Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60010 Nov 22, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Pardon me if I fell asleep on the turnip truck, but I surely thought Latin came from Italy.....
Can't we be mean and pedantic? We usually are.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#60011 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?
So, i do not see any anomalies there. They wrote down what they saw or they wrote down, what was passed to them.
So, they are in better position to tell the truth, than us.
We were not there, but they were.
The people you talk about were NOT there either Charles. The Genesis chapter was written around 500-600 BC. Most people in the Christian religion believe that the earth was created around 4000-4050 BC and there were NO human eyewitnesses.

So the people who wrote the stories down were not telling lies necessarily, they were passing along the old myths. They had no way of telling that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and that their, way way back, ancestors were kinda' ape-like.

The people who wrote Genesis just told a story that the people of the time could understand. Stories that were passed around the campfire when they were out herding sheep or goats.

They didn't have the science to determine that way back 40,000 years ago their ancestors mated with pre-human Neanderthals, or that Waaaaay back orders of magnitude ago, their basic ancestor was something that looked uncomfortably like a monkey.

We have the technology now Charles. We can follow blood/gene lines, we can date those lines and we can determine that the whole of humanity came from Africa and OUR modern ancestors started out 200,000 years ago. The lines of evidence are irrefutable and accepted by mainline science all over the globe.

Now can you tell me how there can still be a true Adam and Eve as the Bible describes, that lived some 6,000 years ago??

Remember that the BIG evidence for this is essentially the same as they use to send criminals to prison or to the death chamber. Also used to release people from prison who were wrongly convicted.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60012 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?
Your obedience. And money.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60013 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Blasphemy?
He was a christian who was not satisfied with the church of England.
He thought that the church was not really following the right biblical doctrines.
Of course he wasn't. In his investigation of scripture and nature he was unsatisfied. His interpretations of Jesus was idol worship. I wonder how much of him being a Christian was just a front to avoid punishment from the power vested in the church.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60014 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Deflecting what?
That... If you weren't blind you could see.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60015 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>I am not denying any thing, but objective. What do the earlier people stand to gain for telling lies?
What price were/ are they going to get for lying?
So, i do not see any anomalies there. They wrote down what they saw or they wrote down, what was passed to them.
So, they are in better position to tell the truth, than us.
We were not there, but they were.
Constantine. Without him unification and relevance of Christianity doesn't happen. It was a political move with a touch of him taking Pascal's wager.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60016 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Hogwash!!!
Your hatred for christianity will take you no where.
Nor will the love of Christianity. The good merits or ill will of a person need not be described by scripture or declared by self appointed spokesmen for imaginary deities.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#60017 Nov 22, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't we be mean and pedantic? We usually are.
No and yes and yes you are.....On second thought carry on*
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60018 Nov 22, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Hogwash!!!
Your hatred for christianity will take you no where.
I'm not asking for Christianity to take me anywhere and I'm contemptuous towards all the major religious groups who meddle in other peoples affairs. It just so happens that you're selling the preferred snake oil in this part of the world.

If you want to label it hatred, make sure you're pointing it at the right thing. I hate meddlers, especially the ones with criminal intent. Don't bring your witch doctor dance to my house. Once I've publicly rejected your literal interpretations of the Bible, I don't expect to see you shoving them at me again or you'll have a hard time distinguishing my contempt for the concept and contempt for you.
superwilly

Butler, PA

#60019 Nov 22, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor will the love of Christianity. The good merits or ill will of a person need not be described by scripture or declared by self appointed spokesmen for imaginary deities.
How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60020 Nov 22, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?
It's really as easy as understanding benevolence and malevolence. All people and animals understand this, including you. Religious paradigm unnecessary without motive.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60021 Nov 22, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as evidence, what are you looking for, pieces of the ark?
Why would you be looking for evidence of what you say is a delusion?
Why not just ignore it?, any rational person would!
If your religion didn't try to impose itself on everything from public policy to social mores, we would be happy to ignore it. Do you ever hear people complain about buddhists?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60022 Nov 22, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?
Really? You need a simple "punishment vs reward" religious paradigm to guide your morality, and without it you would be lost?

A very simple way to determine good vs bad, in a very black and white sense, is to use kant's categorical imperative - this means that any action must be universifiable. This means that whatever you do - you must imagine a world in which everyone did that, all the time, and act according to whether or not such a world would be a "nice" place (to put it very simply).

The point is,there are many other ways to judge good vs bad, and that's just one. You don't make yourself look too intelligent by claiming that religion is the only authority on morality.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#60023 Nov 22, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you attribute "good merits or ill will of a person" outside of a religious paradigm?
By what paradigm do YOU judge people?
Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. This has been said many times by many philosopers and religious folk. However they say it, this is what it boils down to. No religion required.

How about less judging and more tolerance? Certainly couldn't hurt. Even the bible's god says that judgement is his sole purview, people shouldn't judge at all. So theist or atheist, it should work for pretty much everyone.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#60024 Nov 22, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Really? You need a simple "punishment vs reward" religious paradigm to guide your morality, and without it you would be lost?
A very simple way to determine good vs bad, in a very black and white sense, is to use kant's categorical imperative - this means that any action must be universifiable. This means that whatever you do - you must imagine a world in which everyone did that, all the time, and act according to whether or not such a world would be a "nice" place (to put it very simply).
The point is,there are many other ways to judge good vs bad, and that's just one. You don't make yourself look too intelligent by claiming that religion is the only authority on morality.
Could you say the mere existence of religion and law in so many cultures is evidence that the God you choose must be moral?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60025 Nov 22, 2012
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. This has been said many times by many philosopers and religious folk. However they say it, this is what it boils down to. No religion required.
How about less judging and more tolerance? Certainly couldn't hurt. Even the bible's god says that judgement is his sole purview, people shouldn't judge at all. So theist or atheist, it should work for pretty much everyone.
The average zealot is of a dual nature. They are statistically in the majority on the self-awareness bell curve so they tend to prop up their egos with numbers and an ever increasing maze of phony logic. None the less, they lack genuine ability to understand others.

The largest minority faction is inherently better with empathy but they depend on all the simpler folk in their quest for power. They are far more likely than the zealot to lower the bar on public/political ethical behavior in order to get short-term results from the masses.

The average zealot is convinced that being of the statistical majority in their patterns of logic is proof that they genuinely understand others better than more complex groups. Some know their act is a lie, while the crazier ones convince themselves that their constant revisions have been completely consistent in their inspiration. Either way, zealots are about as nutty as they can get.

The flaws in a zealot's logic are constantly nibbling away at them from multiple sides. They know that they are trapped in their own lies. They don't think that it matters as long as they are true to the "big picture", but they don't have the big picture. That is where the denial like you see on this forum kicks in.

This is a good example of our current party politics and is why global conflicts are inevitable and cyclic in nature. Nobody learns from history because the real criminal acts are never addressed in the aftermath of conflict. Not by zealots who are driven to hide their mistakes. Not by the usurpers of the status-quo who don't want to admit to taking ethical short cuts in their quest for power.

Religion is dead but for the embarrassed silence of an already obsolete aristocracy who has already decided to let the masses fight it out. "Do unto others" morality is fine with me, but if you want to survive the next conflict, treat both sides of the political spectrum like the criminals and dumb beasts that they are and don't waste a moment on wondering what God thinks about you.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60026 Nov 22, 2012
Happy Thanksgiving to all!!!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60027 Nov 22, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you say the mere existence of religion and law in so many cultures is evidence that the God you choose must be moral?
I would suggest that even Adolph Hitler believed his actions to be moral in nature. You just don't see sane people who nurture anti-social behavior.

People just do or don't accept their limitations. You can't be all things to all people and morality always loses out to the selfishness of the majority. None the less, a selfish majority quickly becomes a minority as they fight over the diminishing riches of the exploited. I guess you're just angling on the short-term or the long-term.

If people want to come up with a genuine universal ethical standard, the first thing they need to do is stop consuming resources faster than they can be replaced. Governments don't like that idea. They want their public to be lean and hungry, but completely subordinate to the aristocracy. That won't be possible if the public stops breeding and living beyond their means, will it?

When it comes down to it, the herd wants to eliminate the weak. They are just convinced that the weak are someone else. Ethics are complete BS.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#60028 Nov 22, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>I would suggest that even Adolph Hitler believed his actions to be moral in nature. You just don't see sane people who nurture anti-social behavior.

People just do or don't accept their limitations. You can't be all things to all people and morality always loses out to the selfishness of the majority. None the less, a selfish majority quickly becomes a minority as they fight over the diminishing riches of the exploited. I guess you're just angling on the short-term or the long-term.

If people want to come up with a genuine universal ethical standard, the first thing they need to do is stop consuming resources faster than they can be replaced. Governments don't like that idea. They want their public to be lean and hungry, but completely subordinate to the aristocracy. That won't be possible if the public stops breeding and living beyond their means, will it?

When it comes down to it, the herd wants to eliminate the weak. They are just convinced that the weak are someone else. Ethics are complete BS.
Now you know how the mobocracy works.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60029 Nov 22, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The people you talk about were NOT there either Charles. The Genesis chapter was written around 500-600 BC. Most people in the Christian religion believe that the earth was created around 4000-4050 BC and there were NO human eyewitnesses.
So the people who wrote the stories down were not telling lies necessarily, they were passing along the old myths. They had no way of telling that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and that their, way way back, ancestors were kinda' ape-like.
The people who wrote Genesis just told a story that the people of the time could understand. Stories that were passed around the campfire when they were out herding sheep or goats.
They didn't have the science to determine that way back 40,000 years ago their ancestors mated with pre-human Neanderthals, or that Waaaaay back orders of magnitude ago, their basic ancestor was something that looked uncomfortably like a monkey.
We have the technology now Charles. We can follow blood/gene lines, we can date those lines and we can determine that the whole of humanity came from Africa and OUR modern ancestors started out 200,000 years ago. The lines of evidence are irrefutable and accepted by mainline science all over the globe.
Now can you tell me how there can still be a true Adam and Eve as the Bible describes, that lived some 6,000 years ago??
Remember that the BIG evidence for this is essentially the same as they use to send criminals to prison or to the death chamber. Also used to release people from prison who were wrongly convicted.
You really do have a point there. But ruling out the existence of Adam and Eve is un-called for.
There are still some elements of truths in oral traditions, but from your premise, you are saying it is wrong.
I really do think the earth is not what you guys think it is.
There is still some secrets that one can reveal, except the almighty. The quest continues.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ChANge "2" letter ChANgLE 2 min pospones 61
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min get out of the mi... 152,736
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 10 min wall paper 3,002
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 13 min Pay check 4,014
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 14 min Mix of songs 4,276
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 17 min Missing persons 26,738
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 19 min Bands Flunky 30,041
7 Teens Come Home Pregnant From School Trip 2 hr Joker 72
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr Dave 25,833
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 8 hr andet1987 2,989
More from around the web