Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-04-2005, 11:06 PM   #76
Raven113
 
Raven113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
Fry your noodle a bit more ED, keep reading Genesis, there is a second creation story.
Best bet you have for understanding it is to treat it as Hebrew literature (which is why Genesis can be taught in high school English classes). Understanding the bible in any context, aside from a literary one, requires Faith. This is commodity I sadly, and very regrettably, lack. Judging by your post, I suspect you do as well.
__________________
"Wit is educated insolence." - Aristotle


Raven113 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2005, 08:34 PM   #77
ExistentialDisorder
 
ExistentialDisorder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, S.C. (USA)
Posts: 363
Yeah Raven.

Would that be in reference to the flood? Because if you think about it, once Noah released everything off the boat, that could be considered a second creation. Or maybe you're referring to something else I haven't gotten to yet. I'm still on genesis. Already tho, I'm seeing so many things that just don't make sense. Makes me wonder if I'm reading an extremely summarized version, or if this is really the way the full thing goes. I can't help but wonder, is this what all the raucous is about? This isn't my first time going through it tho, its just been so long that I bothered, that I don't remember it being so... simple. Actually, it is the first time I've ever deliberately tried reading it from start to finish. I know the basic gist of it.

You are right tho, faith and logic do not mix. I'm gonna start taking notes on all the points I find that are ridiculously illogical.

As for the concept of this thread, I tend to gravitate toward the idea that its a blend of both ID and evolution. I don't agree with either one wholly by itself. I've watched countless hours of documentaries on scientists and archaeologists arguing the concept of human evolution and they fail to provide enough evidence of it to lift it out of being more than just a theory. Asside from the fact that there are a at least a few missing links in their evolutionary chain that no one's been able to find after all their digging, there are other points that still don't make sense. Like, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? And if whites and asians evolved from africans then why are there still africans? (please nobody feed any racial slurs into that because I'm not racist). I'll never buy into the idea that we turned white because we went north. That just doesn't make any damned sense at all. Asians went north and east, and they didn't turn white. Anyway, there are other points, and I have my own theories on it all but they tend to get rather controversial when discussed.

But the concept of Intelligent Design doesn't hold up either, at least not in the format that Genesis presents it in. My first question to that would be why. What reason would a god, who claims to be so almighty, have for creating man, other than pure, personal amusement. Maybe that's it. We're just god's toys. Action figures for the God(s). But aside from that, man was created from dust? Hmmm. What's that smell in the air? And then woman was created from man's rib? Sounds like genetic engineering or cloning to me.

So combine intelligent design with natural evolution. Here's one theory that might seem a bit more logical, at least to some. Let's say that maybe somewhere along the lines monkeys, or apes I guess I should say, did learn to walk upright and start losing their fur, etc etc. Then somebody - in this case god - comes along and decides he/she wants to help the little guy out a bit, give him some better parts, or hell, just experiment with some newly discovered technology, and creates a slightly more sophisticated version of the primate, using the primate's dna, crossed with possibly god's own dna. Hence the concept of creating man in his own image. Or more specifically, in "our" own image, as it was stated in the book of Genesis. Maybe this happened a few times over the millennia. Maybe God made a few return visits, dropping in here and there to see how things were progressing. And perhaps, just perhaps, the whole monkey walking upright thing had something to do with crossing some dna too.

Or maybe not. It's just a theory.
__________________
~E.D.
~v~ ~v~ ~v~

"What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you wanted to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself [or]
Find yourself afraid to see?..." -NIN
ExistentialDisorder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 01:25 AM   #78
Raven113
 
Raven113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
ED,

I was referring to the second creation story. After Adam and Eve's version there is a second story, still in genesis. In the second one the only thing god says to man is "Go and be fertile" or something to that effect. The order is a bit different too. Man is the first living thing created in one story, and the last in the other. You really shouldn't try to read from start to finish. You'd be better off finding a very very patient bible study group (that's what I did a few years back, after I left catholic school) to walk you through the book. The great thing about doing it that way is you get to see the bible from the believer's point of view, a boon when trying to understand them.

Remember the bible was written by men (and I do mean males). Eve being made from Adam is supposed to show that women are to be subservient to men. If you missed that, don't worry, god will flat out say it a few times. This is why the story of Lilith is so popular with strong, independent women (and why the feminists named their big concert "Lilith Fair").

I think you may also try brushing up on the theory of evolution; the more recent revisions to the theory answer your questions about it.



__________________
"Wit is educated insolence." - Aristotle


Raven113 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 08:04 AM   #79
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
Like, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
Well, we share a common ancestor, but that ancestor would probably be called a monkey. Take two monkeys born of one, one of the monkeys was living in a forest, but it starts to slowly die, so its children and children's children evole to cope, part of their changing environment makes them grow bigger brains and stand upright to reach high shelving. Very long bam, homo-sapien. The other's environment doesn't change so much, very long bam, remains a monkey.

According to a slightly different hypothesis on evolution would be that stuff changed more quickly and a group who was most mutated had children of a different species. Shorter bam, humans and monkeys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
And if whites and asians evolved from africans then why are there still africans? (please nobody feed any racial slurs into that because I'm not racist). I'll never buy into the idea that we turned white because we went north. That just doesn't make any damned sense at all. Asians went north and east, and they didn't turn white.
One group moved north and adapted, one group stayed the same, this was only a slight variation in skin pigment, since there's less sun the further north you go, you need less skin pigment to protect you from the sun. Not only do things evolve forward, they lose redundant features. The variation is so slight that it makes racism look silly. You don't see black and white kitties with prejudices against tortoise shell ones.

Asians are the inbetween skin pigmentation group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
Or maybe not. It's just a theory.
More of a supposition, established theory with proof of it is, in non-scientific terms, a fact, like germs (theory of) or gravity (theory of). How the stuff works in scientific terms is a hypothesis. Most people say theory when they mean hypothesis. I do it myself since I tend to avoid scientific language unless everyone else is using the same terms to mean the same things.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 12:30 PM   #80
ExistentialDisorder
 
ExistentialDisorder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, S.C. (USA)
Posts: 363
Its obvious you love to twist shit around and manipulate it into your concept of what you think somebody is trying to say. Especially when its somebody that you've decided you don't like. You really should be a politician, or even a televangelist.

I have never once stated, here or anywhere else, that I hate Jesus. Nor have I ever once stated, here or anywhere else, that I don't believe Jesus existed. More importantly, I never once mentioned Jesus in either of the two posts that I've posted in this thread. On the same note, I've never once stated that Christianity is illogical or stupid. If I have then please show me, and everybody else here, where I've made these statements.

You assume too much, too much of the time.

If tossing a different opinion, idea or theory out there for others to consider is, and I quote, "self-serving antagonism", then I guess I'm guilty of being an antagonist, as are you, and everybody else whose posted their own ideas and/or opinions in this thread. As well as those elsewhere - from scientists to preachers to school kids - who believe in either evolution or intelligent design, and who have ever once expressed those beliefs to any other living individual.

Also, please show me where I ever stated, and I quote, "that it should not only NOT be taught in school, but it shouldn’t be taught out of school as well."

That's just another blatant example of you feeding something into what I said or meant, in order to twist shit around and make me out to look like the bad guy.

On the contrary, very much contrary to your (prejudice) assumption I might add, I don't see a problem with either concept being taught in school, so long as #1: both are taught as theory and #2: they are offered as elective choices and not mandatory learning. The best bet, as I see it, would be to teach them both together in the same elective course.

The only teachings that should be mandatory for students to learn are those that are proven as fact. Example: Mathematics are factual; the structure of the English language, and other languages, is factual; the history of our country is factual. The concepts of both Intelligent Design and evolution are both theory.

When I was in high school, in the early '90s, nothing related to religion of any form was taught in school. At least not in my school(s) - I went to two different high schools, both in the same district and county. The only ecxeption being world history, and even then religion was only mentioned in relation to the predominant beliefs of whatever civilization we happened to be studying at the time.

My biology teacher - Mr. Berkowski - was very much Jewish, and when he lectured on evolution he did it the only way it should be done, and that is as theory. He made it very clear to all his students that evolution is theory, and when students questioned him about more religious aspects, such as intelligent design, he also made it very clear that it too was theory. But he didn't lecture on ID, in or out of class, because it was, at least at that time, against the rules of our school for any teacher to discuss any form of religious concepts with their students. He gave limited answers as best he could when people asked about his religion (for some reason a lot of kids found it odd that he was Jewish, I never understood why). I'll also add that I was never one of those who questioned him, unless he stated something that I didn't understand (he and I went round and round on the subject of dna because at the time I just couldn't understand it. I do now, but I didn't understand the way he was trying to explain it). I respected him as a person and as a teacher, and I also respected the fact that he was jewish, regardless of whether or not I personally agreed with his religion.

To make assumptions of what I believe in or don't believe in, Mr. Stone, is egotistical and arogant, especially since I have never stated to you, or to anybody else here on these forums, exactly what it is that I do and do not believe in.

My commenting on the fact that passages from the bible - or more specifically the book of Genesis - are, in my opinion, illogical DOES NOT state that I find Christianity to be illogical, whether I do or do not. All I said was that there are many passages, or statements I should say, in the book of Genesis, that are illogical.

I agreed with Raven when he stated that faith and logic do not mix. They don't. Pure and simple. In order to have faith in what I have read thus far, one would have to be intelligent enough to be able to seperate faith from logic in their own minds, otherwise nothing in it makes sense.

And for your information, I'm not reading the bible to prove or disprove anything, my own ideas or anybody elses. I am reading as reference with a completely open and objective standpoint, as I happen to be working on a novel - and have been for quite some time - of which, as I have realized recently, the storyline has developed to the point where religion plays a very significant role, especially in regards to one specific character. Therefore I decided my best bet would be to read the bible in order to be as accurate as I possibly could with that character's views and opinions on religion.

I have never read the bible in its entirety, nor did I ever state that I had. I said that I have read parts of it here and there, which is true. I did not say that I, and I quote, "read [it] before but that it didn’t make any goddamn sense then either". I DID NOT FUCKING SAY THAT! That is YOU trying to force shit into what I said.

I do not hate Jesus. I do not hate God. I do not hate anybody, christian or otherwise. I strongely detest a lot of people, especially people like you, but I do not hate anyone. NOR do I find those who believe in Jesus or chrisianity to be stupid. I, as I have stated before, do not believe anybody is stupid.

People have to believe in something, regardless of what that something is, in order for them to continue living in this world. Because without belief, people feel lost. I believe Jesus represents hope in people, that there is a reason they go on day to day, week after week, year after year, because they know they are not going to live forever in their physical bodies. Because they know that, at some point in time, they're going to die - either by natural causes or by the hand of another person. People fear death more than anything else in the world. Nobody understands exactly what death is, until the moment they actually experience it for themselves. By then it's too late to go tell your family or your friends what you experienced. So they use symbolic figures such as Jesus to give them hope that there is something beyond death that waits for us; that death is not the end. I don't believe humans would have survived as long as they have if it weren't for religion, and figures like Jesus.

I, personally, do not believe Jesus was a god, or the son of a god. That is my personal belief, which I have developed after years of contemplating the concept of Jesus, and god, and analyzing what it is that I believe a true GOD consists of. It is not logical, based on my personal views, that a true GOD could be contained within the flesh of a human body.

That does not mean that I hate Christians, or that I hate Jesus. I have NEVER once said anything like that.

YES, I hate what Christians do, how they try to force their beliefs and morals down other people's throats and how they - as a whole - hold no regard for anybody else's belief system. That is egotism. But that does not mean that I hate Christians.

I've run out of time here.

I will reitterate, do not assume you know what the hell I'm talking about, when I have not said what my beliefs are.
__________________
~E.D.
~v~ ~v~ ~v~

"What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you wanted to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself [or]
Find yourself afraid to see?..." -NIN
ExistentialDisorder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 01:06 PM   #81
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
The only teachings that should be mandatory for students to learn are those that are proven as fact. Example: Mathematics are factual; the structure of the English language, and other languages, is factual; the history of our country is factual. The concepts of both Intelligent Design and evolution are both theory.
The concepts?, the how and why is theory, but evolution does happen. Like gravity, they both obviously exist, the theory is the how and why. Unless you mean in scientific terms, in scientific terms only mathematics is proven, history certainly isn't.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is supposition, not theory, and certainly not scientific theory. By directly comparing them by two different meanings of the same word is just dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
My biology teacher - Mr. Berkowski - was very much Jewish, and when he lectured on evolution he did it the only way it should be done, and that is as theory. He made it very clear to all his students that evolution is theory, and when students questioned him about more religious aspects, such as intelligent design, he also made it very clear that it too was theory. But he didn't lecture on ID, in or out of class, because it was, at least at that time, against the rules of our school for any teacher to discuss any form of religious concepts with their students. He gave limited answers as best he could when people asked about his religion (for some reason a lot of kids found it odd that he was Jewish, I never understood why). I'll also add that I was never one of those who questioned him, unless he stated something that I didn't understand (he and I went round and round on the subject of dna because at the time I just couldn't understand it. I do now, but I didn't understand the way he was trying to explain it). I respected him as a person and as a teacher, and I also respected the fact that he was jewish, regardless of whether or not I personally agreed with his religion.
You owe him no respect as a teacher. It's disgusting that a science teacher would even give intelligent design marketing the faintest veneer of scientific credibility by saying they're both theories as if they're even comparable.

That job is the politician's, not a teacher's. They are supposed to teach, not confuse terms.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 01:54 PM   #82
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
Here's an interesting fact: Humans when raised in the absence of language (this is based purely on one particular psychological case study of a girl who spent the first 13 years of her life treated more poorly than most house pets) tend to lack anything that we would label as a definable personality.

In this particular case study, she knew only very rudimentary language (most often the words used against her as a child such as "No" but also a very broken structured attempt at communication. She could convey points and stuff, but essentially, she was lacking in some basic concepts.

Now contemplate this in tandem with evolutionary theory. What was it that made us successful on an evolutionary scale? The opposable thumb. What beyond that, though, as there are several other species with this same trait? Language.

If you are going to tie intelligent design into anything, it would be sooner applicable to language, perhaps even our own mental capacity. Think of dolphins now. They have a very rudimentary language, though I think it would be fairly safe to assume that given an extended period of time, dolphins will have their own developed language, which would eventually lead to proving evolution correct.

If not, here's an interesting thing to consider: Imagine if Adam and Eve were the firts humans introduced to complex linguistics, and they introduced others to this same system. That would be pretty cool. Not as cool as when I write love letters to myself to feel socio-romantically adequate.... but that's another story.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 02:00 PM   #83
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
My biology teacher - Mr. Berkowski - was very much Jewish, and when he lectured on evolution he did it the only way it should be done, and that is as theory.



He made it very clear to all his students that evolution is theory, and when students questioned him about more religious aspects, such as intelligent design, he also made it very clear that it too was theory.



But he didn't lecture on ID, in or out of class, because it was, at least at that time, against the rules of our school for any teacher to discuss any form of religious concepts with their students. He gave limited answers as best he could when people asked about his religion (for some reason a lot of kids found it odd that he was Jewish, I never understood why). I'll also add that I was never one of those who questioned him, unless he stated something that I didn't understand (he and I went round and round on the subject of dna because at the time I just couldn't understand it. I do now, but I didn't understand the way he was trying to explain it). I respected him as a person and as a teacher, and I also respected the fact that he was jewish, regardless of whether or not I personally agreed with his religion.
Long version:

Theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Let's interpret the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context, and theory in a colloquial context.

...not the same.

Let's interpret the meaning of evolution as a scientific theory, and intelligent design as a theory.

...not the same.

Short version:

Your teacher was an idiot.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 02:09 PM   #84
Rosie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
INTELLIGENT DESIGN - New from Intel.
Rosie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 02:24 PM   #85
Raven113
 
Raven113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
I agreed with Raven when he stated that faith and logic do not mix. They don't. Pure and simple. In order to have faith in what I have read thus far, one would have to be intelligent enough to be able to seperate faith from logic in their own minds, otherwise nothing in it makes sense.
No, I think you missed my meaning. I'm sure they could separate Faith from logic, many of them don't. I'm talking about the benefactors of the ID campaign here (read: not all Christians). They have a major tendency to substitute Faith for logic. Hence why getting in a debate with them is like getting into a land war in Asia, you won't win because they won't listen.

I think this "reasoning with your faith" is fascinating, and I am a little bit envious. I however, as a child of the Church of Reason (and if you get this reference, you'll get why I find ID in the classroom so very offensive), can not function this way.

Oh, and evolution as an elective? That must be a joke.
I really do think you need to brush up on your definitions; it'll save you a lot of grief. Here, hit some familiar ground and check numbers 1 and 6. One definition if for Evolution, one is for ID (though there is another ID fits in). Can you guess which is which?
__________________
"Wit is educated insolence." - Aristotle


Raven113 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 03:08 PM   #86
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
i submit this...



cuz this thread is fuckin' ROCKIN' !!!
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 03:09 PM   #87
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
I think I watched that very same program, but in the case of the young girl I (believe) they were trying to prove a linguistical theory that after a certain age the brains is not able to develop further in communicative complexity.

I don’t think she was the best specimen for a case study, since her emotional instability from years of abuse and trauma clearly had an influence over the outcome.

I, also, though it was rather sad they would turn her into a veritable lab rat, after everything she’d been through, just to prove their theory. I’m glad the courts slapped a restraining order against the bitch that was in charge of collecting the data.

Are you sure about the; raised in an absence of language lack personality, bit? That seems vague and undefinable, since at either spectrum the word (personality or lack there of) defines itself.

Curious.
Poor word choice on my part. As she can't convey her personality verbally, she became, essentially, an animal. Behaviourally, at any rate.

Funny thing, as I was writing that out, I began to realize that I was splicing two aspects of psychology together, but I didn't feel like starting all over again. It had to do with the cerebrum and a human capacity to exist without one, but to lack anything beyond the urges presented by the hind/midbrain.

I highly suggest everyone ignore that first post.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 03:40 PM   #88
angleangel_doom
 
angleangel_doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: I was born on a pirate ship
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars
------------->
That is effing halarious, and if I am the 50 billionth person to say that then I don't care.
But anyways, I think God created monkeys and was too busy to create anything else so he just set an egg timer and went "Fuck it, they'll cook eventually." If you catch my drift than good for you.
__________________
"You MUST be mad,” said the wide-grinning Cheshire cat, “or else you wouldn’t have come here.”
"Either we are very, very, very much in danger, or very, very, very much...safe. "
-Perfect Hair Forever
angleangel_doom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 03:41 PM   #89
OnixxFilth
 
OnixxFilth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 411
I have had no problem reconciling evolution and creationism. I believe that one can be a Christian (like myself) and still believe in evolution. I call it the "starter life-form" theory. My idea is that God made certain kinds of animals and then let nature take over and make them into whatever they needed to be to be best suited to survival and their environment. In my private Christian schools (which I attended until 8th grade) we were taught both evolution and creation. I think teaching creationism isn't necessarily endorsing it. The teacher could say,"This is a theory." I mean, come on, even evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. It hasn't been proven beyond a doubt.
OnixxFilth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 03:43 PM   #90
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnixxFilth
I have had no problem reconciling evolution and creationism. I believe that one can be a Christian (like myself) and still believe in evolution. I call it the "starter life-form" theory. My idea is that God made certain kinds of animals and then let nature take over and make them into whatever they needed to be to be best suited to survival and their environment. In my private Christian schools (which I attended until 8th grade) we were taught both evolution and creation. I think teaching creationism isn't necessarily endorsing it. The teacher could say,"This is a theory." I mean, come on, even evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. It hasn't been proven beyond a doubt.
I stress the ambiguity of the word theory.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 04:03 PM   #91
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnixxFilth
I mean, come on, even evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. It hasn't been proven beyond a doubt.
Ooo, so dishonest, I kill you!

... what?, I got bored with making sensible arguements ...
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 06:33 PM   #92
ghostposts
 
ghostposts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 232
I have a simpler, kind of "cop out" response to the whole thing. We don't know what kind of mechanisms the Creator used to seed this planet with life. The world changes, and we've seen evolution in living species.

The only problem I have with the theory of evolution as it is taught today is that it leaves no room for a deliberate design. If we can't know the mechanisms of a creator, how can we discount such an entity's actions or planned interference? Yet the theory, as I've seen it espoused, is as vehemently anti-religious as many religious people are anti-evolution.

I see no reason why both can't hold a kernel of truth. I also see no reason why they are diametrically opposed, as pure theories. The application of those theories and the attitudes and actions of the people espousing them are what seem to be at odds.

In the conclusion of The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said,

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. "

Basically, I follow this line of thought, but leave it open for others to form their own conclusions. And, I don't see that as opting out on God. If He can create, he can influence, guide, alter... If I believe in a living planet, I believe in a living God.
ghostposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 07:43 PM   #93
ExistentialDisorder
 
ExistentialDisorder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbia, S.C. (USA)
Posts: 363
Bullshit. You're so full of shit stone that, and I'll quote, 'I never believed the devil was real, but god couldn't make something filthy as you.'

Don't bother wasting your time with your pathetic, word twisting comments on anything I say from now on, as from this point forward I dismiss and ignore you and your pathetic, pointless babble.

As for everybody else, I have to ask is Intelligent Design not the same as Creationism? I've always thought they were one in the same, as has everything I've heard suggests they are, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I admit, I do not specifically recall the phrase Intelligent Design ever being used when I was in high school. I used it here in reference to Creationism, but if ID and Creationism are in fact different, then I was wrong and I appologize for the confusion.

Regardless of what you call it, Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, it is nothing more than a theory. And yes, I know very well what the definition of theory is.

The same goes for evolution, at least that which pertains to modern man. It is nothing more than a theory. Nobody has proven beyond a doubt that man evolved from apes.

When I spoke of evolution vs ID/Creationism I assumed everybody knew that it was in relation to humans. Forgive me for assuming anything.

And as for the theory I described in my 2nd post in this thread, it had nothing to do with hatred towards christians (which does not exist in me, regardless of what anybody else chooses to believe, or tries to persuade others into believing of me. I can strongly detest what it is they try to force down my throat on a daily basis, but that does not mean that I hate them as people).

I'm not the only person that believes it is possible that humans came about by direct manipulation of some outside source or sources. That doesn't mean it was done by god or gods. I don't see it being relavent to religion because I don't believe that humans are the most intelligent beings in the universe. There are quite possibly and probably other much more advanced civilizations out there. To believe that humans are the most intelligent beings is arrogant and narrow-minded. But a much more advanced race and level of intelligence does not make them gods.

There was a movie a while back called Contact with Jodi Foster. I'm sure that at least some of you are familiar with it. For the most part it was rather boring, except the part when she actually communicated with whatever being it was. Durring their brief conversation it tried to explain to her that the human mind is still too primitive to ever be able to comprehend, even visually, the physical existence of their race. (that is, the race of the being she was communicating with). Therefore it manifested itself visually in the form of her father. That, to me, was incredible because it was very close to what my idea of a god-like being has always been. Just multiply it by about a million times.

And if you consider the process of time, and the various ideas on how time passes, whose to say our creation or creator(s) do not come from our very distant future? You can drive yourself to near insanity trying to comprehend the way time passes and its cycle. I do believe that time travels on a cycle and is eventually repeated.

I don't believe the actions that take place by god's doing in the bible were committed all by the same god. There's too much rath and vengeance, and a god would not be capable of such things, simply because they are primitive acts by nature and are rooted in emotion. At least not based on the concept of a god as I see it.

Anyway, that is just a sample of how I perceive it all. I don't claim that it is right or set in stone, or that there are no other options. I could go on but you've all made it rather clear that alternate opinions, especially those that conflict with your own, are not welcome here and you could give a shit less. So go ahead and tear it all apart with your criticisms. It won't matter, and it it won't change how I feel or think on the subject. I benefit nothing from your beliefs or your opinions of me. I only offer my ideas and opinions as possible options to the open-minded. And if the fact that I don't believe Jesus was a god condems me to hell - which I also don't believe in - then so be it. I'll go there with contentment and pride in the simple fact that I didn't allow the beliefs of others to oppress my own beliefs or to take away my freedom of thought and reason.
__________________
~E.D.
~v~ ~v~ ~v~

"What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you wanted to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself [or]
Find yourself afraid to see?..." -NIN
ExistentialDisorder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 11:17 PM   #94
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
Bullshit. You're so full of shit stone that, and I'll quote, 'I never believed the devil was real, but god couldn't make something filthy as you.'

Don't bother wasting your time with your pathetic, word twisting comments on anything I say from now on, as from this point forward I dismiss and ignore you and your pathetic, pointless babble.

As for everybody else, I have to ask is Intelligent Design not the same as Creationism? I've always thought they were one in the same, as has everything I've heard suggests they are, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I admit, I do not specifically recall the phrase Intelligent Design ever being used when I was in high school. I used it here in reference to Creationism, but if ID and Creationism are in fact different, then I was wrong and I appologize for the confusion.

Regardless of what you call it, Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever, it is nothing more than a theory. And yes, I know very well what the definition of theory is.

The same goes for evolution, at least that which pertains to modern man. It is nothing more than a theory. Nobody has proven beyond a doubt that man evolved from apes.

When I spoke of evolution vs ID/Creationism I assumed everybody knew that it was in relation to humans. Forgive me for assuming anything.

And as for the theory I described in my 2nd post in this thread, it had nothing to do with hatred towards christians (which does not exist in me, regardless of what anybody else chooses to believe, or tries to persuade others into believing of me. I can strongly detest what it is they try to force down my throat on a daily basis, but that does not mean that I hate them as people).

I'm not the only person that believes it is possible that humans came about by direct manipulation of some outside source or sources. That doesn't mean it was done by god or gods. I don't see it being relavent to religion because I don't believe that humans are the most intelligent beings in the universe. There are quite possibly and probably other much more advanced civilizations out there. To believe that humans are the most intelligent beings is arrogant and narrow-minded. But a much more advanced race and level of intelligence does not make them gods.

There was a movie a while back called Contact with Jodi Foster. I'm sure that at least some of you are familiar with it. For the most part it was rather boring, except the part when she actually communicated with whatever being it was. Durring their brief conversation it tried to explain to her that the human mind is still too primitive to ever be able to comprehend, even visually, the physical existence of their race. (that is, the race of the being she was communicating with). Therefore it manifested itself visually in the form of her father. That, to me, was incredible because it was very close to what my idea of a god-like being has always been. Just multiply it by about a million times.

And if you consider the process of time, and the various ideas on how time passes, whose to say our creation or creator(s) do not come from our very distant future? You can drive yourself to near insanity trying to comprehend the way time passes and its cycle. I do believe that time travels on a cycle and is eventually repeated.

I don't believe the actions that take place by god's doing in the bible were committed all by the same god. There's too much rath and vengeance, and a god would not be capable of such things, simply because they are primitive acts by nature and are rooted in emotion. At least not based on the concept of a god as I see it.

Anyway, that is just a sample of how I perceive it all. I don't claim that it is right or set in stone, or that there are no other options. I could go on but you've all made it rather clear that alternate opinions, especially those that conflict with your own, are not welcome here and you could give a shit less. So go ahead and tear it all apart with your criticisms. It won't matter, and it it won't change how I feel or think on the subject. I benefit nothing from your beliefs or your opinions of me. I only offer my ideas and opinions as possible options to the open-minded. And if the fact that I don't believe Jesus was a god condems me to hell - which I also don't believe in - then so be it. I'll go there with contentment and pride in the simple fact that I didn't allow the beliefs of others to oppress my own beliefs or to take away my freedom of thought and reason.
IDiot.I think it is annoying that you need to post a certain length
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 11:18 PM   #95
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
No, you obviously don't know the definition of theory if you are using the term interchangeably between two VERY different "theories."
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2005, 11:32 PM   #96
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostposts
The only problem I have with the theory of evolution as it is taught today is that it leaves no room for a deliberate design. If we can't know the mechanisms of a creator, how can we discount such an entity's actions or planned interference? Yet the theory, as I've seen it espoused, is as vehemently anti-religious as many religious people are anti-evolution.
Is the Creator (not that I like to start with the idea that there is one when there isn't, but for purposes of discussion) a God of gaps in knowledge only?, I don't think science as it is taught is anti-religion or anti-spiritual. What it is however is secular, and without God. This doesn't mean it's against the idea, just God never comes into it, science doesn't need God because science deals with the natural world.

Science is anti-religion in the same way that Pokemon tournaments is anti-religion, or the same way that your bank is anti-religion, it's not that it's anti-religion, simply that God doesn't really come into it.

In Biblical terms, render unto Caesar (the Roman dude, not the dog food) what is Caesars and render unto God what is His (I'm paraphrasing of course). Explaining the mechanics of evolution does naught to say that God didn't start it.

What it does do however, is falsify the literal bible. Then again, that still doesn't make it anti-religious unless you interpret the bible a certain way and have based your religion on that interpretation of the bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostposts
I see no reason why both can't hold a kernel of truth. I also see no reason why they are diametrically opposed, as pure theories. The application of those theories and the attitudes and actions of the people espousing them are what seem to be at odds.
This is not the fault of evolution, it is the fault of ID proponents whom disguise a faith-based supposition as scientific and then say its the same thing as the process of evolution by deliberately using two different meanings of the word "theory". There is no reason at all why they are diametrically opposed once the fact that they don't cover the same topic or try to answer the same question is realised. Like you say, it's the application that is opposed, and that is the fault of IDs attempts to confuse the issue and debunk an observable process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostposts
In the conclusion of The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said,

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. "

Basically, I follow this line of thought, but leave it open for others to form their own conclusions. And, I don't see that as opting out on God. If He can create, he can influence, guide, alter... If I believe in a living planet, I believe in a living God.
Don't you answer yourself here? How is that different from simply keeping religion out of the science class because the two topics don't need each other?
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 01:59 AM   #97
ghostposts
 
ghostposts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 232
I don't have a problem with ID being left out of the Curriculum. Religion should be taught in religious institutions, or at home.

Evolution debunks Christianity in some text books. Not all, thank goodness, but there are some. I've seen it labled "Mythology", which can't be proven. It's there, in black and white, in a handful of books. I had one of those gems in high school. Most teachers, students and parents blow this off, but I've seen discussions become heated in classrooms, and students wasting their time on what is basically a religious issue.

What I take exception to is the way many parents insist on introducing ID into the curriculum. It's like they don't trust their kids to make up their own minds.
ghostposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 02:25 AM   #98
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Seriously?

What the heck is Christianity even doing being mentioned in a science textbook?
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 02:54 AM   #99
Empty_Purple_Stars
 
Empty_Purple_Stars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right Here
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
IDiot.I think it is annoying that you need to post a certain length
The subtley there is truly beautiful..

Sniffle..

I gave you brownie points via your YahooMessenger ID..

o0o0o there it is again!

Empty_Purple_Stars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2005, 03:12 AM   #100
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder
I do not hate Jesus. I do not hate God. I do not hate anybody, christian or otherwise. I strongely detest a lot of people, especially people like you, but I do not hate anyone.
Before I forget:

One entry found for detest.

Main Entry: de·test
Etymology: Middle French detester or Latin detestari; Middle French detester, from Latin detestari, literally, to curse while calling a deity to witness, from de- + testari to call to witness -- more at TESTAMENT
1 : to feel intense and often violent antipathy toward : LOATHE
2 obsolete : CURSE, DENOUNCE
synonym see HATE
- de·test·er noun
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution CptSternn Spooky News 75 03-20-2010 11:07 AM
What Religion do you Follow??? Crying_Crimson_Tears General 378 04-01-2009 07:29 PM
Evolution Godslayer Jillian General 187 03-15-2009 02:18 PM
Darwin In The News Again CptSternn Spooky News 39 02-14-2009 11:26 AM
The Vatican Sides Up with Evolution The Minister Saint-Fond Spooky News 16 01-20-2006 10:03 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 AM.