Evolution vs. Creation

[AustinHook]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. I just say that the "faithful" here don't know what they are or what they are looking for. They expect to find out through the only actions that they feel they can trust. They would spy on people who don't know they are being spied on.
You've got totally mangled people in the faith funny farm.

I'm still looking to understand what people who claim "faith" in God, Jesus or whatever, mean by it. I figure I might be able to make at least a plausible case for some kind of God out there, and I might suspect that it was correct, but I wouldn't phrase it as faith. More likely I'd apply the word "faith" to my confidence in a light switch that had served me well already 10,000 times.

I know many people of "faith" who don't carry a lot of the baggage that the current wave of born-twicers do, and whose lives are much less messed up than those of many sceptics I know. I only wish there were an easy philosophical key to dealing with life. My experience is that religion is more like skin colour -- rather superficial to the innate personality.

As far as spying on people goes, I'm convinced that as many or more "liberal" or even non-believer politicians rationalize their need for warrantless spying as the other side does. It seems to me to be a moral failure along a different axis.

[AustinHook]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Bill, your unbelief of the bible and God definitely will not change the reality of God's existence.
Our problem generally, is see and belief. But can you see spirits physically? no, but the world, its composition, enable us to know that there is a God. We use faith to determine this( that).

Sure sounds backwards to me. If the world and its composition allow one to know that there is a God, then faith derives from that, rather than that faith determines the world and it's composition.

[AustinHook]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Bill, your unbelief of the bible and God definitely will not change the reality of God's existence.

Seems to me it should be more like "your [belief] of the bible and God definitely will not change the reality of.. existence.

[Charles Idemi]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure sounds backwards to me. If the world and its composition allow one to know that there is a God, then faith derives from that, rather than that faith determines the world and it's composition.

Opinions do differ(s).

[thewordofme]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the constitution and please tell me where it says separation of church and state. IT DOESN'T

Just didn't explain myself well...not to get upset my friend.

The country was set up so that religion did not control law and policy making. There was no national religion, like Sweden for instance.

In America many sects existed, but none were "officially" endorsed.

From what I understand the only reason many of the founders espoused religion was they could get killed if they disagreed too much. Religion is like that you know.

They still want it to be that way if you listen to the redneck creotards that clog many reply pages on some websites.

Religion is dangerous no matter which one you are talking about

[Charles Idemi]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
Seems to me it should be more like "your [belief] of the bible and God definitely will not change the reality of.. existence.

Your translation or understanding.

[thewordofme]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Bill, your unbelief of the bible and God definitely will not change the reality of God's existence.
Our problem generally, is see and belief. But can you see spirits physically? no, but the world, its composition, enable us to know that there is a God. We use faith to determine this( that).

Well Charles since I don't believe any God exists of course I am not changing the "reality" of God. God is not a reality.

My mission in life is to turn religious believers into non-believers by showing them the ridiculousness of that belief and how ridicules the whole sky-daddy thing is. We are very far away from the bronze age now and we need to stand up and cast off the old boogeyman who some think controls human destiny somehow.

[AustinHook]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Opinions do differ(s).

And clear explanations of how one arrived at an opinion are the heart of of a very important thing that we can do fo each other. It builds group knowledge and consensus.

[AustinHook]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>

My mission in life is to turn religious believers into non-believers by showing them the ridiculousness of that belief and how ridicules the whole sky-daddy thing is. We are very far away from the bronze age now and we need to stand up and cast off the old boogeyman who some think controls human destiny somehow.

Maybe we should settle for more and better airtight compartmentalization. I notice that in daily life it works pretty well; if only the politicians would leave it alone.

[tony1003]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks. Not the 290 mya whale fossils I am looking for, but interesting.
The first link is higly biased and short on important details, but the second link provided more detail.
So if creation geologist consider this to be evidence of a Worldwide flood, then they are pusing the date of that unsupported event back 2 million years if they are using these fossils. That may be the first time I have read about alledged flood evidence that didn't hit around the 4-6 thousand year range.
I tried getting the actual article from Geology that these two articles report on, but was unable to get access.

Only problem with that date using that is the humanoid species of that time would probably have had no chance of building an ark (lacked the skills/brainpower)- so either way the Noah story goes out of the window.

[tony1003]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

The human brain is intricate in its fashioning and it is associated with the timing and functioning and correlating of much of the great complexity of the body. We as humans are apart from other creatures and much of our refinements are related to our brain and hand coordination. We think and feel with our hands. The hands contribute to the mental processes of thought and feeling.

Wonder where you plagiarised this? Ain't yours, that's for sure. Did you know that plagiarism is theft and one of the commandments has something to say on that one?

[tony1003]

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>All people are born with a sinful or disobedient nature that must be brought into subjection. We inherit the sins of our fathers, its just the way it is, but the good news is we can overcome through faith in God and what he has done on the cross.

Original sin, the most mendacious of any of the Christian doctrines. That, and the churching of women I do not in any form accept. Just a historical way of frightening people into taking their baby into the church through infant baptism. Even some of the Non-conformist churches reject it, going for adult baptism. Try approaching religion with a critical mind, not one that parrots all doctrine as sacrosanct.

[tony1003]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone has a form of faith in something even if it is faith in themselves. Evos have faith that the science behind evolution is correct. The theory of evolution wasn't the brain child of just one person. So you have to believe the people who have been finding the evidence took no short cuts or didn't miss anything. Science rejects the supernatural in all forms. So logic says it wouldn't matter if God came down in a blaze of glory science would deny it.

That is the whole point of critical peer review. Scientists are always cynical of new findings until they are verified. Evolutionaries (i.e. the vast majority of people) do not have faith in science. They accept that true scientists use correct scientific methodology, unlike creationist "scientists" who set out with an agenda and try to make the facts fit their faith.

Of course elements are not yet discovered (or "missed" if you prefer the term). If we had all of them, there would be no need for further research. I have great concern when reference is made to belief and faith in relation to science. Science is not about some leap of faith, although I credit that insight and flashes of genius are vital to it. It is about "10% inspiration and 90% perspiration" (Einstein).

Mixing facts and faith do not make science. Faith requires belief in something that is unverifiable, the obvious example being a deity. Even Rousseau hedged his bets with his ambiguity of "if God did not exist, man would need to invent Him". Science seeks absolutes that are provable. It does not always find them, but year by year the "don't know" pool is shrinking.

[tony1003]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
So kids who's parents are addicts aren't more likely to be also?
Kids of abusive parents aren't more likely to be abusive also?
The old saying you become your parents is never true?

Sorry, no to this one. You are referring to learnt berhaviour, not some propensity to sin that is there at birth. Those abused are more likely to abuse because they are socialised into that behavioural pattern. Likewise with "becoming your parents". Addiction is more complex - it would seem that there are some with a greater likelihood to having addictive personalities, just as there are some with mental illness who become dangerous. However, if this was something universal, it would apply to all, not just to a limited number. Don't think religion has anything to do with it, but since I'm not a psychiatrist, not qualified to judge.

[tony1003]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
Burn and abandon the constitution.
However if we're going to do that you'll lose the other 9 of your bill of rights. Established by Christians
"What must the United States do to rid ourselves of this blight (creationism) on humanity?"

Sorry, many of your Founding Fathers were deists at best, which is why they deliberately tried to ensure separation of church and state. Not totally successful in the first attempt, hence the need for the First Amendment to the US Constitution with its wording on religion.

Ironic, isn't it, that in the UK, the Church is part of the State, yet we seem to have a more balanced approach to issues of religion?

[tony1003]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> I am not preaching but clarifying.

Wow, humour this early in the day. Just spent five minutes cleaning off the tea I sprayed all over the keyboard. You couldn't clarify butter, let alone factual information. Still giggling over the irony of this statement.

[Charles Idemi]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Well Charles since I don't believe any God exists of course I am not changing the "reality" of God. God is not a reality.
My mission in life is to turn religious believers into non-believers by showing them the ridiculousness of that belief and how ridicules the whole sky-daddy thing is. We are very far away from the bronze age now and we need to stand up and cast off the old boogeyman who some think controls human destiny somehow.

What does one man or a few set of people going to speak against the existence of the most high.
Don't waste your time on that, because no one has ever succeeded doing that.

[Charles Idemi]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
And clear explanations of how one arrived at an opinion are the heart of of a very important thing that we can do fo each other. It builds group knowledge and consensus.

Ofcourse. You are welcome.

[Charles Idemi]

tony1003 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, humour this early in the day. Just spent five minutes cleaning off the tea I sprayed all over the keyboard. You couldn't clarify butter, let alone factual information. Still giggling over the irony of this statement.

Likewise.

[AustinHook]

tony1003 wrote:

<quoted text>
Original sin, the most mendacious of any of the Christian doctrines.

Regardless of the religious origin of the original sin concept, I find it a great insight into human behaviour. It is a manifestation of the natural tension between selfish behaviour and altruistic behaviour. Baptism, unfortunately, does not seem to really fix the problem, as it is endlessly complex.