Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on December 26, 2003, 08:08:05 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3350357.stm
Now, I'm gonna let the Americans amongst you off with not having already posted something about this as the US media is probably already avoiding all stories that portray Iran in a sympathetic light so the invasion goes down easier in a few months. But I cannot believe no-one else has noticed this.
If I've just missed the thread, then I'm sorry, but if it's totally not been mentioned up to this point then I hope you all die horrible, horrible deaths.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Now, I'm gonna let the Americans amongst you off with not having already posted something about this as the US media is probably already avoiding all stories that portray Iran in a sympathetic light so the invasion goes down easier in a few months.
you forget, the media is liberal controlled, so it's front page news.
-
yeah we've been getting a lot of news on this, more so than we would normaly get from such a relitivly small contry we have poor relations with,
something like half the buildings been flattened and about 20,000 people killed right?
were suposed to be sending some sort of aid too
I found it ironic that the name of the city was Bam.
-
they've been saying 20,000, 5,000, 12,000, they don't know. they did the same thing when the WTC collapsed. i guess it's a similar situation: a bunch of buildings falling down, people burried under tons of rubble ect.
-
and there've been a bunch of other major storries we havn't had a posting about, like /*looks at what's on now*/ the SECOND assasionation atempt of Musharief
-
:eek2:
Amazing what one can not hear about when one does not listen to radio, watch TV, or surf news sites. :nervous:
-
Lots going on in the world right now...earthquakes, assassination attempts, Air France stops several US bound flights before they take off and Mars probe Beagle 2 isn't responding...damn martians :D
Why does everyone consider American media to be instantly biased and controled by the views of the American government? It may be a monopolized powerhouse, limited viewpoint, run by elitist businessmen but they often don't care about what the government things - the government can be destroyed before them and a new one installed in the next election if they so want :)
Reporting dramatic things good or bad for americans is good for ratings and thus good for business. Let no story go unturned :)
-
Everything you've ever known is a lie!
...
full story after these mesages from our sponsors
-
They'd do it if they had the material :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Lots going on in the world right now...earthquakes, assassination attempts, Air France stops several US bound flights before they take off and Mars probe Beagle 2 isn't responding...damn martians :D
Curses! You must be eliminated before you warn others of the martian invasion! :drevil:
-
*goes Into the West*
-
*goes into Mae West*
-
*goes into Adam West*
...i mean- *backspace* ahh, crap.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Everything you've ever known is a lie!
...
full story after these mesages from our sponsors
*cough*matrix*cough*
-
(on topic)
80% of the city has been flattened, including the near total destruction of the ancient citadel. There are no hospitals left standing, nor tents, so people are being treated & sleeping in the freezing cold air outside.
They had arial shots from a chopper on the news, and the city is literally flattened - nothing is standing, it's all a flat pile of rubble. The last casualty estimates I heard were ~25,000 dead, over 30,000 injured - probably more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3350583.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3351329.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3352057.stm
-
And people say God doesn't exist.
Ah well, if the world's gonna end I better go muster up some kind of magics to defend myself from God with.
-
Current figures: ~20,000 dead, 100,000 homeless.
The big temple thingy was originally a Persian Fire Temple, then a mosque, now a big heap of dust.
The death toll is so high because the buildings were all made of mud-bricks - the people can't afford to follow the building regulations, so the houses have no chance of surviving an earthquake.
What really gets me is that they're refusing all offers of aid from the Israelis. That they offered help is the first place is surprising, given the goverment's position, but having it turned down isn't exactly gonna help matters....
-
I guess they haven't really earthquake retrofitted there...
-
" June 1990: About 40,000 died in Iran's worst recorded disaster, affecting Caspian areas of Gilan and Zanjan. About half a million people made homeless"
Man, that country isn't exactly a blessed one...
-
And there sits bush in his chair saying, "Drat, damn mother nature got to them first."
I can bet few other Arab nations give a rats ass. Nowadays they all seem to hate each other.
-
Its not an earthquake! It's the US invasion prep!
-
Oh nos! That terrible Core movie is coming true! Quick! Someone build a machine to drill to the center of the earth! And you there! Hack the internet!
-
yup, them damn NASA tectonic encitement satalites of DOOM! are raining down an unspeakable rain of ... doom ... upon our acursed ennemies! :mad:
yup, that'd... be.. it
-
It is a tragedy, but what can you do?
It's only going to get worse from here on out, the disasters will begin incurring higher human costs and eventually HE will return to fulfill that which was prophsied in the Book of Revelation. Are you prepared?
Originally posted by IceFire
Why does everyone consider American media to be instantly biased and controled by the views of the American government?
No, the Major Media outlets, aside from some talk radio, are controlled by the Left.
For those who don't know the American Left consists of:
Eco-Wackos - those who beleive that mankind cannot be allowed to develop any technology as it will harm Mother Earth.
ACLU and their Ilk - People dedicated to destroying the Family Unit, morals, ethics, and taking God out of everthing. The USA is a Christian Nation, not Musilm, (sorry Sandwich) Jewish, Buddist, or any other religion you can name.
Gay Rights activists - people who want to give special "rights" to a social group that consists of less than one percent of the population.
Feminazis - Militant feminists who beleive that men are inherently inferior and deserving of less everything than you would give your worst enemy.
and dozens of other "special interest" groups who beleive that their ways are better than the ways that have guided and shaped this country into the greatest country in the world.
Strong Marriage bonds - the divorce rate didn't used to be half the marriage rate.
A Strong Sense of Morals and Ethics - this speaks for itself. A sense of what's right and what's wrong is imperative to lead a virtuous life. Moral Equivalency is the downfall of any people.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It is a tragedy, but what can you do?
It's only going to get worse from here on out, the disasters will begin incurring higher human costs and eventually HE will return to fulfill that which was prophsied in the Book of Revelation.
No, I'm not gonna return that soon, I'm busy having a snack.
-
He's not coming back yet. Too many christians are still wearing crosses. You've scared him.
-
If He did come back, a lot of people would have some very stiff questions for Him. Like, "what the **** was the deal with the earthquake?"
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The USA is a Christian Nation, not Musilm, (sorry Sandwich) Jewish, ...
Hey, don't feel the need to apologize to me, bro - I'm both. ;) After all, Jesus was Jewish. :)
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
If He did come back, a lot of people would have some very stiff questions for Him. Like, "what the **** was the deal with the earthquake?"
Being the good Jewish boy that He grew up as, He'd probably answer that question right back with another question, "What the **** was the deal with gay church "leaders"/school prayer ban/"In God we trust" hypocricy/etc?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It is a tragedy, but what can you do?
It's only going to get worse from here on out, the disasters will begin incurring higher human costs and eventually HE will return to fulfill that which was prophsied in the Book of Revelation. Are you prepared?
No, the Major Media outlets, aside from some talk radio, are controlled by the Left.
For those who don't know the American Left consists of:
Eco-Wackos - those who beleive that mankind cannot be allowed to develop any technology as it will harm Mother Earth.
ACLU and their Ilk - People dedicated to destroying the Family Unit, morals, ethics, and taking God out of everthing. The USA is a Christian Nation, not Musilm, (sorry Sandwich) Jewish, Buddist, or any other religion you can name.
Gay Rights activists - people who want to give special "rights" to a social group that consists of less than one percent of the population.
Feminazis - Militant feminists who beleive that men are inherently inferior and deserving of less everything than you would give your worst enemy.
and dozens of other "special interest" groups who beleive that their ways are better than the ways that have guided and shaped this country into the greatest country in the world.
Strong Marriage bonds - the divorce rate didn't used to be half the marriage rate.
A Strong Sense of Morals and Ethics - this speaks for itself. A sense of what's right and what's wrong is imperative to lead a virtuous life. Moral Equivalency is the downfall of any people.
First off, the media in the US answers to one thing: The Dollar.
What sells is on the media. When Clinton was in office, making a big deal of his hankie-pankie sold. Now that Bush is in office making a big deal of terrorism and how he's the war president saving the Christian western world from Islam sells for one half of the country, and that he's an fascist idiot sells for the other half.
I do agree that the Eco-Wackos, Feminazis, etc. are all very scary people. But so are the Jesus-Freaks and other Fundamentalist religious groups who are bound and determined to make everyone's life miserable because some of us don't agree in their interpretation of the Bible, Koran, etc.
Let me guess, everyone in the US who goes on touting about the US being a "Christian Nation" only tolerates other religions because it reflects Christ's mercy and superiority?
Anyway, as Sandwich said, Jesus was Jewish. So I never understood the whole anti-Jewish, "we must convert them" thing that the right-wingers have.
Also, yeah too many people are wearing crosses, everyone seems to forget that Mohammad was the 3rd, and last prophet. Get with the program people, just because the 2nd one had a higher special effects budget doesn't make him the final word! :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Let me guess, everyone in the US who goes on touting about the US being a "Christian Nation" only tolerates other religions because it reflects Christ's mercy and superiority?
Define "tolerate". As a Christian, I don't believe that there is any other god but the God of the Bible. IMO, Allah is a demon, the devil himself, or something of the like. But that doesn't mean that I go around shoving my beliefs into other people's faces - something that, I'm sad to admit - many Christians do. I'm not gonna win anyone over is a dazzling display of Christ's love for them by annoying the heck out of them, now am I?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Define "tolerate". As a Christian, I don't believe that there is any other god but the God of the Bible. IMO, Allah is a demon, the devil himself, or something of the like. But that doesn't mean that I go around shoving my beliefs into other people's faces - something that, I'm sad to admit - many Christians do. I'm not gonna win anyone over is a dazzling display of Christ's love for them by annoying the heck out of them, now am I?
Actually that was meant to be more of a shock-value comment to see what reaction I'd get from our resident US right-wingers as opposed to one that was supposed to be analyzed :)
But you brought something interesting up, the demonizing of other religions, when they're all supposidely praying to the same guy, but in different ways.
-
Originally posted by Ace
But you brought something interesting up, the demonizing of other religions, when they're all supposidely praying to the same guy, but in different ways.
No offense, but that's bull****. The inside of the Dome of the Rock says "God has no son". Reconcile that with the main tenet of Christian faith.
EDIT: And on the Christian side, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come unto the Father but by me." (sic)
-
Alright, before (maybe) launching into a response to the various comments posted here, let me just state that this is a f***ing tragedy, no matter who its happens to. The Iranian people are no less innocent than another civilian population on this Earth, and over 20,000 is just...defies words. I've got 2 friends who are Iranian, still haven't talked to them since the earthquake. Though they're in Canada, they probably have family there, so I hope they're alright.
Alright, I'll just control myself and hold of in responding to the comments, since it seems to me that they're just flamebait. Especially Liberator's little psycho rant there.
Oh and, Sandwich, you're Christian? I know there are Christians in Israel, but I considered them to be a small minority compared to the Jews and Muslims.
-
Messianic Jew?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
... let me just state that this is a f***ing tragedy, no matter who its happens to. The Iranian people are no less innocent than another civilian population on this Earth, and over 20,000 is just...defies words.
Agreed. :(
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh and, Sandwich, you're Christian? I know there are Christians in Israel, but I considered them to be a small minority compared to the Jews and Muslims.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Messianic Jew?
Long story - short version is that Beowolf is right. Although I must say that every time I return and see what Messianic Judaisim is like in the US, it reminds me of how far out of their way people have to go there to maintain an identity as a Jew who believes in the Old and New Testaments. 'Round here, being Jewish is almost a default, so the trappings don't get flouted around like they do elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No offense, but that's bull****. The inside of the Dome of the Rock says "God has no son". Reconcile that with the main tenet of Christian faith.
EDIT: And on the Christian side, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come unto the Father but by me." (sic)
yeah, yeah, and the bible said all the earth was covered with water, that the two first human where not exactly ape-looking creatures, and that all the knowlegde of the universe was put into an apple. Learning by eating, our national education system should study that possibility :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
yeah, yeah, and the bible said all the earth was covered with water, that the two first human where not exactly ape-looking creatures, and that all the knowlegde of the universe was put into an apple. Learning by eating, our national education system should study that possibility :p
I'm not saying you have to believe it, dude. What I am saying is that - except for the New Age whackos cropping up in every religion - there's no claim of any religion that it's "just another way to the same goal" as the others. Far from it.
-
The death toll is set to approach the 50,000 mark.
I can hardly believe this is happening.
-
Wow. :(
-
God is subjective.... who's to say that Christians, Jews (these 2 are pretty obvious), Muslims, Sikhs, etc aren't worshipping the same god, but interpreted in different ways? Even the multi-diety religions could be said to be interpreting the actions of a single god as being different parts - i.e. the vengerful & merciful sides as different gods.
The one thing that every religion has in common is their rules, their moral guides, their books, etc are written by men. And thus fallible.
And this thing in Iran could offer the best chance, belive it or not, to help heal some of the rifts between the Middle East / West. If America and European countries (the UK in particular) make a concerted effort to help rebuild the city as well as aid the disaster, it could go a long way towards showing that there doesn;t need ot be a constant animosity. If a Christian fundamentalist* nation such as the US can help a Muslim fundamentalist nation, it'd show that human decency can transcend politcial / religious schisms.
*based on Bush's aggressive 'hit first' foreign policy in particular
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The death toll is set to approach the 50,000 mark.
I can hardly believe this is happening.
so terriple:sigh:
-
I really can't stand religion
Sarnie, I take it the whole 'Allah is some kind of demon' thing was an attempt at, I dunno, sarcasm or something. Cos I feel the need right now to bring certain Muslim aquaintances of mine in here to verbally ***** slap you.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
God is subjective.... who's to say that Christians, Jews (these 2 are pretty obvious), Muslims, Sikhs, etc aren't worshipping the same god, but interpreted in different ways? Even the multi-diety religions could be said to be interpreting the actions of a single god as being different parts - i.e. the vengerful & merciful sides as different gods.
Err, no.
I never understood this need people have to avoid the concept that there might be a group of people who are either wrong, deceived, or both.
Without getting into a "Christianity's right - Islam's wrong" / "Islam's right - Christianity's wrong" debate here, realize one thing. The deity figure of Judeo-Christianity is not the deity figure of Islam. They are different no matter how you look at them. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and should read through the Koran and the Bible before continuing to prove his/her ignorance.
And it's not merely a matter of the difference in behavior between a vengeful god and a merciful god. If that were the case, then not only would the "Vengeful and Warmongering" God of the Old Testament be different from the "Loving and Merciful" God of the New Testament, but even in the same Testaments, you'd have to have seperate "Gods". If you don't believe me, read Jeremiah 31 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+31&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) and Revelation 19:11-21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=rev+19%3A11-21&version=NIV) - both are great examples.
But anyway, what I'm saying is that Allah is not the same as Jesus, who is not the same as Zeus/Shiva/what-have-you. Why is this so hard to believe?
Originally posted by aldo_14
If a Christian fundamentalist* nation such as the US...
*based on Bush's aggressive 'hit first' foreign policy in particular
How does the fundamental Christian ideology of turning the other cheek equate in your brain to "aggressive 'hit first' ... policy"? I'm quite unable to comprehend this one. :confused:
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Sarnie, I take it the whole 'Allah is some kind of demon' thing was an attempt at, I dunno, sarcasm or something. Cos I feel the need right now to bring certain Muslim aquaintances of mine in here to verbally ***** slap you.
Not really, no. I meant what I said, as harsh as it may be. I personally view Islam as a one big deception. But I have nothing against Muslims at all (as long a they aren't trying to kill me, but that goes for anyone, Christians included). It's Islam I have problems with.
Look, I've said any number of times - I'm not one of those people who will go around trying to convert and evangelize people. But I am also not the kind of person who will tell a diluted version of what they hold as true simply because the "complete and unabridged edition" might offend someone's sensitivities.
I'm not telling anyone here "This is truth." I'm saying what I believe, and giving the reasons for those beliefs. If it perks your interest and brings about a change of mind, fine. And if not - that's fine, too.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Err, no.
I never understood this need people have to avoid the concept that there might be a group of people who are either wrong, deceived, or both.
Without getting into a "Christianity's right - Islam's wrong" / "Islam's right - Christianity's wrong" debate here, realize one thing. The deity figure of Judeo-Christianity is not the deity figure of Islam. They are different no matter how you look at them. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and should read through the Koran and the Bible before continuing to prove his/her ignorance.
And it's not merely a matter of the difference in behavior between a vengeful god and a merciful god. If that were the case, then not only would the "Vengeful and Warmongering" God of the Old Testament be different from the "Loving and Merciful" God of the New Testament, but even in the same Testaments, you'd have to have seperate "Gods". If you don't believe me, read Jeremiah 31 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JER+31&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) and Revelation 19:11-21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=rev+19%3A11-21&version=NIV) - both are great examples.
But anyway, what I'm saying is that Allah is not the same as Jesus, who is not the same as Zeus/Shiva/what-have-you. Why is this so hard to believe?
Nooo.... I'm talking about God /Allah / Shivan /etc being the same deity interpreted in different ways. It's obvious how the meaning of a holy book such as the Bible or Koran can & is interpreted in vastly different ways, and these books themselves are all written by men.
I'm not just talking about the books themselves, I'm talking about events. Just look at Judaism / Christianity - one sees Jesus as the son of Go, the other doesn't. Based on the same (presumably) historical event.
Whereas Christianity, etc, presumes there is one God, and that He is capable of both mercy & wrath, another religion (i.e. hinduism) may interpret these actions as being of 2 Gods.
Religions are founded, created by men. Men are fallible. Thus, so is religion.
Originally posted by Sandwich
How does the fundamental Christian ideology of turning the other cheek equate in your brain to "aggressive 'hit first' ... policy"? I'm quite unable to comprehend this one. :confused:
Probably the wrong use case, in retrospect. what i mean is using religion as a justification - i.e. that God is on his side, and thus he's doing the right thing. I have deep suspicion of anyone using that sort of language.........
I should say i have a deep mistrust of organized religion. I don't see a real point of them behind enforcing a moral code in some way (with the prospect of a reward - heaven, paradise, etc) - I don't see why a benevolent, non-interventionist and above-all omnipotent God would feel a need to be worshipped.
Basically, I expect to be judged on my actions, not my beliefs. You can use that as a context for what i've posted earlier.... i'm not going to argue with anyone about their beliefs, though - it would be grossly hypocritical to do so.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't see why a benevolent, non-interventionist and above-all omnipotent God would feel a need to be worshipped.
That's my take on it too. However the "modern services" that are being done in the US claim it isn't worship but praise and love of God. However, there is no true reason why a omnipotent, benevolent being would require such an active form of praise, especially when it leads to conflict over doctrines of that praise, an act that is exactly the opposite of the nature of a benevolent God.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I never understood this need people have to avoid the concept that there might be a group of people who are either wrong, deceived, or both.
What I never understand is that people believe that a god would create all of humanity and then invent false religions with the same amount of empirical evidence as the real one. In fact I've never understood how people can believe in an omniscient God and then claim to know what he was thinking about anything.
Seriously what evidence can you present that Christianity is correct and everyone else is wrong? None. There is no actual evidence, you can only point at your holy books or the way your religion feels correct to you. A muslim can give exactly the same answer you do when asked that question so who is correct?
-
The story isn't important, the teachings are.
Problem solved :D
-
I'm going to have to agree with Sandwich here.
As to moral code.... there is NO moral code without a god. For instance, without gods, men would have own individual codes that they each believed in. Who's to say that these are correct or incorrect? If someone murders, who's to say that this is wrong?
Organized religions are necessary for moral codes and laws. Without them, one does not have an absolute to test against. The idea is the same in law. Laws are absolute tests against legality.
So for agument, lets say democracy picks a moral code. This would change depending on people's whims. This in not absolute. How then could anyone every be just when governing to this code? It is impossible. Organized religions are necessary to the survival of civilization.
For what it's worth, I am a Christian Objectivist. If you can believe it. :ha:
~Beowulf
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What I never understand is that people believe that a god would create all of humanity and then invent false religions with the same amount of empirical evidence as the real one. In fact I've never understood how people can believe in an omniscient God and then claim to know what he was thinking about anything.
Seriously what evidence can you present that Christianity is correct and everyone else is wrong? None. There is no actual evidence, you can only point at your holy books or the way your religion feels correct to you. A muslim can give exactly the same answer you do when asked that question so who is correct?
Shortened and very much condensed:
Reason. Reason and Logic. It is only LOGICAL that god exists. He absolutely has to. I am not speaking of my own personal need, but of science's need. Science cannot explain the creation of the universe, the creation of a cell, science can hardly explain anything of the physical/animal/natural world.
Looking at everything, there are only two solutions.
(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist
We cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore, he must exist.
-
Lack of proof does not equate to proof to the contrary.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Lack of proof does not equate to proof to the contrary.
Usually, however in this case one of these needs to be true.
-
[color=cc9900]Beowulf, that's really twisted logic. Think of it this way:
- We can't explain how the Universe came about.
- Therefore, people invent something else called God.
- When questioned about where God came from, people claim that God always existed.
Since when did that make sense?
Make as few unbased assumptions as possible. If you think something can always exist, apply it to the Universe, not something else.[/color]
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
I'm going to have to agree with Sandwich here.
As to moral code.... there is NO moral code without a god. For instance, without gods, men would have own individual codes that they each believed in. Who's to say that these are correct or incorrect? If someone murders, who's to say that this is wrong?
Organized religions are necessary for moral codes and laws. Without them, one does not have an absolute to test against. The idea is the same in law. Laws are absolute tests against legality.
So for agument, lets say democracy picks a moral code. This would change depending on people's whims. This in not absolute. How then could anyone every be just when governing to this code? It is impossible. Organized religions are necessary to the survival of civilization.
The rules of religion are still the word of God written by man. Who's to say it's correct?
Besides which, civillisation requires morality - on the most basic level, a family has to take care of its offspring to continue the species (so to speak). Thus, there is an inbuilt moral duty for parents to care for their children.
By extension, society develops it's own morality. True, this is often based on religion, but it's also a survival necessity. Humans are a social animal, and this means the group mentality dictates how the members act. In the beginning, it was tribes. Now, it's countries or even races of people.
Human behaviour is dictated by the survival instinct... i suspect so were the laws set down in religious codes. Organized religion has probably done as much to hurt as help civillisation... think of all the wars that have been waged in the past over who's God is the right one.
I have no religion. I have never read the bible, nor any other religious book. But I turned out, IMHO, ok.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Looking at everything, there are only two solutions.
(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist
We cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore, he must exist.
You cannot prove God exists either, and therefore he does not. It works both ways, and says nothing. the argument that there are things that science can;t explain is pretty irrelevant - human science is only, what, a few thousand years old? That's not a long time, certainly not enough to explain the world, let alone the universe.
The whole purpose of religion is belief, anyway. Proveability is unimportant.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The rules of religion are still the word of God written by man. Who's to say it's correct?
Besides which, civillisation requires morality - on the most basic level, a family has to take care of its offspring to continue the species (so to speak). Thus, there is an inbuilt moral duty for parents to care for their children.
By extension, society develops it's own morality. True, this is often based on religion, but it's also a survival necessity. Humans are a social animal, and this means the group mentality dictates how the members act. In the beginning, it was tribes. Now, it's countries or even races of people.
Human behaviour is dictated by the survival instinct... i suspect so were the laws set down in religious codes. Organized religion has probably done as much to hurt as help civillisation... think of all the wars that have been waged in the past over who's God is the right one.
I have no religion. I have never read the bible, nor any other religious book. But I turned out, IMHO, ok.
You cannot prove God exists either, and therefore he does not. It works both ways, and says nothing. the argument that there are things that science can;t explain is pretty irrelevant - human science is only, what, a few thousand years old? That's not a long time, certainly not enough to explain the world, let alone the universe.
The whole purpose of religion is belief, anyway. Proveability is unimportant.
Listen, I know exactly what you mean about morality. The problem with your reasoning is that there is no absolute. Hence, there is no truth. And if there is no truth, by my last statement, it's not true.
The problem with my statement working the other way (as all other similar reasonings WOULD) is that science CANNOT explain god. God can explain all science.
-
[color=cc9900]So, God explains all science. Please then explain God.[/color]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
- human science is only, what, a few thousand years old?
I'd honestly say that the real scientific method is only a few hundred years old. Greek 'science' was more akin to a forum discussion such as this, (including familiar topics like the whole Ra is a false god because Zeus said so, Pericles faked the moon landing, etc.) with observations being used merely as leverage in the arguements.
-
but it was the begining of people thinking
here is an interesting thought, a topic about an earthquake in Iran has turned into a religus debate over the exsistance of god.
I'm not sure if that's evidence for or aganst it.
-
Morales and ethics can be decided thusly: It's wrong because I said it's wrong.
There is a God, but not in any sense that you people would understand or currently hold to be true.
Argument settled; **** off.
-
I blame an0n.
-
*hides divine powers*
-
Stolen from Carl Sagan, emphasis mine.
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, some empty paint cans, an old tricycle – but no dragon.
"Where’s the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she’s right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You’ll spray paint the dragon to make her visible.
"Good idea, except she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Sorry Beowulf, but your logic is bass-ackwards. Just like this dragon here, you can't prove God exists without some evidence to indicate its existence.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but it was the begining of people thinking
Well I'll disagree with that, the Greeks have the best recorded early philosiphy, but I'd say that the Sumerians were the ones who really did the first thinking. Working out workable laws, cities, the first religious writings, etc.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The whole purpose of religion is belief, anyway. Proveability is unimportant.
Exactly. If I could scientifically prove that God exists, do you think for a moment that I'd not be doing so everywhere I go?
Christianity holds that the acceptance of Jesus comes by revelation. We did not chose Him, He chose us, etc etc. We can argue until we're blue in the face and beyond, but we cannot scientifically prove what we believe in to be true.
Signs and wonders, by the way, are very convincing when you're a witness to them. Buit what are they convincing of? Simply that there things affecting this world that we cannot explain (yet? No guarantee we'll ever be able to). Personally, I don't believe in miracles that counter absolute science - we simply haven't gotten to the point where we can comprehend how they happened scientifically. I believe that God choses to work in that way - that His interventions in this universe, be they historical or modern-day events, are done without breaking the basic laws of the universe He created.
But that doesn't mean that other spiritual beings cannot affect the universe in the same apparent manner. It's happened and is happening all the time.
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Sorry Beowulf, but your logic is bass-ackwards. Just like this dragon here, you can't prove God exists without some evidence to indicate its existence.
Quite right, as far as it goes. But it's missing a point, which I can't explain ATM - gotta run to work. Perhaps in a few hours.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Shortened and very much condensed:
Reason. Reason and Logic. It is only LOGICAL that god exists. He absolutely has to. I am not speaking of my own personal need, but of science's need. Science cannot explain the creation of the universe, the creation of a cell, science can hardly explain anything of the physical/animal/natural world.
Looking at everything, there are only two solutions.
(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist
We cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore, he must exist.
By that logic God is a giant badger. Prove to me that he isn't! You can't, therefore he must be.
The simple fact is that your logic is so flawed I'm suprised you even wrote it down. Just because science hasn't found an answer to a question yet doesn't mean their isn't one. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is willing to say "We don't know yet so check back with us in 50 years". Religion on the other hand says "We can't find any logical reason so here's some **** we made up"
Besides science already proved the Christian god doesn't exist. We just can't get Christians to listen.
Genesis is all wrong about how humanity came about so either God is wrong or he is misrepresented by his own holy book. Evolution and geology throw up all kinds of contradictions to the bible but the fact is that cause they disagree with christians fundemental assumptions about the world they simply refuse to believe them and without even understanding how it works they tell the scientists that they are wrong. It's pretty hard to prove something to someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and hums loudly but what's really annoying is when they then claim that you don't know the answer.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Besides science already proved the Christian god doesn't exist. We just can't get Christians to listen.
Genesis is all wrong about how humanity came about so either God is wrong or he is misrepresented by his own holy book.
*refers karajorma to previous discussion threads about Gerald Schroeder, time dilation, and ~16 billion years equalling 6 days*
-
I was talking about Adam and Eve as opposed to evolution.
As for the time dilation theory a bigger load of rubbish I've yet to hear. This is yet more proof of how religious people refuse to listen to anyone who has scientific proof that they are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Listen, I know exactly what you mean about morality. The problem with your reasoning is that there is no absolute. Hence, there is no truth. And if there is no truth, by my last statement, it's not true.
The problem with my statement working the other way (as all other similar reasonings WOULD) is that science CANNOT explain god. God can explain all science.
The absolute is survival.... as a species, humans are weak and fragile. From the beginning of our existance, we will have had to develop the behaviour to survive, and this has embedded itself in our moral code. Personally, I believe the bible, holy books, etc were built to enforce this, rather than being sent by God.
God can explain all science? Only if you believe it. But God can explain everything if you try - it doesn't equate to proof, because you'd only take it as such if you already believed it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I was talking about Adam and Eve as opposed to evolution.
As for the time dilation theory a bigger load of rubbish I've yet to hear. This is yet more proof of how religious people refuse to listen to anyone who has scientific proof that they are wrong.
Thing is, I'm not a religious person, but I still don't believe that Evolution is entirely correct. I'm not saying that the Bible, Kuran, or even the Guru Granth Sahib are correct either- its just that nobody knows
Something like Genesis or creation may have occured in the sense of the first Humans understanding and having clear, possesive thought rather than just sheer instinct, just as Evolution might have had a hand in getting there.
This is just my opinion- others may ignore it or flame me for it, but Jesus, Allah, Buddah, all the Sikh Gurus for the most part did have some things in common- that all humans should exist in peace, have mastery over themselves and excersice the mental muscle rather than the physical (the giving up of physical needs and desires forms quite a major part of many religions, correct me if I am wrong however). The most recent 'diety' of sorts that can be considered at the same level was Mahatma Ghandi. Unfortunately, nobody remembers him anymore, despite the fact that at one time, he had at his command 1/6th of Humanity and was the only socialist leader that practiced socialism himself.
Btw, I thought this was about the Earthquake in Iran, not evolution and God itself?
Going back to the topic, all I can say is my Sympathies for the Iranian people. Earthquakes can be deadly, especially in undeveloped areas. Just 2 years ago, one rocked Gujarat and the effects were as bad, if not worse. Hopefully, the Indian government has pledged aid, but im not too sure of this.
-
Originally posted by Singh
Thing is, I'm not a religious person, but I still don't believe that Evolution is entirely correct. I'm not saying that the Bible, Kuran, or even the Guru Granth Sahib are correct either- its just that nobody knows
Aha. The agnostic view finally appears :D The simple fact is that you may not believe it's entirely correct and you're welcome to that belief but just because you don't understand it doesn't make something untrue and it's very rare that I hear anyone claim that evolution isn't entirely correct from someone who actually fully understands it.
Most people who complain about evolution being incorrect couldn't explain simple evolutionary concepts (like how the eye evolved).
-
I'm talking about complex evolutionary problems Karajoma. I understand how the eye develops, and its a pretty complex (yet somewhat simple) process. I'm not saying that Evolution doesn't exist or it doesn't work, just saying that it isn't entirely complete and may have errors, the theory itself is evolving in a sense, just like everything else did ;)
I have a few examples of this lying around somewhere......just have to remember 'em.
Another thing to note about Darwin and evolution. I heard that In the end of his book describing the theory, he mentions that to create such enormous complexity, to start off the reaction for such beauty, God had to have a hand in it somewhere, and all he was doing was describing how it happened. Im not too sure of this though, anyone with access to that book of his may want to check the last page and correct me if I am wrong.
-
I've never read The Origin of the Species but dispite what the creationsists believe aetheists don't believe that Darwin is god. He could very easily have been wrong even if he did say that. Einstien made all kinds of mistakes in his theories but I don't see anyone saying that just cause he made one mistake every single thing he said was also a mistake.
Just cause evolutionary theory is incomplete doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you wish to believe that evolution was started by a higher being that's your choice. However enough of evolutionary theory has been proved correct to prove that humankind didn't come from two people who were the first sentient beings to ever exist on Earth. As I said that directly contridicts the bible.
-
[color=cc9900]What I don't understand are the people who would devote their lives to finding out how we came about. It's practically useless knowledge - rather than finding out how we got here, we'd be much better served to try and find out what we're going to do now we are here, otherwise we'll wipe ourselves out and negate all this evolution (or possibly even prove it by getting rid of ourselves).[/color]
-
Sorry, wrong thread.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I've never read The Origin of the Species but dispite what the creationsists believe aetheists don't believe that Darwin is god. He could very easily have been wrong even if he did say that. Einstien made all kinds of mistakes in his theories but I don't see anyone saying that just cause he made one mistake every single thing he said was also a mistake.
Just cause evolutionary theory is incomplete doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you wish to believe that evolution was started by a higher being that's your choice. However enough of evolutionary theory has been proved correct to prove that humankind didn't come from two people who were the first sentient beings to ever exist on Earth. As I said that directly contridicts the bible.
I was hoping not to give that impression. As I said, Evolutionary theory is for the most part correct, and I prefer it to genesis to the other theories, because I can understand it better and its logical. It does afford an explaination, and a somewhat better one than some of what I've seen till now. Proof DOES exist for evolutionary theory- this is in the Finches darwin studied in the galapagos. I'll scrounge about for a site with the details on this.
I've just though of one error or problem with the theory. Please correct me about this since I've always wanted to find the answer. How did the trees and plants evolve? The theory dictates that life started in the deep oceans where primitive plants changed CO2 to O2, and that hence led to the formation of other life that could exist on the ocean. Thing is....where did the basis of the trees and plants on land come from? Supposedly, by the time fishes could come onto shore, their were already insects and what-not plants there. But how is this possible if the first life and the only conditions for first life existed in the oceans? Did microscopic algea scrape up from the bottom and reach the top? if so, how could they change to form fungi or the plants that we see today? This is one of the anomalies I was talking about and any clarification from an expert is much appreciated :) :nod:.
It isn't 100% Complete, it isn't 100% correct, but its scientific theory and its logical, so for the moment, its the best we've got. :nod:
Also, if you really wanted to look at it, humanity could have come from 2 beings- perhaps the first 2 humans that were capable of concious thought, or evolved it from their non-setient predecessors and then expanded the gene pool to incorporate more. It all depends on how you look at it ;)
-
There is no such thing as useless knowledge. Reseach into evolution has allowed some amazing discoveries. In fact genetics is mostly based on people wanting to study the mechanisms behind heredity and evolution. If the drive for blue sky research didn't exist I doubt we'd have come as far in that field of biology at all.
-
Oh yes, another question. My english isn't good,but what does agnostic mean? :/
-
[color=cc9900]karajorma:
Isn't genetics just one other way we can kill ourselves? The more we know, the more there is to abuse.
Singh:
I suppose it's possible that surface algae would wash up on land in freak weather conditions, and after a while adapt to that pattern until eventually it settles, then spores/pollen/etc. would spread further inland.
And agnostic means believing it is impossible to either prove or disprove God.[/color]
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]karajorma:
Isn't genetics just one other way we can kill ourselves? The more we know, the more there is to abuse.
Singh:
I suppose it's possible that surface algae would wash up on land in freak weather conditions, and after a while adapt to that pattern until eventually it settles, then spores/pollen/etc. would spread further inland.
And agnostic means believing it is impossible to either prove or disprove God.[/color]
Thanks for the explaination of the word. :nod:
ummm.....the atom bomb was another way we could kill ourselves, yet we still use it to fuel power sources (albiet, it still is used to kill us as well). IMO, if we didnt bother going for all this, we'd be bored to death and hurting each other instead of....I dunno.....just sitting around and getting bored to death?
-
Originally posted by Singh
ummm.....the atom bomb was another way we could kill ourselves, yet we still use it to fuel power sources (albiet, it still is used to kill us as well). IMO, if we didnt bother going for all this, we'd be bored to death and hurting each other instead of....I dunno.....just sitting around and getting bored to death?
[color=cc9900]The atom bomb wasn't in the field of evolution though. And, to clarify - we don't use atom bombs in power sources, we use nuclear fission. Atom bombs are nuclear fusion, in an uncontrolled fashion, whereas controlled nuclear fusion has yet to be invented.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any research, I'm just saying that research into evolution specifically isn't getting us anywhere.[/color]
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]The atom bomb wasn't in the field of evolution though. And, to clarify - we don't use atom bombs in power sources, we use nuclear fission. Atom bombs are nuclear fusion, in an uncontrolled fashion, whereas controlled nuclear fusion has yet to be invented.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any research, I'm just saying that research into evolution specifically isn't getting us anywhere.[/color]
But it is. Almost all research on bateria, on a cure to AIDS will involve understanding how a virus or bacteria can evolve. Besides like I said no one knew that Origin of the Species would lead to genetics so who knows what research into evolution will lead to?
As for your atom bomb comments you're wrong. H-bombs are fusion. The nukes dropped on japan weren't H-bombs though. They were powered by fission as are many (if not most) small atom bombs.
-
Originally posted by Singh
I've just though of one error or problem with the theory. Please correct me about this since I've always wanted to find the answer. How did the trees and plants evolve? The theory dictates that life started in the deep oceans where primitive plants changed CO2 to O2, and that hence led to the formation of other life that could exist on the ocean. Thing is....where did the basis of the trees and plants on land come from? Supposedly, by the time fishes could come onto shore, their were already insects and what-not plants there. But how is this possible if the first life and the only conditions for first life existed in the oceans? Did microscopic algea scrape up from the bottom and reach the top? if so, how could they change to form fungi or the plants that we see today? This is one of the anomalies I was talking about and any clarification from an expert is much appreciated :) :nod:.
the general theory is that mutations occur randomly, and that those which are beneficial eventually get incorporated into the genetics of the species (literally, survivial of the fittest). In case of - for example - algae, moving onto land would mean there was no competition for space & resources (sunlight) and thus convey an advantage which allowed the propagation of the species, etc, etc.
there are holes in it, of course - how the mutuations occur, how they are 'selected' as better, how behaviour modifies to take into account these modifications (i.e. why move out of water in the first place?), etc......but it's still to early to expect this level of understanding, anyway.
-
Originally posted by Singh
I've just though of one error or problem with the theory. Please correct me about this since I've always wanted to find the answer. How did the trees and plants evolve? The theory dictates that life started in the deep oceans where primitive plants changed CO2 to O2, and that hence led to the formation of other life that could exist on the ocean. Thing is....where did the basis of the trees and plants on land come from? Supposedly, by the time fishes could come onto shore, their were already insects and what-not plants there. But how is this possible if the first life and the only conditions for first life existed in the oceans? Did microscopic algea scrape up from the bottom and reach the top? if so, how could they change to form fungi or the plants that we see today? This is one of the anomalies I was talking about and any clarification from an expert is much appreciated :) :nod:
Not all of that oxygen disolved in the sea. Plenty of it went into the atomosphere. When plants moved onto the land there was plenty of oxygen for them to use.
Have a look at this timeline (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html) there were 2 billion years between the start of plant life in the oceans and it moving onto land. That's a long amount of time.
Most likely it started with plants moving onto the cliff sides and thus being uncovered by the oceans when the tide went out. This would be a major advantage for a plant because during the time it was out of the water it was completely safe from predators. The only thing that suprises me is that plants took so long to move out of the oceans.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
But it is. Almost all research on bateria, on a cure to AIDS will involve understanding how a virus or bacteria can evolve. Besides like I said no one knew that Origin of the Species would lead to genetics so who knows what research into evolution will lead to?
As for your atom bomb comments you're wrong. H-bombs are fusion. The nukes dropped on japan weren't H-bombs though. They were powered by fission as are many (if not most) small atom bombs.
[color=cc9900]We would have found it out, just we wouldn't have called it evolution. Mutation, or something. Oh wait, we do...
Okay, fair enough about the bombs, I'm not that clued up when it comes to weaponry. I would hardly class any atom bomb as small though.[/color]
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]We would have found it out, just we wouldn't have called it evolution. Mutation, or something. Oh wait, we do...[/color]
I never said they were the same thing as evolution. I said that it would take longer before we found them. If you don't care about evolution looking for the mechanism for hereditory is much less important.
I absolutely hate people who say to ignore blue skies research. Some of the greatest discoveries of all time would have been ignored unless we bothered to figure out how things work. It's just close-mindedness at its worst.
-
[color=cc9900]I never said we shouldn't participate in blue-skies research, I'm just saying one specific area - finding out where humans came from - won't really ever help us to any great degree.[/color]
-
How do you know that? The reason why I hate people who are anti-blue sky (in any field) is that they act like they know that there is nothing worth finding there. Are you that much of an expert in biology to know that? What are your credentials?
Here's something I know that proves that it may be worth it. The discovery that RNA (and possibly DNA) have liquid crystalline properties may prove useful one day in the fields of drug research and that's a direct off shoot from people studying the conditions that DNA/RNA would have arisen under. Sure someone would have eventually noticed LC activity in RNA without that research but it might have taken years before someone tried it.
There's another reason. While people don't have a full understanding of evolution the god botherers can make stupid claims about how it's just a theory or how it's all unproven. The comments are a load of crap but if evolution can be completely explained they won't even be able to say that. We'll be able to point at it and say "Nope. Not a theory. It's a law. Proved from start to finish."
But even that arguement is moot. The simple fact is that mankind has always tried to learn everything. That's a goal I can live with. I hate it when people say "Learn everything except about this because I don't think it's worth it." Well if that's your attitude why not live in a cave, hunt deer and ignore the whole of mankind's quest to better himself as a bad idea!
-
[color=cc9900]I don't know there isn't anything worth finding there, but I do know there's probably nothing in there that I'm going to particularly care about. Sure, we might miss out finding some incredibly fascinating fact about why cats hate mice, but I can live with that.
To be honest, much as I despise them, God botherers can do whatever they feel like doing so long as it doesn't screw the system, which is unlikely now. If shouting to deaf ears is how they want to spend their lives...
Actually, I would rather like being segregated from society completely and utterly. Although I'd farm rather than hunt deer, I'm vegetarian. It'd certainly be a lot easier, but someday a tax official would track me down and ask for a few decades' worth of housing tax on my cave.[/color]
-
I gave you the example of new drugs. Is that not worth having then?
-
[color=cc9900]Simply put, and this is going to sound awful - if the drugs save people's lives, I'm not wholly for them. There are way too many people in the world at the moment, and if everybody lived to 80 or something... ~shudder~
Look what a healthy population and high life expectancy has done to Japan. Labour shortages are getting worse and worse, with pensions getting more and more numerous.[/color]
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]Simply put, and this is going to sound awful - if the drugs save people's lives, I'm not wholly for them. There are way too many people in the world at the moment, and if everybody lived to 80 or something... ~shudder~
Look what a healthy population and high life expectancy has done to Japan. Labour shortages are getting worse and worse, with pensions getting more and more numerous.[/color]
Funny how the people who complain about there being too many people in the world aren't willing to weed themselves out of the excess population. It's only other people who need to die. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Aha. The agnostic view finally appears :D The simple fact is that you may not believe it's entirely correct and you're welcome to that belief but just because you don't understand it doesn't make something untrue and it's very rare that I hear anyone claim that evolution isn't entirely correct from someone who actually fully understands it.
Most people who complain about evolution being incorrect couldn't explain simple evolutionary concepts (like how the eye evolved).
That's not agnosticism. Agnosticism isn't about "we don't know" it's about "we have no way of knowing". There's a difference.
-
From Mirriam-Webster online (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm)
agnostic
Function: noun
A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
I was using a broader sense of the word. The one I once heard described like this.
Agnostic - one who doesn't know the nature of god except to say that you've got it wrong
:D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Funny how the people who complain about there being too many people in the world aren't willing to weed themselves out of the excess population. It's only other people who need to die. :rolleyes:
[color=cc9900]But I don't have a life-threatening disease, do I? Faced with the prospect of staying in the hospital and/or being in pain for the rest of my life, I would kill myself, no two ways about it. I'm also planning to become sterile so I don't contribute more to the problem.
That enough for you?[/color]
-
There's a difference between not contributing to the problem and helping to solve it. You're just not trying hard enough :rolleyes: :D
-
[color=cc9900]I'm not going to advocate mass-suicides, that'd be overkill. If half the world stopped contributing though, and the other half covered their ears and sang, the problem would eventually go away. At least, I like to think so.[/color]
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I've never read The Origin of the Species but dispite what the creationsists believe aetheists don't believe that Darwin is god.
Eh? I never said that, and have never heard anyone else say that, either. Unless you have some other basis for that statement, don't put words in other people's mouths.
-
Morality and ethics are figments of the human imagination conjoured up by kings and priests as a means of giving a definitive point from which to base their power over the people.
Evolution has been proven. All 'creationists' are wrong. Simple as that. There's no 'unexplored angle', no 'alternate viewpoint'. They're just plainly and simply flat-out wrong.
The existence of God is a question that cannot be answered as by the very metaphysical definition of the concept of God, 'he' both exists and does not exist as this is the only way for either possibility to be true.
Some would say that God created man, that he shelters man from evil, that he protects man and nurtures man. They say that he leads man down the path of righteousness, and they're right. He does. But that does not negate the fact that there is simply no all-powerful being whose whim we are all subject to.
'God' is the all-consuming, core ideal of mankind. He is the driving belief that there is something more out there. The nagging thought in the back of your mind that whispers constantly in your ear to "Go take a look".
God is no a supreme being, but the pursuit of a supreme being. The belief that somewhere out there, there's something worth looking for. Something worth working towards. Some intangible goal that if we were to reach it, all our lives would be better.
God is the most basic part of human nature. God is 'Why?'.
But, when mankind began its eternal lust for power, the question became "Why them?" and "Why not just me?".
Happy? Right, now ****-off to bed.
-
DARWIN IS TEH LOARD! BOW BEFORE DARWIN!
(http://www.panspermia.org/darwin.jpg)
[cue drums]
Unga-unga unga-unga BOOG BOOG BOOG BOOG!
-
One day I will have a beard so bountiful and I will share it with all the Earths children and they shall look unto me as a God.
They shall speaketh the name of the beard man in hallowed tones.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Eh? I never said that, and have never heard anyone else say that, either. Unless you have some other basis for that statement, don't put words in other people's mouths.
Hmmm. I've noticed I wrote "the" instead of "some" in that sentence. My bad. By creationists I was refering to the creation scientists side of the scale too rather than all religious people.
There is a tendancy amongst some religious people to nitpick Darwin as if proving he got one fact wrong means that the whole of evolutionary theory is incorrect. That's what I was alluding to. Of course not all creationists do that. Almost all creation scientists do however.
-
that's becase there world view is extreemly fragile, if any part of there belefe is disproven, then, by there reasoning, all of it is wrong, and they try atacking ours like it is the same. unfortunatly for them science is modular, there are usualy two or three backup theroys if the current primary theory is found to be false
-
Exactly. While some people pick an choose from the Bible most of these people believe the entire thing is the literal word of God. Since God is infallible if one thing is wrong the entire house of cards falls down.
Science doesn't work that way. A scientist assumes that any part of what he knows may be wrong but that it's the best model for the real thing. If you prove something is wrong to a scientist he'll most likely say thank you for giving him the chance to write a paper about the correct version.