Try this article.
Scare Tactics
Seafox14
Full Version: Why Is Evolution Taught As Fact
Rouge and ruse.
A Wittgensteinian Meditation
Someone writes, “Granted, I cannot tell another person what color 'red' is without allowing my own biases to come into play.”
Yet, at the same time, we all KNOW what “red” is. That means for communication to be possible, there must be a common conception enshrined in language. But then, “red” can have thousands of shades, and by “red” we really don't mean ONE particular shade of “red” but “redness” in general. But what, or where, is this “redness”? Does the sentence “Tell me what redness is” make the same sense as the question “Is this object red or not?”
Nor is it the case of someone carrying a colour swatch of “scientific red” red in their pocket (or in their mind) and then comparing every instance of colour encountered. The red of the bookcovers of all the Greek authors in the Loeb Classical Library is not the red of the Chicago Fire Department trucks, but we call both instances “red,” almost without thinking.
I buy young Timmy a prism for his birthday, and show him how to hold it to the light so the spectrum of recognisable colours is displayed on a wall in his room. I ask him to go to the wall and show with his hands the red area in the band of colour. One of his hands includes “too much” yellow in the band, so I move it towards the center.
This doesn't mean, though, that he is biased, or lying, or indulging in propaganda, or that Timmy doesn't know what red IS, but that he isn't sure of how the word “red” is used in borderline situations.[Another question entirely is whether this is indeed a borderline situation, and if so, how does one determine this.] Give Timmy a dozen different shades of “red” blocks and ask him to arrange these from darkest to lightest, and he can do the task easily. What is the difference here?
Our young friend Timmyproudly announces that “Augustus Casear was the first President of the United States.” I do not lecture him about being biased, but point out that his announcement is wrong and that the correct answer is George Washington.” And he does not, in turn, tell me that I am biased. “I guess I was misinformed,” he says.
By biased, don't we usually mean that the “fact” at hand is distorted or dependent on some quality of the person asserting it, and at the same time, that the “fact” advocated or advanced deviates from the universally or generally recognised conception of it?
“Facts,” we seem to feel, should be independent of the person asserting them. A biased person, on the other hand, allows concepts to “distort” what he means by “fact” or a particular fact. And doesn't this mean the person makes the “fact” dependent upon OTHER perspectives—-and at the same time, we feel these other perspectives to be inapplicable and inappropriate in this instance? Being biased implies a straying from the “Truth” of the matter at hand for the “wrong” reasons.
Or: thinking about it from another way, being biased is meaningful in the domain of opinions, being wrong is meaningful when applied to the domain of “facts.” We do not have to know whether the “fact” is (absolutely and correspondently, etc.) True, or not, but whether it belongs to the first or second domain--- or perhaps still yet another domain---and what the rules and procedures are for each.
For another time:
We could easily assume that “red” is an example of a generalisation. And then the question presents itself, do some generalisations "work" as communication, and present meaningfullness precisely because they falsify? And further, would the higher up the ladder of generalisation imply a greater degree of falsification? Or truth? And falsification of WHAT?
Regards,
John
A Wittgensteinian Meditation
Someone writes, “Granted, I cannot tell another person what color 'red' is without allowing my own biases to come into play.”
Yet, at the same time, we all KNOW what “red” is. That means for communication to be possible, there must be a common conception enshrined in language. But then, “red” can have thousands of shades, and by “red” we really don't mean ONE particular shade of “red” but “redness” in general. But what, or where, is this “redness”? Does the sentence “Tell me what redness is” make the same sense as the question “Is this object red or not?”
Nor is it the case of someone carrying a colour swatch of “scientific red” red in their pocket (or in their mind) and then comparing every instance of colour encountered. The red of the bookcovers of all the Greek authors in the Loeb Classical Library is not the red of the Chicago Fire Department trucks, but we call both instances “red,” almost without thinking.
I buy young Timmy a prism for his birthday, and show him how to hold it to the light so the spectrum of recognisable colours is displayed on a wall in his room. I ask him to go to the wall and show with his hands the red area in the band of colour. One of his hands includes “too much” yellow in the band, so I move it towards the center.
This doesn't mean, though, that he is biased, or lying, or indulging in propaganda, or that Timmy doesn't know what red IS, but that he isn't sure of how the word “red” is used in borderline situations.[Another question entirely is whether this is indeed a borderline situation, and if so, how does one determine this.] Give Timmy a dozen different shades of “red” blocks and ask him to arrange these from darkest to lightest, and he can do the task easily. What is the difference here?
Our young friend Timmyproudly announces that “Augustus Casear was the first President of the United States.” I do not lecture him about being biased, but point out that his announcement is wrong and that the correct answer is George Washington.” And he does not, in turn, tell me that I am biased. “I guess I was misinformed,” he says.
By biased, don't we usually mean that the “fact” at hand is distorted or dependent on some quality of the person asserting it, and at the same time, that the “fact” advocated or advanced deviates from the universally or generally recognised conception of it?
“Facts,” we seem to feel, should be independent of the person asserting them. A biased person, on the other hand, allows concepts to “distort” what he means by “fact” or a particular fact. And doesn't this mean the person makes the “fact” dependent upon OTHER perspectives—-and at the same time, we feel these other perspectives to be inapplicable and inappropriate in this instance? Being biased implies a straying from the “Truth” of the matter at hand for the “wrong” reasons.
Or: thinking about it from another way, being biased is meaningful in the domain of opinions, being wrong is meaningful when applied to the domain of “facts.” We do not have to know whether the “fact” is (absolutely and correspondently, etc.) True, or not, but whether it belongs to the first or second domain--- or perhaps still yet another domain---and what the rules and procedures are for each.
For another time:
We could easily assume that “red” is an example of a generalisation. And then the question presents itself, do some generalisations "work" as communication, and present meaningfullness precisely because they falsify? And further, would the higher up the ladder of generalisation imply a greater degree of falsification? Or truth? And falsification of WHAT?
Regards,
John
QUOTE(jgweed @ May 18 2007, 07:15 PM) 
Yet, at the same time, we all KNOW what “red” is.
Except those who have been blind from birth.
This is not an attack, John as unfortunately I couldn't get the point of your post. I really enjoyed the references to fear-mongering used by schools (and also politicians), Seafox. IMO, teachers and professors are so underpaid it pushes them so far left that they fall over the edge
I promise to make good on the Ann Coulter quote. (I can hear the groaning and teeth-clinching already! so sorry )
(Off topic
) Did y'all know that "green" alternative fuels are going to be bad for the environment b/c of the use of extra water and fertilizer plus, the price of corn will go up! (some politician). This is so twisted - Congress hasn't even called on the scientific community to offer their ideas and inventions. FYI, algae is being used in a completely closed system to recycle carbon waste! (source: Discovery Channel)
CODE
"Yet, at the same time, we all KNOW what “red” is."
--->Except those who have been blind from birth.
--->Except those who have been blind from birth.
Christians - 1
Lions - 0
FAITH, my friends, Faith...
QUOTE(blueandgold04 @ May 17 2007, 05:54 AM)
This is principally one of the reasons that I am so drawn to science (Chemistry in particular), this idea that things can be explained more succinctly through study. While what nn23 postulates has definite merit, I think you have made a good point. Granted, I cannot tell another person what color 'red' is without allowing my own biases to come into play. However, I can tell them that the wavelength of radiation that causes our brains to interpret the color red is approximately in the range of 750-650 nanometers.
As this can be measured repeatably, there is no need for interpretation. Thus, there is no need for bias. While it may be true that as time goes by, a better model may develop to explain electromagnetic radiation (in regards to its quantification), it will still be based on measurable and repeatable quantities. If these units of measure are used consistently within calculation and extrapolation, the role of bias and personal interpretation is mitigated.
Observation and sight are two entirely different methods of analysis. It is important to remember this distinction in many facets of our lives.
As this can be measured repeatably, there is no need for interpretation. Thus, there is no need for bias. While it may be true that as time goes by, a better model may develop to explain electromagnetic radiation (in regards to its quantification), it will still be based on measurable and repeatable quantities. If these units of measure are used consistently within calculation and extrapolation, the role of bias and personal interpretation is mitigated.
Observation and sight are two entirely different methods of analysis. It is important to remember this distinction in many facets of our lives.
blueandgold, I am similarly drawn to science; my personal favorite is astronomy. I agree that for scientific purposes, a measure of the wavelength of a given source of light removes "personal bias" of this sort from experimental data. However, for daily experience, I find it interesting that the concept of color is so integral to our view of the world. Indeed, scientists even refer to the Doppler Effect as "blue shift" and "red shift."
As for the construct of color: as jgweed pointed out, at least in a general sense, we can agree on what color is what. My hypothesis for this commonality is simple: human brains are constructed the same way and therefore function similarly, at least to some margin of error. One might extend this hypothesis to suggest that because other species' brains have the same origins, other animals' brains are similarly constructed (fundamentally speaking) and as such interpret light in a similar way (of course, as far as a given species is able to detect differences in wavelengths).
But, again, is color itself real? We know that EM radiation can propagate in a vast range of wavelengths. Since color is integral to our perception of the world around us, is it therefore inseparable in any practical way from the world itself?
The point: if for a moment we conclude that color itself is simply a construct created by our brains to interpret varying wavelengths of light and has no meaning outside our perception of the universe, what other facets of self-awareness are incorrectly assumed to exist independently of our minds?
That feeling in your stomach when you listen to a favorite piece of music; that awe you feel when you look a beautiful natural landscape or a star filled sky in a dark remote location; the connection you feel to a friend or loved one; the creepy suspicion you are not alone, yet you know you are in an empty building; the sensation of the presence of a higher being?
What is that stuff?
How can we determine whether the source of a given experience exists within us or without?
Talking about Colours and Wavelenghts, can anyone explain how a Rainbow's colours are produced? Or point me to a Link.
QUOTE(DSTM @ May 22 2007, 05:22 AM)
Talking about Colours and Wavelenghts, can anyone explain how a Rainbow's colours are produced? Or point me to a Link.
Basically, rain droplets behave like a compound prism, ie, each droplet refracts light waves at a different angle depending on the frequency...aka color...of light that goes through it.
Here's a good linky on the subject.
Thanks for the links,Guys. I should have known it,but I didn't.Always been amazed at the colours in a Rainbow and the beautiful colours and formations of the 'Aurora' Borealis or 'Northern Lights'.
I should have known it,but I didn't.Always been amazed at the colours in a Rainbow and the beautiful colours and formations of the 'Aurora' Borealis or 'Northern Lights'.
Not even a week open and the protests against the creation museum are having the opposite effect that they were intended to have.
Responding to Protestor's Propaganda
Seafox14
Responding to Protestor's Propaganda
Seafox14
QUOTE(locally pwned @ May 22 2007, 08:01 AM)
QUOTE(blueandgold04 @ May 17 2007, 05:54 AM)
This is principally one of the reasons that I am so drawn to science (Chemistry in particular), this idea that things can be explained more succinctly through study. While what nn23 postulates has definite merit, I think you have made a good point. Granted, I cannot tell another person what color 'red' is without allowing my own biases to come into play. However, I can tell them that the wavelength of radiation that causes our brains to interpret the color red is approximately in the range of 750-650 nanometers.
As this can be measured repeatably, there is no need for interpretation. Thus, there is no need for bias. While it may be true that as time goes by, a better model may develop to explain electromagnetic radiation (in regards to its quantification), it will still be based on measurable and repeatable quantities. If these units of measure are used consistently within calculation and extrapolation, the role of bias and personal interpretation is mitigated.
Observation and sight are two entirely different methods of analysis. It is important to remember this distinction in many facets of our lives.
As this can be measured repeatably, there is no need for interpretation. Thus, there is no need for bias. While it may be true that as time goes by, a better model may develop to explain electromagnetic radiation (in regards to its quantification), it will still be based on measurable and repeatable quantities. If these units of measure are used consistently within calculation and extrapolation, the role of bias and personal interpretation is mitigated.
Observation and sight are two entirely different methods of analysis. It is important to remember this distinction in many facets of our lives.
blueandgold, I am similarly drawn to science; my personal favorite is astronomy. I agree that for scientific purposes, a measure of the wavelength of a given source of light removes "personal bias" of this sort from experimental data. However, for daily experience, I find it interesting that the concept of color is so integral to our view of the world. Indeed, scientists even refer to the Doppler Effect as "blue shift" and "red shift."
As for the construct of color: as jgweed pointed out, at least in a general sense, we can agree on what color is what. My hypothesis for this commonality is simple: human brains are constructed the same way and therefore function similarly, at least to some margin of error. One might extend this hypothesis to suggest that because other species' brains have the same origins, other animals' brains are similarly constructed (fundamentally speaking) and as such interpret light in a similar way (of course, as far as a given species is able to detect differences in wavelengths).
But, again, is color itself real? We know that EM radiation can propagate in a vast range of wavelengths. Since color is integral to our perception of the world around us, is it therefore inseparable in any practical way from the world itself?
The point: if for a moment we conclude that color itself is simply a construct created by our brains to interpret varying wavelengths of light and has no meaning outside our perception of the universe, what other facets of self-awareness are incorrectly assumed to exist independently of our minds?
That feeling in your stomach when you listen to a favorite piece of music; that awe you feel when you look a beautiful natural landscape or a star filled sky in a dark remote location; the connection you feel to a friend or loved one; the creepy suspicion you are not alone, yet you know you are in an empty building; the sensation of the presence of a higher being?
What is that stuff?
How can we determine whether the source of a given experience exists within us or without?
One is the experiencer and not the experience...to split hairs, this is why science will always be biased.
From the article:
Circular reasoning? Kind of like this: "...the bible is Truth because it is the word of God; God is real because his existence is proven by the bible."
Sigh. Mathematics is not material, so is it therefore not "real?" Logic is a methodology for reason; reason is the process, via logic, of making inferences and conclusions. But like math, logic and reason are simply tools our brains use to interact with and understand the world around us. I fail to see how these tools are designated "spiritual" simply because they exist within our brains as opposed to being physical objects.
The author creates his own definitions, then constructs arguments that fit only within the parameters of those definitions.
Well he is correct here, he simply doesn't see the problem with his form of "science." If you already know "Truth," your job is to go about formulating interpretations of nature that fit nicely with your predetermined belief system. I am not sure what that process is called, but it certainly isn't science.
Yep, it's easy to construct arguments when you design the parameters as you see fit:
Oops, the author forgot to mention in the first paragraph that humans "sprang from monkeys!"
------
Warning! The following is based on general observations I have made debating religion over the years. I am not trying to attack or stereotype; just to throw out some ideas.
One of the problems in discussing religion is that the religious tend to see things in terms of absolutes and believe they live in a deterministic world (determinism originating from g(G)od). They assume science views the world in the same terms and therefore debate scientific theory as if it is a competing religion. Granted, determinism is ingrained in our society; not that long ago, science itself was driven by the concept as well. People traditionally want absolutes, they take comfort in that which they consider "truth." Modern science has shown us that the world is in fact non-deterministic; most plainly in the field of quantum mechanics.
The problem with debating "religion vs science" is that it is not an issue of one truth vs another. Modern scientific theories do not give us "truth" in an absolute sense; they are refined and strengthened over time to give us a clearer picture of the universe. This is an important distinction!
A theory is never "truth." It can be proven 10 thousand times to extraordinary accuracy, yet it is not "truth." Why? Because it is possible that at some point new data, new experiments, new research, will show that the theory is incomplete or flat-out false. More fundementally, it is always at least possible that the nth experimental trial will result in a different outcome than the all the trials before it.
Indeed, a source of confusion is the term "law" when applied to older scientific theories. We refer to "Newton's Laws" rather than "Newton's Theory of Gravity." In fact, in the past when a theory had been tested enough times, it was upgraded to "law status," no doubt because "law" sounds much more absolute and reliable than "theory." As I have pointed out in the past, the term "theory" is often carelessly used in place of "hypothesis."
General Physics is thought to be one of the most defined and quantifiable sciences there is. You can measure the acceleration of gravity to an amazing degree of accuracy; you can precisely determine the net vector forces acting on an object; you can measure the coefficient of friction; ect. But here is an interesting anecdote: one of my physics professors began the first lecture on energy by simply asking, "what is it?" His eventual response was, "who knows!" That's right...we can observe energy acting on objects, we can measure it, convert it into various forms; yet we don't, in any practical sense, know what it actually is.
You see, in order to conduct science, you must admit that which you do not know. To claim understanding when you haven't got it is to end your scientific endeavor before it begins. The trouble with "religious science" is that, by definition, it must admit to basic truths no matter what observations reveal. Therefore, it is not science!
The trouble is, as mentioned, humans tend to cling to truths and absolutes. Thus, when religion and science are debated, the religious individual comfortably wears absolutes on the sleeve while the supporter of science must overcome his/her tenancy toward absolutes (ie, maintaining scientific objectivity, which can never be, of course, absolute) while simultaneously trying to find a common ground on which the debate can rest.
Then we wonder why these conversations never "get anywhere."
But they are a lot of fun!
QUOTE
Each alleged piece of evidence for billions of years they present is interpreted from their naturalistic worldview with the assumption that the universe is billions of years old ... that is circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning? Kind of like this: "...the bible is Truth because it is the word of God; God is real because his existence is proven by the bible."
QUOTE
Reason requires logic and truth to exist; we can’t simply go out and get a liter of logic or 2 tons of truth. Logic and truth are not material. Thus, they are not part of the material world. Why is this significant? Simply put, the group from RR has already taken the stance for a naturalistic view allowing for no immaterial realm. Otherwise, they would be open to immaterial realms such as the supernatural realm or spiritual realm (hence, the Bible can be true!). So really, they have a major flaw in their premise: they say there is no immaterial realm, but proceed to use the immaterial realm (logic and thought processes that come from electric impulses in a brain that evolved from a soup of chemicals) to yield an immaterial supposedly truthful conclusion!
Sigh. Mathematics is not material, so is it therefore not "real?" Logic is a methodology for reason; reason is the process, via logic, of making inferences and conclusions. But like math, logic and reason are simply tools our brains use to interact with and understand the world around us. I fail to see how these tools are designated "spiritual" simply because they exist within our brains as opposed to being physical objects.
The author creates his own definitions, then constructs arguments that fit only within the parameters of those definitions.
QUOTE
We all have the same facts. We live on the same earth, we look at the same rocks and fossils and so on. How we interpret those facts is directly influenced by our presuppositions. If we start out with a naturalistic presupposition, then we will interpret the facts devoid of God. If we start out with a biblical presupposition, we will see the facts as including the Creator’s work.
Well he is correct here, he simply doesn't see the problem with his form of "science." If you already know "Truth," your job is to go about formulating interpretations of nature that fit nicely with your predetermined belief system. I am not sure what that process is called, but it certainly isn't science.
Yep, it's easy to construct arguments when you design the parameters as you see fit:
QUOTE
Humanistic: Something popped into existence from nothing and exploded; Stars and planets then allegedly formed; from pond scum, life arose from non-life; this original life form evolved into more and more complex things by adding useful information into the genome for hair, eyes, lungs, etc. to, at least for now, arrive at man; and when you die, there is nothing and nothing mattered—even protesting! [Final authority: autonomous human’s ideas]
Christian: God created everything perfect, but man ruined it with sin (rejecting God’s authority), so death and suffering came into the world, and the Curse is now in effect; since death was the punishment for sin, a perfect sacrifice was needed, and Christ, who is God and loved us enough to give Himself, came down to die in our place to offer the gift of eternal life with a good God who loves us. He will create a new heaven and new earth, and the curse will be removed. [Final authority: God and His Word]
Christian: God created everything perfect, but man ruined it with sin (rejecting God’s authority), so death and suffering came into the world, and the Curse is now in effect; since death was the punishment for sin, a perfect sacrifice was needed, and Christ, who is God and loved us enough to give Himself, came down to die in our place to offer the gift of eternal life with a good God who loves us. He will create a new heaven and new earth, and the curse will be removed. [Final authority: God and His Word]
Oops, the author forgot to mention in the first paragraph that humans "sprang from monkeys!"
------
Warning! The following is based on general observations I have made debating religion over the years. I am not trying to attack or stereotype; just to throw out some ideas.
One of the problems in discussing religion is that the religious tend to see things in terms of absolutes and believe they live in a deterministic world (determinism originating from g(G)od). They assume science views the world in the same terms and therefore debate scientific theory as if it is a competing religion. Granted, determinism is ingrained in our society; not that long ago, science itself was driven by the concept as well. People traditionally want absolutes, they take comfort in that which they consider "truth." Modern science has shown us that the world is in fact non-deterministic; most plainly in the field of quantum mechanics.
The problem with debating "religion vs science" is that it is not an issue of one truth vs another. Modern scientific theories do not give us "truth" in an absolute sense; they are refined and strengthened over time to give us a clearer picture of the universe. This is an important distinction!
A theory is never "truth." It can be proven 10 thousand times to extraordinary accuracy, yet it is not "truth." Why? Because it is possible that at some point new data, new experiments, new research, will show that the theory is incomplete or flat-out false. More fundementally, it is always at least possible that the nth experimental trial will result in a different outcome than the all the trials before it.
Indeed, a source of confusion is the term "law" when applied to older scientific theories. We refer to "Newton's Laws" rather than "Newton's Theory of Gravity." In fact, in the past when a theory had been tested enough times, it was upgraded to "law status," no doubt because "law" sounds much more absolute and reliable than "theory." As I have pointed out in the past, the term "theory" is often carelessly used in place of "hypothesis."
General Physics is thought to be one of the most defined and quantifiable sciences there is. You can measure the acceleration of gravity to an amazing degree of accuracy; you can precisely determine the net vector forces acting on an object; you can measure the coefficient of friction; ect. But here is an interesting anecdote: one of my physics professors began the first lecture on energy by simply asking, "what is it?" His eventual response was, "who knows!" That's right...we can observe energy acting on objects, we can measure it, convert it into various forms; yet we don't, in any practical sense, know what it actually is.
You see, in order to conduct science, you must admit that which you do not know. To claim understanding when you haven't got it is to end your scientific endeavor before it begins. The trouble with "religious science" is that, by definition, it must admit to basic truths no matter what observations reveal. Therefore, it is not science!
The trouble is, as mentioned, humans tend to cling to truths and absolutes. Thus, when religion and science are debated, the religious individual comfortably wears absolutes on the sleeve while the supporter of science must overcome his/her tenancy toward absolutes (ie, maintaining scientific objectivity, which can never be, of course, absolute) while simultaneously trying to find a common ground on which the debate can rest.
Then we wonder why these conversations never "get anywhere."
But they are a lot of fun!
QUOTE(locally pwned @ May 31 2007, 08:30 AM)
Then we wonder why these conversations never "get anywhere."
God knows that's not true -
I have a theory that these conversations continue to evolve.
I have a theory that these conversations are based on a tablet from x numbers of years ago. Describing in vague words meant only for interpretation about this topic.
----
In all honesty I think a person should choose what they want to believe. Since evolution is obviously proven due to what humans have previously proven and can only be known to humans as by previous experiments. And all science is the human element explaining everything in the universe. It is right (ok well most of the time), but still explains something.
The best example of science existing to explain why things happen is just what happen a few posts back. When DSTM asked about the light and wavelenghts, he didn't know what caused it, but he choose science for the "reasoning" or should I say BELIEF as to why it happens.
Why do I say belief?.... well I'll tell you why! Scientists found out when you shine pure white light into a diamond that you get several colors.. they didn't understand this so they said white is made up of all colors. We know this is true, because the scientists BELIEVED that used their BELIEFS of light and physics knowledge to PROVE or should I say, make other people BELIEVE that white light is made up of several other colors. For all we know white light could just be made up of 1's and 0's in the cosmos and around here.
----
In all honesty I think a person should choose what they want to believe. Since evolution is obviously proven due to what humans have previously proven and can only be known to humans as by previous experiments. And all science is the human element explaining everything in the universe. It is right (ok well most of the time), but still explains something.
The best example of science existing to explain why things happen is just what happen a few posts back. When DSTM asked about the light and wavelenghts, he didn't know what caused it, but he choose science for the "reasoning" or should I say BELIEF as to why it happens.
Why do I say belief?.... well I'll tell you why!
Scientists found out when you shine pure white light into a diamond that you get several colors.. they didn't understand this so they said white is made up of all colors. We know this is true, because the scientists BELIEVED that used their BELIEFS of light and physics knowledge to PROVE or should I say, make other people BELIEVE that white light is made up of several other colors. For all we know white light could just be made up of 1's and 0's in the cosmos and around here.
Hi locally pwned,
Your example of circular logic is flawed in one point. the bible is not the evidence that God exists, His creation (all of it) is proof of His existence.
try these video segments. There are many on this page, but the ones I'm referring to are "Origins of the Species" parts 1-3. the one about the fossil record and Lucy are also good.
Video on Demand
The biggest thing that even Darwin admitted would invalidate evolution is not finding transitionatry fossils. to date only a hand full of highly contested fossils have been found that are claimed to be transitions between one "kind" of animal and another (pay close attention to parts 2 and 3 of Origins of the Species).
For an idea (i.e theory) to be considered scientifically proven if must be observable, repeatable, and verifiable. Evolution fails to meet any of these qualifications. Given how many times that scientists have been wrong. I'll take God's word over fallible man's word any day of the week. .
Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers
Mutations Questions and Answers
Dinosaur Questions and Answers
Anthropology and Apeman Questions and
Answers
Seafox14
Your example of circular logic is flawed in one point. the bible is not the evidence that God exists, His creation (all of it) is proof of His existence.
try these video segments. There are many on this page, but the ones I'm referring to are "Origins of the Species" parts 1-3. the one about the fossil record and Lucy are also good.
Video on Demand
The biggest thing that even Darwin admitted would invalidate evolution is not finding transitionatry fossils. to date only a hand full of highly contested fossils have been found that are claimed to be transitions between one "kind" of animal and another (pay close attention to parts 2 and 3 of Origins of the Species).
For an idea (i.e theory) to be considered scientifically proven if must be observable, repeatable, and verifiable. Evolution fails to meet any of these qualifications. Given how many times that scientists have been wrong. I'll take God's word over fallible man's word any day of the week.
.Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers
Mutations Questions and Answers
Dinosaur Questions and Answers
Anthropology and Apeman Questions and
Answers
Seafox14
QUOTE
Your example of circular logic is flawed in one point. the bible is not the evidence that God exists, His creation (all of it) is proof of His existence.
I think there is some circular reasoning here also. You already assumed god created the earth, and then use this as proof of his existence. But even if the "from design" proof of the existence of god is valid (which I do not accept), it doesn't prove which god was the creator. It could just as well be Brahma.
Personally, I've always found it strange that people try to offer proofs of god's existence. Proof would negate the need for faith.
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Jun 12 2007, 07:20 PM)
Hi locally pwned,
1. Your example of circular logic is flawed in one point. the bible is not the evidence that God exists, His creation (all of it) is proof of His existence.
2. The biggest thing that even Darwin admitted would invalidate evolution is not finding transitionatry fossils. to date only a hand full of highly contested fossils have been found that are claimed to be transitions between one "kind" of animal and another (pay close attention to parts 2 and 3 of Origins of the Species).
3. For an idea (i.e theory) to be considered scientifically proven if must be a ). observable, b ). repeatable, and c ). verifiable. Evolution fails to meet any of these qualifications. Given how many times that scientists have been wrong. I'll take God's word over fallible man's word any day of the week. .
1. Your example of circular logic is flawed in one point. the bible is not the evidence that God exists, His creation (all of it) is proof of His existence.
2. The biggest thing that even Darwin admitted would invalidate evolution is not finding transitionatry fossils. to date only a hand full of highly contested fossils have been found that are claimed to be transitions between one "kind" of animal and another (pay close attention to parts 2 and 3 of Origins of the Species).
3. For an idea (i.e theory) to be considered scientifically proven if must be a ). observable, b ). repeatable, and c ). verifiable. Evolution fails to meet any of these qualifications. Given how many times that scientists have been wrong. I'll take God's word over fallible man's word any day of the week.
.Hey there Seafox,
Getting right down to business:
1. Is the universe proof of God's existence? Or, is God your interpretation of your observations of the universe? Ultimately, how could you know the difference?
2. Now, as I understand it, while Darwin thought we should find transitional fossils, they ought to be rare. Otherwise the transitional species would have become successful, stuck around, and not been "transitional" anymore. I think we've hit this point before, and I offered a link to the species Archaeopteryx which is thought to link dinosaurs and modern-day birds.
I saw a great comparison long ago; I tried to find it, I will keep looking. Anyway, the comparison was between the skeletal structure of the "hand" of a whale, a bat, a human, and an elephant. The similarity is striking. All have five digits; the bat's "pinky" is extended to form the structure of the wing. The elephant's digits are short and spread out to distribute weight.
Ah, here is something along these lines (not quite as good as the one I had originally found, but it will do).
Here's the site I got it from.
Here's another interesting read on whale evolution, the fossil record, and transitional creatures in general.
3. Evolution is "taught as fact" in the sense that it is the best theory we currently have.
a ). There has been a lot of observable evidence of many kinds, see above for but a handful.
b ). We can repeat certain elements of evolutionary process, but we certainly can't rewind all of Earth's history! We aren't trying to do something simple, such as measuring the acceleration of gravity in a lab. We're trying to piece together the Earth's, and indeed our own, history. We exist only for a feeble moment in the larger history of the universe; it's like opening your eyes for a half second on a 3 hour drive and then trying to describe the way back!
c ). verifyable: see a. Again, we have evidence that supports evolution, but the best we can do is continue to clarify and refine the theory; it will never be a simple "yes or no."
As for scientists having often been wrong, aye, this is true! But it's all part of scientific progress. We are often wrong, but incorrect leads are replaced by correct ones via community collaboration and strict scientific method; over time we accumulate knowledge and understanding.
QUOTE(Budapest)
Personally, I've always found it strange that people try to offer proofs of god's existence. Proof would negate the need for faith.
Nicely put, Budapest. I have often wondered the same thing. Seafox, your thoughts?
QUOTE(Budapest @ Jun 13 2007, 06:37 AM)
Proof would negate the need for faith.
Exactamundo!
Moreover, proof would also negate the search to answer "why?" regarding anything,
since the answer would essentially be (God speaking), "because I said so."
In my opinion, a perfectly created universe would be one that can be explained without a god,
but does not indicate conclusively in any manner that a god didn't create it.
Hi locally pwned,
As far as the Whale transition from land to water, that is why I was directing you to those particular video segments for Origins of the Species parts 1-3. It goes into the transitional fossils, specifically the "alleged" whale evolution transition fossils.
As far as the quote from Budapest. Proof is not something that would destroy faith. It would just reinforce the faith that we already have. We, as Christians already have all the proof we need. That proof is the whole universe (creation) and all of it's complexity. But remember, the universe, as it is now, is not how God created it. He created this universe perfect. No flaws, death disease or suffering. Humanity sinning (i.e. turning their backs on God and going their own way) is what allowed deathe disease and chaos into God's creation. Basically, humanity told God " We don't need you.". God basically gave them what they wanted and withdrew His sustaining power from creation. that is when death disease and entropy started.
When you boil it all down, evolution is not observable, testable, nor repeatable. Failing to meet those standards means that supporters of evolution are asking us to take their word on faith. This is a religion, also known as atheism. it is an attempt to describe how the universe and life came about without God. Just as much as evolutionists say that creationism is a religion. With that being said. I'll take the word of God over the fallible word of man every time.
Seafox14
As far as the Whale transition from land to water, that is why I was directing you to those particular video segments for Origins of the Species parts 1-3. It goes into the transitional fossils, specifically the "alleged" whale evolution transition fossils.
As far as the quote from Budapest. Proof is not something that would destroy faith. It would just reinforce the faith that we already have. We, as Christians already have all the proof we need. That proof is the whole universe (creation) and all of it's complexity. But remember, the universe, as it is now, is not how God created it. He created this universe perfect. No flaws, death disease or suffering. Humanity sinning (i.e. turning their backs on God and going their own way) is what allowed deathe disease and chaos into God's creation. Basically, humanity told God " We don't need you.". God basically gave them what they wanted and withdrew His sustaining power from creation. that is when death disease and entropy started.
When you boil it all down, evolution is not observable, testable, nor repeatable. Failing to meet those standards means that supporters of evolution are asking us to take their word on faith. This is a religion, also known as atheism. it is an attempt to describe how the universe and life came about without God. Just as much as evolutionists say that creationism is a religion. With that being said. I'll take the word of God over the fallible word of man every time.
Seafox14
I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, truly I'm not. But I did find the below interesting:
" I'll take the word of God over the fallible word of man every time".
When one reads and believes the Bible, one is surely "taking the word of man". 'God' did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. It's just the men who wrote it believed a certain thing and without science as we now know it, perhaps it's possible that assumptions may have been made by this, as we are, falliable humans.
" I'll take the word of God over the fallible word of man every time".
When one reads and believes the Bible, one is surely "taking the word of man". 'God' did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. It's just the men who wrote it believed a certain thing and without science as we now know it, perhaps it's possible that assumptions may have been made by this, as we are, falliable humans.
QUOTE(MaraM @ Jun 14 2007, 06:43 PM)
I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, truly I'm not. But I did find the below interesting:
" I'll take the word of God over the fallible word of man every time".
When one reads and believes the Bible, one is surely "taking the word of man". 'God' did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. It's just the men who wrote it believed a certain thing and without science as we now know it, perhaps it's possible that assumptions may have been made by this, as we are, falliable humans.
" I'll take the word of God over the fallible word of man every time".
When one reads and believes the Bible, one is surely "taking the word of man". 'God' did not write the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. It's just the men who wrote it believed a certain thing and without science as we now know it, perhaps it's possible that assumptions may have been made by this, as we are, falliable humans.
The bible may have been penned by humans, but the message it contains is given to us by God. He used these people to write down His word. Though He did write by His own hand when the original tablets containing the law were given to Moses.
once again. The bible may have been penned by men, but is was done under the direction of God.
BTW: Mara I understand the intent of the question. I do realize that it is not meant as an attack. As i have stated many times. I welcome your questions.
Seafox14
I dare say, MaraM, that the same people who will "take the Word of God over the fallible word of man anytime," are careful to pick and chose from the Bible the TRUE Word of God whenever one points to morally unsavoury Scriptural passages (e.g., slavery, the place of women in society, dietary rules). "Well," they would say,"it is obvious that this passage was meant for the times in which it was written," etc.,etc..
These people make prior moral (and dogmatic) decisions about what is true in Scripture, but will not admit to it and to its consequential fallibility.The picture they want to paint of "taking the word of God" is akin to the common picture we have of passively receiving sense impressions of reality; both ignore the role the active intellect has in both. And just as importantly, they ignore any authentic, personal responsibility for these choices (interpretations).
S.E.
These people make prior moral (and dogmatic) decisions about what is true in Scripture, but will not admit to it and to its consequential fallibility.The picture they want to paint of "taking the word of God" is akin to the common picture we have of passively receiving sense impressions of reality; both ignore the role the active intellect has in both. And just as importantly, they ignore any authentic, personal responsibility for these choices (interpretations).
S.E.
Hi all,
Looks like we lost some posts. As I recall, SE asked why God killed infants. (SE, please correct if misquote)
I responded it was King Herod who had heard a "King of the Jews" was about to be born, so it was King Herod who ordered all males born within a one or two year period to be put to death so that he could keep his throne.
The Bible can indeed be mis-interpreted by anybody, in any way. It's a long book, written with parables, at the time for the time (what's wrong with warning people of foods that might make them sick?). The Old Testament was written B.C., before the Birth of Christ. The New Testament was written after Jesus was born ("annō Dominī" Year of our Lord)
But let's just look at the 10 Commandments, which Christians and Jews follow as our Code of Ethics, and upon which America's society was originally designed by our founding fathers and documented in the Constitution. They did NOT want America to be a Theocracy, in order to protect the freedom of worship (or not). Unfortunately, Americana is being feverishly assaulted by ultra-liberals such as the ACLU; "safe sodomy" (perversion in the eyes of the majority) being taught in schools, and affirmative action for homosexuals (about one percent of America's population) successfully kicked off by forcing the Boy Scouts to accept them as Scout leaders. And of course, we have the radical Islamic fascists who are following the Koran's teaching of Jihad: to murder all non-believers.
Even omitting the references to the Lord our God, (Commandments one through four), I think civilized people would enjoy an existence where everyone followed Commandments Five through Ten, and even number Four: a day of rest after a week of hard work.
The 10 Commandments are found in the Bible's Old Testament at Exodus, Chapter 20. They were given directly by God to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai after He had delivered them from slavery in Egypt:
"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' [do not worship idols]
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' [do not tell lies about others]
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' [do not envy the good fortune of others]
The 10 Commandments - Christ's Summation in the New Testament
About 1,400 years later, the 10 Commandments were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious "experts" of the day:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).
A reflective reading of Christ's teaching reveals that the first four commandments given to the children of Israel are contained in the statement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." It continues that the last six commandments are enclosed in the statement: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I was wondering about the references to slavery in the Bible, and could not understand why some people think the Bible honors slavery, and was going to ask that question. Apparently, discussions of slavery in the Bible are about how the Jews were enslaved by the people of Egypt. A friend of mine visited the Holy Land, and he told me that the three High Holy places, whereof the three major religions were born, are all in close proximity. WW1 re-drew the maps of those days, and unfortunately, without regard to the civilizations living there. But the Jews were a people without land, and so the Exodus was finally reversed, giving Israel back to the Jews. IMO, it would have been better if the land could have been purchased rather than done by war...
Looks like we lost some posts. As I recall, SE asked why God killed infants. (SE, please correct if misquote)
I responded it was King Herod who had heard a "King of the Jews" was about to be born, so it was King Herod who ordered all males born within a one or two year period to be put to death so that he could keep his throne.
The Bible can indeed be mis-interpreted by anybody, in any way. It's a long book, written with parables, at the time for the time (what's wrong with warning people of foods that might make them sick?). The Old Testament was written B.C., before the Birth of Christ. The New Testament was written after Jesus was born ("annō Dominī" Year of our Lord)
But let's just look at the 10 Commandments, which Christians and Jews follow as our Code of Ethics, and upon which America's society was originally designed by our founding fathers and documented in the Constitution. They did NOT want America to be a Theocracy, in order to protect the freedom of worship (or not). Unfortunately, Americana is being feverishly assaulted by ultra-liberals such as the ACLU; "safe sodomy" (perversion in the eyes of the majority) being taught in schools, and affirmative action for homosexuals (about one percent of America's population) successfully kicked off by forcing the Boy Scouts to accept them as Scout leaders. And of course, we have the radical Islamic fascists who are following the Koran's teaching of Jihad: to murder all non-believers.
Even omitting the references to the Lord our God, (Commandments one through four), I think civilized people would enjoy an existence where everyone followed Commandments Five through Ten, and even number Four: a day of rest after a week of hard work.
The 10 Commandments are found in the Bible's Old Testament at Exodus, Chapter 20. They were given directly by God to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai after He had delivered them from slavery in Egypt:
"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' [do not worship idols]
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' [do not tell lies about others]
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' [do not envy the good fortune of others]
The 10 Commandments - Christ's Summation in the New Testament
About 1,400 years later, the 10 Commandments were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious "experts" of the day:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).
A reflective reading of Christ's teaching reveals that the first four commandments given to the children of Israel are contained in the statement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." It continues that the last six commandments are enclosed in the statement: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I was wondering about the references to slavery in the Bible, and could not understand why some people think the Bible honors slavery, and was going to ask that question. Apparently, discussions of slavery in the Bible are about how the Jews were enslaved by the people of Egypt. A friend of mine visited the Holy Land, and he told me that the three High Holy places, whereof the three major religions were born, are all in close proximity. WW1 re-drew the maps of those days, and unfortunately, without regard to the civilizations living there. But the Jews were a people without land, and so the Exodus was finally reversed, giving Israel back to the Jews. IMO, it would have been better if the land could have been purchased rather than done by war...
If you're wondering about the references to slavery in the Bible:
Leviticus
25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you. 25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. 25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually.
Leviticus
25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you – you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you. 25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. 25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually.
QUOTE(joygreen @ Jun 15 2007, 01:17 AM)
[font=Comic Sans MS][size=2]Hi all,
Looks like we lost some posts. As I recall, SE asked why God killed infants. (SE, please correct if misquote)
I responded it was King Herod who had heard a "King of the Jews" was about to be born, so it was King Herod who ordered all males born within a one or two year period to be put to death so that he could keep his throne.
The Bible can indeed be mis-interpreted by anybody, in any way.
Looks like we lost some posts. As I recall, SE asked why God killed infants. (SE, please correct if misquote)
I responded it was King Herod who had heard a "King of the Jews" was about to be born, so it was King Herod who ordered all males born within a one or two year period to be put to death so that he could keep his throne.
The Bible can indeed be mis-interpreted by anybody, in any way.
There is another part of the Bible involving infanticide. The tenth plague on the Egyptians, involving the death of all their firstborn. This was the first Passover.
Perhaps I am expecting too much, but it seems to me that the 'Truth/Word of God' would be completely self-evident. I don't think it is so much of mis-interpretation, as the numerous ways in which it can truthfully be interpreted. Ask 5 different sects of Christianity about Revelation and you very well might get 5 different interpretations. Who is right? Who is not? There is no way to decide. Thus, there is some obscurity embedded within the text.
I am not saying there is no obscurity to the Theory of Evolution. However, in its very title it deals with that eventuality. The theory does not claim to be the end-all truth, just a framework in which we can continue to explore, in a measurable fashion.
Both spiritual and academic pieces of the human must be nurtured, IMHO.
Budapest, thank you for the references. However, these two sentences are taken out of context. I will offer the context of this chapter, using words from the Bible but in summary form. I promise not to omit any of the "plot" of the story. Anything in italics is my comment. BTW, Leviticus comes from the Old Testament.
LEVITICUS Chapter 25 has several paragraphs. :1-7 talks about "The Sabbatical Year": sow your crops for 6 years and give the land a rest during the 7th year: this is called the Jubilee year. During the Jubilee, the aftergrowth of harvest shall be left there. While the land is in Sabbath (Jubilee) its produce will be food divided equally for you and your slaves, for your hired help and tenants that live with you, and likewise for livestock and wild animals. [This sounds like composting the land.]
Next paragraph is the Jubilee Year. :8-13 After seven Jubilees, 49 years, there will be a Day of Atonement in the seventh Jubilee year where everybody is fed as in all other Jubilee years. The fiftieth year is made sacred by proclaiming liberty in the land for all its inhabitants: when everybody goes home to their own family estate. As in other Jubilee years, everyone is fed from the resting land. :14-17 is the economics of buying and selling land, how it should be priced. L 15:14 states: "Therefore, when you sell any land to your neighbor or buy any from him, do not deal unfairly" Wouldn't it be nice if that were practiced now? We wouldn't have sellers who paint to cover mold and termite infestations! The rest of the paragraph, :18-22 advises that caring for the land in this manner will ensure that the sixth year will provide three years' bounty, so that when the land is sown in the eighth year, there will still be food available from the sixth year. Paul James of HGTV composts his property and has very few pest/disease problems in his "Gardening by the Yard"
Next paragraph is Redemption of Property, something like Real Estate Law. :23-28, about land, begins with a statement that land may not be sold in perpetuity: that if your neighbor falls upon hard times and must sell his property, the seller or the seller's relatives has the right to buy the property back at a fair price based on the number of crops. The land is not sold in perpetuity because after the 7th Jubilee everybody goes back home to the family estate. :29-34 talks about dwellings and pasture land. Pasture land belonging to cities shall not be sold at all so that it remains hereditary property. :35-43 talks about your fellow countrymen who have fallen on hard times and reduced to POVERTY in the economic and social sense, from the glossary, then the landowner is to make room for his neighbor to live with him and work for him but not charge money or interest or food for profit. Do not make him a slave, because Israelites were already freed from slavery in Egypt by God.
After the quoted L:44-46, it continues "But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen.". L25:47 "When one of your countrymen is reduced to such poverty that he sells himself to a wealthy alien who has a permanent or a temporary residence among you, or to one of the descendents of an immigrant family," :48 "even after he has thus sold his services he still has the right of redemption: he may be redeemed by one of his own brothers" :49 "or by his uncle or cousins, or by some other relative or fellow classman; or, if he acquires the means, he may redeem himself"
Leviticus goes on to compute the price of redemption from slavery, based on the number of years worked, and :50 "distributing the sale price over these years as though he had been hired as a day laborer"... :54 If he is not thus redeemed, he shall nevertheless be released, together with his children in the jubilee year".
So you see, my friend, the Bible does NOT promote slavery. You have been misled in a typical political fashion. I thank you for the opportunity to do some Bible study today as it further supports my opposition to the invasion of America. Few illegal immigrants are starving or prohibited/required the practice of any religion. People need to develop their own countries as supported by the science of Ecology and the peaceful conduct of their own cultures. America has its own needy people to care for; many disabled fighting for the freedom of others or working to build America. This is also a case AGAINST globalization that upsets ecosystems and starts pandemics. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind our friends around the world that America spends enormous amounts of money in international aid. It is unfortunate that we cannot trust World agencies and local governments to see to it that their people are fed, intelligently educated and medically cared for.
LEVITICUS Chapter 25 has several paragraphs. :1-7 talks about "The Sabbatical Year": sow your crops for 6 years and give the land a rest during the 7th year: this is called the Jubilee year. During the Jubilee, the aftergrowth of harvest shall be left there. While the land is in Sabbath (Jubilee) its produce will be food divided equally for you and your slaves, for your hired help and tenants that live with you, and likewise for livestock and wild animals. [This sounds like composting the land.]
Next paragraph is the Jubilee Year. :8-13 After seven Jubilees, 49 years, there will be a Day of Atonement in the seventh Jubilee year where everybody is fed as in all other Jubilee years. The fiftieth year is made sacred by proclaiming liberty in the land for all its inhabitants: when everybody goes home to their own family estate. As in other Jubilee years, everyone is fed from the resting land. :14-17 is the economics of buying and selling land, how it should be priced. L 15:14 states: "Therefore, when you sell any land to your neighbor or buy any from him, do not deal unfairly" Wouldn't it be nice if that were practiced now? We wouldn't have sellers who paint to cover mold and termite infestations! The rest of the paragraph, :18-22 advises that caring for the land in this manner will ensure that the sixth year will provide three years' bounty, so that when the land is sown in the eighth year, there will still be food available from the sixth year. Paul James of HGTV composts his property and has very few pest/disease problems in his "Gardening by the Yard"
Next paragraph is Redemption of Property, something like Real Estate Law. :23-28, about land, begins with a statement that land may not be sold in perpetuity: that if your neighbor falls upon hard times and must sell his property, the seller or the seller's relatives has the right to buy the property back at a fair price based on the number of crops. The land is not sold in perpetuity because after the 7th Jubilee everybody goes back home to the family estate. :29-34 talks about dwellings and pasture land. Pasture land belonging to cities shall not be sold at all so that it remains hereditary property. :35-43 talks about your fellow countrymen who have fallen on hard times and reduced to POVERTY in the economic and social sense, from the glossary, then the landowner is to make room for his neighbor to live with him and work for him but not charge money or interest or food for profit. Do not make him a slave, because Israelites were already freed from slavery in Egypt by God.
After the quoted L:44-46, it continues "But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen.". L25:47 "When one of your countrymen is reduced to such poverty that he sells himself to a wealthy alien who has a permanent or a temporary residence among you, or to one of the descendents of an immigrant family," :48 "even after he has thus sold his services he still has the right of redemption: he may be redeemed by one of his own brothers" :49 "or by his uncle or cousins, or by some other relative or fellow classman; or, if he acquires the means, he may redeem himself"
Leviticus goes on to compute the price of redemption from slavery, based on the number of years worked, and :50 "distributing the sale price over these years as though he had been hired as a day laborer"... :54 If he is not thus redeemed, he shall nevertheless be released, together with his children in the jubilee year".
So you see, my friend, the Bible does NOT promote slavery. You have been misled in a typical political fashion. I thank you for the opportunity to do some Bible study today as it further supports my opposition to the invasion of America. Few illegal immigrants are starving or prohibited/required the practice of any religion. People need to develop their own countries as supported by the science of Ecology and the peaceful conduct of their own cultures. America has its own needy people to care for; many disabled fighting for the freedom of others or working to build America. This is also a case AGAINST globalization that upsets ecosystems and starts pandemics. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind our friends around the world that America spends enormous amounts of money in international aid. It is unfortunate that we cannot trust World agencies and local governments to see to it that their people are fed, intelligently educated and medically cared for.
BTW: Mara I understand the intent of the question. I do realize that it is not meant as an attack. As i have stated many times. I welcome your questions.
Seafox14
[/quote]
Hi Seafox14,
I do understand what you are saying, honestly I do. But the final result is that the Bible, penned by men, leads us back to having faith that their words saying it was written under the "direction of God" is true. Faith is a lovely thing and I'm not knocking it - simply stating that again, it is the words of human beings that tells us this. Gentle smile.
On a personal note, yes, it's lovely that we can debate back and forth with respect and understanding where each of us is coming from - huge happy smile!
- - - -
JoyGreen, I know the intend is good but even most highly knowledgable religious teachers will admit that horrible things, including slavery and selling of one's loved ones, etc resides within the Bible.
"Gay bashing" does not make this world a better place, no matter how good one's intentions may be - truly it doesn't. Tolerance and understanding are surely included within Christian attributes and could only improve our little world - gentle smile.
While millions of Christians worked hard to make your country and mine wonderful places, millions with no religion or with other religions also worked hard to make them the wonderful places, too. And I hope so much that I don't offend you as I truly don't wish to - but perhaps good people versus bad people could be based on the people themselves rather than their religious beliefs or non beliefs.
Seafox14
[/quote]
Hi Seafox14,
I do understand what you are saying, honestly I do. But the final result is that the Bible, penned by men, leads us back to having faith that their words saying it was written under the "direction of God" is true. Faith is a lovely thing and I'm not knocking it - simply stating that again, it is the words of human beings that tells us this. Gentle smile.
On a personal note, yes, it's lovely that we can debate back and forth with respect and understanding where each of us is coming from - huge happy smile!
- - - -
JoyGreen, I know the intend is good but even most highly knowledgable religious teachers will admit that horrible things, including slavery and selling of one's loved ones, etc resides within the Bible.
"Gay bashing" does not make this world a better place, no matter how good one's intentions may be - truly it doesn't. Tolerance and understanding are surely included within Christian attributes and could only improve our little world - gentle smile.
While millions of Christians worked hard to make your country and mine wonderful places, millions with no religion or with other religions also worked hard to make them the wonderful places, too. And I hope so much that I don't offend you as I truly don't wish to - but perhaps good people versus bad people could be based on the people themselves rather than their religious beliefs or non beliefs.
Sextus Empiricus, Budapest:
These are old arguments. Leviticus does give guidelines for slaves and the freeing of salves. but it does not say anywhere in that book or any other book in the bible is mandatory. As to the role of women in society in the bible.
Ephesians 5:21-33
21 And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word.[a] 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.
31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.”[b] 32 This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. 33 So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Sextus Empiricus, your argument about the place of women in society would have looked good to some if you only used verse 22 just as Budapest tried to use a single verse instead of the whole passage to make a point about slavery. Yes it does say that God is the head of every one, the husband is the head of the family, and that a wife is to submit to her husband. People trying to use this as an excuse to mistreat their wives are only looking at verse 22. I put the text of the passage in here to point out that in verse 25 it does tell husband how to treat his wife (that treatment is not harsh by any means) . also take a look at verse 21.
Mara, that is why it is called Faith. There are many examples that the books in the bible today, are virtually the same as the oldest manuscripts of those same books. The main differences are due to how the meaning of some words have changed over the centuries.
Seafox14
These are old arguments. Leviticus does give guidelines for slaves and the freeing of salves. but it does not say anywhere in that book or any other book in the bible is mandatory. As to the role of women in society in the bible.
Ephesians 5:21-33
21 And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word.[a] 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.
31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.”[b] 32 This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. 33 So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Sextus Empiricus, your argument about the place of women in society would have looked good to some if you only used verse 22 just as Budapest tried to use a single verse instead of the whole passage to make a point about slavery. Yes it does say that God is the head of every one, the husband is the head of the family, and that a wife is to submit to her husband. People trying to use this as an excuse to mistreat their wives are only looking at verse 22. I put the text of the passage in here to point out that in verse 25 it does tell husband how to treat his wife (that treatment is not harsh by any means) . also take a look at verse 21.
Mara, that is why it is called Faith. There are many examples that the books in the bible today, are virtually the same as the oldest manuscripts of those same books. The main differences are due to how the meaning of some words have changed over the centuries.
Seafox14
QUOTE(Sextus Empiricus @ Jun 14 2007, 08:05 PM)
I dare say, MaraM, that the same people who will "take the Word of God over the fallible word of man anytime," are careful to pick and chose from the Bible the TRUE Word of God whenever one points to morally unsavoury Scriptural passages (e.g., slavery, the place of women in society, dietary rules). "Well," they would say,"it is obvious that this passage was meant for the times in which it was written," etc.,etc..
These people make prior moral (and dogmatic) decisions about what is true in Scripture, but will not admit to it and to its consequential fallibility.The picture they want to paint of "taking the word of God" is akin to the common picture we have of passively receiving sense impressions of reality; both ignore the role the active intellect has in both. And just as importantly, they ignore any authentic, personal responsibility for these choices (interpretations).
S.E.
These people make prior moral (and dogmatic) decisions about what is true in Scripture, but will not admit to it and to its consequential fallibility.The picture they want to paint of "taking the word of God" is akin to the common picture we have of passively receiving sense impressions of reality; both ignore the role the active intellect has in both. And just as importantly, they ignore any authentic, personal responsibility for these choices (interpretations).
S.E.
When I think of things like this, I always think of we humans in general. For instance, if someone buys a new cell phone and raves about it to another person - but rather than the other person agreeing, he or she says they think it stinks - rather than a simply, "Oh well, I like it anyway but I respect your right to not like it" reply, I suspect nearly every single time, the person doing the raving either gets huffy or tries to convince the other person that they are 'wrong'.
In fact, I've always found it interesting indeed that our world is so filled with 'I am right and you are wrong' attitudes - not just in the varying religions or lack of but in so many things in our lives. Months ago there was a thread called 'Live and Let Live' and for myself, this often seems like the only hope for our world and individuals to live in peace - gentle sigh. Suspect you may feel the same way, Hi Sextus Empiricus?
I do hope I don't offend anyone with this statement but even if Evolution were taught as fact rather than science, it would seem preferable to having one single religon taught as fact. There are scads of varying religions and varying beliefs even within those religions - and yet so many truly believe that theirs and only theirs is right. Somehow I honestly don't see that leading to peace on our earth. Gentle sigh.
- - - - -
PM to Seafox ... Yes, I know that's why it's called Faith - and honestly, as I said before, I think Faith can be lovely - I was simply pointing out that the Bible was written by human beings telling us that the content came from God - ergo, one is trusting those 'fallible' human beings. Not necessary a bad thing but Faith is not 'fact' to everyone.
For over two hundered years, America's great experiment in democracy created a very successful country. Our children were taught morals and ethics based on our Judeo-Christian principles.
We the People are watching our culture rot. Our children are murdering each other because of emptiness. We are being attacked because of the Religions of the majority. This Country was designed to allow freedom of religion (or not).
While history is replete with barbarism and "holy wars", our society has evolved. The New Testament is much more civilized than the Old Testament. Having observed religions that do not grow with civilization, I am pleased that we have abandoned the barbarism.
America provides more foreign aid than any other country, and guess what? The majority of it comes from individual people! We are a charitable and compassionate people. Our people have given their lives and their health to help innocent and needy people in far away lands.
To be repaid by attacks on our culture, and abandoned by those we are helping, just proves to me that America's experiment was a grand success. It makes me physically ill to see it being destroyed from within and by nations we aid. Such lack of gratitude angers me, and makes it quite difficult to love those neighbors.
Gay-bashing was not my intention: to me it is a sickness and I know that because of what I have learned from my gay friends. But the current attempt to give gays affirmative action in America, it may not be widely known, will be at the expense of the normal family. Just like illegal immigration has been at the expense of elderly, disabled Americans; landowners who find and must clean human waste and garbage on their property, and our children who must suffer through racism and boredom in the classroom because the current wave refuses to speak our language and obey our laws. People of other countries may not know that it now costs an American more money to go to college than some illegal alien; and that middle-aged highly educated people are out of jobs because of outsourcing and visas created by this greedy, liberal government willing to throw away America's sovereignty, even when American Legion (our soldiers) vehemently oppose open borders, cheap overseas labor, and impending amnesty.
How the world can say it hates America, while "everyone" wants to come here to take advantage of our freedom while sarcastically referring to the Statue of Liberty, and those who think they will get 72 virgins if they murder us, makes me angry and aggressive. Aggressive enough to do what those fine Americans did on Flight 93 - and to continue to explain the Bible and our Judeo-Christian ethics; hoping to educate those whose ethics have not evolved.
We the People are watching our culture rot. Our children are murdering each other because of emptiness. We are being attacked because of the Religions of the majority. This Country was designed to allow freedom of religion (or not).
While history is replete with barbarism and "holy wars", our society has evolved. The New Testament is much more civilized than the Old Testament. Having observed religions that do not grow with civilization, I am pleased that we have abandoned the barbarism.
America provides more foreign aid than any other country, and guess what? The majority of it comes from individual people! We are a charitable and compassionate people. Our people have given their lives and their health to help innocent and needy people in far away lands.
To be repaid by attacks on our culture, and abandoned by those we are helping, just proves to me that America's experiment was a grand success. It makes me physically ill to see it being destroyed from within and by nations we aid. Such lack of gratitude angers me, and makes it quite difficult to love those neighbors.
Gay-bashing was not my intention: to me it is a sickness and I know that because of what I have learned from my gay friends. But the current attempt to give gays affirmative action in America, it may not be widely known, will be at the expense of the normal family. Just like illegal immigration has been at the expense of elderly, disabled Americans; landowners who find and must clean human waste and garbage on their property, and our children who must suffer through racism and boredom in the classroom because the current wave refuses to speak our language and obey our laws. People of other countries may not know that it now costs an American more money to go to college than some illegal alien; and that middle-aged highly educated people are out of jobs because of outsourcing and visas created by this greedy, liberal government willing to throw away America's sovereignty, even when American Legion (our soldiers) vehemently oppose open borders, cheap overseas labor, and impending amnesty.
How the world can say it hates America, while "everyone" wants to come here to take advantage of our freedom while sarcastically referring to the Statue of Liberty, and those who think they will get 72 virgins if they murder us, makes me angry and aggressive. Aggressive enough to do what those fine Americans did on Flight 93 - and to continue to explain the Bible and our Judeo-Christian ethics; hoping to educate those whose ethics have not evolved.
Oh dear, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with 'Why is Evolution Taught as Fact', but perhaps I'm missing the message. Gentle smile.
Although 'off topic ...
While truly entitled to your own opinion and there is a separate thead about 'Gay/Homosexual' people, I do wish to say that not everyone considers ithose who are homosexual to be suffering from a "sickness" - nor, in fact, do people who happen to be in this catagory offer any more 'danger' to our civilization or families than other people. And that's truly a fact.
For every single religion there are those that are 'extremists' and it would be ever so unfair to blame all for a few. And with respect, I don't think "the world says it hates America" . In fact, I think it's quite the contrary. Few people are not aware of the vast resources American share with those less fortunate than themselves and the tiny percent of people who may "hate America" are just that - a tiny percentage of the world's population, surely. And ungrateful poops they are too!
While science can be taught in schools to make children think and learn, having any religion taught in school would be difficult indeed for public schools. After all, if Christianity was taught, with all men being equal, each other religion applicable to a child within that school should be taught as well. A concept that would be 'fair' if put into practice but I truly doubt if many parents - of any religion - would agree to it.
Although 'off topic ...
While truly entitled to your own opinion and there is a separate thead about 'Gay/Homosexual' people, I do wish to say that not everyone considers ithose who are homosexual to be suffering from a "sickness" - nor, in fact, do people who happen to be in this catagory offer any more 'danger' to our civilization or families than other people. And that's truly a fact.
For every single religion there are those that are 'extremists' and it would be ever so unfair to blame all for a few. And with respect, I don't think "the world says it hates America" . In fact, I think it's quite the contrary. Few people are not aware of the vast resources American share with those less fortunate than themselves and the tiny percent of people who may "hate America" are just that - a tiny percentage of the world's population, surely. And ungrateful poops they are too!
While science can be taught in schools to make children think and learn, having any religion taught in school would be difficult indeed for public schools. After all, if Christianity was taught, with all men being equal, each other religion applicable to a child within that school should be taught as well. A concept that would be 'fair' if put into practice but I truly doubt if many parents - of any religion - would agree to it.
You know -
gay people evolved, too.
They did this, in a universe that, perhaps, was created by God.
Just an observation.
gay people evolved, too.
They did this, in a universe that, perhaps, was created by God.
Just an observation.
I'm talking about what we teach our children in school. There's another forum on why ethics are devolving. So I guess I've got one hand in each forum. My point is that in America, our ethics, morality were built based on Judeo-Christian principles. The Dictionary defines prin·ci·ple /ˈprɪnsəpəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prin-suh-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
on and on
Morality (the first definition) is "mo·ral·i·ty /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
I am not suggesting we teach Christianity, or any religion, in public schools in America. I am, however, supporting continuing teaching OUR children the principles of Christianity, as set forth in Commandments five through ten. The left wing liberals in this Country is rewriting our history successfully, and some very twisted stuff is being put forth to our children both in school and on TV. This is what bothers me: that for every minority that enters America, instead of coming here to blend into OUR society, liberals are changing our principles towards these other cultures. Have you ever heard of America's "Melting Pot" where many different ethnic groups came together and built this great Country? Well, the Melting Pot got broken when we started translating into Spanish. Every other group learned English. There is a Parable in the Bible, about the "Tower of Babel" where all of a sudden the people were speaking different languages and couldn't understand each other: the Tower's culture was destroyed.
Our President recently visited the Middle East and South America, where people gathered to insult him and burn the American Flag. Notice they weren't burning American dollars that go to them in aid. I am defending America's culture. Our children weren't killing each other in schoolyards when there was prayer in our schools, and the Bible was respected. Here, a Muslim named Keith had the freedom to swear on the Koran when he joined Congress. I object to the attempted destruction of Christianity in America, and the murder of innocent Christians wherever they are, just because of their religion.
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
on and on
Morality (the first definition) is "mo·ral·i·ty /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
I am not suggesting we teach Christianity, or any religion, in public schools in America. I am, however, supporting continuing teaching OUR children the principles of Christianity, as set forth in Commandments five through ten. The left wing liberals in this Country is rewriting our history successfully, and some very twisted stuff is being put forth to our children both in school and on TV. This is what bothers me: that for every minority that enters America, instead of coming here to blend into OUR society, liberals are changing our principles towards these other cultures. Have you ever heard of America's "Melting Pot" where many different ethnic groups came together and built this great Country? Well, the Melting Pot got broken when we started translating into Spanish. Every other group learned English. There is a Parable in the Bible, about the "Tower of Babel" where all of a sudden the people were speaking different languages and couldn't understand each other: the Tower's culture was destroyed.
Our President recently visited the Middle East and South America, where people gathered to insult him and burn the American Flag. Notice they weren't burning American dollars that go to them in aid. I am defending America's culture. Our children weren't killing each other in schoolyards when there was prayer in our schools, and the Bible was respected. Here, a Muslim named Keith had the freedom to swear on the Koran when he joined Congress. I object to the attempted destruction of Christianity in America, and the murder of innocent Christians wherever they are, just because of their religion.
The fact that Christianity is the most heavily attacked, least-tolerated, most regulated, most-bashed, yet one of the fastest growing "religions" , and the only religion with the most important substance, backed by a plethora of various evidence ...should show something.
Flame away.
the theory of evolution is a complete farce, and is a religion all in its own. So when you say religion shouldn't be taught in public schools...then "theory of evolution"...exit stage left. Unfortunately its gonna take a long time for some people to realize it...
by the way, there isn't a more heretical, contradictory, and absurd theory in science today than the theory of evolution. Probably why its becoming less and less of an accepted explanation of the origins of life.
the theory breaks down ironically before it could even begin......2 words....genetic information.
Flame away again.
Flame away.
the theory of evolution is a complete farce, and is a religion all in its own. So when you say religion shouldn't be taught in public schools...then "theory of evolution"...exit stage left. Unfortunately its gonna take a long time for some people to realize it...
by the way, there isn't a more heretical, contradictory, and absurd theory in science today than the theory of evolution. Probably why its becoming less and less of an accepted explanation of the origins of life.
the theory breaks down ironically before it could even begin......2 words....genetic information.
Flame away again.
In reponse to the above post,
I would dissagree that christians are the most targeted , least tolerated religion. If you walk up to the Avg. American when you talk about muslims they would most likley think?
A.).A Tolerant and humble religion
B.) A violent and wierd religion in which all muslims dress with turbans and have bomb strapped to their chests.
C.) A Religion that worships the same god as Jews and Christians
Or we could talk about the Jews which have been persecuted since the root/beginnings of the religion.
As for Christianity being important, yes it is very as the fact as it has shaped cultures such as western culture. But when you look at any religion you can realise actually how important it is. It provides a set of rules/moral ethics to abide by in a structured environment, a preset lifestyle.
now back on topic, I see science as a middle ground, neutral and common between all nations, therefore it is taught, and I don't believe this is taught specificly as fact, as when we studied it in school you could actually opt out. My belief though is that even if you don't agree with the theory of evolution you should keep an open mind and therefore not just blindly cut yourself off from any knowledge of the theories of evolution. Also it is very possible to find religious scientists(notice I didn't just say christian scientists) who believe in a mix of science and religion.
I would dissagree that christians are the most targeted , least tolerated religion. If you walk up to the Avg. American when you talk about muslims they would most likley think?
A.).A Tolerant and humble religion
B.) A violent and wierd religion in which all muslims dress with turbans and have bomb strapped to their chests.
C.) A Religion that worships the same god as Jews and Christians
Or we could talk about the Jews which have been persecuted since the root/beginnings of the religion.
As for Christianity being important, yes it is very as the fact as it has shaped cultures such as western culture. But when you look at any religion you can realise actually how important it is. It provides a set of rules/moral ethics to abide by in a structured environment, a preset lifestyle.
now back on topic, I see science as a middle ground, neutral and common between all nations, therefore it is taught, and I don't believe this is taught specificly as fact, as when we studied it in school you could actually opt out. My belief though is that even if you don't agree with the theory of evolution you should keep an open mind and therefore not just blindly cut yourself off from any knowledge of the theories of evolution. Also it is very possible to find religious scientists(notice I didn't just say christian scientists) who believe in a mix of science and religion.
QUOTE(ussr1943 @ Jun 20 2007, 01:34 AM)
What troubles me is when people try to separate science and religion.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 19 2007, 11:47 AM)
the theory of evolution is a complete farce, and is a religion all in its own. So when you say religion shouldn't be taught in public schools...then "theory of evolution"...exit stage left. Unfortunately its gonna take a long time for some people to realize it...
by the way, there isn't a more heretical, contradictory, and absurd theory in science today than the theory of evolution. Probably why its becoming less and less of an accepted explanation of the origins of life.
the theory breaks down ironically before it could even begin......2 words....genetic information.
by the way, there isn't a more heretical, contradictory, and absurd theory in science today than the theory of evolution. Probably why its becoming less and less of an accepted explanation of the origins of life.
the theory breaks down ironically before it could even begin......2 words....genetic information.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 06:06 AM)
What troubles me is when people try to separate science and religion.
err, sorry to trouble you but...
Christianity does not present God as a theory because it is a religion and not a science....no connection
Christianity will always be partial to God, it will never be objective, so it can not be connected to science in this manner.
I think that your point about the theory being a farce kind of cuts its nose off despite the face so to speak. The reason that so many scientific discoveries are presented as "theories and models" is because of its objective and impartial approach. Science does not present theories as facts because of its impartiality.
I believe the only connection between Christianity and science is belief, one through blind faith and the other through a systematic substantiated method. Some may follow science like a religion, but to do this contradicts the very concept of its approach.
HA HAAA on a personal note, nothing is separate
Well, I don't know if you are in the scientific community...but the ridiculous theory of evolution has been taught as fact for decades. Watch animal shows on television. Watch ANYTHING on the Discovery channel or PBS. Tell me they present it as theory and not fact. Look at your child's textbooks. If I need to, I will cite you thousands of examples....just give me some time.
Religion:
~ a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
~ Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
~ A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Science:
~ a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
~ The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
~ Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
~ Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
I don't like to argue semantics, but what do you see as separating the two?
QUOTE
Christianity does not present God as a theory because it is a religion and not a science....no connection
With all due-respect, this statement is very much misguided. A couple of definitions...Religion:
~ a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
~ Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
~ A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Science:
~ a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
~ The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
~ Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
~ Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
I don't like to argue semantics, but what do you see as separating the two?
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 21 2007, 02:08 AM)
Well, I don't know if you are in the scientific community...but the ridiculous theory of evolution has been taught as fact for decades. Watch animal shows on television. Watch ANYTHING on the Discovery channel or PBS. Tell me they present it as theory and not fact. Look at your child's textbooks. If I need to, I will cite you thousands of examples....just give me some time.
Religion:
~ a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
~ Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
~ A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Science:
~ a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
~ The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
~ Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
~ Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
I don't like to argue semantics, but what do you see as separating the two?
QUOTE
Christianity does not present God as a theory because it is a religion and not a science....no connection
With all due-respect, this statement is very much misguided. A couple of definitions...Religion:
~ a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
~ Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
~ A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Science:
~ a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
~ The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
~ Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
~ Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
I don't like to argue semantics, but what do you see as separating the two?
To me,the difference is like Night and Day,and should never be combined.
Religion is a misguided belief led by Blind Faith.
Science is based on Facts.
I don't have to prove anything because it's merely an Opinion.
QUOTE(DSTM @ Jun 20 2007, 12:36 PM)
We both have the same facts, do we not? Different presuppositions.
LMAO! A belief is not a theory!!!
They use completely different systems of measurement.
Scientific theory can be prooven using...
As far as evolutionary theory goes and any other contravertial theories, they may not have all of the above quoted types of evidence to support them, so can not be prooven out right. But this is not a problem with the theory itself but the people who advocate it.
On a personal note, there is no such thing as disproof.
They use completely different systems of measurement.
Scientific theory can be prooven using...
QUOTE
~ The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
where as belief and faith does not require proof or any of the above.As far as evolutionary theory goes and any other contravertial theories, they may not have all of the above quoted types of evidence to support them, so can not be prooven out right. But this is not a problem with the theory itself but the people who advocate it.
On a personal note, there is no such thing as disproof.
Science and religion are connected, in that they are both ideas.
Scientific ideas can be quantified, through observation (as nn23 stated) and evaluation of the physical world.
Religious ideas cannot be quantified, however, they can be measured in terms of faith.
Granted, there have been flaws in the explanation of Evolutionary design (just look at the peppered moth experiments). However, the same can be said of Religion. How many have been misguided to evil ends by a Religious devotion?
I think the important thing to remember is that, in the end, they are both just ideas. None of us really know, concretely, the grand schemes of Evolution or Religion. We may think we have a good idea, and subsequently shape other ideas around this central idea; but we really have no clue. Perhaps that is the beauty of this whole mess, ideas are subject to change. In light of new evidence, ideas are labile.
We must accept our limitations as creatures (whether creatures of God or of the Universe), and accept that we may never know, but if we keep our minds open, we may develop a good idea.
Scientific ideas can be quantified, through observation (as nn23 stated) and evaluation of the physical world.
Religious ideas cannot be quantified, however, they can be measured in terms of faith.
Granted, there have been flaws in the explanation of Evolutionary design (just look at the peppered moth experiments). However, the same can be said of Religion. How many have been misguided to evil ends by a Religious devotion?
I think the important thing to remember is that, in the end, they are both just ideas. None of us really know, concretely, the grand schemes of Evolution or Religion. We may think we have a good idea, and subsequently shape other ideas around this central idea; but we really have no clue. Perhaps that is the beauty of this whole mess, ideas are subject to change. In light of new evidence, ideas are labile.
We must accept our limitations as creatures (whether creatures of God or of the Universe), and accept that we may never know, but if we keep our minds open, we may develop a good idea.
QUOTE
LMAO! A belief is not a theory!!!
That's cute! Just like when scientists BELIEVED the earth was flat. Which was it, a theory or a belief? Because as you say, a belief cannot be a theory. The whole theory of evolution is based on people's beliefs. I am missing your point.
QUOTE
As far as evolutionary theory goes and any other contravertial theories, they may not have all of the above quoted types of evidence to support them, so can not be prooven out right. But this is not a problem with the theory itself but the people who advocate it.
I could contend its both. The theory of evolution has many inexplicable discrepancies which shows error in the theory itself. (Ironically, the theory evolves while nothing else does.) It also does show a problem with the theory's advocates...for example...doctoring fossil records, making up complete lies, basing dating on false methods...etc etc. QUOTE
On a personal note, there is no such thing as disproof.
Tell that to the dictionary, and to people that disprove things every day. QUOTE(blueandgold04 @ Jun 20 2007, 12:02 PM)
Science and religion are connected, in that they are both ideas.
Scientific ideas can be quantified, through observation (as nn23 stated) and evaluation of the physical world.
Religious ideas cannot be quantified, however, they can be measured in terms of faith.
Granted, there have been flaws in the explanation of Evolutionary design (just look at the peppered moth experiments). However, the same can be said of Religion. How many have been misguided to evil ends by a Religious devotion?
I think the important thing to remember is that, in the end, they are both just ideas. None of us really know, concretely, the grand schemes of Evolution or Religion. We may think we have a good idea, and subsequently shape other ideas around this central idea; but we really have no clue. Perhaps that is the beauty of this whole mess, ideas are subject to change. In light of new evidence, ideas are labile.
We must accept our limitations as creatures (whether creatures of God or of the Universe), and accept that we may never know, but if we keep our minds open, we may develop a good idea.
Scientific ideas can be quantified, through observation (as nn23 stated) and evaluation of the physical world.
Religious ideas cannot be quantified, however, they can be measured in terms of faith.
Granted, there have been flaws in the explanation of Evolutionary design (just look at the peppered moth experiments). However, the same can be said of Religion. How many have been misguided to evil ends by a Religious devotion?
I think the important thing to remember is that, in the end, they are both just ideas. None of us really know, concretely, the grand schemes of Evolution or Religion. We may think we have a good idea, and subsequently shape other ideas around this central idea; but we really have no clue. Perhaps that is the beauty of this whole mess, ideas are subject to change. In light of new evidence, ideas are labile.
We must accept our limitations as creatures (whether creatures of God or of the Universe), and accept that we may never know, but if we keep our minds open, we may develop a good idea.
mmm WOW, EXCELLENT post B&G
QUOTE(nn23 @ Jun 20 2007, 01:29 PM)
mmm WOW, EXCELLENT post B&G
So do you agree with B&G that science and religion are connected or not?
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE
On a personal note, there is no such thing as disproof.
Tell that to the dictionary, and to people that disprove things every day. If I may, I think nn23 was pointing out that the word 'disproof' does not exist. One can disprove something, but they are ultimately showing 'proof'.
Ahh, semantics, how we will enjoy them.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 12:31 PM)
QUOTE(nn23 @ Jun 20 2007, 01:29 PM)
mmm WOW, EXCELLENT post B&G
So do you agree with B&G that science and religion are connected or not?
i repeat...QUOTE(nn23 @ Jun 20 2007, 10:53 AM)
HA HAAA on a personal note, nothing is separate
i liked what B&G said...its REALLY annoying what happened earlier, i had just done a post that described my thoughts REALLY well, and then my electric goes and runs out just as i was signing my name
i got way layed with appt's after that, wish that post hadnt been deleted
...oh well
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE
LMAO! A belief is not a theory!!!
That's cute! Just like when scientists BELIEVED the earth was flat. Which was it, a theory or a belief? Because as you say, a belief cannot be a theory. The whole theory of evolution is based on people's beliefs. I am missing your point.
Back to connections/separations between religion and science (in the context theories/evolutionary theory.)
Does belief and faith require evidence?
Theories are based on correlates of evidence. They do require belief in them before they can be proven but even these beliefs have observable correlates of evidence.
Does it not undermine the principles of faith to compare the belief underlying it to something that intends to be evidence based?
QUOTE
As far as evolutionary theory goes and any other contravertial theories, they may not have all of the above quoted types of evidence to support them, so can not be prooven out right. But this is not a problem with the theory itself but the people who advocate it.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 12:28 PM)
I could contend its both. The theory of evolution has many inexplicable discrepancies which shows error in the theory itself. (Ironically, the theory evolves while nothing else does.)
hmmm yeah, i wonder why the average foot size of a victorian was 2-5 while the average foot size of a woman today is 5-8?
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 12:28 PM)
It also does show a problem with the theory's advocates...for example...doctoring fossil records, making up complete lies, basing dating on false methods...etc etc.
Yeah well, thats like saying, "Seeing as this Christian cult lied and stole our money i now reject ALL Christian religions!"..."making up complete lies" and manipulations happen within both science and religion.
Hail Xenu
QUOTE
On a personal note, there is no such thing as disproof.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jun 20 2007, 12:28 PM)
Tell that to the dictionary, and to people that disprove things every day.
While disproof exists as a word the concept is somewhat paradoxical. When evidence is not found to substantiate the subject of study it is assumed to be disproven. All findings like this show is that the method of substantiation did not apply to the context rather than the lack of validity (disproof) of the context in question itself.
If religion evaluated things scientifically then God and creationism would be a theory.
nn23
QUOTE(seafox14 @ May 13 2006, 05:51 AM)
Hello everone. I just got off a very good discussion of evolution VS creation.
I would like to pose a different question.
If evolution is still a theory and has not yet met the requirements of scientific proof, then why is it being taught in schools as fact.
my personal thoughts are that those apposed to Christianity latch on to evolution as a way to say " There is no God". It is my opinion that evolution has become it's own religion and will not tolerate any other. That is why Christianity has been booted out of the schools and replaced with evolution (ie atheism) in an attempt to forcefully convert children from Christianity to atheism.
what are you thoughts. All view points are welcome.
I would like to pose a different question.
If evolution is still a theory and has not yet met the requirements of scientific proof, then why is it being taught in schools as fact.
my personal thoughts are that those apposed to Christianity latch on to evolution as a way to say " There is no God". It is my opinion that evolution has become it's own religion and will not tolerate any other. That is why Christianity has been booted out of the schools and replaced with evolution (ie atheism) in an attempt to forcefully convert children from Christianity to atheism.
what are you thoughts. All view points are welcome.
Because of the the two versions, I think evolution is the most plausible. The whole idea of some mythical being creating the universe in 7 days is just a little bit fanciful. There also seems to be more substantive proof of evolution. Besides for 2,000 years we have had another unsubstantive theory which has yet to meet the requirements of scientific proof hammered into us. Wars have been fought and billions persecuted in the name of a God(s) that have never been proven to exist except in the hearts of those who believe in blind faith. Why should we not teach evolution in schools as long as it is taught as a theory and not a gospel.
QUOTE
Does belief and faith require evidence?
Quite the contrary. Evidence requires belief and the majority of the time, faith.QUOTE
Does it not undermine the principles of faith to compare the belief underlying it to something that intends to be evidence based?
Can you rephrase the question?QUOTE
Yeah well, thats like saying, "Seeing as this Christian cult lied and stole our money i now reject ALL Christian religions!"..."making up complete lies" and manipulations happen within both science and religion.
This was a nice attack on Christianity. We were discussing controversial theories, and you just couldn't resist, could you? Somehow, because I pointed out that there are inexplicable discrepancies in the theory of evolution...you bit back by attacking Christianity. So based on that logic...is the theory of evolution a religion?QUOTE
If religion evaluated things scientifically then God and creationism would be a theory.
I am okay with the "scientific community" viewing God and "religion" as a theory. It's not a theory to me, but it doesn't bother me for it to be called as such. QUOTE
While disproof exists as a word the concept is somewhat paradoxical. When evidence is not found to substantiate the subject of study it is assumed to be disproven. All findings like this show is that the method of substantiation did not apply to the context rather than the lack of validity (disproof) of the context in question itself.
We've established that this would be just arguing semantics. I don't disagree with you on this.QUOTE
hmmm yeah, i wonder why the average foot size of a victorian was 2-5 while the average foot size of a woman today is 5-8?
I liked this line...ONE example suddenly proves the entire theory....for starters, small feet in the Victorian era were a sign of social status. Secondly, the women attained extra small size by cramming their feet into small-pointed shoes. Same thing happened(s) in China. Besides that, the time line of the alleged changes in foot size would not fit the criteria for an evolutionary time scale. Show me the source where you read about the "victorian-foot-size"
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.