User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 129 to 136 of 195

Thread: Which religions are represented here?

  1. #129
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Well, why didn't the Mayans become a different species than the Chinese?
    because neither group was ever *fully* isolated from the rest of humanity.
    and even if they were fully isolated, there wasnt enough time..
    Humans have been in the Americas for less than 40,000 years, which isnt nearly enough time..and besides, they were never completely isolated anyway..

    you get new species when 2 popultations are fully isolated from each other..for a long time.
    such as new world vs. old world monkeys,
    (have been seperated for 36 million years, since Africa and South America split..)
    or marsupials in Australia.
    Australia has been very isloated from the rest of the world for a long time..and it sports many species that live only there..because they evolved there, because they were isolated..
    Scot

  2. #130

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,265
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey Capslock,

    You bring up a good point, but I must question one thing. Doesn't everybody have a bias? Whether they proudly proclaim it or hide it under titles and fancy words, everybody has a bias. I happen to agree with their bias, which was why I went to their site. Just because they (like the rest of the world) are biased, doesn't make what they say any less true!

    I must point out that it took me about two minutes to find those articles on the web. I read them, thought the authors made good points and posted them. I did make a mistake in not doing a background search on the authors, which could lead to fatal assumptions (or a lot of time spent going nowhere!).

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Whenever possible, it pays to seek non-partisan, unbiased information from people who don't have a stake in one answer.
    I don't think such a resource exists!? Everybody has a stake in this fundamental question. Many other beliefs (such as in the existence of a God) are balanced on top of this argument, and I'll guarantee you that they'll have a say in that!

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]They start from a conclusion and work backwards, which is the opposite of the scientific method
    In order for something such as the creation of the world to be proved by science, it has to be three things.

    1)Observable
    2)Measurable
    3)Repeatable

    Nobody can do this with the creation of the world, so we're all looking backwards. I at least have an eyewitness account (Bible) by the Creator Himself! Really, evolutionists are worse off in this scenario!

    On to Scot!

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Humans have been in the Americas for less than 40,000 years, which isnt nearly enough time..and besides, they were never completely isolated anyway..
    So, who gets to decide how much time is necessary? If I went and asked another evolutionist, would he be consistent with you? Who gets to define completely isolated?

    Great stuff guys!

    SF

  3. #131
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SF, you're absolutely correct, everyone has biases, but I don't think all biases are equal. There are many evolution-believing scientists who are Christian (even most of them?), so I don't view this as a religious arguement as much as a scientific one. In any case, "evolution" arguements don't start from the conclusion that evolution is true. Creation arguements do, however.

    The case for evolution is made by fossils, genetic mutation, DNA evidence, and observable evolution and speciation in the lab. In other words, tons of physical, testable, observable evidence. And also, more importantly, evolution isn't tied to any doctrine; if scientists find it's not true, then science is STRENGTHENED, not weakened. However, if creation is found to be untrue, then some people's religious doctrines have to be modified, and therefore there is a considerable psychological hurdle to overcome.

    But your point is correct, everyone has biases, myself included. We should endeavor to minimize them, however, whereas I see folk like "Answers in Genesis" almost celebrating their biases.

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  4. #132
    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)
    The real question to be answereed is, Who is responsible for all that has been created? If the credit goes to God, it doesn't matter how He did it or any of the other sub-debates. After all, there are still a few folks that just can't accept that He become a human and interact with other humans. Believe it or not there are some folks that can't accept that He is Fully God and fully human and fully Spirit. He's God and His thoughts and ways are not like ours. they are far beyond our comprehension. Just ask Job. He was a decent fella and was called to task by God - but he was also commended by God for his faith. This topic bears a striking resemblance to the Book of Job.

  5. #133

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    I'm from Mississippi but I go to college In New Orleans
    Posts
    467
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well jainism is one that you might have left out oh yeah maybe you should put down Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic.
    I love Vin Diesel!! *Growl* Nobody better talk bad about him or else!!!

    Squirdword-\"Why do today what you can put off 'till tomorrow.\"
    Mr. Krabs-\"What is today but yesterday's tomorrow.\"
    *~*Spongebob Squarepants*~*

  6. #134
    noah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Senegal
    Posts
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Capslock and others...

    Just want to point something out here....

    I hear a lot of "science disproves God" or "science supports this" or "science shows that". The fact of the matter is, science itself is based on an unproven premise, though necessarily so.

    For any logical conclusion to be true, it has to be valid (based on solid logic) and also sound (based on true premises). However, science itself is limited to the measurable world. There are some things that can not be measured - love, the existence of God, etc. These can not be accounted for in scientific experiments and therefore can not be included.

    Just because they can not be included does not mean that they don't exist. We all know that love is very real, even if science can not prove that it exists or how. It can only show the effects of it in some cases.

    Now, since some things can't be measured, scientists have left them out of their equations, and many have discounted their existence alltogether. For example, all of science is based on the premise that there is no God. If it wasn't, no conclusion could be sure - metaphysical intervention can not be measured: it doesn't follow laws of nature. Scientist have to leave God and other unmeasurables out of their equations. It's science.

    However, as I mentioned earlier, a logical conclusion has to be sound for to be true. All that science has shown assumes that God doesn't exist. If he does, the conclusions science comes up with might end up differently. For example, science might find that something/one must have created the universe. But based on the assumption that he doesn't, evolution is at this point in time the most plausible theory around for how life came about.

    If one chooses to hold on to the premise that there is no God simply because he can't be measured, then one has no choice but to embrace the 1 in a googleplex chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans. It is indeed the most scientifically evidenced conclusion out there based on the premise of the non-existance of God. However, it is not a proven conclusion - the premise it is based on is an unproven assumption scientists must make.

    The existance of God is as real to me as the existance of love. Sure it can't be measured, and it probably won't ever make it into the average college textbook. But science can't measure everything in this world.

    So my point is, don't try to use science to prove or disprove the existance of God. Science can try to show that the world COULD have come about without God, but it can't prove or disprove his existance. At best, it can show some of the effects therof.

    So where does this leave us in a debate like this? We can:

    A) Use science as evidence for the POSSIBILITY of evolution
    B) Use science as evidence againts the POSSIBILITY of evolution
    C) Talk about moral consequences of various worldviews.
    D) etc.

    ...but we can NOT use science as an ultimate indicator of the existance of God.

    K? cheers!

    -noah [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

  7. #135
    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)
    Archaeological science has done an excellent job of confirming Biblical history. Science, that which isn't abusive, is nothing to fear. There was an individual who was anti-Christian, named Josh McDowell, who set out to prove the Bible was false. So he read it thoroughly. He then decided that his position was wrong and he became a Christian. He then wrote a book called, "Evidence That Demands A Verdict." Great book. He followed it up with another, "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict." It was over my head at the time - lotsa criticism - literary, form, historical. Does that prove anything? No, but it was impressive. Please read the Bible - all of it. Get the big picture - the forest for the trees, as it were. See God's love for us. See the imagery, the poetry, the differing audiences, the history, the literalness, the metaphorical. Then decide.

  8. #136
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Noah,
    good points!
    I also believe Science cant prove, or disprove anything about God..but science doesent care..
    you are assuming a few of your ideas are facts, when they are actually only opinions..

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Now, since some things can't be measured, scientists have left them out of their equations, and many have discounted their existence alltogether. For example, all of science is based on the premise that there is no God. If it wasn't, no conclusion could be sure - metaphysical intervention can not be measured: it doesn't follow laws of nature. Scientist have to leave God and other unmeasurables out of their equations. It's science.
    the thing about that is..Science doesent need to care one way or the other if God exists or not..
    all of Science's conclusions still work regardless of God's existance or non-existance! either way is perfectly fine with Science! I believe in God, I also believe 100% in evolution..the 2 beliefs are not mutually exclusive..
    I simply dont believe the bible is a factual book..God can be very seperate from the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]metaphysical intervention can not be measured: it doesn't follow laws of nature.
    yes, but Nature does follow the laws of nature!
    everything that science observes follows the laws of nature.
    if you assume the "laws of nature" are "God's laws"..then God is breaking a lot of his own laws! why would God write something (in the bible) then show it to be utterly untrue in the real world? that doesent make sense to me..
    for the Bible to be literally true, then one of either 2 things has to also be true:
    A. God is capable of being wrong..because he wrote things in the bible that can be proven to be untrue..I believe God is incapable of being wrong..
    or..
    B. God lied to us.
    He said things in the bible that he just made up..which he didnt really do..
    I also believe that is untrue..
    So if God is never wrong, and is also never a liar, there is only one conclusion for me..the bible was written by humans..who were wrong. because they didnt know what was what 2,000 years ago..

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]However, as I mentioned earlier, a logical conclusion has to be sound for to be true. All that science has shown assumes that God doesn't exist. If he does, the conclusions science comes up with might end up differently. For example, science might find that something/one must have created the universe. But based on the assumption that he doesn't, evolution is at this point in time the most plausible theory around for how life came about.
    thats not true..it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that God exists, it is also impossible to prove he created the universe..
    therefore evolution is the only plausable theory for how life came about based on evidence that physically exists..
    yes creationism is another theory..but one based only on faith..not based on any factual evidence whatsoever..
    Creationism theory flatly contradicts everything God put on the surface of the planet..and inside it..why would he do that?
    if one is to believe in the literal existance of God...one has to believe what he is showing us! I dont understand how creationists can believe in God, and then utterly ignore all of His creation! thats so bizzare..

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]If one chooses to hold on to the premise that there is no God simply because he can't be measured, then one has no choice but to embrace the 1 in a googleplex chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans
    1 in a googleplex? did you make that number up yourself?
    that arguement is meaningless..because first of all..no one knows what that actual odds are..and secondly, lets say the odds ARE one in a googleplex..well, it STILL could have happened then right?! without God! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img] you are saying it IS possible!
    the only way to really use that arguement as a arguement against evolution is to say "then one has no choice but to embrace the IMPOSSIBLE chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans"
    and of course..no one can say its factually impossible..
    therefore, ANY odds are still odds it could have happened..

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]So where does this leave us in a debate like this? We can:

    A) Use science as evidence for the POSSIBILITY of evolution
    Right! that is what we are doing! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]B) Use science as evidence againts the POSSIBILITY of evolution
    Science does that too! no problem there..

    eventually Creationism will fall by the wayside..along with the Flat earth theory, and the "fact" that the Sun and everything else revolves around the Earth..ideas that were once believed as truth but were disproved by Science..
    creationism is just another one of those ancient relics supported by nothing and disproved by everything..
    if you just look around, its Obvious how God works..
    to me, the study of Evolution is also the study of God and the amazing things he has done with life..

    I believe evolution based on facts..
    I believe in God based on faith alone..
    I disbelieve the bible, creationism, the flood, etc..based on tons of factual eveidence against these myths..and zero factual eveidence to support them..

    Scot

Posting Permissions

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