beating bible-ers

Post by **Christian** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:28 pm

Paul3eb wrote:
Christian wrote:..It really seems to me that at its core the religious fundamentalists have pointed out what I see as a problem with secular or scientific materialism:
that is, if it cannot be detected by the 5 senses or proven through scientific inquiry, then it doesn't exist.(Ken Wilber calls this Flatland... because it excludes direct personal experience of higher levels of consciousness that have been described my humans for thousands of years)..
well i wouldn't say that darwinism necessarily embraces the big bang theory.

Bad example. Sorry. I wa just hoping to convey the idea that Darwinism doesn't purport to have the answers to all questions about how we got here...but the media, and others, tries to define and confine the discussion as if the theories are directly opposed when I don't think it is that simple.
I do not purport to be either an expert on Creationism or Darwin's theories, but are the diametrically opposed? Are they really describing the same thing?
can there not be truth in both perspectives? don't both views contribute to our evolving consciousness?
and is it really a question of :you are right and I am wrong?

Post by **Christian** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:31 pm

J-Rock wrote:WTF??? Those who do not believe in evolution by natural selection are going to hell? Where in "On the Origin of the Species" did Darwin write that?

It was in the Slovenian translation, page 243 footnote 76: "Those who don't believe in evolution by natural selection are going to hell...stupid Christian"

That is a direct quote and translation.

Post by **kato** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:42 pm

Boy, I'll bet there's alot of Darwinists that wish they'd read the book now!

Post by **Saxman** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:45 pm

The problem for me is that as soon as you say there is an all powerful "conscious" god who can interfere in our existence, then "it" is then an accomplice whenver bad shit happens to us mere mortals. Children raped and tortured. Sorry, can't help you. Tornado kills your whole family, sorry, can't help you. Man has heart attack and swerves accross the road killing your child, sorry. Mankind kills and tortures millions in your name, oops. This is just too illogical for me. If I stand and watch someone kill/rape/torture someone else or if I were to fail to warn someone of an approaching storm, then I am to blame as well. Why does an all powerful god get a pass on this one? Don't give me that free will crap either because nature and luck have nothing to do with someone's choices. Here is an even better one. The Hebrews saw how many works of god before they got to Mt. Ararat and they still created a golden calf? How many blatatantly obvious acts of god have you seen lately such as flaming hale or a pillar of fire that consciously moves? None, how about a river of blood? Oh wait, these are allegories??? Then why do we need the ten commandments plastered everywhere? Why is it that we are supposed to ascribe to the ten commandments which are from the Old Testament, but I still can't have slaves, rape a woman and then marry her, or stone you for wearing two different kinds of cloth? I have NO problem with people of faith. It is the people who try to LOGICALLY explain the bible and then force this logic on you that is my problem.

Post by **kato** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:47 pm

Paul3eb wrote:most scientists or scientifically minded people, would readily admit that every theory and observation is possibly wrong

Funny, in the piece that you linked to, the same rhetoric was going both ways. Evolutionists are just as adamant that their doctrine should be taught exclusively. This makes them politicians, not scientists. In most other fields (e.g. astronomy, physics), scientists are willing to entertain thoughts of God.

Post by **Saxman** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:47 pm

Oh, and the whole marriage ruckus. This is an email I received a while back. Too good.

As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and
choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:
Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen
19:31-36)
This should clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.

Post by **Paul3eb** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:57 pm

j-rock.. i think there's a difference between believing darwin and the theory of natural selection and "darwinism". and i would say darwinists probably would consider their ideas of what is ignorance (ie: not believing them) is the same as hell..

christian, in the bible god is unchanging. many christians that i've talked to believe that evolution is an example of change, the kind of change god can't/wouldn't do. therefore, since god exists and god doesn't change, evolution is a myth and, indirectly, disproof of god.

i think creationism and evolution have a very difficult time coexisting. especially since creationism implies a somewhat strict adherence to the bible and evolution directly refutes several chapters of genesis. it seems that creationists lose out more than does evolution.

if, at genesis 1:11 it said instead, "(11)and god said, let the earth bring forth macromolecules, the carbohydrates and fats yielding energy and support, the proteins yielding structure and enzymes, and the nucleic acids seed, being after their kind, whose likeness is in itself, upon the earth. (12) and the earth brought forth glucose and triglycerides, and amino acids and enzymes, and rna and dna whose likeness is in itself and after its own kind: and god saw that it was good." if it went something like that, then it'd be a little easier to morph the two

Post by **Paul3eb** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:05 pm

kato wrote:Funny, in the piece that you linked to, the same rhetoric was going both ways. Evolutionists are just as adamant that their doctrine should be taught exclusively. This makes them politicians, not scientists. In most other fields (e.g. astronomy, physics), scientists are willing to entertain thoughts of God.

i thought the one guy said he just doesn't think it should be taught in science class, that it something that, if he wanted to, he could teach his kids at home.

i think the argument against teaching creationism in science class is that there's no science in creationism. there's no empirical evidence and doesn't hold to the scientific method. if christians were trying to get puncuated equilibrium to be taught in science class, then you'd be fine. that has a scientific basis with some empirical evidence.. doesn't hold to the sci. method as much, though.

studying intelligent design would open up the door for studying card reading or the guy who "proved" yogurt and plants have feelings.

Post by **kato** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:18 pm

Paul;
I've got no problem with that, as long as evolution is taught as a theory and given a critical analysis. It is often taught as dogma, just like creationism is. My view is that if you teach different schools of thought along with critical thinking, the truth has nothing to fear.

Post by **Paul3eb** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:22 pm

kato wrote:It is often taught as dogma, just like creationism is. My view is that if you teach different schools of thought along with critical thinking, the truth has nothing to fear.

well said and i agree completely..