| Posted: 31 May 2007 15:17 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Yeah, we tend to do that a lot.
__________________
|
| Posted: 31 May 2007 16:39 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
There's a lot of that going on today as people try to pretend God accepts everything just because it's their chosen lifestyle. Better to find out where God's side is than to try and bring him to yours because I don't think that's going to happen.
I think there is simply more freedom in the American lifestyle today. The thesis of a new book I aim to pick up is that the explosion of wealth after WWII allowed for the modern American lifestyle (by a guy at the Cato institute, coincidentally). It brought about a somewhat fractured society because individuals had time to think for themselves, not just work to survive all the time. I believe this is true.
Of course, every action brings about a significant reaction, so traditional groups that held power are angry that their influence is slipping away. Their rhetoric gets increasingly shrill and flashy to attempt to attract people back into the fold. Hence the televangelists that have guided American Protestant thinking since the early 80's. On the one hand, I think it is great that so many people now think for themselves. On the other hand, it is terrible that something as powerful as Christianity has warped into something dangerous.
Why dangerous? Because it changes the emphasis. As people find other logics and stop giving money and power to church leaders, those leaders begin to insist that they hold dominion over things that don't really have to do with Christianity.
As a result, the sermons are no longer about charity and brotherhood- but misguided history lessons. No longer is the topic about turning the other cheek, but rather it is about supporting our most war-like politicians.
So I say question authority at every step. The people that tell you what to think at church aren't scientists, they aren't historians. They're people who have studied the Bible, from what appears to be an increasingly narrow perspective. Since we can all read now, there isn't any other purpose to "religious authority" other than to serve the interests of the person talking.
More importantly, that is why you don't want a preacher doing surgery on you or teaching history classes in school. They haven't done the work on these subjects that other people have- so they aren't medical or historical authorities.
I believe (and therefore do not ask of others) that God is something one learns about their entire life. So far, I've found a lot of evidence for God by researching for several years in science and anthropology. I therefore feel very sad for people when they have been convinced to avoid or reject science for fear that it might turn them against God. I believe that just accepting what others tell a person about God halts that person's journey, and makes them a pawn.
On the other hand, at some point free individuals must choose how far along they will educate themselves.
|
| Posted: 31 May 2007 19:31 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand, it is terrible that something as powerful as Christianity has warped into something dangerous.
Quote:
As a result, the sermons are no longer about charity and brotherhood- but misguided history lessons. No longer is the topic about turning the other cheek, but rather it is about supporting our most war-like politicians. Most of the messages I hear on Sunday morning are about salvation. I can't see that learning history is ever misguided. The only problem comes when liberals try to adapt history to fit their own agendas.
Quote:
So I say question authority at every step. The people that tell you what to think at church aren't scientists, they aren't historians.
No but in questioning authority that would
also count questioning scientist, historians, etc. especially since as you know there really isn't a 100 percent complete consensus of facts in any field.
Pastors have founded colleges. Not necessarily stupid individuals. Most preachers over large churches I'm sure you'll find spend a lot of time in preparation for sermons researching. So if they do happen to bring up something from history or relating to evolution they've researched their facts they just don't agree with the evolutionist obvously.
There are a lot of Christian scientist that reject evolution and have no problem doing so.
__________________
|
| Posted: 31 May 2007 23:52 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1826
Join Date: May 2007
|
geez you guys type to much
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 00:17 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
There are a lot of Christian scientist that reject evolution and have no problem doing so.
Sure, and i was getting to that with Dilbert. It does help the case of evolution that 99.9% of the scientific community believes in it, but 99.9% have been wrong before. Any number of people agreeing does not make a thing right or wrong. I'm offering that point to you, since the numbers of scientists that believe in evolution do actually work in favor of my argument.
But what you cannot dispute is that evolution does occur, right now, all around us. We performed experiments in high school on populations of fruit flies to demonstrate this fact. When evolution is called a scientific theory- that doesn't mean it is a theory like my theory that LeBron will prevail over Detroit. It means that it could be disproven, but so far has not. Einstein and Newton both had theories of gravity, they could be disproven, and newton's eventually was replaced by Einstein's.
Now, I am all for people coming up with something that replaces evolution if there IS something that can be proven or fits the facts better. However, it has to be a falsifiable statement. Religion doesn't qualify.
You can't prove there is or is not a God. It is impossible either way- so you can't prove or falsify that God was responsible for anything in bringing the universe to its current state. I have no idea, other than scenes from the Bible, what a creation museum will show you. None of the stuff in there- i guess dinosaurs existing alongside human beings, is supported by the fossil record or modern science. I mean, leave evolution out of it, why did all the dinosaurs vanish? Why are all these bones in the ground under a conspicuous amount of soil, separated by a substance not commonly found on Earth, but in comets, that all happen to pan out exactly with the fossil record? Maybe we should ask God. Oh right, we can't- because he apparently doesn't talk to us now like he did ONLY when each religious book across the world was being written (some well before Christianity).
Quote:
I can't see that learning history is ever misguided. Well, it is when the facts are incorrect and self serving to the teacher. Hence, when people say "the world is 6,000 years old" I want to laugh, but then I remember they teach this to children. Where is the physical evidence for this stuff? And forget the Bible- that is words- George Washington could have written it for all we know. Where is the physical evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?
I'll tell ya where it ain't. It ain't in the dinosaur bones. It ain't in the "red shift" of energy that is STILL observable from the big bang. It ain't in the light we're still seeing from galaxies many light years away.
Quote:
The only problem comes when liberals try to adapt history to fit their own agendas. What is my agenda? It would have saved me a lot of time and trouble if the Bible was literal. It doesn't bug me one bit if you think the Bible is literal. It doesn't bug me if you tell everyone you know or don't know your opinion on the matter. It only bugs me when you want to teach kids your religious opinion on my dime. Why would I agree to that?
Quote:
Pastors have founded colleges. Not necessarily stupid individuals. Most preachers over large churches I'm sure you'll find spend a lot of time in preparation for sermons researching. So if they do happen to bring up something from history or relating to evolution they've researched their facts they just don't agree with the evolutionist obvously. Yeah, and college professors have founded churches. What does that matter?
With regard to preacher research, clearly some people can talk forever about what they believe- you and I do it all the time. But the very first thing a person learns in college is not to rely on one book alone. Different accounts are an important part of research. Reading the Bible won't make a person a historian any more than it would make them a medical doctor. I know you disagree, but since it doesn't say much about things like 9,000 year old Indian civilization- a comprehensive history book it is not.
Finally, what makes you so sure that the people who tell you what to think have researched their facts? Because they talk about it for an hour in front of an audience? Plenty of liberal college professors do as much several times a week. Does that make THEM right as far as you're concerned?
The places I draw my limited knowledge from consist of several hundred books collecting dust in my basement and a variety of others in libraries across the western world. I've spoken with or studied under several more sources. I've tested my work in front of several audiences of very intelligent, well read people and as a political scientist- against outcomes. I cross check this stuff with every resource I can find- and that is just to be taken seriously enough to be hired. You aren't going to see that kind of leg work out of your average preacher. If you think he's the authority on one book- then I wouldn't trust his claims past that volume, but rather- go form your own ideas.
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 15:11 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Not that polls have anything to do with what is real or unreal, but don't you think there is a greater percentage of scientists that believe in creation since a recent ABC poll has 60 percent of Americans believing in creation. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3211737&page=1
Quote:
why did all the dinosaurs vanish? Species of animals die out every year even today.
Quote:
Hence, when people say "the world is 6,000 years old" I want to laugh yeah like you were there to see it happen. So I doubt you could prove it didn't happen 6 thousand years ago. Awfully convenient for evolutionist that man must have been such a late bloomer otherwise the fact that written records of man don't date back billions of years would really throw a wrench in the works wouldn't it? And dang it, man is the only living thing that records anything which is another convenient circumstance for evolutionist.
My question is if creation is just religios nonsense why do evolution scientist get so angry over things like the creation museum? It's not being brought into schools. Isn't that enough to make them happy? No, everyone must be brought over to the theory of evolution like winning converts to...religion. Why should they get so angry so emotional if these evolutionist are really as analytical and logical as they claim to be. You'd never catch Mr. Spock flying off the handle over a discussion of the origins of man.
__________________
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 17:55 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
You'd never catch Mr. Spock flying off the handle over a discussion of the origins of man. So now I'm even a bad Vulcan. Dammit Tim, I'm a doctor not a fictional space alien.
Besides, even Vulcans lost their patience something like once a season.
Quote:
Not that polls have anything to do with what is real or unreal, but don't you think there is a greater percentage of scientists that believe in creation since a recent ABC poll has 60 percent of Americans believing in creation.
Haha, no I really don't. To be honest with you, I don't even think 60 percent of Americans are being honest in their answer. Skip church some Sunday when the weather is nice outside and take a look around. People seem to act waaaaaaay less pious than they tend to profess. And hey, guilty as charged in that matter. I tend to frequent church a lot more when my girlfriend calls me out on it. Without her, I'd be on the highway (couch) to hell without a doubt.
Also, there are 28% percent of Americans who still think Bush is a good, or good enough, President. Add to those folks another easy 30% who didn't pay attention in high school biology- and there you have it- an unreasonable majority. Historically, scientists have tended not to frequent the majority side of opinion polls. Ask people in 1491 about those monsters that will eat you when you sail off the end of the world.
Quote:
yeah like you were there to see it happen. Oh I was. We Vulcans live a long time you know.
Quote:
Awfully convenient for evolutionist that man must have been such a late bloomer otherwise the fact that written records of man don't date back billions of years would really throw a wrench in the works wouldn't it? And dang it, man is the only living thing that records anything which is another convenient circumstance for evolutionist. Huh? Okay, let me state again- if something is buried under millions of years worth of natural sediment, or preserved by methods that are known to fossilize bone over a long enough time- that tends to trump something that was just written down. I guess it would help if we found a T-Rex autobiography laying around in the dirt, but I would consider the words there somewhat suspect. The chemical structure on the other hand- would help us determine the age of that artifact. Still with me? You can test physical properties of an object and compare it with processes we see taking place now and estimate about how old it is.
Nobody we know now can be sure that photographs of Abe Lincoln are real. They could have been faked yesterday right? I've got an uncle that is about as homely as Lincoln- it could have been him. But if you were to test the chemical structure of those photographs and compare it to how similar objects are known to decay now- presto!- we can tell that these photographs really were taken in 1861 and that the bearded guy really was Lincoln and not my uncle.
The same process goes for dinosaurs. And hey, there isn't any way to know for 100% certain that God did not put dinosaur bones in the ground 65.5 million years ago. It seems a lot more likely to me that He didn't, and you and I can both be sure that the world is older than 6,000 years. God would have to totally change the way matter decays now, just to trick us, because He hates smart people in lab coats- to make that possible. I realize this may ruin your trip to the creation museum, but I can promise you there are better things to spend your time and money on than robot dinosaurs and unfounded opinions. My vote would be for a jet blue or priceline plane ticket to the Grand Canyon. There you can see some science that just HAD to be divinely inspired.
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 22:04 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
I'm a doctor not a fictional space alien. I say you are a fictional alien.
I'll have to read everything later and get back to you. I just bought a whole heap of comics at the Adventure Con, and I got to get reading. Might take a while plus tomorrow I'm going swimming. Maybe after that I can get back on the board. Summer time is fun!
__________________
|
| Posted: 01 Jun 2007 22:57 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1826
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
TOU GUYS TYPE TO MUCH HEELLOOOOO?!?!?!
|
| Posted: 02 Jun 2007 15:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Well Danny how come when polls are in your favor you want me to take notice, and when polls are in my favor the people polled must have been lying or brain dead?
Quote:
if something is buried under millions of years worth of natural sediment Fact is though that the great flood of the Genesis account which almost every major ancient culture seems to point would have put tons of debris and sediment over dino. Plus please take into the account the fact that as I've said in the past God most likely created the earth with the appearance of age just like he created Adam as a full grown man and not a baby.
As far as the creation museum, think of it this way. I would much rather see scientific facts from the perspective of a believer than so-called science from someone who is looking at the facts from an already biased position toward evolution. It's all a matter of perspective. If you already believe evolution to be a fact then every piece of evidence you look at is going to point you to the conclusion you want it to. Scientist are just way too emotionally attached to evolution to look at their own evidence in a logical unbiased way. This is evidenced by the intensity of their anger toward anything that contradicts evolution.
The facts of evolution, as you have admitted, change constantly. The facts of creation do not as presented by the Bible. So while you may be staking all of your science and as according to you even medical science on evolution, the so-called facts could be changing again as we speak, and just where does that leave all that medical knowledge you say came from the study of evolution? Personally, I think our medical breakthroughs come from scientific testing and perseverance and really have nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of man anyway, but that's just me.
I sure wouldn't put my ideas of God on scientist. You know those guys are the ones that used to think bleeding patients was the way to go even though the Bible said that blood was what contained life.
__________________
|
| Posted: 02 Jun 2007 19:55 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Well Danny how come when polls are in your favor you want me to take notice, and when polls are in my favor the people polled must have been lying or brain dead? Hey, polls are polls. You asked me if I thought that the scientific community was part of your 60% and I offered, based just on my opinion, that they most likely were not. I mean, I've been against the polls before and it still got me nowhere. In 2003, I routinely had everyone telling me how dumb I was for not hopping on with the majority of Americans that wanted to invade Iraq. What can I say? It appears there is a big group of people out there somewhere who are WRONG ALL THE TIME.
Quote:
Fact is though that the great flood of the Genesis account which almost every major ancient culture seems to point would have put tons of debris and sediment over dino. Oh that's a fact eh? Prove this. Please then explain why there is a layer of comet dust right around the "mass extinction" layer of dirt. THEN i want you to address why so many seafaring animals also died out around this time. While you're at it, you might also explain why vestigial appendages like leg bones on whales or tail bones in humans are still present. If what you say is true- God really went out of his way to trick us.
Quote:
Plus please take into the account the fact that as I've said in the past God most likely created the earth with the appearance of age just like he created Adam as a full grown man and not a baby. First, why would He do that. Second- where does it say He did that? See, now you're just repeating what they tell ya without questioning it a bit. Think for yourself!
Quote:
Scientist are just way too emotionally attached to evolution to look at their own evidence in a logical unbiased way. Really? How are they emotionally attached? What is your evidence for their emotional attachment? I can certainly show how religious people have an emotional attachment to God (I am one of these people) simply from the language so often chosen to express this: "personal relationship with Jesus". How does one get emotionally attached to a bunch of fruit flies and big lizard bones? Like I explained in the other post Tim, people who believe in evolution don't care if it is replaced by something that makes more sense. You're rejecting something with physical evidence because you love your idea of something with no evidence. The bias is not with the scientists.
Which brings me to another of your points. Quote:
So while you may be staking all of your science and as according to you even medical science on evolution, the so-called facts could be changing again as we speak, and just where does that leave all that medical knowledge you say came from the study of evolution? Right. I'm looking for the truth, not clinging to a preconceived notion of which. If there is physical evidence against evolution, lets see it- and I might change my mind if it is credible. So far, there hasn't been any. I've given you post after post of why the world isn't 6,000 years old- but you don't want to change your mind so can we just drop it?
Quote:
Personally, I think our medical breakthroughs come from scientific testing and perseverance and really have nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of man anyway, but that's just me. To some degree this is true. But when you look at heredity, genetics and all the other things that we ow have an understanding of because of evolution- you can see that we gain quite a bit from this understanding. We've learned how diseases can adapt and change- and this is a huge part of fighting epidemics. Like I've said before- evolution CAN explain where people came from, but its primary function is to explain a process that takes place right now.
Quote:
I sure wouldn't put my ideas of God on scientist. You know those guys are the ones that used to think bleeding patients was the way to go even though the Bible said that blood was what contained life. Tim, that was what passed for science in the 1600's. As with other things in science, when it was discredited, it was abandoned. When something from religion turns out to be impossible, you tend to just say "well, it was magic" such as the case with Jonah and the Whale (or big fish, or whatever) or the case of Cain's wife and all the supposedly inbred humanity that followed. Like I said, you are free to take your medical chances with people that don't believe in evolution- of course, that would put you back in the bloodletting days.
|
| Posted: 02 Jun 2007 23:11 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Hey, polls are polls. Ok, I'll remember not to feel so bad the next time you have a handy dandy poll that makes you look good.
Quote:
Please then explain why there is a layer of comet dust right around the "mass extinction" layer of dirt. I never heard that there was. Guess you need to post a link for verification of this little tidbit, and the thing about the apendages because that's a new one on me too.
Quote:
First, why would He do that. Seems logical to me, he made Adam a man, he made the first animals full grown so they wouldn't need parents so if he created the Earth and everything else about the same time why wouldn't the Earth appear to be older? The oceans didn't form slowly, or rivers, trees didn't start out from sprouts or seeds all over the world they were in a full grown state.
Quote:
What is your evidence for their emotional attachment? I have eyes and ears, when I hear these guys on the radio or on TV they sound like they are about ready to start ww3 against creation.
Of course folks have an emotional response to Christianity, but then science is not supposed to be a religion right? So what's with all the negative emotion from evolutionists? Feels alot like a religion to me.
Quote:
If there is physical evidence against evolution, lets see it- and I might change my mind if it is credible. Dude if I saw a brand new Ferrari in a junk yard I wouldn't need proof that there wasn't a huge explosion that somewhow moved all the parts together into a beautiful car.
Quote:
evolution CAN explain where people came from, but its primary function is to explain a process that takes place right now. Gee pal, now your an expert again. You know you admitted you weren't like a scientist or anything so how can you trust your own interpretation of these facts of science you believe in? You seem to be assuming a lot. Now your assuming evolution is occurring right now. If this were the case, if true evolution were occurring right now wouldn't we see missing links walking around? Why is ther monkeys, and man, but no monkey men? See any reptile birds lately? Wouldn't they still be alive.
Quote:
I've given you post after post of why the world isn't 6,000 years old I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that it could be 10 even 20 thousand years old, but not millions and billions. Isn't it unlikely dinosaur fossils could survive for millions of years? I don't care how far you bury it.
Quote:
of course, that would put you back in the bloodletting days. Now see your being silly, like a doctor that believes in creation doesn't use the same medicines or equipment to treat patients. They have everything at their disposal plus the proven added benefit of prayer. You missed the point anyway. Science is good, but it has it's limits. Only pride keeps scientist from accepting the fact there is a God. Whether you believe in God or not is another matter, but please remember the initial purpose of evolution is to explain away the creation of the universe apart from the existence of God, and has I've pointed out multiple times it can't be done. There has to be starting point for everything beyond our capacity to understand or to put in a test tube. No matter how you slice it or dice it. Nothing equals nothing every time. There is no reasonable starting point for true evolution. So until some scientist can tell me the answer to that question I'll just accept God by faith in his Word. Something tells me I'll be waiting a mighty long time.
Quote:
or the case of Cain's wife and all the supposedly inbred humanity that followed. Dude it's in the Bible, incest was not declared wicked until Moses day. Abraham's wife Sarah was his half sister. If you need proof on that I'll look it up for you in Genesis.
__________________
|
| Posted: 03 Jun 2007 21:21 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1826
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
hmoh noone listens to me
|
| Posted: 04 Jun 2007 15:07 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Pole would you, I don't know..maybe use more words.
__________________
|
| Posted: 04 Jun 2007 22:55 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1826
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
okay this is last time geez all i'm trying to say is...
|
| Posted: 05 Jun 2007 14:38 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
what, what are you trying to say.
__________________
|
| Posted: 06 Jun 2007 23:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1826
Join Date: May 2007
|
i don't know!
|
|
|
