fact, just like evolution has been proven to occur.

  6. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isn't religion a way of life?
    Not technically - that would be a culture or personal creed, which, while religion can influence or define it, can also exist independently of religion. For instance, I strongly doubt there's a religious reason for the cuisine of New Orleans, but having lived there, I can definitely say it's a way of life. Damn I miss Cafe du Monde.

    If one were to think of Darwinism as a religion then wouldn't that be their religion?
    because even if you don't think of it as a religion it still is if there is at least one believer.
    So, even if it is proven with scientific fact doesn't that mean that there is more sense into believing in that certain religion?
    By that logic, physics is a religion, since it defines the movement of the solar system and the perceived movement of the sun, leading to centuries of sun-worship. Such sun-worship was indeed a religion, but the sun's perceived movement is not, rather being the phenomenon from which the religion sprung.

    Similarly, science is not a religion, nor is any part of it. If people were to religiously interpret certain aspects, it could be the source of one, but it itself could not be accurately classified as one.

    Belief doesn't enter into science, only evidence.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  7. #31
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wesley, cave drawings can be vauge and poorly drawn, leaving much open to interpretation. Like a child’s doodles. Because someone believes that that painting represents a dino does not mean it does.



    "thats not a doggy. Its a PONY!!"
    that makes no logic

  8. #32
    herenorthere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    almost Hartford
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's a lot of belief & faith in science too, but it's different. The world's astrophysicists can only have faith in the work of of molecular biologist and vice versa. What they really believe in is that the system will discard the false or unsupported on the way to the truth. It can be an ugly process, but it works pretty well. Except when the process is distorted for other ends. That's what I find so disturbing about creation "science" and intelligent design. They don't originate from data, they originate from dogma.

    I can't remember the details, but the old USSR had an aversion to some basic aspect of evolution/biology because whatever it was didn't conform with Stalin's political ideas. So the nation's science & medicine were hobbled for years because of an ignorant politician's biases. If I remember correctly, that politics didn't extend into weapons research. Scientists working with biological weapons were free to follow the latest biological advances of the west. Stalin: our role model these days.
    Bruce in CT

    Madness is something rare in individuals but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule. Friedrich Nietzsche

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •