Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on April 04, 2010, 01:52:02 pm
-
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
-
happy
dead Jesus day everybodys
-
He is risen indeed.
Happy Easter everyone.
-
Heh. I got a sketchpad in MY basket. :cool:
Yes, it is customary in my family to exchange one small gift on Easter... in addition to chocolate. Don't look at me like that, I'm catholic.
-
we do that too, or we used to at least.
-
Huh, a number of posts have either been deleted or split off.
-
I think that's because this thread is intended as celebration of the day. Discussion would just start some random argument that would be best left to another thread.
-
I was celebrating too. :( History is fun.
So, uh, this is a genuine but awkward question: should we only post in here if we are a Christian?
-
Not a very observant Christian myself, but go Jesus. :yes:
-
If you want to celebrate, or post something cool about Easter, or about something you did during the day, then this thread is appropriate. But if you want to be a Stop Having Fun Guy, or want to start an argument or debate, or want to post about something completely irrelevant (e.g. Derek Smart), please take it to the other thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=68929.0). :p
-
Happy Easter everyone!
-
Hooray! It's the Day Before Cheap Chocolate Bunnies Day!
-
Cool. Apparently he's doing a pretty good job.
Some similarities with the Moses story, too, I guess. I'm not sure I caught the 'little surprise later on', though.
EDIT: well this doesn't make much sense here any more.
-
Okay, what the ****. This thread has been moderated into incoherency.
Earlier I posted: Okay. Should we stay out of the thread if we're not believers, then? I've always enjoyed Easter as a secular holiday, a celebration of spring and renewal, and a chance to bring families together, but if this thread is specifically about the religious component then that aspect may not fit here.
And the history of the holiday fascinates me (reasoning in the post above, probably edited in after you read it.)
So is it cool if we have secular appreciation in here?
and
...a lot of religious figures (Horus, Mithras, Krishna) share the general archetypes of Christ and even some of the particulars of the story, which presents a cheerful sort of commonality that one could take as either an indication of common divine inspiration or at least grounds for us all to get along a little better than we do.
Whether you're religious or not, the parallels between these faiths are fascinating, and in a sense lend credit to all of them for speaking to some sort of common truth, whether factual or metaphorical.
the upshot being, Easter is cool.
Guh, all this post-shuffling is frustrating. My Easter love has been reduced.
-
I was celebrating too. :( History is fun.
So, uh, this is a genuine but awkward question: should we only post in here if we are a Christian?
I'm devoted atheist, I posted.
-
Let's post a praise-only thread for every holiday, no matter how retarded!
edit: for the record, i meant to post this in the other thread
-
well either that or we can troll every "happy $holiday->name" thread that shows up. I'm sure that will make people like us.
-
I don't want to be that guy, especially since it appears other people may have already gotten here first, but what is the point of this thread other than to just go "yay easter!"
Isn't there a thread in here to talk about what happens to you?
-
I find lack of tolerance more retarded than holidays. Whether pro-religious or anti-, bigotry is bigotry.
But Happy Easter.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-easter-egg-birds.jpg)
-
well either that or we can troll every "happy $holiday->name" thread that shows up. I'm sure that will make people like us.
I seriously didn't intend to troll. I thought the history of Easter was fascinating, and I've always enjoyed it as a secular holiday.
-
I wasn't referring to you.
-
Not gonna argue about iamzack.
-
Good day today, and an excellent sermon this morning.
Happy Easter, everyone. :D
-
In China, the ressurection is banned by law. :P
-
happy Easter Everyone (including Karajorma)
Free small Easter eggs were handed out after mass at our local parish today, lol, was nice for the kids :)
Dont get too stuffed on chocolate!! :)
-
Happy Easter all! :)
-
Buenos Eastardes!
Free e-eggs for all the good forumites.
Ash and poo sandwiches for the naughty ones.
-
Happy Easter! :)
-
Jesus has returned.... for our BRAAAIINSSS :headz:
-
In China, the ressurection is banned by law. :P
In Soviet Russia, ressurection bans China! :p
-
I ate a Kinder Surprise yesterday. Might seem irrelevant, but hey, it's an egg, and I've not eaten one for almost eight years.
-
Well this apparently generated a nice crapstorm...
Happy just-ended Easter to everyone, whether you do the multiple-church-services thing or are just in it for the cheap candy. :)
-
Ah, chocolate Easter Eggs, why did I ever leave you?
-
cheap candy FTW
between presents and sweets christian holidays have their strong points.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyLQIKl97Es
:p
seriously though, happy easter.
-
Typical Easter.
The kids ate chocolate. Tammy studied hard. The sun was shining. I rode the motorcycle for quite a while. Ate too much, went to sleep.
Hope everyone's day was as peaceful as mine.
-
More like uneventful for me. Nothing worth mentioning happened on Easter, apart from that Kinder Surprise I ate.
-
Happy late Resurrection Day.
So many people get it wrong. Easter isn't about Jesus Resurrection. Easter is about Ester (sp?) the Greek god of fertility. The eggs represent that (fertility), and youth. The eggs being dipped in die represent blood as used to be used. Back in the day I even think the god Moloch (Sp?) was involved. People for thousands of years (?) would do children and baby sacrifices and virgin sacrifices to the gos of Moloch and Ester.
Taking this ungodly 'celebration' day and re-labling it to Easter where everyones happy and you slap a Jesus sticker on it does not make it right.
Google origins of Easter or something. Its a pagan practice and in the 10 commandments God does not want us to have other gods or (somewhere else it says) partake in their practices or even speak their names.
Didn't see any other posts mentioning this so I felt I should set the record straight.
-
Every major Christian holiday is of pagan origin. By that logic, "Christmas" is an "ungodly celebration day".
-
The pagan holidays are way better than the Christian ones, too. Sucks.
-
Its a pagan practice and in the 10 commandments God does not want us to have other gods
Sorry, could you run by me again how what day Easter falls on means we have other gods?
-
Its a pagan practice and in the 10 commandments God does not want us to have other gods or (somewhere else it says) partake in their practices or even speak their names.
he explained his reasoning. you didn't quote the whole sentence. emphasis mine.
-
I would counter that by pointing to the passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. It's complicated, but it essentially depends on the person's mindset. This doesn't, of course, sanction clearly detestable practices like child sacrifice.
And holding a new holiday at the same time as an old holiday is a good way to transition people from the old to the new. In the case of Easter though, it's a coincidence, because it's intrinsically linked to Passover.
-
Deka1184, AFAIK totally right. The church through many years has let pagan practices infiltrate the church and our traditions. I recently heard specficially that Christmas' flaw is that we have cut trees (with ornaments and such). I believe it says not to cut trees (with ornaments) for celebration like the pagans do. Im trying to find the passage now.
I personally like the trees at christmas and the pritty decorations but if God says differently Ill change. Not saying cutting trees down is evil or anything, im just trying to say what the Bible said on the subject.
Specific points aside, Im just saying we (christians) should be careful in what we do and make sure their not as fun and harmless as they seem(Bad phrasing) honest practices--some as mentioned might not be as harmless as you'd think, coming from un christian origins (meh, good enough). Accidently celebrating Ester via easter eggs is just an example.
iamzack, Thanks for the backing. I apprecaite it.
Goober5000, what scrpiture was that?
And I agre. That is why im starting to call it Resurrection Day instead of Easter.
EDITED
-
You could just use artificial trees. :)
-
Specific points aside, Im just saying we (christians) should be careful in what we do and make sure their not as fun and harmless as they seem. Accidently celebrating Ester via easter eggs is just an example.
Or pagan rituals like cannibalism and drinking blood.
Oh, wait...
How about just forget the pagan roots and celebrate what you're supposed to celebrate? If anything, giving gifts and going tree shopping at Christmas and painting eggs at Easter is something that allows families to spend time together and grow closer. There's no intention of honoring some ancient fertility ritual...it's just having some goddamn fun.
-
We are no longer justified by works but by faith, notice the passage. There isn't anything we can do to save ourselves, only faith.
1 Corinthians 8
1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;
3but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.
9But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
11For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
EDIT: So what see here, we know that there are no other gods and we are not sinning by partaking in traditions that originally belong to pagan origins. But it's a stumbling block to some and therefore I will not hunt my eggs in front of you Charismatic :p
-
-snip- goddamn fun.
might wanna rephrase that :lol:
-
And holding a new holiday at the same time as an old holiday is a good way to transition people from the old to the new. In the case of Easter though, it's a coincidence, because it's intrinsically linked to Passover.
Yeah, like the passover bunny, and that tirade Jesus went on about how he didn't like eggs and was all like 'I don't care if you paint them colors and hide them, I just don't want to see any more eggs'
-
I MISSED WALKING JESUS ZOMBIE DAY!
For god so loved the world that he ressurected his one and only son.
-
We are no longer justified by works but by faith, notice the passage. There isn't anything we can do to save ourselves, only faith.
Of course the concept of rejecting works is going to be a really big problem for reality...
...and the words of Jesus in several places reject it so mere letters of the apostles/Paul don't really give you license to claim that. :P
-
You might be confusing prerequisites with fruit.
-
Obedience to the Christ is not the same as works. ie., baptism, repentance. Salvation is a free gift but you have to make a choice to submit to God in order to receive it. :)
The requirements are listed in throughout the entire New Testament but it starts on the day of Pentecost 50 days after the Passover (Easter) Acts 2:38. Repentance and baptism in Jesus name, then God gives his spirit.
Paul understood the doctrine of faith unto obedience and there are scriptures to prove it. In-fact the book of Romans is a good place to look, Paul knew that he preached faith so hard that it confused most when they heard it. Earlier in Romans Paul says this (paraphrased) So what does this mean? (talking about faith) Do we sin so that grace may abound? No. He goes on to further explain what he means.
-
There are more One True Paths to Heaven than ways to go to hell. :P
-
There are more One True Paths to Heaven than ways to go to hell. :P
True, some people hold onto the faith aspect. Others the confession which is more like a magical phrase. Some works, others baptism... Which, all they are is a means to an end. The way to be saved might be debated but it's those with the Spirit that are truly saved.
Some say you get the spirit when... <insert scripture>
When you really look at all passages in their proper context. It's actually harmonious and laid out clearly, just (IMHO) very different from traditional belief. (Council of Nicea)
-
Back to Acts 2:38. Acts 2:37 the people ask Peter how to be saved.
37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
And Peter responds...
38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This is clearly THE WAY (tm)
For those who say that this was for them and not us then read the next verse
39"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
-
Obedience to christ eating brains?
-
Darn, I can't believe I missed the chance to trot out my resurrection-related sacred opus again. Oh well here it is anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkvHHBYOXz0&fmt=22
Happy belated Easter! He is risen indeed ;7
-
When you really look at all passages in their proper context. It's actually harmonious and laid out clearly, just (IMHO) very different from traditional belief. (Council of Nicea)
When you say something like that, it instantly becomes clear you're not viewing the same Bible I am, and I reject the concept of organized religion. :P
-
Darn, I can't believe I missed the chance to trot out my resurrection-related sacred opus again. Oh well here it is anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkvHHBYOXz0&fmt=22
Happy belated Easter! He is risen indeed ;7
This **** is A-grade, people.
-
Hah, that reminds me of when I used to take the train to Chicago just to see the gay men's chorus perform every year. completely hilarious, even for the straight crowd. :p
-
When you really look at all passages in their proper context. It's actually harmonious and laid out clearly, just (IMHO) very different from traditional belief. (Council of Nicea)
When you say something like that, it instantly becomes clear you're not viewing the same Bible I am, and I reject the concept of organized religion. :P
lol, Yeah. :P
I probably read the same one as you, I have no problem with accepted canon of scripture. Most of the books have considerable evidence for their validity. A few passages are a little shaky (some don't have any evidence) but they don't make a huge difference if they are original or not. For the record I read NKJV and NASB, so no special bible. I hope to be able to read Greek and Hebrew one day.
-
And once again Bill Hicks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFfXXuyi2FQ) called it first. :p
-
There's a lot i don't believe in when it comes to christianity. My pull to just follow the bible and this whole fellowship with god and following his way, and being practical and realistic.
What's in the bible is what's in the bible. Now the only case where this is prime for conflict is mormonism with the other book. I hate it when people try to take away from it, or add on to it. Neither should happen. But, denominations are a great way to add to and take away from the bible in a strong, literal, or subtle way. Each denomination believes in certain ways, different things, or doesn't believe some stuff.
Confession to a priest is sort of a dumb. You don't need to confess to a priest when you can confess to god directly. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way you can confess to god. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to confess your sins.
Speaking in tongues is retarded. I forget where it says in the bible, but it's something that fools do. One of the reasons i hate speaking in tongues is more of a personal reason other than the fact that it's dumb. My mom kept trying to get me to do it by making me feel guilty by saying "when you speak in tongues you're actually praying for the people that need prayer that you don't know that you're praying for that you need to pray for". God doesn't impose impossible burdens upon us like this (those that don't believe this can have fun with their zues complex). The other part of this that speaking in tongues is supposed to be like a gift from god to man. Speaking garbledeegook is not a gift, it's something that you can just do. FLAMAJAMA! I wouldn't even really call speaking in tongues a tradition or ritual..whatever. Speaking in tongues is comparable to a person who's too drunk to talk or do anything.
Baptism with what i know about it, which isn't much but is pretty brief. Baptism in assembly of god churches from what i know use it as a personal affirmation for when a person is ready to be fully submitted to god. My only reasoning for why it's dumb is for similar reasoning why confessing to a priest is dumb. You can tell god yourself if you're ready to be fully submitted, you don't need a physical act to do this. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way to let god know you're fully submitted to him. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to show god you're fully submitted to him and ready to follow his direction.
The other thing i find highly retarded about christianity is the rejection of science. I don't like this because it means there's a rejection of learning how the universe around you works. Knowing how the universe around you works is sort of necessary to stay alive. Stuff like gravity and how the earth is on a tilt and that causes the 5 seasons. I think the rejection of science in christianity comes from pastors and priests who get the shepherd complex and that they must lead the sheep, so just like governments they will use misinformation and lack of information to lead the sheeple. Even going so far as saying science is evil. Saying science is evil is taking it too far for me. That's like saying god gave us a brain for us to not use, scientific theories lead you down the path of beastiality, and finding out the anatomy of the helium atom is next to the invention of the guillotine. Dumb people are easier to lead for whoever has an agenda.
And lastly, what's up with the hijacking of pagan holidays? Christianity appears to have an archaic need for hijacking of many things. Hmmmm, veterans day, we churches need to get together to figure out how make this just about god, not the veterans. Hijacking holidays and other things is just vain.
-
And lastly, what's up with the hijacking of pagan holidays? Christianity appears to have an archaic need for hijacking of many things. Hmmmm, veterans day, we churches need to get together to figure out how make this just about god, not the veterans. Hijacking holidays and other things is just vain.
It makes conquering them and converting their followers easier if they assimilate some of their traditions. Going in church militant and having knightly orders quash the local religion with steel and zeal tends to get messy.
-
Confession to a priest is sort of a dumb. You don't need to confess to a priest when you can confess to god directly. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way you can confess to god. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to confess your sins.
The J-man himself did say to his disciples, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you hold bound are held bound," which the Catholic Church takes as the root of the sacrament of Reconciliation. And under Catholic teaching, you're not confessing your sins to the priest, but to God, with the priest essentially acting as a medium for the transference of God's forgiveness. The Catholic Church views the seven sacraments as being outward signs by which God's grace is conveyed, and Reconciliation fits in with that.
Baptism with what i know about it, which isn't much but is pretty brief. Baptism in assembly of god churches from what i know use it as a personal affirmation for when a person is ready to be fully submitted to god. My only reasoning for why it's dumb is for similar reasoning why confessing to a priest is dumb. You can tell god yourself if you're ready to be fully submitted, you don't need a physical act to do this. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way to let god know you're fully submitted to him. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to show god you're fully submitted to him and ready to follow his direction.
Again to quote the J-man, "Go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The action of pouring water is just a sacramental, a symbol, for that bestowing of God's grace on the person. Even Jesus submitted to being baptized at the hands of John the Baptist, which one would think indicates that he placed a great deal of importance on it. I don't see why continuing to recognize that importance today is a big issue.
The other thing i find highly retarded about christianity is the rejection of science. I don't like this because it means there's a rejection of learning how the universe around you works. Knowing how the universe around you works is sort of necessary to stay alive. Stuff like gravity and how the earth is on a tilt and that causes the 5 seasons. I think the rejection of science in christianity comes from pastors and priests who get the shepherd complex and that they must lead the sheep, so just like governments they will use misinformation and lack of information to lead the sheeple. Even going so far as saying science is evil. Saying science is evil is taking it too far for me. That's like saying god gave us a brain for us to not use, scientific theories lead you down the path of beastiality, and finding out the anatomy of the helium atom is next to the invention of the guillotine. Dumb people are easier to lead for whoever has an agenda.
I'm not sure where you're getting this, as most mainstream Christian denominations don't reject science in any sense. To provide a specific example, the Catholic Church has stated that the theory of evolution is valid, and John Paul II finally formally apologized for the Church's treatment of Galileo (though it accepted the heliocentric model long before that). Hell, the Vatican has its own official observatory which has published in peer-reviewed journals.
(And can we seriously ban the use of the term "sheeple" in here? :p)
And lastly, what's up with the hijacking of pagan holidays? Christianity appears to have an archaic need for hijacking of many things. Hmmmm, veterans day, we churches need to get together to figure out how make this just about god, not the veterans. Hijacking holidays and other things is just vain.
I've never understood why so many people seem to take issue with Christian holidays using elements that were also used in pagan rituals. As StarSlayer noted, the utilization of certain pre-existing traditions in a new context was most likely beneficial to the early spread of Christianity. It's not the history of the object or action that's important, but instead how it's being treated within the Christian belief system. Early Christians took the timeframe of the pre-existing pagan Saturnalia and used it to commemorate Christ's birth as a way of providing an alternative celebration; after all, why not do so at a time when everyone is used to celebrating? Likewise, using symbols like an evergreen that were already familiar elements to locals at the time aided in conveying the spiritual messages of the celebration. It wasn't about "vanity" at all.
I'm wasn't trying to prosletyze here, but you seem to be operating under a number of misconceptions about what Christians believe and why they believe it, so I figured I'd throw some stuff out there.
-
The action of pouring water is just a sacramental
Irrelevant nitpick: Baptism is a Sacrament according to the Catholic Church. A sacramental is slightly different. :nervous:
-
The action of pouring water is just a sacramental
Irrelevant nitpick: Baptism is a Sacrament according to the Catholic Church. A sacramental is slightly different. :nervous:
Yes, Baptism is a Sacrament, but the holy water used is a sacramental. I think I kind of fudged the two together in my explanation.
-
I think you slightly misinterpretted me, but i did appreciate learning more of the areas i mentioned. There's spiritual baptism which of course i agree with and happens. The act of needing to do it for the reasons of my old church i didn't agree with. It was put across as baptism with water was the only way god would know that i am submitting myself to him completely. I was like bull****, god's a smart person, he's going to very well know if i am submitted to his way or not.
And the whole confessing your sins to a priest. The explanation you gave makes total sense. But, a lot of people out there don't know why it's done even if they're catholic. So then you get a bunch of people with a slight misconception about communication with god.
So, we've got all of these things that aren't necessary for talking to god, but are great at the same time. My only problem is the people who do things blindly in religion that try to propogate tradition/ritual/whatever to the younger generation. Sort of like my mom speaking in tongues saying that's it's something i have to do, even so far as guilting me into trying to get me to do it. I told my mom bullpuckey, i don't have to speak in tongues if i don't want too.
It's a bunch of reasons why i'm still a christian but am non denominational. But, you said the keywords with hijacking of pagan holidays with the mentioning of the spread of christianity and that kind little word "alternative". Christianity being spread around the globe for centuries pretty much was the form of shoving gospel down people's throats. So, to provide an "alternative" celebration for a pagan holiday was all about dominance and replacement with something christian. Who cares that the pagan now christian holiday still has pagan elements, it still needs to have some familiar appeal to those who use to celebrate the actual holiday.
If the now non pagan holidays didn't have any familiar aspects to them, then they would probably have not been christianized and have been eliminated from the calendar long ago. But, that's not a good way to get potential converts to play ball. Better to get potential converts to convert and still celebrate their holidays (now christified). Otherwise potential converts goes really far down since it would be more fun to not be christian. With the forceful spread of christianity in the past "alternative" becomes replacement.
-
I'm not sure where you're getting this, as most mainstream Christian denominations don't reject science in any sense. To provide a specific example, the Catholic Church has stated that the theory of evolution is valid,
And if Benedict could repeal that, you know he would. :p
The fact is that the Christian Church has had a very troubled relationship with science. Good on the Vatican for finally realising that denying evolution is stupid but while they have taken a step back from denying it officially they haven't exactly told their flocks. IIRC I was the first person on HLP to point out the fact that any Roman Catholics on here could stop arguing in favour of Young Earth Creationism with me cause many of them still thought that they were stating the official line.
When it comes to Protestants it gets even worse. There are lots of mainstream protestants who deny evolution. You only need to look at the intelligent design debacle for proof of this.
So while there are plenty of Christians getting it right, there are a whole lot using their religion as an excuse for getting it wrong.
-
And if Benedict could repeal that, you know he would. :p
Doubtful. The man was the doctrinal mover and shaker for a very long time before assuming the Papacy, if he wanted it repealed I don't think he could have been stopped.
The fact is that the Christian Church has had a very troubled relationship with science. Good on the Vatican for finally realising that denying evolution is stupid but while they have taken a step back from denying it officially they haven't exactly told their flocks. IIRC I was the first person on HLP to point out the fact that any Roman Catholics on here could stop arguing in favour of Young Earth Creationism with me cause many of them still thought that they were stating the official line.
Like what? Stuff from the Renassiance? Come on, we both know a little time goes a lot longer now and in the recent past than hundreds of years did then. The Vatican has a pretty good relationship with science these days. If you doubt me then I recommend learning up on the hotbed of Copernicanism that is the Vatican Observatory. Yes, there's abiogenesis, but to be honest that one hasn't been worked out by science itself either.
(And I'm pretty sure I was, sorry Kara. :P)
-
Doubtful. The man was the doctrinal mover and shaker for a very long time before assuming the Papacy, if he wanted it repealed I don't think he could have been stopped.
Or maybe he just has other things on his plate.
If you're going to tell me that he doesn't wish his predecessor hadn't made that speech I'm going to expect you to prove it. Benedict is well known for being doubtful about evolution but there isn't much point in him trying to claim John Paul was wrong. I doubt it's worth the fight for him.
Like what? Stuff from the Renassiance? Come on, we both know a little time goes a lot longer now and in the recent past than hundreds of years did then. The Vatican has a pretty good relationship with science these days. If you doubt me then I recommend learning up on the hotbed of Copernicanism that is the Vatican Observatory. Yes, there's abiogenesis, but to be honest that one hasn't been worked out by science itself either.
How about repeatedly lying about the HIV virus then? The Vatican repeatedly claimed that the virus was able to pass through latex condoms.
(And I'm pretty sure I was, sorry Kara. :P)
I very much doubt it. I said it in 2004-2005. And as far as I know no one had mentioned it on HLP before because I was actually quite surprised to learn it.
-
The fact is that the Christian Church has had a very troubled relationship with science. Good on the Vatican for finally realising that denying evolution is stupid but while they have taken a step back from denying it officially they haven't exactly told their flocks. IIRC I was the first person on HLP to point out the fact that any Roman Catholics on here could stop arguing in favour of Young Earth Creationism with me cause many of them still thought that they were stating the official line.
If people are too stupid to realize what's actually been stated on the matter, then that's their own problem; it's not exactly a brand-spanking-new concept. But having said that, the topic isn't exactly something that comes up in your average Sunday homily, so maybe there are people out there who have simply never thought about it. I know it was made pretty clear to me when my Catholic high school's AP Biology class used a textbook which, like any other college-level bio textbook, was completely founded on the principle. :p
And as NGTM-1R alluded to, the Pope wouldn't, and indeed really couldn't, just snap his fingers and say, "We don't support evolutionary theory now." The Church has for some time now viewed scientific research as a means of learning more about God's creation, and it's in that light that it accepted evolutionary theory in the first place. Even if Benedict did have personal misgivings about the subject, he couldn't renege on that declaration, since it would undermine that entire sentiment.
-
If you're going to tell me that he doesn't wish his predecessor hadn't made that speech I'm going to expect you to prove it. Benedict is well known for being doubtful about evolution but there isn't much point in him trying to claim John Paul was wrong. I doubt it's worth the fight for him.
Oh come now, did you seriously just ask me to prove a double negative? Ratzinger was in a better posistion to stop the Church acknowledging evolution when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith) then he would have been as pope. The office wields great power in the hierarchy of the Vatican, as it defines and codifies what the church believes.
I coud also point out his openly epoused belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Christianity_as_religion_according_to_reason) that Roman Catholicism must be the religion of reason. The condom thing is not exactly his fault, nor the fault of John Paul II. If you want to trace that one back, that particular doctrinal problem goes back to shortly before Vatican II, and it was regarded as a maverick decision at the time. Being a rather conservative organization, unfortunately, once it's been said it's hard to take back.
-
And as NGTM-1R alluded to, the Pope wouldn't, and indeed really couldn't, just snap his fingers and say, "We don't support evolutionary theory now." The Church has for some time now viewed scientific research as a means of learning more about God's creation, and it's in that light that it accepted evolutionary theory in the first place. Even if Benedict did have personal misgivings about the subject, he couldn't renege on that declaration, since it would undermine that entire sentiment.
Which if you notice is pretty much what I said. If he could repeal it he would.
The condom thing is not exactly his fault, nor the fault of John Paul II. If you want to trace that one back, that particular doctrinal problem goes back to shortly before Vatican II, and it was regarded as a maverick decision at the time. Being a rather conservative organization, unfortunately, once it's been said it's hard to take back.
Yet it is an example of the Church openly contradicting science in order to further their own aims. Which you tried to claim hadn't happened since the Renassiance.
If people are too stupid to realize what's actually been stated on the matter, then that's their own problem;
When it's the priests who don't realise it's the Church's problem though, right? I'd go further than that though and say that if there are a significant number of Catholics who believe in Young Earth Creationism that is also the Church's problem too. It was the Church who taught them the wrong information in the first place after all.
-
And as NGTM-1R alluded to, the Pope wouldn't, and indeed really couldn't, just snap his fingers and say, "We don't support evolutionary theory now." The Church has for some time now viewed scientific research as a means of learning more about God's creation, and it's in that light that it accepted evolutionary theory in the first place. Even if Benedict did have personal misgivings about the subject, he couldn't renege on that declaration, since it would undermine that entire sentiment.
Which if you notice is pretty much what I said. If he could repeal it he would.
What exactly are you basing that on, though? Just because he has misgivings, he would automatically want it repealed? Unless you've talked to the guy personally or something, I'm not sure how you can make that determination.
If people are too stupid to realize what's actually been stated on the matter, then that's their own problem;
When it's the priests who don't realise it's the Church's problem though, right? I'd go further than that though and say that if there are a significant number of Catholics who believe in Young Earth Creationism that is also the Church's problem too. It was the Church who taught them the wrong information in the first place after all.
Where are these large numbers of priests who don't realize this concept; were we even talking about priests in the first place? And who stated that the Church was the one distributing the wrong information about the topic in the first place? Putting those questions aside, I'm curious as to what sort of venue could be used to teach the proper doctrine, outside of those people who attended Catholic school as kids. The Mass isn't exactly conducive to a "let's talk science!" sort of environment, and that's the only place you'd be able to convey a message to decent (or maybe not-so-decent nowadays) numbers of people.
-
I'm curious as to what sort of venue could be used to teach the proper doctrine, outside of those people who attended Catholic school as kids. The Mass isn't exactly conducive to a "let's talk science!" sort of environment, and that's the only place you'd be able to convey a message to decent (or maybe not-so-decent nowadays) numbers of people.
I guess I was lucky that the Catholicism-evolution issue got brought up independently both in my Catechism class and an ordinary biology class back at the community college. :D Both times I heard pretty much what Mongoose said about it.
-
And if Benedict could repeal that, you know he would. :p
Any proof of that?
-
And it came to pass that Saint Victor was taken from this place to another place, where he was lain upon pillows of silk and made to rest himself amongst sheets of muslin and velvet. And there stro-ked was he by maidens of the Orient. Full sixteen days and nights stro-ked they him, yea verily and caress-ed him. His hair, ruf-fled they and their fingers rubbeth they in oil of olives and runneth them across all parts of his body forasmuch as to soothe him. And the soles of his feet lick-ed they and the upper parts of his thigh did they anoint with the balm of forbidden trees. And with the teeth of their mouths, nibbleth they the pointed bits at the top of his ears. Yea verily, and did their tongues thereof make themselves acquainted...with his most secret places.
For fifteen days and nights did Victor withstand these maidens, but on the sixteenth day he cried out, saying, "This...is fantastic! Oh...this is terrific!" And the Lord did hear the cry of Victor. And verily came He down and slew the maidens. And caused their cotton wool buds to blow away, and their Kleenex to be laid waste utterly. And Victor, in his anguish, cried out that the Lord was a rotten bastard. And the Lord sent an angel to comfort Victor for the weekend. And entered they together the jacuzzi.
-
:lol:
-
Rofl :lol:
-
Where are these large numbers of priests who don't realize this concept; were we even talking about priests in the first place?
Given that this entire discussion is based on me saying that the Church has had a troubled history with science, yes, we were.
And when you have a member of the Vatican claiming that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia and that studies prove it it's hard to see how you can claim it doesn't. Sure the press office then stamped on him once there was an uproar about it but it shows my point off pretty well.
-
kara, I don't think it's that religion itself is bad or stupid, it's that the Catholic Church, the organization led by the Pope, has it's head up it's ass where it's representatives are concerned.
I speak primarily about this whole "Paedo-Priests" business. If they were interested at all about maintaining something resembling a positive reputation, they should defrock the "priest" in question and remove any legal protection that they might extend in the form of lawyers or money. Instead they move them around and pretend it's not happening. That would go a long way to restoring faith The Church in my opinion.
-
Where are these large numbers of priests who don't realize this concept; were we even talking about priests in the first place?
Given that this entire discussion is based on me saying that the Church has had a troubled history with science, yes, we were.
And when you have a member of the Vatican claiming that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia and that studies prove it it's hard to see how you can claim it doesn't. Sure the press office then stamped on him once there was an uproar about it but it shows my point off pretty well.
...wait, wait, wait. We started this whole thing off with you stating that many Catholics think that the Church espouses Young-Earth Creationism. Okay. Then you mentioned something about priests thinking the same thing, and the Church actively teaching Catholics the wrong information, which is where you started to lose me. And then you jumped straight to making the whole conversation about priests, and added in an anecdote about a topic I wasn't even talking about. Color me confused, because I feel like you're getting argumentative about an argument I wasn't making in the first place. Did we skip a step somewhere?
I will not deny that individual Church officials have made some profoundly stupid, and sometimes outright harmful, science-related statements in the past, and I'm not about to defend them. But the general attitude of the Church today toward scientific research is relatively benevolent, even if there are logistical difficulties in ensuring that every practicing Catholic out there understands this. That's really the only point I was trying to make, nothing more.
And Liberator...you do realize that your suggestions are exactly what's being practiced today, right? The overlooking and moving-around was happening thirty or forty years ago, and it's this that the current controversy stems from. Again, I'm not going to defend the priests engaged in such practices in the least: they took advantage of the trust placed in them in the most sickening way possible, and went against everything they should have stood for. And while those who actively tried to overlook such practices may have felt like they were doing what was best for the Church at the time, all they were really doing was facilitating the perpetuation of that evil. The current outcry is definitely justified.
-
Looks to me like Kaj is smoking something. His deductions...don't follow.
"The sun rises from the east"
"East is china, china is evul."
Therefore, the sun is evul!"
:lol:
-
Trashman, if you can't follow the argument I suggest you butt out right now.
kara, I don't think it's that religion itself is bad or stupid, it's that the Catholic Church, the organization led by the Pope, has it's head up it's ass where it's representatives are concerned.
Given that the Protestants have their heads even further up their arses when it comes to denial of science I'd point out that you've just completely smashed your glass house throwing all those stones.
The Catholic Church at least gets some grudging respect from me due to its position on science. Does it do enough, no. Does it do more than the various idiots in the other big Christian denominations, oh ****ing hell yes.
...wait, wait, wait. We started this whole thing off with you stating that many Catholics think that the Church espouses Young-Earth Creationism. Okay. Then you mentioned something about priests thinking the same thing, and the Church actively teaching Catholics the wrong information, which is where you started to lose me.
I didn't say it teaches the wrong information. I said that it doesn't do enough to teach the right information. The Genesis story needs stronger reinforcement of the fact that it is considered to be symbolic NOT literal truth. Let me put it this way, if there are Catholics walking around thinking it is the literal truth how is that a good thing spiritually for them? They're not understanding the symbolism of the story if they think it is real.
And then you jumped straight to making the whole conversation about priests, and added in an anecdote about a topic I wasn't even talking about. Color me confused, because I feel like you're getting argumentative about an argument I wasn't making in the first place. Did we skip a step somewhere?
My argument is that the Catholic Church or representatives of it have on numerous occasions ignored science to present their own skewed view of things. I simply picked YEC as an example. There are several others.
I will not deny that individual Church officials have made some profoundly stupid, and sometimes outright harmful, science-related statements in the past, and I'm not about to defend them. But the general attitude of the Church today toward scientific research is relatively benevolent, even if there are logistical difficulties in ensuring that every practicing Catholic out there understands this. That's really the only point I was trying to make, nothing more.
And how is that different from my original point that it has had a troubled relationship with science?
-
I'm dubious about the "Young Earth" myself and the science is all but impossible to argue with, however the creation story is also hard to discount because there's no time scale given between the end of the creation recounting and the removal from paradise. Since Adam and Eve were supposed to be perfect they could've lived in Eden for a week after the day God rested or a million years, it's not specified all that clearly. The time keeping gets clearer afterward with The Flood taking place approximately 900 to 1000 years after the removal from Eden, IIRC(which I might not be).
-
Actually it's pretty obvious that there were never only two humans alive let alone that they were the first two ever. A million years of mutation could not account for the diversity that exists within the human race.
This is yet another example of something the Roman Catholic Church says which is at odds with the science.
-
Oh, meh...
Was it intended to be literal or figurative? What does it matter?
The point is the creation story has a purpose in teaching values besides those of literal science - if one actually contemplates and analyzes the creation story for what it is, there shouldn't be a conflict.
The problem moreover is people not being able to contemplate other possible doctrines than their own. "Once you stop asking questions, you've lost the game."
-
If you try to claim that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true you contradict science. I have no real problem (in terms of this debate at least) with them claiming it is symbolic.
-
It's either two original humans or no incest, pick one. :P
Sorry, needed to lighten the mood just a tad.
-
Those that claim that the two creation stories are more than symbolic have their heads so deeply up their ass that they're staring out their mouth. The official stance of the Catholic Church is often called "peer review". The Catholic Church has long since supported the major scientific ideas of the time. If you want to start ragging on the Church not accepting or advancing science, please remember to send more than a weird theory with questionable proof and often laughable credentials. Aristotle was a brilliant man who lived 2400 years ago. For his time and for thousands of years past, he was the de facto voice of science. The problem with that? He wasn't always right. That's where scientific method comes in; disprove Aristotle and try to correct his thoughts. People don't like major changes in ideas, but people like Galileo coming out with a radical theory and effectively insulting your peers is not a good way to perform science (though it is a fast way to be put under house arrest, at least in those times). His first book was ragging on the Pope at the time and the discussion where he presented his evidence was a personal attack on anyone who didn't agree with him. It'd take the real proof and real evidence and real way to prove or disprove Galileo before he was accepted. Presented clearly and with as much supporting evidence (and refuting evidence, and a way to disprove your idea, is effectively a challenge) is the right way to do it. Brilliant or not, that's science. And that's what the Church was doing, regardless of the brush it's been painted with hundreds of years after the fact.
-
...wait, wait, wait. We started this whole thing off with you stating that many Catholics think that the Church espouses Young-Earth Creationism. Okay. Then you mentioned something about priests thinking the same thing, and the Church actively teaching Catholics the wrong information, which is where you started to lose me.
I didn't say it teaches the wrong information. I said that it doesn't do enough to teach the right information. The Genesis story needs stronger reinforcement of the fact that it is considered to be symbolic NOT literal truth. Let me put it this way, if there are Catholics walking around thinking it is the literal truth how is that a good thing spiritually for them? They're not understanding the symbolism of the story if they think it is real.
I'll agree with you that Catholics should understand that the two creation stories in Genesis fall into mythos/allegory instead of literal fact, but as I mentioned before, it's hard to determine what the appropriate venue would be. Homilies during Sunday Mass tend to focus on the message of that week's Scripture readings, so even if you happened to focus the homily on that during a week where the Old Testament reading was from Genesis, you'd only be catching those people who happened to attend Mass that week. Something like a letter from a bishop would, again, probably only reach those in attendance. People who happened to attend Catholic school, and specifically Catholic high school, are really the only group whom I'd assume is most like to have been taught the concept in no uncertain terms.
I will not deny that individual Church officials have made some profoundly stupid, and sometimes outright harmful, science-related statements in the past, and I'm not about to defend them. But the general attitude of the Church today toward scientific research is relatively benevolent, even if there are logistical difficulties in ensuring that every practicing Catholic out there understands this. That's really the only point I was trying to make, nothing more.
And how is that different from my original point that it has had a troubled relationship with science?
I think there's a substantial difference in stating, "Several Church officials have made troubling statements about science," and instead saying, "The Church as a whole has a troubled relationship with science." That's where your point was getting lost on me.
Actually it's pretty obvious that there were never only two humans alive let alone that they were the first two ever. A million years of mutation could not account for the diversity that exists within the human race.
This is yet another example of something the Roman Catholic Church says which is at odds with the science.
...didn't you already acknowledge that the Church views the Genesis creation stories in a more abstract sense? So where's the "at odds" there?
-
The Church views evolution as being scientific fact. They haven't made any definitive comment at all on whether Adam and Eve were real since Pope Pious said that they definitely were.
Many priests still teach Adam and Eve as somehow being literally true. As an example from a quick googling I found this (http://youngadultcatholics-blog.com/2009/10/02/taking-the-bible-seriously-but-not-always-literally/). I'm in a hurry so I'll address the rest of your points in a bit.
-
Those that claim that the two creation stories are more than symbolic
There are 2 creation stories ?
-
Yep. Genesis provides two different versions.
-
I don't see why religion and science need to be linked together. The bible tells you how to go to heaven and has a good deal of science in it, but doesn't tell you how the universe works.
We live in an age of furthering enlightenment. Discovering things and figuring out how they actually work. There's much to be conflicting with the old beliefs in religion especially christianity. But, why link science and religion together? I don't see much of a point.
-
To be fair, I had to look this up myself. IMO, it's stretching it a bit to say it's two creation stories. It reads a bit more like "OK, God made the world" and "To be more specific, this is how God made Man and created woman from the man."
Genesis 1 is the account of God creating the world with all it's wildly varying forms of life, ending with the original commandment, "Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth." and Genesis 2 deals directly with the creation of man specifically, detailing the hows, whys and wherefores.
I don't see why religion and science need to be linked together. The bible tells you how to go to heaven and has a good deal of science in it, but doesn't tell you how the universe works.
The vast majority of the population can't wrap they're noggin's around the idea that man was created(whenever he was created) with capability and desire to know, discover and master the universe around him. To a great many people, science is mankind attempting to wrest God's power from Him and use it to do things that He never intended. It's an old way of thinking that, while annoying in some circumstances, can be useful to prevent us from blowing ourselves away with some kind of killer bomb, virus or some other form of science run amok that I can't think of atm.
-
I'll agree with you that Catholics should understand that the two creation stories in Genesis fall into mythos/allegory instead of literal fact, but as I mentioned before, it's hard to determine what the appropriate venue would be.
I don't think that is the problem. I think the problem is that the many Catholics truly believe that the Church has no position on the scientific view and that it is up to the individual person to choose whether it is literally true or not. A stronger emphasis on the fact that the creation myth is a parable just like the ones Jesus told and that it isn't literally true could be dropped into sermons pretty easily.
I'm not saying that the priest has to teach the science. Simply that he has to make clear that Genesis is a simplification.
People who happened to attend Catholic school, and specifically Catholic high school, are really the only group whom I'd assume is most like to have been taught the concept in no uncertain terms.
Have they? I was under the impression that the Catholic Church leaves it up to the individual to decide. You do have plenty of Catholics who are firm YEC believers. Are you saying that the Catholic Church considers them to be wrong?
There is a huge difference between teaching evolution in science classes in school and teaching its place in the creation myth during religious instruction. Which one is being done?
I will not deny that individual Church officials have made some profoundly stupid, and sometimes outright harmful, science-related statements in the past, and I'm not about to defend them. But the general attitude of the Church today toward scientific research is relatively benevolent, even if there are logistical difficulties in ensuring that every practicing Catholic out there understands this. That's really the only point I was trying to make, nothing more.
Similarly I will agree that out of the major branches of Christianity the Catholic Church is undoubtedly the least hostile towards science. I'll agree that they are almost completely neutral towards it by and large (unlike others who are downright hostile). But I will point out that while it leaves it up to people to decide whether to take the bible literally or not, it can hardly be said to have embraced science.
I think there's a substantial difference in stating, "Several Church officials have made troubling statements about science," and instead saying, "The Church as a whole has a troubled relationship with science." That's where your point was getting lost on me.
As I pointed out above the Catholic Church is mostly neutral towards science. Wouldn't you say that any relationship where the two parties were largely ambivalent with occasional spats was a troubled one? :D
-
I'll agree with you that Catholics should understand that the two creation stories in Genesis fall into mythos/allegory instead of literal fact, but as I mentioned before, it's hard to determine what the appropriate venue would be.
I don't think that is the problem. I think the problem is that the many Catholics truly believe that the Church has no position on the scientific view and that it is up to the individual person to choose whether it is literally true or not. A stronger emphasis on the fact that the creation myth is a parable just like the ones Jesus told and that it isn't literally true could be dropped into sermons pretty easily.
I'm not saying that the priest has to teach the science. Simply that he has to make clear that Genesis is a simplification.
That probably would be the best way to do it, but even then, the impact would be somewhat limited. That passage from Genesis would probably come up only once a year in the normal cycle of readings, at least for Sunday Mass; in fact, I'm not sure if it's read outside of the Easter Vigil service. A priest could choose to focus his homily for that week on that particular aspect, but it wouldn't have a place on a weekly basis. It would definitely be better than nothing, though.
People who happened to attend Catholic school, and specifically Catholic high school, are really the only group whom I'd assume is most like to have been taught the concept in no uncertain terms.
Have they? I was under the impression that the Catholic Church leaves it up to the individual to decide. You do have plenty of Catholics who are firm YEC believers. Are you saying that the Catholic Church considers them to be wrong?
There is a huge difference between teaching evolution in science classes in school and teaching its place in the creation myth during religious instruction. Which one is being done?
I'm honestly not sure how the Church specifically views Catholics who believe in YEC in terms of being "right" or "wrong." As you've said, the Church's general position on evolutionary theory is one of having no problems with it as an explanation for the Earth's natural processes. I don't know that they would ever actively condemn YEC proponents as acting against Church teaching, though, as it wouldn't necessarily be within the purview of faith.
As for the school question, at least in the high school I attended, we were required to have four years' worth of theology class. I'm fairly certain that, in the year we covered the Old Testament, we studied the creation story in the context of allegory or myth, emphasizing that it wasn't meant as a literal scientific account. Coupled with the normal study of evolutionary theory in biology class, I think it paints a unified picture of evolution as being the factual explanation. But as I said, this would only really apply to people who had attended Catholic high school.
I will not deny that individual Church officials have made some profoundly stupid, and sometimes outright harmful, science-related statements in the past, and I'm not about to defend them. But the general attitude of the Church today toward scientific research is relatively benevolent, even if there are logistical difficulties in ensuring that every practicing Catholic out there understands this. That's really the only point I was trying to make, nothing more.
Similarly I will agree that out of the major branches of Christianity the Catholic Church is undoubtedly the least hostile towards science. I'll agree that they are almost completely neutral towards it by and large (unlike others who are downright hostile). But I will point out that while it leaves it up to people to decide whether to take the bible literally or not, it can hardly be said to have embraced science.
I'm not really sure how much active "embracing" any particular religious faith can truly accomplish, though. In the broadest sense, science and religion exist to answer different questions, or at least different aspects of the same questions. I don't think any particular denomination of Christianity could, or even should, become something like an active cheerleader for science as a whole, as it wouldn't fit into the role that religion plays in people's lives. Stating something like, "Scientific research is a way to understand the universe that God created," and leaving it at that, is probably in the best interest of all concerned, as it acknowledges the importance of science without intruding on it.
I think there's a substantial difference in stating, "Several Church officials have made troubling statements about science," and instead saying, "The Church as a whole has a troubled relationship with science." That's where your point was getting lost on me.
As I pointed out above the Catholic Church is mostly neutral towards science. Wouldn't you say that any relationship where the two parties were largely ambivalent with occasional spats was a troubled one? :D
Only if you're trying to share the same bed. :p
-
That probably would be the best way to do it, but even then, the impact would be somewhat limited. That passage from Genesis would probably come up only once a year in the normal cycle of readings, at least for Sunday Mass; in fact, I'm not sure if it's read outside of the Easter Vigil service. A priest could choose to focus his homily for that week on that particular aspect, but it wouldn't have a place on a weekly basis. It would definitely be better than nothing, though.
Don't underestimate the effect though. People who view the Genesis story as being literally true often do so because it was the first explanation they heard and it's been reinforced by years of other exposure to stories from the same source that they believe. If they hear right from the start that it's a simplified version they'll be more receptive to hearing the real explanation at some later point than they would if they're left to form and reinforce their own opinion of it.
We can't do much about this generation's idiots but maybe we can prevent the next generation being idiots if they hear at an early enough age that Genesis isn't literally true. :)
I'm not really sure how much active "embracing" any particular religious faith can truly accomplish, though. In the broadest sense, science and religion exist to answer different questions, or at least different aspects of the same questions. I don't think any particular denomination of Christianity could, or even should, become something like an active cheerleader for science as a whole, as it wouldn't fit into the role that religion plays in people's lives. Stating something like, "Scientific research is a way to understand the universe that God created," and leaving it at that, is probably in the best interest of all concerned, as it acknowledges the importance of science without intruding on it.
My problem is that it doesn't acknowledge the importance of science. It allows the individual to decide whether science is important or not. The result is you get lots of Catholics who argue that Adam and Eve must be real individuals and that the Earth can only be 6000 years old.
And my problem is that the source of the bad information is religious. However if a scientist tells them that it is wrong you get idiots thinking that science is in some way "against" religion. The information that it's wrong needs to come from the same source that the bad information came from, i.e the Church. Which is why I have such a problem with the Church's refusal to take a stand on the issue. They are the source of the problem (no bible, no YEC after all) but they're not willing to deal with the fallout.
Only if you're trying to share the same bed. :p
Whenever religion tries to explain how the universe works, it is trying to share the same bed. The Catholic Church might not be as bad as others but it's certainly hovering around the bedroom making unhelpful comments. :p
-
Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?
-
We also drink his blood and eat his body every Sunday.
-
Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?
Congratulations on blatant trolling. If you have something meaningful to express or share besides any ill-tempered animosity, please feel free to share that instead.
-
Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?
Congratulations on blatant trolling. If you have something meaningful to express or share besides any ill-tempered animosity, please feel free to share that instead.
Actually, y'know, it is trolling and it's uncivil, but I do have to stand up for the right to not take Christianity (or any religion) seriously without actively hating it.
All that said, not hating someone or a group of someones doesn't preclude poking fun at them.
"[. . .] even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his [beliefs] as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."
H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath," The Baltimore Evening Sun (covering the infamous Scopes Trial)
So I dunno. Might be one of those things that has to be taken in good fun.
Tricky line.
-
You know, if I was God, and I wanted to create a Universe, I'd just install a few basic laws and let things work themselves out, after all, it's not as if God has mortality or anything to worry about. I'm open to the concept of God, just not as open to the Humanocentric version of Him :) If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.
I suppose it's easier to say 'On the first Day, God made Light', than to say, 'In the first few picoseconds, Hydrogen atoms started to form, and through the laws of Gravity the Lord had induced, over a period of several billion years, they got together, started fusing, and created light'. Gotta remember this stuff was written 4000 years ago ;)
Edit : And to be honest, 'Gravity is the effect of God on the Universe' is probably as good a shot in the dark as any other explanation, and like Dark Matter, it's not really a problem we've solved to the satisfaction of Science.
-
"If you do it right, people can't be sure you've done anything at all."
-
If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.
Why not? If you were an immortal, all-powerful being with nothing to do and no one to talk to, wouldn't you use your omnipotence to create something to do and someone to talk to? Man exists because God created us to have someone to relate to on His level(sort of), the Angels for all they're power and majesty are soulless servants, which while not bereft of free will are bound to His will and are nothing more than incredibly power servitors. Mankind has a soul and is capable of relating to God in way that Angels aren't.
-
You know, if I was God, and I wanted to create a Universe, I'd just install a few basic laws and let things work themselves out, after all, it's not as if God has mortality or anything to worry about. I'm open to the concept of God, just not as open to the Humanocentric version of Him :) If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.
I suppose it's easier to say 'On the first Day, God made Light', than to say, 'In the first few picoseconds, Hydrogen atoms started to form, and through the laws of Gravity the Lord had induced, over a period of several billion years, they got together, started fusing, and created light'. Gotta remember this stuff was written 4000 years ago ;)
Edit : And to be honest, 'Gravity is the effect of God on the Universe' is probably as good a shot in the dark as any other explanation, and like Dark Matter, it's not really a problem we've solved to the satisfaction of Science.
Well, there was a moment in the prehistory of the universe where the free electrons were almost in an instant bound to atomic orbitals when temperature dropped past certain point, and this allowed universe to become transparent for the first time in its history.
Arguably, the principles of electromagnetism emerged from the jumble of natural constants almost instantly after the emergence of space-time with energy in it, so it's up to you which you consider the "birth of light". :p
To me, the only possible truly divine being would be the consciousness of everything. It would exist everywhere (although in an infinite universe, this truly boggles the mind - a finite universe not so much), be conscious of everything (though this is debatable - are we conscious of our brain cells?), technically be capable of everything (well, in a limited sense - it would at the very least be capable of anything that happens in the universe), and probably also exist at all times simultaneously though whether or not it would be conscious of all times is unlikely considering the quantum effects, and its ability or willingness to intervene directly on the functions of the universe on material level would be debatable.
Therefore to me the question of God's existence is whether universe is conscious of itself or not. In the absence of evidence to one direction or another, I'm inclined to draw a line with Occam's razor and say that the existence of such superconsciousness is an unnecessary complication and unfounded assumption, so on the baseline I do not expect such consciousness to exist. However it would be scientifically unsound to outright deny the possibility of such consciousness existing, so who knows?
After all,
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
And this would be good to remember whenever getting involved in discussions involving yours or other peoples' belief systems.
Note that my definition of universe is literally everything that exists, so if God exists it must be part of everything (belong to the universe aka interact with other existing stuff in one way or another).
Why not? If you were an immortal, all-powerful being with nothing to do and no one to talk to, wouldn't you use your omnipotence to create something to do and someone to talk to? Man exists because God created us to have someone to relate to on His level(sort of)
I might do something like that, but:
-why do you assume there would be nothing to do and no one to talk to?
-why do you assume he would have any other than passing interest to his creations before moving on to other things?
I get what you mean by equals. In my point of view, if some powerful being existing in known universe or in wider context of existence that decided to form up a solar system and guide the formation of life and civilizations on a single planet would certainly be worthy of respect with regards to ability and power, but on a personal level it would still be a personality existing in the universe just like we are - possibly with much more ability to affect reality than us, and probably with a lot of knowledge, but nevertheless a consciousness on more or less equal terms.
Even if said being were to approach me in some way and prove him being the maker of our solar system, I wouldn't really consider him The God. Maybe a god, for practical purposes of definition, but more in the sense the ancient greeks or hindus considered their deities rather than the current mystic interpretations of the God of abrahamic religions.
All in all, I don't trust any of the religions on Earth to be superior to each other - I view them all as belief systems originating from people, and people can be wrong no matter how many other people are convinced that they are right. They all have equal proof of divine origins in my point of view. Some have ideologies I can be more or less in agreement of, some not so much.
Perhaps the biggest thing I disapprove of in religions is that most of them tend to assume that right and wrong are set by some god or another, and that one can not be a good person or do the right thing without divine guidance. I find it insulting to human consciousness.
The Angels for all they're power and majesty are soulless servants, which while not bereft of free will are bound to His will and are nothing more than incredibly power servitors. Mankind has a soul and is capable of relating to God in way that Angels aren't.
What about Lucifer?
Is the whole Satan gig part of God's plan? :nervous:
-
If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.
Why not? If you were an immortal, all-powerful being with nothing to do and no one to talk to, wouldn't you use your omnipotence to create something to do and someone to talk to? Man exists because God created us to have someone to relate to on His level(sort of), the Angels for all they're power and majesty are soulless servants, which while not bereft of free will are bound to His will and are nothing more than incredibly power servitors. Mankind has a soul and is capable of relating to God in way that Angels aren't.
But then why create an entire Universe? Especially considering the tools for reaching into that Universe is a discpline that frequently comes to loggerheads with Religion? Why, if God is so totally without fault, can he create an entire universe for a single race, that cannot even agree on who He is, what He represents, or even what His laws are? Maybe God has a plan, maybe he doesn't, but the evidence suggests, at least to me, that the idea that the universe, even concpetually, rotates around the existence of humanity is simply the human need to feel important. It certainly raises a lot of questions when we find Extra Terrestrial life, such as 'if God made the Universe for us, what are they for?'. We are faced with two choices, they are either there because we aren't special, at least, no more special than any other race, or, that they were put there for our benefit in some way.
-
But then why create an entire Universe? Especially considering the tools for reaching into that Universe is a discpline that frequently comes to loggerheads with Religion?
It only comes to loggerheads because men(racial generic not gender specific) on both sides want to, on some level, disprove the other and prove their superiority. Note your spelling, "Religion". You used a capital R, when the correct usage is lowercase. This tells me you view religion(not any particular one, just religion in general) as an entity to be interacted with rather than a method of thought or action, which generally speaking is backwards or at least sideways from the way it is generally.
Why, if God is so totally without fault, can he create an entire universe for a single race, that cannot even agree on who He is, what He represents, or even what His laws are?
We don't know for a fact that we are the only race in the universe. I've sometimes had the troubling thought that maybe we're the First or the Last. Either way, the only thing we know is that we are the only one within the local area of about 30-40LY since that's how long we've been looking. And that's assuming they use radio or some other long wave form of light to communicate. See the above for my thoughts on why we can't agree on who He is. To put it simply, He is the Creator, and his Law is quite possibly the simplest thing in the world. We teach it to our children before they're actually able to comprehend it and they usually forget it by the time it matters. It is simply, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I can't say that I follow this law completely, but I try.
Maybe God has a plan, maybe he doesn't, but the evidence suggests, at least to me, that the idea that the universe, even concpetually, rotates around the existence of humanity is simply the human need to feel important. It certainly raises a lot of questions when we find Extra Terrestrial life, such as 'if God made the Universe for us, what are they for?'. We are faced with two choices, they are either there because we aren't special, at least, no more special than any other race, or, that they were put there for our benefit in some way.
We are here to learn. The more we learn, the more we understand, the more God reveals his face to us. Not literally, but the more we learn about the Universe, both Out There and Down Here, the more it becomes obvious that the universe is structured, not this chaotic place that is scary and horrible, but a place of wonder and beauty that is as much a work of art as it is a physical reality.
What about Lucifer?
Is the whole Satan gig part of God's plan? :nervous:
Possibly, only He knows. The War in Heaven(HA! Here's a plug for you Battuta!) could not have happened had He not allowed it.
-
I actually consider Religion to be an organisation, rather than a mode of thought, Religion is merely the conveyance of those forms of belief. The way you interact with a belief system is via a Religion, which has a core unit (in Christian Terms) as a Church, or a congregation. But then, to me, Religion was never a 'mode of thought', quite the opposite in fact, very often it's an excuse for not thinking, because 'God did it' is a perfectly acceptable answer to these people, and that's fine, if people are happy with that then good for them, my problem arises when they get annoyed that their truths aren't good enough for everyone, just as I get annoyed when Religion is attacked for not being scientific in its approach, it's just another way of saying 'Your truth isn't my truth'.
I'd agree that belief is something you cannot really interact with, it is something based on the immaterial, and I'm not sure where anyone would start to interact with a concept based entirely on the perceptions of the person holding it, but if Religion, the 'commercialisation' of belief, cannot be interacted with, then I'd say that is a big problem, because it means it's an output only device, and it hinges entirely on the assumption that not only are the people at the top somehow are in direct contact with God, but also that their belief tally precisely with your own personal ones, which is never the case. Remember you are dealing with humans here, first and foremost.
And I think that's where I and religion fell out, if anything, what we have learned about the Universe through science places me even more in awe of the Universe around us than I was before, as Neil Armstrong put it, "When you can fit the entire world under your thumbnail, you don't feel big, you feel very, very small". But Religion (with a capital R) doesn't like this, because some of what we are learning contradicts what they want people to believe. This doesn't reduce God, it cannot reduce faith, but it does reduce the influence of those in charge of Religions and that, in my own opinion, is far more what the whole Evolution/Creationism, Humanocentric Universe and other Religious/Scientific clashes are really about, and, in fairness, not just on the side of Religion, the names 'Al Gore' and 'Richard Dawkin' come to mind.
Edit: I'll add here that many organised Religions built a house of cards for themselves by fossilising their beliefs, if you close the door on fluidity of opinion, thought and questions, then what you are effectively doing is creating a stillwater while an ever changing river of change rolls past. Stillwater is nice sometimes, it doesn't change, it's calm, there's no unpleasant surprises, but eventually it becomes stagnant and simply becomes a source of hot-gases. Religion needs the odd instillment of fresh thinking, the odd review of its role and what it considers to be the truth. The world has changed, our minds have expanded, either through evolution, or because God designed them that way.
-
science and religion are both wrong! blatant madness! thats where its at :D
-
I thought that was the system we were currently using :nervous:
-
My problem is that it doesn't acknowledge the importance of science. It allows the individual to decide whether science is important or not. The result is you get lots of Catholics who argue that Adam and Eve must be real individuals and that the Earth can only be 6000 years old.
And my problem is that the source of the bad information is religious. However if a scientist tells them that it is wrong you get idiots thinking that science is in some way "against" religion. The information that it's wrong needs to come from the same source that the bad information came from, i.e the Church. Which is why I have such a problem with the Church's refusal to take a stand on the issue. They are the source of the problem (no bible, no YEC after all) but they're not willing to deal with the fallout.
There's also plenty of idiots who think religion is against science.
The stance of the Church is just as it should be.
-
I'm inclined to draw a line with Occam's razor and say that the existence of such superconsciousness is an unnecessary complication
I never got the impression the universe tries to be simple and avoids complications. After all, low math is simpler than high math. Science and physics would be simpler without quantum mechanics and x dimensions.
As far as I'm concerned, Occams Razor is as useful in Real Life as broken condom.
-
My problem is that it doesn't acknowledge the importance of science. It allows the individual to decide whether science is important or not. The result is you get lots of Catholics who argue that Adam and Eve must be real individuals and that the Earth can only be 6000 years old.
And my problem is that the source of the bad information is religious. However if a scientist tells them that it is wrong you get idiots thinking that science is in some way "against" religion. The information that it's wrong needs to come from the same source that the bad information came from, i.e the Church. Which is why I have such a problem with the Church's refusal to take a stand on the issue. They are the source of the problem (no bible, no YEC after all) but they're not willing to deal with the fallout.
There's also plenty of idiots who think religion is against science.
The stance of the Church is just as it should be.
Those that think a religious institution should take a formal stand on all scientific issues are severely misguided. In fact, the Church had already done that centuries ago. The reason they stopped is because science advances more quickly with each passing year.
Seven generally-accepted rules of science...
1) Learn by observation
2) The same rules apply everywhere
3) Simple is best
4) Knowledge is imperfect; it changes over time
5) Knowledge is reproducible, experiments are repeatable
6) Proof is rare
7) Knowledge is falsifiable
So why would the Church, especially in the 21st Century, take a hard stand on any recent issues in science? Odds are that everyone has it's wrong; the most accepted hypothesis or theory is going to need significant revision and possibly multiple replacements before moving to become a more established theory or maybe, just maybe, a law.
-
And, conveniently, you dropped the end of that sentence. :rolleyes:
I'm inclined to draw a line with Occam's razor and say that the existence of such superconsciousness is an unnecessary complication and unfounded assumption, so on the baseline I do not expect such consciousness to exist.
Occam's razor as such doesn't actually say anything about complexity, it deals with unfounded assumptions. However, as it happens, assuming something and trying to shoehorn observations into the assumption often leads to much more complex models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system) than the reality itself is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle), which is the reason I brought complexity into the argument.
In this case, obviously, not assuming the superconsciousness to exist means there's no need to try and figure out how such a thing could be possible in the context of our knowledge about the universe.
By contrast, assuming that such consciousness does exist would require to either disregard the question "how is this possible" in material sense and accept a mystical explanation of some sort, or alternatively start to figure out some theory of information relay so that the consciousness could form from the universe's structures themselves, which is a perfect analogy to developing complex models of epicycles and deferents to explain observations in a geosentric view of world - one would need to probably develope entire new branches of (pseudo)science to explain how an assumed phenomenon (superconsciousness) could possibly exist.
The stance of the Church is just as it should be.
Which one's? I was not aware of the existence of a sincle Church with a capital C. Is it some sort of ecumenic congregation of churches or what? :nervous:
-
Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?
Congratulations on blatant trolling. If you have something meaningful to express or share besides any ill-tempered animosity, please feel free to share that instead.
Nah, that's not trolling. Well it might have been intended as such, I have no idea, but...
Regardless, the bible does state that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead. And any number of other completely impossible things which have never happened since, i.e. never happened to begin with, because they're impossible. The bible is the big book of Christian myth lore, and there are people who claim that the entirety of it is fact. Then there are the people who claim that some of it is fact (like the existence of God, and Jesus, and even though it's not in the bible at all, the Trinity), and that they can just ignore the rest of it even though it's still part of the bible (or isn't, if you're talking about the Trinity) and a lot of it has been around even longer.
Looking over what I've written... I'm probably going to be accused of trolling in a few seconds.
-
He was only "mostly dead." Try finding that option government paperwork.
-
There's also plenty of idiots who think religion is against science.
The stance of the Church is just as it should be.
So because there are idiots on the science side that allows Catholics to be idiots too?
Is that really the argument you want to justify?
So why would the Church, especially in the 21st Century, take a hard stand on any recent issues in science? Odds are that everyone has it's wrong; the most accepted hypothesis or theory is going to need significant revision and possibly multiple replacements before moving to become a more established theory or maybe, just maybe, a law.
I'm saying they shouldn't take any stance on matters like evolution beyond saying "If you want an answer to this, don't look in the bible. Ask a scientist."
Their current stance is "We're not saying anything. Believe what you will." Which is wrong. And which your argument didn't address.
-
And by taking their hands off of science, they allow it to advance now that scientific method is well-established. To be honest, until a theory becomes a scientifically-proven law, it's not a sure thing. Evolution is a great theory. The issue is that the supporting evidence hasn't been ironed out completely. There are great ideas from idiots and stupid ideas from geniuses. Just because you have the right idea doesn't mean the process to get there is right, and it's that process that makes it science.
Fact: The speed of light is a lot of miles per hour.
While this has a kernel of truth in it, it's not science. I understand that the speed of light is a big number, but there's no rhyme or rhythm to the idea. It's a true statement but so vague and unsupported that it's little more than a statement.
Fact: The speed of light is about 300,000 kilometers per second.
That's more true than the first fact, but still not exact. Were I to do a quick Fermi calculation on how fast it'd take to get from the Earth to our Moon, I'd say that the Moon is about 385.000 km away, and thus would take about 1.3 seconds to reach were I to travel at the speed of light. That demonstrates an understanding of what the speed of light actually is; it's a "speed limit" that we don't have the ability or knowledge to exceed. However, even with my quick Fermi estimation, I'm still quite a bit off from the ACTUAL distance to the moon and the ACTUAL speed of light. We may, one day, find that the "speed of light" is a load of bull**** and find a quick way around it. When that day comes, the number will still have a valid meaning but will lose some of its significance.
To go back to the real point, let's think of the theory of continental drift; the predecessor of the theory of plate tectonics. The idea was excellent; he nailed the issue on the head. The continents HAD changed positions over thousands of years. His original theory had the same idea, but the distance postulated was entirely wrong. Through various revisions, his idea that the continents moved was great, but he still didn't know WHY they moved. Around fifty years ago, the theory of plate tectonics was well and truly born. That theory grew and was revised to now include WHY the tectonic plates (not just the continents) were moving and would explain various phenomenon not prior explained. We began to understand where they moved, how they moved, at what rate they moved, and what happens when they moved. Et cetera. Were the Church to go along and say that "the Theory of Continental Drift is 100% correct", they'd look like fools come the 1960s. The idea was great but the theory had to discarded.
Oh, and to the trolls who were asking about the "Church", it's usually used to refer to the (Roman) Catholic (or "universal") Church. It's, by far, the largest Christian sect (with about 1-1.1 billion people, about half of all Christians in total).
-
And by taking their hands off of science, they allow it to advance now that scientific method is well-established. To be honest, until a theory becomes a scientifically-proven law, it's not a sure thing.
There is no such thing as a scientifically proven law, nor a proven theory. Science can never 'prove' anything, by its nature - nor can any other technique. It can only consistently fail to disprove.
Evolution is a great theory. The issue is that the supporting evidence hasn't been ironed out completely.
Evolution as a process is actually an incontrovertible fact. No one can argue with it, and it can be demonstrated in just a few days.
Now the theory of evolution, all the window dressing surrounding the process of evolution, might have been what you meant. Yet it's an odd choice of example, because it's one of the best-supported and most complete theories we have, and there's nothing better than a theory.
-
[SNIP]
And yet again you miss my point completely.
Let's take plate tectonics. You've got them the wrong way round BTW, plate tectonics is the more modern theory, not continental drift.
I'm not saying the Church should have said "Continental drift is correct!" I'm saying that they should say "Ask a scientist what is correct. Don't go to Genesis and decide that because it says that God made the dry earth, Africa's coast looks like South America's because God carved them that way" What the Church did say however is "If you want to believe God did it, go ahead."
See the problem is that plate tectonics and continental drift help us understand the world better. "God did it" does not. Even if the older theory was wrong it did help make sense of certain evidence and it did help plate tectonics gain acceptance much more quickly. Now if half the world had vehemently believed that "God did it" it would take longer and this would stand in the way of scientific progress.
And this is my problem with the Church's stance on evolution. Instead of saying "You won't find the answer in the bible. Ask a scientist and you'll get the best explanation mankind currently has" they say nothing. They teach evolution in schools but they never make it clear that there really isn't any sensible alternative to it.
That makes most of your argument moot. The Church wouldn't look stupid when science refines the theory later to continental drift. If anything they'd look smart because they trusted science to refine the theory into one with a proper explanation for the evidence seen.
EDIT : Google Ads is linking me here (http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/)! :D
-
There is no such thing as a scientifically proven law, nor a proven theory. Science can never 'prove' anything, by its nature - nor can any other technique. It can only consistently fail to disprove.
Evolution as a process is actually an incontrovertible fact. No one can argue with it, and it can be demonstrated in just a few days.
Now the theory of evolution, all the window dressing surrounding the process of evolution, might have been what you meant. Yet it's an odd choice of example, because it's one of the best-supported and most complete theories we have, and there's nothing better than a theory.
Which is it? Either it can't prove anything or it can. You can't say science can only fail to disprove something and then turn right around and say something is an incontrovertible fact. I'm not calling you on anything you said, other than your break in logic.
-
That's because evolution is more like an observation: "That population evolved," like "I dropped this and it fell down." Natural selection is the theory for how evolution happens. You can't prove natural selection with science, but it doesn't take science to look at a population at two different times and notice it changed.
-
That's something I've never understood, adaptation and mutation can explain why you have a bird with certain beak shape on this island and a different beak shape on that island. But it's the same species of bird. It can't explain, even over geologic time how you get from iguanas to chimpanzees.
-
Sure it can! For an imaginary scenario, an early reptile that is born with a slightly raised metabolism will be able to warm up faster than the other reptiles of the time. That would be an advantage because it could probably catch more food or run away faster than its counterparts could. It would be the first step towards being warmblooded. Its all baby steps, small changes here, small changes there. Maybe its thumb starts drifting because its easier to grasp prey or climb trees. Eventually you get apposable thumbs. Organs or features don't just appear, its true. But that isn't an argument against evolution, because these organs or features come together simultaneously, not in bits and peices.
You have to remember that evolution doesn't "go" anywhere. There is no destination for evolution, it just happens. Its not like an iguana is the first step to a chimpanzee, or that chimpanzees will eventually become humans. Or that humans are the end all be all.
-
That's something I've never understood, adaptation and mutation can explain why you have a bird with certain beak shape on this island and a different beak shape on that island. But it's the same species of bird. It can't explain, even over geologic time how you get from iguanas to chimpanzees.
But it does, it's called speciation.
Iguanas and Chimpanzees had a common ancestor once. Different groups got exposed to different selective pressures (different environments, predators, etc etc) and eventually, through this process and through genetic drift, they became two distinct species. I don't think it's correct to make some sort of evolutionary straight line from Iguanas to Chimps, as that would be comparing two current "endpoints*" of the evolutionary tree - branches, not stems.
le edit: that doesn't mean they aren't completely genetically dissimilar, however, as the posts below me state. They are still quite similar genetically despite being in different branches in the evolutionary tree.
Remember, geologic time is a huge timescale for biological organisms. Countless numbers of generations makes mutations more likely to be produced, and more suitable species to be created, eventually making them the dominant species. :)
* and I loosely use the term endpoint to refer to this point in time as even now these species are undergoing the process of evolution.
-
That's something I've never understood, adaptation and mutation can explain why you have a bird with certain beak shape on this island and a different beak shape on that island. But it's the same species of bird. It can't explain, even over geologic time how you get from iguanas to chimpanzees.
Au contraire, it certainly can. Isolated pockets of the same species, for example, will experience different selective pressures, diverge, and speciate. Repeat ad nauseam.
There is no such thing as a scientifically proven law, nor a proven theory. Science can never 'prove' anything, by its nature - nor can any other technique. It can only consistently fail to disprove.
Evolution as a process is actually an incontrovertible fact. No one can argue with it, and it can be demonstrated in just a few days.
Now the theory of evolution, all the window dressing surrounding the process of evolution, might have been what you meant. Yet it's an odd choice of example, because it's one of the best-supported and most complete theories we have, and there's nothing better than a theory.
Which is it? Either it can't prove anything or it can. You can't say science can only fail to disprove something and then turn right around and say something is an incontrovertible fact. I'm not calling you on anything you said, other than your break in logic.
I never claimed that evolution as a process had been proven. I claimed it was an incontrovertible fact.
Evolution is an incontrovertible fact on the same level as gravity is an incontrovertible fact. Neither can be proven to hold everywhere forever, but no fact can be.
The theory of evolution, which is broader and far more complex than simple evolution as a process, is a very different affair. It's the difference between gravity and the theory of gravity.
-
Chimpanzees and iguanas are pretty similar. For example the chance that the same DNA sequences encode the same amino acids would be pretty tiny if they weren't related.
-
Chimpanzees and iguanas are pretty similar. For example the chance that the same DNA sequences encode the same amino acids would be pretty tiny if they weren't related.
That's true. There's barely a difference between the two species on the genetic level.
-
Ah, the just a theory argument. I think my favorite example was my science teacher taking it out on a student:
student: Evolution is just a theory.
teacher: Do you believe in gravity?
student: Yes.
teacher: (drops biology textbook on the students desk) Gravity's just a theory too.
-
When determining a theories validity or comparing it to another let's say creationism and evolution it's put through the criteria of adequacy. And evolution come out on top on every field. Does that mean that it's absolutely correct? On some levels it could be (ie, natural selection is observable and changes within the species occurs all the time) but for the most part its just a superior theory than creation.
The criteria of adequacy are testability, scope, fruitfulness, conservatism, simplicity, I found a good example of evolution and creation being judged by both.
Testability
A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something more than what is predicted by the background theory alone.
Evolution: Testable claims, about the fossil record of change in earlier species
Creation: Testable claims, About the fossil record
Scope
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope, that is, that explains and predicts successfully the most diverse phenomena.
Evolution: Explains diverse phenomena, The fossil record of change in earlier species and the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms.
Creation: None. Creationism’s explanations are either failed explanations or pseudo-explanations.
Fruitfulness
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most fruitful, that is, makes the most successful novel predictions.
Evolution: Has predicted novel facts, Organisms should adapt to changing environments. Mechanisms for modifying features and passing them from generation to generation – genes and mutation.
Creation: Has makes mostly non-conservative novel claims, about buoyancy. Most adopt evolutions mechanisms to explain different traits in kinds of animals
Conservatism
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is, the one that fits best with established beliefs.
Evolution: Fits well with current established beliefs, such as the Earth’s history is much longer than several thousands years.
Creationism: Conflicts with well-established beliefs, Age of the universe, Buoyancy of earlier species, Types of fossils, Noah’s Ark and the great flood
Simplicity
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one.
Evolution: Without postulating a supernatural being with supernatural powers, but natural mechanisms involved.
Creation: Postulating a supernatural being with supernatural powers, but less natural mechanisms involved.
So you can easily see that evolution is a superior theory.
But to me it's about faith. But I really don't want to get into a huge debate whether I'm right or wrong about this aspect of my life. So please no attacks. I accept my position is less than favorable without the assumption of a all-powerful God but I respect atheist and agnostics.
Sometimes I wonder if faith is what separates me from almost being agnostic myself, since I don't belief either can be proven beyond a doubt and I believe that God wanted it that way.
-
[SNIP]
And yet again you miss my point completely.
Let's take plate tectonics. You've got them the wrong way round BTW, plate tectonics is the more modern theory, not continental drift.
I'm not saying the Church should have said "Continental drift is correct!" I'm saying that they should say "Ask a scientist what is correct. Don't go to Genesis and decide that because it says that God made the dry earth, Africa's coast looks like South America's because God carved them that way" What the Church did say however is "If you want to believe God did it, go ahead."
See the problem is that plate tectonics and continental drift help us understand the world better. "God did it" does not. Even if the older theory was wrong it did help make sense of certain evidence and it did help plate tectonics gain acceptance much more quickly. Now if half the world had vehemently believed that "God did it" it would take longer and this would stand in the way of scientific progress.
And this is my problem with the Church's stance on evolution. Instead of saying "You won't find the answer in the bible. Ask a scientist and you'll get the best explanation mankind currently has" they say nothing. They teach evolution in schools but they never make it clear that there really isn't any sensible alternative to it.
That makes most of your argument moot. The Church wouldn't look stupid when science refines the theory later to continental drift. If anything they'd look smart because they trusted science to refine the theory into one with a proper explanation for the evidence seen.
EDIT : Google Ads is linking me here (http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/)! :D
Actually, you must have misread part of my reply. I indeed said (though not directly) that the Theory of Continental Drift was a more antiquated theory which has since evolved into the Theory of Plate Tectonics. However, for the Church to say "go to SCIENCE!!!!" about everything, then POPULAR theory (the theory gobbled up in magazines like 'Discovery') will reign and perception of high-level scientific theories may well be skewered. There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. Relatively speaking, very few of them have the equivalent of a Doctorate, and fewer still in a scientific field. The majority of the world doesn't have access to basic education, much less higher educational institutes. Make SCIENCE! available to the "other" billions of people and it'll work a good bit better.
By teaching what's in the bible and explaining the cultural and political influences of the day, you advance beyond the text. However, the bible and religion is, in whole, not science. Going from its ancient roots of "we're right; admit it or die" to the current position "we don't know; we'll continue teaching what we feel is important so feel free to come to mass every Saturday evening or Sunday", the Church is having a larger impact. Creationalism is a nice idea to have and makes life easier; you can understand that everything's here for a reason and live your life. That's the Church not ramming its beliefs (to any pro/antiscientific camp) down our collective throats. The only thing that the Church REALLY takes a stand on is ethics and morals, and for good reason.
-
I'd rather have a situation where the popular theory was the accepted one to the current situation where people believe any old claptrap.
Creationism is NOT a nice idea. Belief in creationism holds back research in many fields. You can't do certain kinds of scientific work in biology, genetics or virology if you refuse to accept that evolution is real due to foolish religious beliefs you basically made up yourself. More importantly though if you insist that you are correct you make it more likely that no one else can do that work either.