[quote]Christine wrote:
So, I will agree with you on this: The Grateful Dead rules!
[/quote]
Really? Was it that unclear? Well it doesn’t actually seem like your all fired interested in the discourse, so I’ll leave it at that.
And yes they sure as hell do. To bad Bobby had all the sound boards pulled off the internet. It’s hard to find a good quality '80’s show. That clown they had in the booth (I forgot his name) at that time massacred the recordings, so good '80s shows are hard to find. Know anybody with and FTP site? Now the want the $$ for them…Some hippies they turned out to be! :)[/quote]
I used to have a few tapes, but I have no idea what happened to them. Sorry, I can’t help you out.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight, so it is difficult to get fired up.
[quote]Christine wrote:
So, I will agree with you on this: The Grateful Dead rules!
[/quote]
Really? Was it that unclear? Well it doesn’t actually seem like your all fired interested in the discourse, so I’ll leave it at that.
And yes they sure as hell do. To bad Bobby had all the sound boards pulled off the internet. It’s hard to find a good quality '80’s show. That clown they had in the booth (I forgot his name) at that time massacred the recordings, so good '80s shows are hard to find. Know anybody with and FTP site? Now the want the $$ for them…Some hippies they turned out to be! :)[/quote]
I used to have a few tapes, but I have no idea what happened to them. Sorry, I can’t help you out.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight, so it is difficult to get fired up.[/quote]
Here ya go, a little peace offering. You can listen at work and get your Dead on, provided your firewall allows streaming.
Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty interesting point.
I think I remember reading Darwin struggled with his Christian beliefs when he uncovered evolution.[/quote]
I have to look that up. I cannot see what discovering Evolution had to do with Christian belief and why that would invalidate the other.[/quote]
The field of biology initially started as the study of god’s creation. The idea was, because god created nature, understanding it would bring you closer to god.
So every discovery that’s been made which opposes what you find in a Bible was most likely set into motion by someone who started researching with the goal of trying to know god better through his works.
It’s incredibly ironic that religion now views science, especially biology, as a threat. It’s even more ironic that less people are religious because of science. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and never seeing it coming.[/quote]
A threat? LOL!
Where the hell did you get that notion? Unbelievable. Don’t let facts get in the way you hate filled bigotry.
Apparently you don’t know shit about religion except what you read on those idiotic atheist propaganda websites. Besides, if atheism isn’t a belief, why does it need propaganda in the first place?
I do find it irronic that all you little atheists all say the same thing like you all read the same book, but them claim it’s about 'independent thought. But you all babble on about fair tales, Sky God, Magic Sky fairy and yes the inevitable and venerable flying spaghetti monster.
There is no conflict between religion and science. Save for some little out post sects on the outskirts of Christianity. Plenty of scientists also happen to be Christian.
But no, go on being complete ignorant and to you little ignorant hate filled rants, despite the fact that they have no basis in fact.
OR, maybe you should do some research and find out what verious religions really believe before you come here and say stupid shit that has no validy…
“Oooooooo, look at me! I can copy and paste from atheist web sites and mock these stupid Christians. I am soooo smart and they are like sooooo stupid!”
[/quote]
Wow that touched a nerve didn’t it?!
Let’s look at the assumptions you just made:
I hate Christianity. If you look at my first post on this thread, you’ll see that my view point of Christianity or any religion isn’t hate, it’s basically what you yourself would experience if you replaced the words “God” “Jesus” “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Father” with Santa in every religious conversation you hear on a regular basis. You feel weird hearing adults discussing Santa as if he was real, but you don’t hate them nor do you hate Santa or Christmas.
So that’s one false conclusion you immediately jumped to based on your own defensive reflexes and nothing having to do with who I am.
You assumed that the science websites I copied from are atheist. This is really hilarious in light of your argument that Christians aren’t threatened by science because the science website I coped from WASN’T ATHEIST! Just ask any Catholic. lol. It simply stated the studies that have been done on evolution and even provided a link to every single one of the studies! If anything, it’s a very convenient collection of all of the science that’s been done on a topic. If you consider that atheist, you’re only furthering the argument that you see science as a threat to your religion. I challenge you to find one claim on here that isn’t backed by a study and that also claims that god doesn’t exist 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5 .
“There is no conflict between science and religion”. If you really believe this, you are extremely uneducated. Open a history book. Most scientific discoveries have been opposed and nearly squashed by a religious body, starting with Galileo discovering that the planets travel around the sun. There are hundreds of other examples, including evolution.
Your post was filled with derogatory language. You attacked me, calling me “hateful, ignorant, little, and a hate-filled bigotry”. Why do you feel that I hate because I disagree and find religion’s connection to science ironic? What about me makes it so you need to view me as small, ignorant, and hateful? What would it mean to you if I was normal-sized (figuratively speaking), well-read, and didn’t hate you?
I want you to find me one Christian web-page on the topic of evolution that has an equal amount of links to peer-reviewed, scientific studies as the evolution website I posted, so we can prove that religion embraces science. BTW, on that one page of the website I posted, there are 39 peer reviewed studies cited. On the other pages of the website, there are also ~40 studies listed. Obviously several studies are found listed on several of the pages. So, taking that into consideration, there are at least 50 peer-reviewed studies on that website.
Discounting the books listed on here and sticking to the peer reviewed studies, there are probably around 75-100 listed in the total site references. I don’t have time to count them all, but anyone is welcome to:
I want you to find me one Christian web-page on the topic of evolution that has an equal amount of links to peer-reviewed, scientific studies as the evolution website I posted, so we can prove that religion embraces science.
[/quote]
Huh? Why would Christian web-pages, friendly or not to evolution, collect such? An evolution friendly Christian would just go to the science site the same as he’d go to a cooking site for a new meatloaf recipe.
I want you to find me one Christian web-page on the topic of evolution that has an equal amount of links to peer-reviewed, scientific studies as the evolution website I posted, so we can prove that religion embraces science.
[/quote]
Huh? Why would Christian web-pages, friendly or not to evolution, collect such? An evolution friendly Christian would just go to the science site the same as he’d go to a cooking site for a new meatloaf recipe.
[/quote]
Why wouldn’t the Christian web-page have science on it if Christianity embraces science and science proved to be good evidence for others to believe in Christianity? I’d think that they’d post anything they could to share the love of god with others, especially science. That was why we have science: because religious people wanted to get to know God better. So the fact that Christian web-pages aren’t filled with scientific studies, which should have proven the wonders of their god, is suspect.
Why wouldn’t the Christian web-page have science on it if Christianity embraces science and science proved to be good evidence for others to believe in Christianity? [/quote]
Nuh-uh, stop right there. Why would any site, besides other evolution sites, have anything like the number of evolution references an evolution site would have? This is a bizarre challenge. Does T-Nation have evolution articles?
Why wouldn’t the Christian web-page have science on it if Christianity embraces science and science proved to be good evidence for others to believe in Christianity? [/quote]
Nuh-uh, stop right there. Why would any site, besides other evolution sites, have anything like the number of evolution references an evolution site would have? This is a bizarre challenge. Does T-Nation have evolution articles?
[/quote]
If a T NATION article determined that an evolution study was good evidence for it’s claim regarding muscle development, you KNOW it would be used as a reference. Also, I didn’t say it had to be an evolution scientific reference, I just said “reference”. T NATION has THOUSANDS of references to peer-reviewed science studies. Thus, we can easily see that T NATION embraces science. The same cannot be said for Christian websites trying to convince people to believe in god and accept a new way of life, unless someone proves me wrong by linking us to one that does.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Also, I didn’t say it had to be an evolution scientific reference, I just said “reference”.[/quote]
“I want you to find me one Christian web-page on the topic of evolution that has an equal amount of links to peer-reviewed, scientific studies as the evolution website I posted…”
The library at Castel Gandolfo contains more than 22,000 volumes and possesses a valuable collection of rare antique books including works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Clavius, and Secchi. In addition there is a unique meteorite collection from which a knowledge of the early history of the solar system is being derived. Research results are published in international journals.
The Annual Report is distributed to more than 400 institutes around the world. At intervals of about every two years the Observatory hosts either at Castel Gandolfo or at Tucson a scientific meeting with some twenty invited scholars on one of the current studies of the Observatory, and a book is published based on the results of the conference. In 1986 in Castel Gandolfo, the Vatican Observatory organized a month-long Summer School in Astronomy and Astrophysics for 25 students from around the world taught by eminent scholars invited for the occasion.
The Summer School took place again in 1988 and since then has become a biennial event in the Observatory?s programs. Researchers working with the Observatory astronomers have also been hosted in Castel Gandolfo for varying periods of time.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Also, I didn’t say it had to be an evolution scientific reference, I just said “reference”.[/quote]
“I want you to find me one Christian web-page on the topic of evolution that has an equal amount of links to peer-reviewed, scientific studies as the evolution website I posted…”[/quote]
Fine. Make that any topic. However, you know as well as I do that if there was scientific evidence of intelligent design, those who endorse it would have those studies listed on their web-page. If there were over 100 peer-reviewed studies backing the concepts and showing specific examples of intelligent design experiments, they would be posted on the religious site as a reason for people to believe.
The library at Castel Gandolfo contains more than 22,000 volumes and possesses a valuable collection of rare antique books including works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Clavius, and Secchi. In addition there is a unique meteorite collection from which a knowledge of the early history of the solar system is being derived. Research results are published in international journals. The Annual Report is distributed to more than 400 institutes around the world.
At intervals of about every two years the Observatory hosts either at Castel Gandolfo or at Tucson a scientific meeting with some twenty invited scholars on one of the current studies of the Observatory, and a book is published based on the results of the conference.
In 1986 in Castel Gandolfo, the Vatican Observatory organized a month-long Summer School in Astronomy and Astrophysics for 25 students from around the world taught by eminent scholars invited for the occasion. The Summer School took place again in 1988 and since then has become a biennial event in the Observatory?s programs. Researchers working with the Observatory astronomers have also been hosted in Castel Gandolfo for varying periods of time. [/quote]
I’ll admit that the Catholic Church has had a better attitude toward science than other institutions.
Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, the Church did not insist on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, which had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[6]
No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[7] The early Church Fathers taught creationismâ??though there was debate being over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[10] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.
I’ll modify my previous statement: some religions have not embraced science.
Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty interesting point.
I think I remember reading Darwin struggled with his Christian beliefs when he uncovered evolution.[/quote]
I have to look that up. I cannot see what discovering Evolution had to do with Christian belief and why that would invalidate the other.[/quote]
The field of biology initially started as the study of god’s creation. The idea was, because god created nature, understanding it would bring you closer to god.
So every discovery that’s been made which opposes what you find in a Bible was most likely set into motion by someone who started researching with the goal of trying to know god better through his works.
It’s incredibly ironic that religion now views science, especially biology, as a threat. It’s even more ironic that less people are religious because of science. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and never seeing it coming.[/quote]
A threat? LOL!
Where the hell did you get that notion? Unbelievable. Don’t let facts get in the way you hate filled bigotry.
Apparently you don’t know shit about religion except what you read on those idiotic atheist propaganda websites. Besides, if atheism isn’t a belief, why does it need propaganda in the first place?
I do find it irronic that all you little atheists all say the same thing like you all read the same book, but them claim it’s about 'independent thought. But you all babble on about fair tales, Sky God, Magic Sky fairy and yes the inevitable and venerable flying spaghetti monster.
There is no conflict between religion and science. Save for some little out post sects on the outskirts of Christianity. Plenty of scientists also happen to be Christian.
But no, go on being complete ignorant and to you little ignorant hate filled rants, despite the fact that they have no basis in fact.
OR, maybe you should do some research and find out what verious religions really believe before you come here and say stupid shit that has no validy…
“Oooooooo, look at me! I can copy and paste from atheist web sites and mock these stupid Christians. I am soooo smart and they are like sooooo stupid!”
[/quote]
Wow that touched a nerve didn’t it?!
Let’s look at the assumptions you just made:
[/quote]
Assumptions I made? Like the ones where you said that science is a big, bad scary monster to religion? But ok, I’ll play.
Hmm, so ok, you don’t hate it, you just mock it proclaim the stupidity of Christians based on, uh, love? Forgive me if that sounds disingenious. Further, I didn’t say you ‘hate religion’, I said your a ‘hate filled bigot’. A bigot being someone who discriminates and thinks less of people based on misconceptions and ignorance which you are clearly displaying.
Let me break it down for you, you see, you cannot draw any sort of conclusion of a mythical creature to solve deductive issues. You have this idiotic idea, we (Christians) just read the bible and ‘Whamo!’ we believe it like a Harry Potter book, or some other fictional book. We just arbitrarily assign it to be sacred.
This is where you are a bigot, because you do not understand that, nor can you be bothered to do a little research. There is a logic behind it as well, and once you understand that, then you can begin to understand what religion is about. But no, it’s a made up fairy tale even though it’s not.
Oh so it’s all about you? If your comparing God to Santa Claus and saying how it’s a fairy tale, pardon me, but your full of shit. But it’s all about you I suppose.
I didn’t read the website since I already believe that evolutionary science is good science and well founded, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the current universe likely was the result of an explosion from about 13-15 billion years ago. But earlier, you did in fact post athiest propaganda as I have seen those sites before. You know the whole ‘flying spaghetti monster’ bullshit you tried to peddle as if it were something new.
It’s interesting as well that you mentioned, Catholics as separate from Christians? First, I am Catholic; second, we were the Origional Christians. All the other sects brached out from us.
So your argument for this is that hundreds of years ago, when the affairs of the church, state and pretty much all things were mixed together, some people thought that some scientific discoveries were frowned upon so that’s just the way it is forever?
I went to a Catholic high school that’s where I first learned about evolution.
So by that logic we can go ahead and say science is full of shit too. Because along time ago, it thought the Earth was flat.
Not one of those things nor any newer theories are a problem for religion. Hell, there’s plenty of scientists who also happen to be Christian as well. To think that science is a threat to religion is another sign of your ignorance.
What kind of horseshit are you trying to feed me now? You were being deliberately insulting and arrogant and you are making assumptions about what I believe and attacking that. Don’t give me that happy crap that I took it wrong. I ‘attacked’ you? I gave what I received. You cannot go around saying “You guys believe in fairy tales and God is like the flying spaghetti monsters, you’re stupid”. And then come back and say that’s not what you meant or that you meant it in the best possible way. Your Jedi mind trick won’t work on me.
Rather than getting to the heart of the matter, i.e. does God exist and is there any point of worshiping he, she and/or it. You get all personal. “You attacked me”, well, no shit. You didn’t start any kind of dialog looking for honest discourse, you went out to prove how very stupid we Christians are and how very smart you atheists are because you can’t sense God with your 5 senses, so he must not exist.
“Oh my God!” scratch that… “Oh my nothing! You used derogatory language!” Really? Apparently, you can dish it, but you cannot take it.
Why the hell would I go look for a ‘Christian’ web page on the topic of evolution discussing it as a science? I am not sure what you think that would prove at all. However, if your interested, here is a link to an article that discusses how evolution theory in not in conflict with Christianity.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Also, I didn’t say it had to be an evolution scientific reference, I just said “reference”.[/quote]
“I want you to find me one Christian web-page on the topic of evolution that has an equal amount of links to peer-reviewed, scientific studies as the evolution website I posted…”[/quote]
I want her to find me one website, 57 peer reviews that proves that God doesn’t exist because of evolution.
The library at Castel Gandolfo contains more than 22,000 volumes and possesses a valuable collection of rare antique books including works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Clavius, and Secchi. In addition there is a unique meteorite collection from which a knowledge of the early history of the solar system is being derived. Research results are published in international journals. The Annual Report is distributed to more than 400 institutes around the world. At intervals of about every two years the Observatory hosts either at Castel Gandolfo or at Tucson a scientific meeting with some twenty invited scholars on one of the current studies of the Observatory, and a book is published based on the results of the conference. In 1986 in Castel Gandolfo, the Vatican Observatory organized a month-long Summer School in Astronomy and Astrophysics for 25 students from around the world taught by eminent scholars invited for the occasion. The Summer School took place again in 1988 and since then has become a biennial event in the Observatory?s programs. Researchers working with the Observatory astronomers have also been hosted in Castel Gandolfo for varying periods of time. [/quote]
I’ll admit that the Catholic Church has had a better attitude toward science than other institutions.
Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, the Church did not insist on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, which had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[6] No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[7] The early Church Fathers taught creationismâ??though there was debate being over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[10] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.
I’ll modify my previous statement: some religions have not embraced science.[/quote]
On that note, time for church. Hold the fort down, folks.
The library at Castel Gandolfo contains more than 22,000 volumes and possesses a valuable collection of rare antique books including works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Clavius, and Secchi. In addition there is a unique meteorite collection from which a knowledge of the early history of the solar system is being derived. Research results are published in international journals. The Annual Report is distributed to more than 400 institutes around the world. At intervals of about every two years the Observatory hosts either at Castel Gandolfo or at Tucson a scientific meeting with some twenty invited scholars on one of the current studies of the Observatory, and a book is published based on the results of the conference. In 1986 in Castel Gandolfo, the Vatican Observatory organized a month-long Summer School in Astronomy and Astrophysics for 25 students from around the world taught by eminent scholars invited for the occasion. The Summer School took place again in 1988 and since then has become a biennial event in the Observatory?s programs. Researchers working with the Observatory astronomers have also been hosted in Castel Gandolfo for varying periods of time. [/quote]
I’ll admit that the Catholic Church has had a better attitude toward science than other institutions.
Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, the Church did not insist on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, which had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[6] No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[7] The early Church Fathers taught creationismâ??though there was debate being over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[10] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.
I’ll modify my previous statement: some religions have not embraced science.[/quote]
Atta girl!
Some atheists have murdered millions of people because of religious beliefs. Doesn’t make it all atheists does it?
Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty interesting point.
I think I remember reading Darwin struggled with his Christian beliefs when he uncovered evolution.[/quote]
I have to look that up. I cannot see what discovering Evolution had to do with Christian belief and why that would invalidate the other.[/quote]
The field of biology initially started as the study of god’s creation. The idea was, because god created nature, understanding it would bring you closer to god.
So every discovery that’s been made which opposes what you find in a Bible was most likely set into motion by someone who started researching with the goal of trying to know god better through his works.
It’s incredibly ironic that religion now views science, especially biology, as a threat. It’s even more ironic that less people are religious because of science. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and never seeing it coming.[/quote]
A threat? LOL!
Where the hell did you get that notion? Unbelievable. Don’t let facts get in the way you hate filled bigotry.
Apparently you don’t know shit about religion except what you read on those idiotic atheist propaganda websites. Besides, if atheism isn’t a belief, why does it need propaganda in the first place?
I do find it irronic that all you little atheists all say the same thing like you all read the same book, but them claim it’s about 'independent thought. But you all babble on about fair tales, Sky God, Magic Sky fairy and yes the inevitable and venerable flying spaghetti monster.
There is no conflict between religion and science. Save for some little out post sects on the outskirts of Christianity. Plenty of scientists also happen to be Christian.
But no, go on being complete ignorant and to you little ignorant hate filled rants, despite the fact that they have no basis in fact.
OR, maybe you should do some research and find out what verious religions really believe before you come here and say stupid shit that has no validy…
“Oooooooo, look at me! I can copy and paste from atheist web sites and mock these stupid Christians. I am soooo smart and they are like sooooo stupid!”
[/quote]
Wow that touched a nerve didn’t it?!
Let’s look at the assumptions you just made:
[/quote]
Assumptions I made? Like the ones where you said that science is a big, bad scary monster to religion? But ok, I’ll play.
Hmm, so ok, you don’t hate it, you just mock it proclaim the stupidity of Christians based on, uh, love? Forgive me if that sounds disingenious. Further, I didn’t say you ‘hate religion’, I said your a ‘hate filled bigot’. A bigot being someone who discriminates and thinks less of people based on misconceptions and ignorance which you are clearly displaying.
Let me break it down for you, you see, you cannot draw any sort of conclusion of a mythical creature to solve deductive issues. You have this idiotic idea, we (Christians) just read the bible and ‘Whamo!’ we believe it like a Harry Potter book, or some other fictional book. We just arbitrarily assign it to be sacred.
This is where you are a bigot, because you do not understand that, nor can you be bothered to do a little research. There is a logic behind it as well, and once you understand that, then you can begin to understand what religion is about. But no, it’s a made up fairy tale even though it’s not.
Oh so it’s all about you? If your comparing God to Santa Claus and saying how it’s a fairy tale, pardon me, but your full of shit. But it’s all about you I suppose.
I didn’t read the website since I already believe that evolutionary science is good science and well founded, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the current universe likely was the result of an explosion from about 13-15 billion years ago. But earlier, you did in fact post athiest propaganda as I have seen those sites before. You know the whole ‘flying spaghetti monster’ bullshit you tried to peddle as if it were something new.
It’s interesting as well that you mentioned, Catholics as separate from Christians? First, I am Catholic; second, we were the Origional Christians. All the other sects brached out from us.
So your argument for this is that hundreds of years ago, when the affairs of the church, state and pretty much all things were mixed together, some people thought that some scientific discoveries were frowned upon so that’s just the way it is forever?
I went to a Catholic high school that’s where I first learned about evolution.
So by that logic we can go ahead and say science is full of shit too. Because along time ago, it thought the Earth was flat.
Not one of those things nor any newer theories are a problem for religion. Hell, there’s plenty of scientists who also happen to be Christian as well. To think that science is a threat to religion is another sign of your ignorance.
What kind of horseshit are you trying to feed me now? You were being deliberately insulting and arrogant and you are making assumptions about what I believe and attacking that. Don’t give me that happy crap that I took it wrong. I ‘attacked’ you? I gave what I received. You cannot go around saying “You guys believe in fairy tales and God is like the flying spaghetti monsters, you’re stupid”. And then come back and say that’s not what you meant or that you meant it in the best possible way. Your Jedi mind trick won’t work on me.
Rather than getting to the heart of the matter, i.e. does God exist and is there any point of worshiping he, she and/or it. You get all personal. “You attacked me”, well, no shit. You didn’t start any kind of dialog looking for honest discourse, you went out to prove how very stupid we Christians are and how very smart you atheists are because you can’t sense God with your 5 senses, so he must not exist.
“Oh my God!” scratch that… “Oh my nothing! You used derogatory language!” Really? Apparently, you can dish it, but you cannot take it.
Why the hell would I go look for a ‘Christian’ web page on the topic of evolution discussing it as a science? I am not sure what you think that would prove at all. However, if your interested, here is a link to an article that discusses how evolution theory in not in conflict with Christianity.
Please tell me what evidence you based your decision to believe in Catholicism on? BTW, I will never tell you for sure that god DOESN’T exist, but I do know for sure that you can’t know for sure, so anyone who says that they do obviously used faulty logic to make such a claim. I also know that there are older religions then Christianity and Catholicism and that people lived before even the oldest religions we know about came into existence, so I do not believe that those religions are anything other than another made-up answer about a topic humanity has always wondered about.
Also, where did I mock the stupidity of Christians? I pointed out that it’s absurd to think religion should be taught as equal to science in terms of having a process by which someone can try to figure out the answer to a question. If you believe that religion has a process equal to science in terms of figuring out answers to physical questions, then yes, I’m amused. I don’t necessarily think you’re stupid, but I wonder what process of life experiences made that a possible conclusion for you. On that note, I have a very smart friend who’s not religious, but he’s a complete anti-science nut-job. I know where he got that- drugs. I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation in cases of the extremely religious as well.
There’s a huge difference between religion’s assumptions about the physical world and science’s; science overcame their assumptions by themselves. Science allows for new discoveries to be made- religion makes no new discoveries on its own and has to “phase out” old assumptions it’s made that have been disproved by science. Without science, none of these assumptions would have disappeared.
Lastly, the belief in god isn’t what I am standing against in this thread. What I oppose is teaching religion as equal to science in terms of understanding the physical world. Also, let it stand that I don’t think you’re stupid, but even very smart people cling to ideas that don’t make sense.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Discounting the books listed on here and sticking to the peer reviewed studies, there are probably around 75-100 listed in the total site references. I don’t have time to count them all, but anyone is welcome to:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/refs.html[/quote]I have to laugh. Once again. The theory of foundational knowledge assumed by EVERY last evolutionist on the face of this earth, theistic or not, is wholly mal-equipped to provide certainty regarding even a 1st grade mathematics problem to say nothing of “the origin of the species” or anything else of ultimate consequence. The “science” undergirding macro-evolution, is a giant stew of incestuous presuppositional dishonesty wherein one person or group proceeds on the assumption/s of another person or group as if those assumptions are established universally acknowledged unchallenged fact.
Not even among unbelieving pagans hostile to the gospel is any major sub theory, dating method or piece of alleged evidence even close to universally agreed upon. The reason I don’t find arguing evidence profitable is not because I’m afraid to or that I’m no good at it. It’s because for the 10,000th time, until we determine HOW we know 2+2=4 any discussion whatsoever about WHAT we know is manifestly meaningless. And that at the cost of waaaay too much time and work.
Why would I throw out abuncha empirical data demonstrating the overwhelming probability of the truth of the bible, of which there is plenty, when the people I’m throwing it at are dead in sin and utterly incapable of seeing anything except what is to them the truth of their own exalted autonomy? More importantly, probability has no meaning in the realm of ultimate questions to be begin with. I’m not at all interested in proving the probability of anything which is an oxymoron anyway. Proving probability? The God I serve is eternal certainty itself.
Traditional apologetics concedes not only home field advantage to the opposition, but forfeits the game before the first pitch is thrown. The true and living God who is the alone foundation of all being and the incomprehensible power who commands matter and light to exist ex nihilo, from nothing, cannot be put in a petri dish, smeared on a slide or in any other way be subject to the arrogant probing of His own creation. Any God who fits between your ears is ipso facto not the God who IS actually there.
On your foundation Oleena Santa Claus just might come down your chimney one day. You and I bantered for about 3 posts and you simply told me that you’re happy with complete uncertainty and ran off. Here you are now acting as if even one syllable you mutter on that basis is worthy of a chimpanzee’s consideration.
Of course you don’t really live your life on that basis though do ya? Nah. You take every breath believing that you matter, wanting people to listen to you and find you worthy of companionship. I agree with you. You do matter. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting people to listen you or desiring that they find you a serious substantial person. The difference between you and I is that I have a reason for viewing you this way. You never EVER will while you continue to deny the God who designed you.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Discounting the books listed on here and sticking to the peer reviewed studies, there are probably around 75-100 listed in the total site references. I don’t have time to count them all, but anyone is welcome to:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/refs.html[/quote]I have to laugh. Once again. The theory of foundational knowledge assumed by EVERY last evolutionist on the face of this earth, theistic or not, is wholly mal-equipped to provide certainty regarding even a 1st grade mathematics problem to say nothing of “the origin of the species” or anything else of ultimate consequence. The “science” undergirding macro-evolution, is a giant stew of incestuous presuppositional dishonesty wherein one person or group proceeds on the assumption/s of another person or group as if those assumptions are established universally acknowledged unchallenged fact.
Not even among unbelieving pagans hostile to the gospel is any major sub theory, dating method or piece of alleged evidence even close to universally agreed upon. The reason I don’t find arguing evidence profitable is not because I’m afraid to or that I’m no good at it. It’s because for the 10,000th time, until we determine HOW we know 2+2=4 any discussion whatsoever about WHAT we know is manifestly meaningless. And that at the cost of waaaay too much time and work.
Why would I throw out abuncha empirical data demonstrating the overwhelming probability of the truth of the bible, of which there is plenty, when the people I’m throwing it at are dead in sin and utterly incapable of seeing anything except what is to them the truth of their own exalted autonomy? More importantly, probability has no meaning in the realm of ultimate questions to be begin with. I’m not at all interested in proving the probability of anything which is an oxymoron anyway. Proving probability? The God I serve is eternal certainty itself.
Traditional apologetics concedes not only home field advantage to the opposition, but forfeits the game before the first pitch is thrown. The true and living God who is the alone foundation of all being and the incomprehensible power who commands matter and light to exist ex nihilo, from nothing, cannot be put in a petri dish, smeared on a slide or in any other way be subject to the arrogant probing of His own creation. Any God who fits between your ears is ipso facto not the God who IS actually there.
On your foundation Oleena Santa Claus just might come down your chimney one day. You and I bantered for about 3 posts and you simply told me that you’re happy with complete uncertainty and ran off. Here you are now acting as if even one syllable you mutter on that basis is worthy of a chimpanzee’s consideration. Of course you don’t really live your life on that basis though do ya? Nah. You take every breath believing that you matter, wanting people to listen to you and find you worthy of companionship. I agree with you. You do matter. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting people to listen you or desiring that they find you a serious substantial person. The difference between you and I is that I have a reason for viewing you this way. You never EVER will while you continue to deny the God who designed you.[/quote]
"The “science” undergirding macro-evolution, is a giant stew of incestuous presuppositional dishonesty wherein one person or group proceeds on the assumption/s of another person or group as if those assumptions are established universally acknowledged unchallenged fact. "
This is not true. For instance, it used to be assumed that morphological similarities could be used to determine the phylogenetic tree. However, recent data has shown that morphological similarities cannot be used this way: for instance, birds are more related to dinosaurs than lizards.
Also, if you think that ANY fact in science is universally acknowledged as unchallenged, you don’t understand science. Scientific inquiry starts with trying to DISPROVE an idea.
For instance, thanks to Newton, many physicists were convinced that light was a particle, until Young’s double-slit experiment showing that light was a wave. Then everyone was convinced it was a wave until others came along and showed that it had mass properties.
Just because it’s solid, repeatable evidence is required to disband a commonly held scientific idea doesn’t mean that it’s a universally held, unquestioned idea.
People win Nobel prizes by disproving long-held laws and ideas. If you don’t think that’s motivation to question everything, I don’t know what is.
Secondly, just because I can’t know whether or not there’s a God doesn’t mean that I can’t know whether or not I’ll fall down when I jump off the roof.
Also, it would be in your best interest to listen to the evidence that jumping off a roof will likely result in death, rather than assuming that because I don’t know whether or not God exists, I also don’t know anything for sure about gravity.