Products of Creation Science
 

I just discovered the existance of creation museums but I dont have one in my state of Missouri.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...iscover_museum

Has anyone ever been to one? Would you visit one?

What is your opinion on creation science?

Mine opinion is that even though the subject matter is touchy for many of us I am glad there are people who find ways to keep the debate alive. Stuff like this maintains the thrill of living through my book the bible.

"Creation science" is nothing more than a euphemism for fundamentalist Christian rhetoric.

It isn't science.

Creation isn't science. At all. I don't care how often the other side wants to claim it is.

Also, the bible isn't your book. You didn't write it. Neither did God or Jesus. Fuck off and die.

Your reply is the most imaginative. I actually laughed.

C'mon guys you have to be a little curious. I would go just to see if they made a hash of things or if they really have a viable argument.


I will let you in on a little secret. I am skeptical too.

The folks that tell you what science is dont have my unconditional support.
Why, cause I see the effect of their teaching in your words.
You are in effect becoming the feces throwing ape you are conditioned to believe you are.

I invite all of you to climb out of the primordial slime and wash yourself clean with this concept: We are created with the capacity for unparalleled intellectual interaction for the betterment of each other & our world.
Please folks lets play nice.

I wasn't planning on visiting it until you brought it up, but after reading this review of the museum, I want to hit it up, just for the lulz:

See, see, because to stimulate a scientific debate, you gotta push your agenda, associate the other side with Nazis, and pit dueling trees against each other in your exhibits. Best museum ever already, right, guys? :tpg:

Religion has no place in science and science has no place in religion. Be religious if you want, just don't pretend that perceived knowledge of a religion is tantamount to knowledge in any other field.

Sometimes I think all the world's problems could be solved if people knew how to recognize a fucking metaphor.

Ok, now we are geting somewhere. I didnt see a review thanks.

In their defence there are no rules on agenda pushing. We know the agenda of a place that talks about creation and really, are any of their statements untrue?

We are vessels evolved to better pass on our DNA. Our lives are otherwise meaningless.

Deal with it.

Yes. That's the point of every post in this thread besides yours.

Science, in its purest form, is free of agenda. That means waving SCIENCE around like a banner and then associating competing theories with moral depravity and genocide is, at best, hypocritical and completely cynical.

Besides. If the evidence for creation science was strong enough to stand on its own, there would be no need to manipulate the emotions of the visitors by invoking Nazism and bestiality, right~ :tpg:

We're not getting into it, LordSword, because it's been discussed here ad nauseum with a defender of your idiocy who was much more talented at it than you. And, you fucking moron, science never claims to be absolutely right. However, overwhelming evidence is overwhelming evidence. "because god said" is NOT overwhelming evidence. And neither is creation PHILOSOPHY about how extremely unlikely is equal to impossible.

You are, as always, not smart enough for us to waste actual conversation on. Go away.

The amusing part of this whole equation is that Creation "Science" conveniently discards many other branches of science in order to validate its thesis. Biology? Irrelevant. Archaeology? Unfounded. Geophysics? Rumormongers. Anthropology? Heresy.

Any field that attempts to use hearsay and folklore as its empyrical truth is as far removed from scientific method as it gets.

L. Ron Hubbard did more to bridge the gaps between science and faith than Creationists. This should tell you something.

Science should not be made to change in order to accommodate religious wackos.

As I understand it, creation science holds that there was a 'hydrosphere' that hovered above the atmosphere in the times before the great flood, so that is where all that water came from.

I don't know, sounds logical to me. Who knows how much water the atmosphere can hold?

It also holds that a supreme being created in our image made this entire world in six days and happens to forget several billion years of history before then. Hmm.

While I think it would be a great laugh to visit one of these museums, I wouldn't want to give these religious whack jobs more money to line their pockets with.

I'll continue to ignore them until they're starved out of attention and cash. Or, unless they decide to poke into my children's education or something of that nature.

(It's not a science. Science aims to hold no bias in study.)

I'd love to go to one.

I'd leave a giant fucking soft-serve Cleaveland Steamer right in the middle of the aisle.

"EVEN YOUR GOD CAN'T MIRACLE THIS AWAY, YOU CHRISTIAN BASTARDS"

Either than or go into the gift store and replace all the books with Nietzsche and Feuerbach.

No, no 'we' are not.

Go peddle your christian "science" wares elsewhere. This is ridiculous.

But... but... WE RODE THEM.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...ADABBADOOO.jpg

FACT: The comic strip B.C. often depicted man and dinosaurs coexisting.

FACT: B.C.'s creator, Johnny Hart, was a devout Christian who often expressed his faith within the context of his own comic.

FACT: As a Christian, it was against Johnny Hart's beliefs to spread lies, especially lies against Christianity.

THESIS: As the comic strip was named "B.C.", or "Before Christ", it is logical to conclude that Christianity supports the existence of dinosaurs and, ipso facto, the theory of evolution during a period before the life of Jesus Christ - a direct contrast to the concept of Creationism.

CONCLUSION: LordsSword fails. LordsSword fails miserably.

what the hell, that is the most retarded setup I ever saw. How the hell would a man sit on a saddle like that without falling into that wedge between the animal's back and bony neck-ridge? How would he steer?

lolling at the blanket, like that would make it moreo comfortable for the animal.

People steer elephants with their feet. I imagine you can do the same with a dinosaur.

Those dudes must have huge feet.

What I like most about the Bible is how people always have to explain everything it says at length, modifying what is said in the text as they see fit to explain phenomena that the guys who wrote could obviously not understand for what they actually where because of a lack of scientific knowledge.

If that book really did have all the answers, no one would have to comment on it, for it would have imposed itself by and of itself.

I think we seem to be missing the point here... It's a dinosaur... with a SADDLE ON ITS BACK. And there's a PONCHO PROTECTING THE ANIMAL'S BACK.

Look... I know the reality of my Mexican people. We're fence jumpers, not experienced game hunters. You don't think we'd catch a dinosaur, do you?

Science is free of agendas but people are not. Fraud for the sake of proving evolution has been tried many times by its proponents. http://www.time.com/time/2007/crimes/3.html

Folks we eat sleep & breath agendas please spare me of all the judgments.

Without knowing more about the basic intent of this place I can only conclude that it is built to manipulate people. Nothing new, we can go anywhere else and say the same thing.

I'm glad a more talented person failed to change your mind. This means I get a turn.
I see this overwhelming evidence statement and wonder if you folks have seen it yourselves.
"I want to see" "Prove it" you say.

What is it about the sources of your overwhelming evidence that has your complete unquestioning trust? Remember after all youre being taught survival of the fittest doctrine whos to say youre not the one being eaten alive?

I noticed skepticism is the reigning authority here, funny you dont use it against the sources that provide your evidences.

Thanks folks for the replys. That review was the most helpful. It helps me to see the other side of things.

What is it about an invisible man in the sky who judges you for your actions that has YOUR complete unquestioning trust? What are you fucking retarded? Science, research, billions upon billions of dollars spent on finding out the truth, I'd say that is pretty fucking convincing, whereas all you have going for you is a best selling book of fictional stories. Fuck off. Go visit a science museum you dipshit. Better yet, just go read an encyclopedia, or a science text book.

Food chain, bitch. We're at the top. Animals don't deep fry us, we deep fry them. The only thing above us is inclement weather and the bubonic plague.

Because our reigning authority consists of actual human beings and not mythical figures, you fucking dolt.

Excellent, go kill yourself now.

Okay, so lets go to the Creation Museum and see what you have as evidence, shall we...?

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5625/374.jpg

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6770/01sm8.jpg

Wait, what? Catholicism has to do with dinosaurs? Oh shi--

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3576/373.jpg

Hold on...

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/8545/02vs5.jpg

Wait a second...!

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2308/03mh0.jpg

I SAID SLOW DOWN, MY MIND CAN'T TAKE THIS...

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3972/05be8.jpg

WHAT. WHAT. WHAT.

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1327/06rd1.jpg

...

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5739/07yb4.jpg

GTFO

No. This means that you, due to lack of common sense, waive the right to said turn.

The sources which bring me this evidence have been consistent in bringing hard evidence to the table. HARD EVIDENCE. Things you can touch and feel. Dude... I've never seen Noah's Ark. I've never seen the remains of the slain Goliath. Shit... Even the supposed shroud of Christ is still in doubt by devout Christians. This, by the way should tell you something.

The sources I see who provide counterpoints here are also people who I can speak to and look in the eye. I will NEVER believe the "written word" of a "god" who doesn't bother so much as showing his face, simple as that.

I mean, seriously dude... Dinosaurs coexisting with humans? I thought that shit was laughable when I saw it as a kid on THE FLINTSTONES.

The reason we can't readily supply any evidence to support evolution is because it's a widely accepted fact by sane people. We would be hard pressed to find scientific papers supporting geo-spherical evidence or heliocentric theory, simply because everyone who isn't retarded knows that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun.

And the reason nobody likes you or Creationists is because you ejaculate in the face of common sense and reason. You brush aside scientific theory and seek answers from a single, unfounded source that was never designed to define the physical world. The tragic flaw of the faithful is the falure to comprehend one undeniable truth: Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

Whats even more hilarious is that apparently, the world is only 6 thousand years old!

I cannot fucking fathom being so...gullible.

I'll never understand how faith can blind someone so much.

Even if we were, it doesn't disprove the theory, it validates it. Unlike your stupid doctrine, ours doesn't say we're the final, chosen species to ever exist. You arrogant prat.

Actually, we have. That's why science is constantly reworking and moving away from the initial theory and expanding. It's the reason I took evolutionary and vertebrate biology in university. It's the reason we read constant texts and new information on DNA, Mitochondria, and genetic drift and you stick to YOUR bible. We constantly use our skepticism against our own sources. That's why we're bloody skeptics. It's just that their theories are leaps, bounds and bloody canyons (like the grand, that wasn't created in 40 days and 40 nights. We know this because we know how long it takes minerals to break down.) ahead of yours in terms of logic and evidence. Stop trying. You're too stupid to even be a proper zealot these days.

Who told you about the millions of dollars & research? Do you really know where your answers come from?

People eat each other daily. There are more sophisticated methods of consuming your prey.

What human beings? Do you know them as well as a person who says they got their instruction from God?

I knew someone here would provide what I was looking for. Thanks.
I can see your point. The slant that I see leaves out what the science mind is looking for.
Dont get me wrong.
Science is one of my favorite subjects. If I wasnt so big into art I would be in the radio & electrical field.

Expand on this please.
I read this book, your view sounds like theirs.
In Six Days

You people and your language. You only demean yourselves with your tirades. Show me how intelligent you are by using your intellect. Rough statements only undermine what you have to say.

Are you disputing the money spent on research? I can assure you - plenty is spent. I work in the industry.

You can talk down to all of us as much as you like. You're an instigator. You try to start your religious fire wherever you go on these forums. It's almost as though you're trolling.

Fact of the matter is this: we have the skepticism needed to take an honest, unbiased look at the universe in which we live. The goal of science is to understand the place we live, and how we fit in.

You just eat up whatever some zealot scared you into believing.

I'm sure his church told him how BARBARIC we atheists are!

WE EAT EACH OTHER UP! ALL THE TIME, WHINEHURST!

Would you like to partake in this fantastic femur I have over here? Nice and tender.

(Or maybe he's talking about oral sex. WHO THE FUCK KNOWS with this kid.)

Only with a knife and fork though. We must be sophisticated in consuming our prey.

And the Gray Poupon, don't forget that.

Honestly people, what he's trying to say there isn't that fucking difficult to grasp.
You know, what with the rich people getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the powerful preying on the weak, etc.

If you're going to laugh at him for something, make it about something that doesn't make you look like a retarded tool. Trust me, there is tons of material available.

That's pretty much what he was doing for the rest of the paragraph.


LordsSword, I think you're full of shit, but at the same time I agree with you that most of the people in this thread are idiots for posting line after line of "you fucking cunt-puncher" instead of just proving you wrong quickly and civilly. You know something is awry when the only person to make an intelligent, well thought out argument is LeHah.

See, we were trying to divert from his typical diatribe. We've all heard it from him before. We were making light. Relax.

(If you hadn't noticed, LordSword seriously starts the same argument in every forum he can. It gets boring.)

Wait.....What????????????? Dragons??? I always wanted to ride one of those babies.

I like how the sign doesn't explain shit. How is that "dragon legends" are EVIDENCE? :tpg:

That means that Elf chicks were real too. I want one so bad :(.

Sorry. My bad.
Its just so embarrassing to read though. Like watching Elf all over again.

(I noticed. I also understand that any comments, regardless of content, are interpreted by such one-track-minds as "hey they're reading what I say, there is hope yet")

Not to my satisfaction. The statement of "moving away from initial theory..."
Precisely what theory & where to is what I am looking for.
The notion that I am & idiot does work to my advantage, educate me please.

What do you mean "almost"?

"You can't rape the willing people. KEEP THRUSTING DEEP INTO ME!"

We can't educate you. One can only be educated when he or she is willing to at least acknowledge the facts presented to them. You will forever refuse to do so in lieu of "your book" being the de-facto standard of all reasonable and cognitive thought process. You use this as an off-shoot to stir further argument for, um... the sake of argument.

Seriously... Get off your high horse, you baiting bint. This is your first warning.

That's primarily because this debate has happened over and over again across the forum with him and anyone who's seen one of the previous incarnations knows that he doesn't acknowledge logic, so you might as well try insults.The human beings we listen to publish their studies, actions, and conclusions in peer-reviewed journals and are able to (and regularly have to) defend their claims against logical and technical objections. The numbers don't come out of thin air.

You can pound the table and say "fact" but it takes more than that to get me to listen.
I purposfully frustrate because I search for the mature among you to converse with. Some here have risen to a higher standard because they believe that they can educate me.
Its the can do people that have made the best points, with the review and images. Those are the types I listen to.
Humor us, by just answering my questions. I only want to learn.

One hoax does not undermine the entire weight of evidence for evolution. If that were true, then I can point to any fraudster who uses the Bible in his schemes (re: Jim Bakker), and then imply that the Bible is completely wrong.

And, you do realize that it was, uh, other scientists who discovered the forgery, right? Instead of blindly citing a source to try to make a point, why don't you, er, try to understand it completely first before using it? What a concept! :tpg:

No. No, no and no.

You're simply assuming that all people have agendas, and all institutions are manipulating emotions in the same naked, ham-fisted way the Creation Museum is doing. You don't seem to understand the simple difference between emotional manipulation and persuasive argument based on evidence. That is either sheer ignorance or sheer cynicism, and good science doesn't have either.

You can walk into any respectable museum of natural history that discusses evolution, and you won't find exhibits accusing creationists of anything, let alone Naziism and bestiality. Tell me this, then - why is it, then, for a institution that purports to promote Biblical philosophy, why do they spend all that effort slandering the people who disagree with them? Yessirree, that's a real paragon of Christian values there, golly-gumdrops! :tpg:

My point is, if you walked into any museum, it'll stand in stark contrast to how utterly manipulative that Creation museum is. If the evidence in the Creation museum were really that strong (and if LeHah's post is anything to go by, it's, uh, not), there wouldn't even be a need for this kind of appeal to the emotion.

Also, I stand by my point that good science is agenda-free : the point of science is to draw conclusions based on observed evidence. Creation "science" seems to be backwards - starting from the conclusion, and then trying to find something -anything to fit it. That is not science.

Implying that everyone has an agenda just shows how ignorant you are. If you actually knew a lot of scientists, you'll know that they're like any other group of people - there are good scientists, and bad scientists. But by no means are ALL of them carrying some kind of SIKRIT AGENDA deep in their hearts or something stupid like that.

ETA:

Again, this shows your ignorance. Scientists in academia have to work their asses off to win money for their research through government, institutional and corporate grants. Anyone's who in the sciences knows this. You really need to get yourself educated in this before mouthing off like that.

Awesome, now we're the immature ones. This guy is brilliant.

We are, you fucking cunt-puncher (sorry knk, I love that one). You AREN'T LISTENING TO US, which is what you constant do here. We give you our reasons, and then you sit there with your bible and say "it's not enough." How the fuck can you be serious? One book of stories somehow commands more power than all the time, money, and effort that has gone into scientific theories? Open your eyes, you moron.

Holy crapsicles. You gotta see the irony there, LordsSword. Please tell me you see the irony. You have to.

Yes and many more after the one I pointed out.
My point was that the poeple who crank out "facts" need to be checked on.
The folks here have yet to tell me if they personally have seen or checked anything for themselves. Well there is one but I am waiting to see more of their view...
Manipulation is what it is. Just because somebody does not do it YOUR way doesnt mean they are wrong. Lawyers do this all the time. Give me a break.

Hmmm, this is a point I agree with. I like the fact that you demonstrate a knowlege of and respect for the virtue of Christian values and the proper adherance to such values.
This ladys & gents is a person after my own heart.

The Spock avatar of Arainach reminds me of the cloaking device of the Romulans.
Its a useful tool the cloaking device. Assumptions are what makes it work so well.

Your post is by far the best. I get what you are saying thanks.

I CREATED SOME HUMANS AT THE SAME TIME AS DINOSAURS, BUT UH IT DIDN'T LAST LONG...



Lordsword your mother is still living, why is this?

So, evidently, you'll only listen to statements you already agree with.

You didn't come here looking for education. You came here looking for validation, and you're not going to find it. Not here. Clearly.

"The belief in the existence of God is the belief in a special existence, separate from the existence of man and Nature. A special existence can only be proved in a special manner. This faith is therefore only then a true and living one when special effects, immediate appearances of God, miracles, are believed in. Where, on the other hand, the belief in God is identified with the belief in the world, where the belief in God is no longer a special faith, where the general being, of the world takes possession of the whole man, there also vanishes the belief in special effects and appearances of God. Belief in God is wrecked, is stranded on the belief in the world, in natural effects as the only true ones. As here the belief in miracles is no longer anything more than the belief in historical, past miracles, so the existence of God is also only an historical, in itself atheistic conception."

LordSword, your arguments are tired and boring. Science catches a mistake, and science fixes it. Your conclusion? Science must be checked up on! Well, yeah. That's how we caught the mistake in the first place. By checking up on it, you dolt.

And you're right, if someone doesn't do it your way, it doesn't mean they're wrong. But when they're basing their argument on circumstantial "evidence" and storybooks, then chances are, THEY'RE FUCKING WRONG. Especially when they're arguing with documented proof. I assume you don't need us to explain evolution, or the concept of carbon dating. I trust you're not enough of an idiot to need that done. Your ability to write the English language would dictate otherwise, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt anyway.

You don't like anyone who tells you you're flat out wrong. Which is a pity, because you are. You're little more than a religious troll, and I for one can't wait for the day Styphon strings you up by your neck for being the idiot that you are.

Creation science is the laughing stock of the scientific community. The fact that Americans even consider it (read: the religious right thrusts it on community schools) for elementary education makes most of us snicker. And I'm sure that feeds your pathetic little martyr complex, but there you have it. The evidence is on the table, mate. You're choosing not to acknowledge it because of your personal agenda. YOUR bible states otherwise. Too fucking bad. Your book lied to you. Get over it.

Actually, devo, I was watching a thing on Nova last night where they found the leap from Creationism to Intelligent Design. Apparently there was some court case back in the 80s where creationism was ruled to not be allowed to be taught in science classes, and there was a textbook that was supposed to be a "Christian Science" book. It was found that the edition prior to the judgement used the term Creationism and the one afterwards had used find and replace with the term Intelligent Design (and apparently at some points they screwed up and wound up with the term Creintelligent Designism or something like that).

This is actually what the peer review process in academic journals is all about. I was part of a group that was responsible for peer reviewing a paper (well, part of it was delegated to me, but whatever), and we had to figure out if their experiments were valid, new, and interpreted their results in a consistent manner.

As someone with a published paper, I've also had my own work go through the peer review process.

I really fucking hate myself for playing Devil's Advocate, but could you possibly link to the paper that you reviewed and the one you had published RR, and give any details you remember about the peer review process for both?

Sigh... I should stay out of this shit but I just want this fucking thread to die already.

Quick bio: Devout conservative Christian, life-science teacher, political liberal

I often find it difficult to be an old fashioned practicing Christian that knows so dang much about evolution. My solution (albeit a total cop-out) is to just trust that God is the creator, and while the process of evolution seems to be at odds with a literal interpretation of the events chronicled in the book of Genesis, I have faith that in next world everything will make sense. And that goes for all the other crazy stuff in the world that doesn't seem to make sense.

Knowing what I know I can't help but believe that evolution has shaped the biosphere and continues to influence life on earth. But I also understand that entropy is a governing principle of thermodynamics and organized life forms capable of conscious thought seems (to me at least) to be the exact opposite of that. Is it all chance and physics? Was the first living cell a random event? Can some ingenious mathematical equation predict every choice an organism will make throughout its life? How bout the choices I make?

Science has been wrong in the past. Before Darwin there was an assortment of crazy theories that made sense to people back then. Atomic theory went through multiple erroneous incarnations before we got to the contemporary model, which I hope is finally correct. And even now there is uncertainty about how much farther we can break down sub-atomic particles.

Blah blah blah. I don't think Christians should use, or try to use, science to explain ALL the events in the Bible. Stick with the stuff for which there is little or no debate. If you believe and have faith, then you should be comfortable with the idea of a Creator that is supernatural. The same science that landed men on the moon, created television, nuclear reactors, etc. also came up with evolution. And while some may disagree, we can't help but go along with it.

Additional Spam:
...and on a totally separate note...

Please don't judge all Christians by the ones you see and read about in the media. Most practicing Christians I know, most of them here, and most of the ones everyone else knows personally tend to be quiet humble people.

The Christians that make the news are almost always of the loud, obtrusive, and delusional variety. Oftentimes very un-Christian like in nature.

Uh, I don't think he means scientific review of intelligent design specifically, but I think rather he is explaining the process of scientific peer review of the findings that is published in various science related periodicals.

Look guys, I'll be down with creation science when it can produce predictive models that we can use to create medical treatments.

Let me know how that goes, guys. Seriously, I support any method to cure cancer and shit.

As magi said, I don't have anything to do with the evolution/ID debate in my professional work, but here's a link to some work I was part of a few years ago: ISIJ International I doubt it'll be interesting to anyone around here.

The paper I helped look at I can't link you to since it was rejected because it didn't get accepted. :p The research group I was part of got to review it since they used some of our data in the interpretation of our data, but they completely misinterpreted our research, and didn't actually add anything new to the scientific body of knowledge (actually would have made it worse by putting out bad info!).

Creationism is pretty funny, since it requires one to assume that people who have trained for their lives in the principles of science are all abject failures, while Christian pundits are able to point out "obvious" flaws in evolution.

Entropy is simply the increasing lack of energy that can be used to do work. It doesn't prohibit what we define as order (or whatever bullshit term or phrase Creationists are using).

Entropy on Earth can be reduced, since it isn't a closed system. We receive energy from the sun and radiate energy out into space.

I get that, but the reason I asked was less its relevance to the original topic and more along the lines of showing the peer review process in action to debunk the argument from LordSword concerning it.

See, I tried that. But then I ran into a little problem. Because all those quiet nice Christians? They still vote for the morons you see in the media and as such get stupid laws passed and generally make my life hell. So that didn't work out so hot.

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, there is strong (and embarrassingly loud) support for the religious right...but that group is part of an extreme. To lump the MILLIONS of Christians who do NOT vote along those lines together in the same group is a completely irresponsible stereotype.

While I do tend to agree with part of this, who says that it's ALL the quiet nice Christians? I mean, yes, I understand that everyone should (and does) vote for their best interests in mind but I'd like to imagine that not EVERY Christian is out to proverbially crucify those of us who don't believe in the invisible man in the sky. That seems a bit irresponsible of a stereotype, don't you think?

Not EVERY Christian is a nutjob. I live with a few reasonably nice ones. But a substantial enough majority of them are that I've stopped even pretending at "tolerance" when it comes to inflicting your religious views on the public square. I leave my religion at home. Why can't you?

Are you unable to read, or just that bloody deluded? :tpg: I'm afraid there isn't anyone here that's after your own heart - I understand Christian principles, yes, but that also means I know enough of it that I can tell that the Creation science museum is spewing fundamentalist propaganda masquerading as "science".

I am currently preparing for my own career as a scientist, so believe me, if you think that I'm assuming things about the vast amounts of money that go into research, then I have the great pleasure of telling you that you're dead wrong.

You know, if you're not in science, why are you coming in here telling us what science is and what science isn't? That's a fair bit of hubris there, mate.

LordSword, one question.

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2308/03mh0.jpg

Do you honestly believe that?

What does that sign even mean? God made the land animals, including dinosaurs, "after their kind"? After whose kind? What kind? Kind of what? Is it me, or is that sign kind of retarded.

Also, the creator of this thread is a huge prick and probably a narcissist. Here's a little snack for you, my friend: Go fuck yourself, you pseudo-proselytistic fucking recreant.

I believe the sign is quoting Genesis.

And my apologies if I seem to be inflicting my views on anyone. I just want to defend my beliefs and encourage people not to judge a Christian (or any other group for that matter) by their cover.

And for the record, I tend to vote for policy that benefits everyone, not just the zealous. One of the essential doctrines of Christianity is that you are not supposed to force your faith on anyone. And as many have already pointed out, there are quite of few Christians who, for whatever reason, don't adhere to that premise. If the seed doesn't bear fruit, then you're supposed to move on. Which is what a lot do, but it's hardly as memorable as that crazy guy screaming at you to repent.

Wait.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know how you guys do stuff, but some people say it's your job to impose your religion on others, and then some say you shouldn't like you just did there.

Which is it? I'm a little lost here. Which congregation do you belong to? Must be different from Loserbutt's there. Which is why I always wonder why you all call yourselves Christian when you don't really believe in the same things. (Yea, yea, Jesus and all that - but the Muslims also believe Christ was a prophet or some thing...so uhhh...)

That's probably because he's the guy who we spend endless nights at a bar mocking in drunken debauchery; and rightly so.

Muslims believe that Christ was also a prophet, but that Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet sent by Allah.

So Christians hide just like those damn, dirty jews? ;)

Seriously though? if you need to defend your beliefs, theres something wrong with them. Believe in something, stop trying to sell it with this guardhouse lawyer nonsense.

Yes, I know, but they still recognize Christ as a really important dude. So do Christians.

You know how I feel about the whole mess. I was just trying to make a point, albeit vague.

That point being that among Christians, there's sometimes such a vast, vast difference in what they believe between congregations.

I wonder why they all call themselves "Christians," and not by their congregational organization. Like Morons and Jehovah's Witnesses. "Christian" is too broad if you ask me.

I imagine it's because they don't want false statements about their religion being spread around. I can imagine if I belonged to some group I'd want everyone to at least understand what my viewpoint is before they go off and criticize me for it.

False statements in religion?!

So the people who defend their belief in the theory of evolution, are wrong? Huh?

But perhaps we don't "believe" scientific facts, I mean, they're facts. No belief required. So how about moral beliefs, like equal rights for women, minorities, etc. Are people who defend those types of beliefs wrong?

Or maybe people just feel like speaking up when certain people get the wrong idea.

There's really nothing to "believe" in, though. It requires no faith. It requires reliance on scientific evidence. There's no emotion in it whatsoever.

Belief implies a desire to put faith into something.

Are you saying women AREN'T on par with men?
That minorities in our nation are LESS than whites?

I am sure you're not saying that, but there's a difference in believing that women and minorities are unequal to white men and putting faith into a deity. I hope you recognize this.

Morals are bullshit. Everyone has a different set of them and they're not quantifiable. What you think is fucked up, I think is funny. I think throwing pennies at jews and telling them to build me pyramids is a great joke - but not nearly as funny as the idea of passing twenty silver pieces out to a congregation.

And it always seems to be the wrong people who speak up, isnt it? Or how else would everyone here have the stereotype of the ignorant pseudo-facist Christian follower. Certainly not by large majorities of intelligent, well-spoken, happy-go-lucky people we see day after day...

That's a Freudian slip and a half.

I will defend science. I will defend morals. And I will defend my faith. What I'm trying to say is, contrary to what has been stated by another, that just because someone has to defend a belief doesn't automatically discredit that belief.

If you want to qualify LeHah's comment and change it to "...if you need to defend your RELIGIOUS beliefs, there's something wrong with them...", that would lead to another back-and-forth. But that would be an argument against ALL religions, albeit not a particularly good one.

And yes, I must admit that there is a difference between morals and faith. In the example I used the difference is clear. But for many issues (for me at least) the dividing line becomes gray. Charity, civil obedience, abortion, socialism, etc.: It's really difficult for me to separate myself from my faith when dealing with these types of moral issues. At times they seem to be the same thing.

Um, I can't really take anything you say seriously in this thread anymore. I don't think you are going to get a lot of "intelligent, well-spoken, happy-go-lucky people " to jump on the "morals suck" and "stereotypes are good" bandwagon.

The first person to say that stereotypes aren't based on anything is the first person to get laughed at. People just don't like owning up to anything, especially on the internet.

That said - the fact that you equate intelligent people with moral people shows just how fucking insipid and small-minded you actually are. I may be a sinner going to Hell the way he wants to - but I am not the one who's giving the big Jesus handjob of moral superiority over people who make a personal decision to do wrong.

I mean, at the very least, any time I get head, I do it to spite your God.

And you also bite off of Deadwood, which is pretty fucking sweet.

The world needs more Wild Bill.

The funny thing is that I've gotten use to that as an AIM away message for so long, I forgot it was from Deadwood...

"Can't you let me go to hell the way I want?"

"Yeah. Yeah, I can do that."

Great line.

A buddy of mine once told me he almost wished Otakukin were real, because then maybe, JUST MAYBE, he had a shot of being reborn as Wild Bill in Deadwood.

Why not just say "Christianity"? If you're going to bash Christians (and you might as well lump Jews and Muslims in there as well since a majority of them favor Creationism), at least get the wording correct.:rolleyes:

Because he's not saying all christians believe in christian science, dipshit. He's saying it's a fundamentalist wing of a religion. That's sort of like saying why specify Al Qaeda? Why not just say "muslims"? Oh, I don't know, because it would be wrong?

Creationism is NOT Creation Science. Creationism is a religious belief, Creation Science is a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent what it is.

Shut up.

Two thousand years from now, I bet most people will think all our modern theories are moronic and that we're all dipshits for thinking otherwise.

Adding... what to the conversation at hand? Yeah, 2000 years from now science will be eclipsed by more elaborate science. That's how it works. Would you care to explain how white isn't black next?

this isn't universal. A lot of christian curches / christian individuals feel that prolethysizing isn't necessary and in fact a dickish thing to do.

Some churches say you'll go to hell if you don't. A lot of people in those churches dont' really even like doing it, but who wants to go to hell?

And then there are people who think you just haven't thought hard enough about it. I mean, I understand that, I think the same way about a lot of people to. Generally I'm right.

HOLY SHIT I'M GONNA SAY SOMETHING HERE:

I'm a Christian. One of those "liberal" ones, which means that I've started down the path that certain sects of Judaism have been on A LONG TIME: the one where you take the Bible and make sense of it intellectually. (It is possible!)

I blame my (very strong in his Christian faith) Bible prof from my freshman year at a conservative Christian college. He basically said that the 'six day' thing is because the Jewish people for whom the Bible was originally written had no concept of hundreds of thousands of years, let ALONE the millions of years that the universe has been around. Oh, and the fact that creation is told twice (in different ways and orders, even) kinda makes it hard for everything in the bible to be ENTIRELY FACTUAL and NOT METAPHORICAL at all.

Plus I believe that science merely shows how God works (or set stuff in motion). This comes about through the FACT that microevolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and macroevolution is mostly microevolution over millions of years. So why couldn't God have built evolution into the Universe? It makes enough sense to satisfy me.

OK I'm done for now.

You miss the point. So what if some people still believe in creationism. There's no reason to be baited or overreact to whatever some sect of Christians still persist in believing after two thousand years. Save your outrage for something more worthwhile.

I find this all hilarious as hell. See you there!

Except, Watts, that this moved away from philosophical debate and into the realm of actual issue when they started teaching Creation Science in certain classrooms in the US. Or that at any point, dozens of school systems across the United States are being lobbied to include Creation Science as curriculum, taking away from actual education.

You're talking creationism. We're talking Creation Science. Very different things, skipper. We don't care about creationism, we care about the small sect of Creationists trying to push it as SCIENCE into our CLASSROOMS. And if education isn't worth getting worked up about, that's your problem and you can find somewhere else to not follow the line of conversation.

Name a school district where this is currently being taught. The one school district where the board of education succeeded in introducing this to the curriculum every member got the boot. There is no standing court ruling where this is upheld as legal or constitutional.

There is no rampaging horde of creationists that can make it stick. (bold for emphasis)

I guess everybody needs their political demons. So we can all unite against the Jews/Blacks/Creationists/Abortionists/Women/etc or whatever agenda you're subscribing to. Hey, tolerance is only for the jews and the niggers.

On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it."[10] This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change.[11] Challengers in the state's Republican primary who made opposition to the anti-evolution standards their focus were voted in on August 1, 2000, so on February 14, 2001, the Board voted 7–3 to reinstate the teaching of biological evolution and the origin of the earth into the state's science education standards.[10]

In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum, in line with the guidelines of the Edwards v. Aguillard holding. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that permitted, but did not require, the teaching of intelligent design.

In 2004 Kansas Board of Education elections gave religious conservatives a majority and, influenced by the Discovery Institute, they arranged the Kansas evolution hearings. On August 9, 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education drafted new "science standards that require critical analysis of evolution – including scientific evidence refuting the theory,"[16] which opponents analysed as effectively stating that intelligent design should be taught.[17] The new standards also provide a definition of science that does not preclude supernatural explanations, and were approved by a 6-4 vote on November 8, 2005 – the same day, interestingly, on which the Dover school board members were voted out (see above).






So yes, though they were overturned, the point is this was being taught in a classroom, hotshot. There is no raving christian right trying to get things taught in a classroom, except that every few years, Georgia, Kansas and Illinois have to have a serious debate about where God belongs in classrooms. And they have, on several occasions, decided to teach ID as a substitute to science. So there ARE people pushing this through in certain parts of the country.

You want to know -WHY- they can't make it stick? Because there are people educated on the subject and taking it on headfirst when it rears its ugly head.

People who don't confuse Creation Science with creationism, for instance, sir. You're not needed here. All you've done is basically say "NO ONE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS" and dig your head in the sand.

Which only proves that people pass on their values. Or try to.

The Soviets taught their own brand of evolution to their children. It involved the evolution of giraffe's necks stretching together in socialist solidarity. It was based on pure scientific theory, not matter how much they twisted it for political ends. Didn't make it anymore ludicrous then I already made it sound.

Not anymore. It was overturned. End of story.

(edit)

Oh wait, it will be upheld in any future case. That's the real end of the story.

Yes, because if we all stop paying attention to it and laugh it off, saying education and science are unnecessary things to defend THAT'S the best way to do it. Because complacency, that's the best answer!

You're not terribly bright, son. Peddle yourself elsewhere. Both sides of this debate think you're a prat.

Alright, ladies. I liked it just fine when it was a nice debate but now it's gotten well off into PP material, which I'm sure LordsSword wanted it to be anyway. Enjoy the view.

It has already been established that these attempts are and will be unsuccessful in the future. There's no problem unless they're successful, which doesn't seem very likely. So all you're doing is waving a red herring at me.

What are you going to do to make people stop trying pass off their values on others at any rate? Fighting bigotry with more intolerance is a losing a battle.

By continuing these pointless debates you've established one thing; they've won. As long as the debate continues they win. And they're the minority to boot. Now that's something to be enraged about!

What makes you think there isn't a agenda already at work? Was the Soviet Union's fine example of adaption in biological evolution not enough?

I'm sorry, did you just infer that the North American school system is pushing an agenda akin to Soviet Russia?

Yeah, from this point on I'm ignoring you completely. You clearly have no grasp of history, biology, or the real world. Kudos, sir, on managing to be as fucking idiotic as LordSword from a completely different perspective.

LOL ignored for being level headed. :tpg:

"This house is brand new! It hasn't burned down yet! That means it must be completely immune to fire!"

You guys know that if this issue comes up, you're supposed to do everything you can to stop it, right? That even if it does get through that it'll be overturned by the courts, right? That arguing until you're blue-faced on the internet isn't how you combat creation science, right?

Right? Right? Right? hey guys

As Lordsword and Watts aren't actually in any position to push creation science (as neither of them are of age to vote) I think I can call this a crisis averted.

Not to say that you don't have a fat lot of nerve complaining about people fighting over the same hot button arguments but

Did you know that you can stem threads from being interesting by not posting in them yourself? That you too can stop the viral infection that is internet posting?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/Mo...ipTroopers.jpg

I'm pretty sure LordSword is, actually.

Just sayin'. ;_;

Being religious is no excuse, don't they teach critical thinking these days?

fucking kids

I'm glad that somebody else found this all amusing as much as I did. ;)

I'm just not sure where Watts is pushing Creation Science.

I dunno what kind of wires got crossed, but basically Watts is saying that there isn't a massive Christian Right boogeyman out there that's forcing their agenda on the country at large.

The fact that we're having a Creationist Science debate gives credence to their ideas, because it makes it seem like it's worth debating. There's nothing to debate. Creation Science isn't science, period. The vast majority of our public school systems think so. The vast majority of Americans think so. And our courts think so.

Creation Science isn't science. That's as far as this needs to go.

Still Watts, what were you inferring about agendas and evolution in schools? Because I don't see any kind of agenda unless it involves not teaching kids properly.

Oh no, cap'n. I assure you. Plenty of us find you right amusing. Especially the bit where you infer scientific study is akin to Soviet Russia skewing knowledge to make a political point.

Much like philosophy or economics, science has a long history of being co-opted to further social/political agendas. Theories of evolution and natural selection, or rather how it was interpreted spawned social agendas like eugenics (ie: racial discrimination) and political agendas like social Darwinism. (ie: colonialism) Both of which were taught in science classrooms.

It's complacent or lazy to assume that other agendas are not at work in modern day curriculum. Presenting and passing on modern day values onto the next generation.

Its complacent or lazy to make a statement and not present evidence to the current situation. Okay, so there have been times that science has been twisted into an agenda - either make an example involving current situations or shut up.

Well, coming out of the public school system, I'm having a hard time identifying what agenda, if any, is currently at work. We're obviously not pushing for eugenics any more, and Social Darwinism went the way of the dinosaur. If anything the agenda at work is to keep people ignorant of evolution so that interested parties can claim that "it's just a theory" and not instantly be reacted to with scorn. Most everything I learned about evolution I pretty much taught myself. I can't even recall taking anything resembling a biology class in High School, and I went to a school with a high number of college-going graduates.

My post------------------->
























































Your head--------------------------------->

I like the inference that people who believe in theological creation are people who struggle to get their GED. :)

Last time I checked I wasn't living in Nazi Germany. Eugenics? Come on now.

I'm not saying that the kids should be dumb, our school actually had a plan to gear us for college. In many ways it was preparatory. The fact that none of us were really prepared for any field involving biology couldn't have just been a mistake.

Eugenics carried a tremendous stigma because of the Holocaust. Before WW2 it was illegal for the retarded to procreate.

It's really simple if you actually think about it. (or read the topic with any degree of reading comprehension) I was agreeing with everyone else in their views about "creation science". Brady already pointed that out. Yet because I did not meet their standard of persecuting or leaving the creationists alone to pursue their agenda, I was instantly met with animosity. This being no different when it comes to the reception that skepticism regarding current scientific issues like global warming are met with. Despite the pre-existing scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'll spell it out. Since the inception of public education and continuing well into this day.... the overall agenda is;

Uniformity. -and when someone dares challenge that uniformity- Animosity.

It's even easier to tell what's not being taught in public schools. Reading comprehension and critical thought. Though I do not know if that's intentional, or just a byproduct of so many simple minded people.

If you would've taken biology when in high school, (it was a requirement for both my middle and high school) when you got to the subject
of natural selection it would've stressed three important values; freedom, competition, and the struggle for survival. The cornerstones of capitalism as far as I'm concerned. Which I have no problem with.

But I'm not a Marxist. Surely they could complain about a bias in the way Natural Selection was portrayed.

Science is not inherently bias or dogmatic. It just depends on how it's portrayed. (bold for emphasis)


It's funny that you mention that. Eugenics was big particularly in the United States and Canada until Nazi Germany took it upon itself to prove it's wrong. Sterilization programs continued past the Holocaust. We just did it to the mentally impaired instead of people who weren't racially pure.

I'm sure there was people who were skeptical about eugenics at the time. That's half the problem, because if you did you would not only just be met with animosity. You probably would've died in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

The other problem of course is that the majority of people bought into the eugenics theory (that eventually led to the Holocaust) in the first place. The minority of skeptical people who were smart just kept their mouths shut or were marginalized.

I'm not so sure about that either. Most of the eugenicists and organizations pushing eugenics were forced into the scientific underground. They changed over into genetics or other areas of biology. This doesn't mean their
underlining ideology has been stamped out. The degree of manipulation at work depends on the positions of influence former eugenicists hold in current
scientific research. Like say, the Human Genome Project.

Wow, and you use this as comparison with your skepticism with evolutionary theory?

really?

where are you confused? Where do you think the science doesn't add up?

Also I like how you're hopping on the train ride of "I don't agree with forcefully sterilizing people against their will" like this is a badge of honor. welcome to the rest of the world, numbnuts.

I have no problem with evolutionary theory, outside of the Soviet example I used earlier and the Marxist take on natural selection.

How many times do I have to say I'm not for creationism, "creation science", or intelligent design? Nevermind, I'm just going to stop.

Simple minded insults from a simple minded person.

Playground retorts from an appropriately minded child.

Keep the change, kid.

You've missed the point, Lurker. His argument basically boils down to: "You hate me because I'm different, while I hate you because you're all the same."

For someone who was screaming about a lack of critical thought, he's pretty quick to wave his arms around and scream AGENDA with no proof beyond his own petty paranoia. But he's right, you know. We're taught to think in a uniform fashion. Which is why anthropology always agrees with sociology, who always agrees with psychology, who always agrees with religious studies, etc.

It's a pity. Smart enough to read Farenheit 451, not smart enough to apply the metaphor properly. Ah well, maybe the next one, eh Watts?

Oh, and as a P.S.

There is no big vast conspiracy pushing a scientific agenda. And even if there were, it would get overturned anyway. You see why your logic is burying you?

How very sophisticated.

The historical example you presented takes a leap of logic here that does not exactly constitute evidence for your hypothesis when it comes to hidden agenda in my opinion.

You compared yourself, apropos of nothing, to the people who opposed nazi germany. You don't know a god-damn thing about me but I know you're full of yourself and you don't have the brains to back it up.

Why do you keep whining about how victimized your opinion is when the only argument people have with you is that you're trite and stupid?

Why should political or social sciences be held to a higher standard of exactness then regular science? It is after all only a hypothesis.

Yeah, granted I missed that because reading his posts was similar to the legendary fudgy shits LeHah always talks about taking. I have no interest in spending much time with either.

Our school system was imported from Prussia. It was the intent of the social planners behind the reform to make kids uniform, it's just that nobody's really caught on or cares about it.

I think you mentioned that before. I just forgot the link you posted. Something to do with the "Underground History of American Education" right?

search function yo

To coin Auden - "I smell an era of blood and prominent banning"

When you can measure personality traits in the same exactness that you can measure the composition of molecules, then maybe this won't be the dumbest statement out of your smartest-in-the-junior-year-at-school mouth.

Maybe in your facist, lol wuts universal suffrage¿, nation it was. :p

Rab your country kidnapped children until like the 1970s, don't act like your shit don't stink.

Finally, I get a word with you. I have a sence of humor too. I love our conversations in my time away from here and I suppose you have graced us with your presence because many folks dont understand your plan. Many of your servants have come here and like the old testament days these guys don't listen.
Please break it down for us as to why you keep sending folks like me to repeat the same message for this unbelieving croud.



Of course but I know that even without a bible in hand you have been equiped well enough to come to the same conclusions as the book. Many here are already "christians" by the fact that they seem to know how the religion should be practiced. I'm just helping folks find their way.

Yes. A six day creation too. I also believe in a God that can make 10 million year old rocks in a fraction of the time. Scientists can tell me what they observe but they don't run anything and they dont have a blueprint of the laws of the universe. They may act like it & expect me to fall in line but I'm not game for that.

This is good. We need more people here like you. Please give this a look. I have yet to get a reply about this book http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ISD/index.asp
Because of your experience your opinion weighs heavily on this issue.

The abortion industry and specifically planned parenthood is rooted in eugenics. Any science heads here support eugenics?

is it eugenics when a woman wants it?

And why would God create 10 million (and older) year old rocks, exactly?

I support eugenics, but I worry that the people controlling it would probably just make things worse.

I also imagine abortion has been around ever since people figured out women are the gender that give birth to babies.

I'm not really sure what you want me to say about the book, but looking at just one testimonial makes me kinda feel I know how all of it will be.

So he doesn't say it presented him a rational argument that made him change his mind, it doesn't say what he read overturned all of the evidence that he had seen no problems with before, all it did was just make him have some gut feeling that there's a wrong with the theory. Personally, I have no problem with people believing in things for this reason. I mean, that's why one form of quantum mechanics is more popular than another. There's multiple forms that correctly explain what's going on, but certain ones are more popular for describing what's physically happening because they just have a stronger gut appeal to more people. It's just when you say that everyone else is wrong and all of their physical evidence is completely wrong because you've got a gut feeling, then it's hard to agree your ideas are scientific.

I think Cro-Magnons preferred infanticide to abortion.

But the great sky bully who dictates all things. That you're game for. Please tell me you see the irony. But this entry isn't about your faith, it's about your idiotic belief in a non-science.

And Brady, that's only because the cro-mags hadn't figured out wire hangers yet.

And as someone who has papers published, albeit in the social sciences and not the hard ones, I figured I'd give you my take on the link you gave to RR. My reaction is basically the same. As I noted here http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/jo...&entryid=32467, a man who loathes religion might turn to it under duress (I have every expectation you'll completely miss the point of that entry and skew what happened, but so be it. Be a zealot if you want.) so what would a religious man do when faced with a crisis of faith? As RR said, following a gut feeling is fine. Following a gut feeling in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is probably going to make you look like an idiot.

Well, if he can figure out how to smack her on the head with a club so he can bag her, I imagine one of them would figure out if you punch her stomach enough the baby won't pop out.

Ug keep clean cave. Ug not Neanderthal, we eat Neanderthal.

Maybe Ug eats babies too. :(

Ug likes placenta, sells babies for more women

Saves up. Buys nintendo Wii. Ug like Rayman. Funny bunny falls down a lot.

Ug is wimpy casual gamer. Old-schoolers like Torg only play Joe & Mac for NES.

Ug prefer Joe & Mac for SNES. More historically accurate. Ug hates anachronism.

Ug prefer unshaven vagina. Shaved cootch make Ug think of little girl.

But Ug digresses...

Please pardon the refrence but I feel it to helpful in my explanation.
Isaiah 55:9
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It is not clear as to what brand new matter is like to us. Let alone a brand new Earth.
Consider for a moment that it may not be helpful to the support of life. I think radioactive decay is the most poplular dating method. Imagine the radiation levels of the early earth.
The the term God helps us imagine an entity that has complete mastery of all aspects of reality, not just of what we we can measure.
A God could wind the clock forward on matter for the purpose of our current state of comfort.
Consider again the application of pursuing this idea. Toxic waste could be "aged" to meet safety requirements. Stockpiles of nuclear waste processed for some other purpose.


You have done all that I asked, thanks.

If it were so, then why wouldn't he have done something about the already existing nuclear waste?

If there is a God, you have to accept that everything that goes on has already been foreseen by him and that there is no reason to worry about anything. If you admit that he should change some things, then your saying he wasn't able to make everything perfect on the first try and your admitting that he has faults, in which case he can't be the all-ruling and all-powerful entity of which you speak.

Either way, wasting your time imploring him to fix everything that is wrong for us instead of doing something about it yourself (i.e. through research, in this specific case towards ways of handling nuclear waste to make it less dangerous to living beings) serves you in nothing more than it serves us.


you should really give it up. It's getting old.

LordSword. I am really happy that you've found purpose in your life- purpose dictated by the presence and explanation of a supreme being. A god which makes "sense" of a senseless world....

However, its not fair of you to assume that everyone else must follow your example and do the same in order to be "saved". I find your sense of purpose nothing short of aggravating. It's almost as if you aren't convinced enough about your own sense of faith so you must re-inforce it by trying to change the mind of the people around you.

Not everyone wants to be "saved" because it involves man not holding himself accountable for his own fate.
You are trying to forcefeed people into accepting something and it's never going to work, at least not here. People are far too educated to place their lives and fate in the hands of such a clumsy supreme being, let alone you.

I feel like I must post this. Then again, you will probably read this and double your efforts... You just don't know when to quit. Accept that you can't/shouldn't try to change anyone to re-affirm your own sense of faith. That's incredibly selfish and undermines the intelligence of not only the entire forum, but yourself.

edit: Btw, Divest, why did you rate this down?

So God can make 10 million year old rocks for the purpose of ___, because he works in mysterious ways and can do whatever he wants.

So - if he wanted to, anyway - he could have thousand upon thousands of alter dimensions of Earth, slightly different variations with slightly different physics, therefore it is entirely possible that on one of those worlds the events of Naruto are playing out.



I can't tell you how deeply relieved I am that God is not a fangirl.

See, heres the problem. God can create a rock thats millions of years older than the earth actually is - but the guy can't make a BLT because its from an unclean animal.

Something there just don't add up, if you ask me.

Didn't it become clean when Jesus died?

Sweet Jesus, how retarded are you? Honestly, this is why overly-blind religious assholes like you are subhuman in my eyes. Anthing that defies explanation can be quickly resolved by saying "God did it because he's a magical wonderfuck who can do any and everything." Fuck that noise. Don't you have a soul? Don't you realize how retarded you sound when you say shit like this?

To quote Bill Hicks: You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?

Technically, it became clean as soon as technology progressed to the point where the animal was actually COOKED.

All those laws about "unclean" were all intended to quell the spread of disease. Great ideas, up to a point. Technology (and I'm using this in the not even modern sense of the word) fixed a lot of that by the time Jesus rolled around.

Your explanation has two problems.

First, why would God need to create old rocks when he could just let nature take its course? You seem to be suggesting that God does not exist outside of time, which is odd since the Bible indicates the opposite ("With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day", 2 Peter 3:8).

Second, why would God create a system of nature only to contradict it right away? And I do mean right away, because according to the strict reading of the Bible, God created the universe and the Earth all in a matter of days. Your explanation suggests that God made a system and then right afterwards went, "Oh well, better just make the Earth differently cause that isn't gonna work too well for my Saturday deadline." This suggests poor planning on God's part, hardly what I'd expect of an omniscient being.

You just posted what I was about to say, but I'll reinterpret the line from 2 Peter that you posted to say what pretty much all intelligent interpreters of the Bible say, anyway:

Those "7 days" are not literally "seven days!" Big shocker there. The whole week concept merely exists because the Jewish people at the time of the Bible being written had no concept of time that would include the possibility of millions of years. Those 10-million year-old rocks are, guess what: TEN MILLION YEARS OLD!

Plus you get prop points from me for also bringing up the fact that a literal reading of the Bible implies that God fucked up in creating the world originally.

Thats our job remember?
Genesis 2:15
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.


Ephesians 1:11
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
"Old rocks" are made for the purpose of our current environment which He wanted from the beginning.
Wouldnt God see the point in creating a thing correctly in the first place. I explained things in a way that you would understand.

What about the application I put forward? I know its a tough one to wrap ones mind around but I demonstrated how a person uses the creation point of view to forward research. Its not the first time science has had help from religious sources.

HOW ARE ROCKS PEOPLE? or WHAT DOES A QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE CLEARLY INDICATING PEOPLE HAVE TO DO WITH ROCKS?


I think I asked in a way you can understand.

You know, Lordsword, you don't have to take the Bible literally, it wasn't made by God. Or do you take all the non-canonical gospels as equal to the gospels in the Bible?

That's a clever way of keeping the plebes from questioning authority.

Doesn't acknowledging God and then admitting to predestination cancel each other out?

So God tells you to be condescending as well. I see.

Predestination? You mean this fucker's a Calvinist now? He can't even seem to keep his belief systems straight.

Well, cut the guy some slack. He prays to something that cannot be logically understood or agreed upon by any two people in the entire world. He'd have to be a LITTLE confused...

You didn't actually answer my question. See below for why that is.

One would think so, yet according to your beliefs God created the universe and all of its systems, including radioactive decay, and then in his infinite wisdom contradicted the system he had just developed. What I don't understand, and what you have yet to clearly answer (despite your best efforts to explain it so I can understand) is why God wouldn't just let the natural laws he had just developed create the Earth, instead of just blinking it all into existence.

Family Guy wasn't far off the mark when it compared the traditional Christian notion of God to an episode of I Dream of Jeannie.

I'm sure Galileo is turning in his grave at those words.

I'll say it, I lolled.

Wait, for real now - you mean during the exodus they didn't cook food? You're shitting me. How did they make bread?

That was also God's work.

The eucharist is just a metaphor!

That's not what Dull meant. It rained bread every morning during the exodus. They just had to pick it up every morning. You know, because they couldn't cook.

I can't make shit like that up.

...

no wonder my sister's a jewophile, that shit is awesome.

Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool

He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool

- King Missile: Jesus Was Way Cool (Excerpts)

I thought it rained mana because there's a surprisingly small amount of food in the Sinai.

I thought everyone would get that I was making a joke, but we saw how that turned out.

Well, there is that whole "unleavened" thing. Plus there's cooked and then there's cooked well enough to prevent trichinosis.

We believed the hype. :(

DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE LORDSWORD! LEAVE, RUN NOW!

Political Palace is serious business, mister.

Yeah, if by "God" you mean his ego. Don't you realize that we only exist as supporting characters in this (jedi) hero's RPG quest to defeat evil?

Oh, save me from my ignorance, great hero!

I have no problem with the idea that God created the laws of physics and let creation takes it's course. I do have the unproven hunch that He may have helped push things along. I personally like to think that my existence is due to more than just the pure chance happening of certain molecules combining billions of years ago.

Myself and many of my practicing Christian brethren look at evolution and wonder how something so carefully analyzed and tested can possibly be false. The facts and methods simply make sense to me. But even though it contradicts a strict literal interpretation of the bible, it in no way damages my belief in God as the creator.

For whatever reason this point of view seems to irritate, confound, or anger certain people. Having my cake and eating it too. Mmmmmm, cake. Anyhoo, I don't think anyone can truly understand God. Like science, we can learn a lot but there will always be a lot more we don't know.

What I find a problem with people who view the universe as a creationist machine and are not also Deists is that an artificial universe with its own natural laws sort of defeats the point of divine interference, unless God is a big jerk who likes to fuck with us.

People such as myself simply don't view a God created universe as 'artificial', regardless of how creation is explained. And while I don't view God as being a jerk, I do prefer an authority with the power and desire to intervene in the natural course of things to one that just works for six days and then sits back and spectates from afar all the way till the end of time.

And I suppose the ultimate way to 'f***' with someone would be to damn them to hell. So in a way I'm not totally disagreeing with you. But who says He can't help us too? ... Well, I guess a lot of us would say that I suppose. Oh well. :P

I just don't think there's much point in trying to help us if the universe operates on natural laws. It'd be much more interesting to observe the universe operating on its own.

It is nice to think that we're special, but that doesn't necessarily make us God's chosen people regardless of what the Bible says.

The view of the universe as artificial is sort of necessary in a creationist perspective, because without God creating the universe, the universe would not exist. Therefore God is the state of nature.

God makes a point from time to time to show how powerful He is. I see it as a teaching tool to help us stretch our minds outside the box of uniformitarianism.

I'm one of the oddball Christians who does not agree with this. Earlier Denicalis hinted at something I already knew....
Scientists are starting to bump into dead ends when it comes to explaining things through the evolutionary perspective.
I think the notion of irreducible complexity & intelligent design is the next step forward. As in the past fear and hate rear its ugly head again because the established majority is threatend by change.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

The notion of a universe that is filled with purpose is supported by creation science. Everywhere science turns there is a discovery of some new system of complex order surpassing our own creative intentions. Scientists have yet to find evidence of "accidental creation".

If I may interject, just how much longer is this merry-go-round of religious bickering going to keep going?

I ask because I get the sense that people grow weary of pointlessly arguing theology with you and would rather move on to other topics of discussion, such as anything else at all.

As long as there is doubt in the hearts of men.
I know people get angry with me and the supporters of this subject because deep down there is something unsettled that points to a God. Its pulling now drawing us together, the ultimate end of creation science is to bring people to the acceptance of what they already know.

Irrelevance of the scripture aside, wouldn't your argument here applied to its extreme mean that God itself was created?

I guess we can look forward to this pointless regressive mindset for the rest of eternity then.

AWESOME. Easily attainable goal considering that common sense and free thinking aren't a part of the rational human's thought process. Also, can you cure cancer for us too? Because, you know, that would help me out a lot.

In other words, God's an all-powerful, ego-maniac who will arbitrarily violate his own laws of nature just to make a point of how awesome he is. I don't see how God violating nature expands anyone's perspective, but I think I have a pretty clear picture now of the sort of God you believe in.

Proclaiming your argument valid doesn't make it so.

The ultimate end of creation "science" is to try to pretend that God violating natural laws to serve his ego somehow is a logical way to manage a universe.

"We don't know the answer. Right, well, must be God. I mean, otherwise we could explain everything. Because we have the full understanding of the universe."

You arrogant, arrogant fuck. You're the reason people think christians are pricks. I mean, you know that, right? You're the problem your religion has. You're the reason people don't like to go to church. You're the reason when someone says they're christian, scientific minded people look with disdain. If people like you would shut the fuck up, maybe perceptions would actually shift.

Here, let me sum up every argument you've ever made:

"I don't know the answer, so God."

"People disagree with me because God tests me. God."

"Not everyone hates me, they just know God is the answer to all things and they're afraid."

"Oh hey, my cable went on the fritz. GOD."

"The volcano exploded and we don't know why. UG KNOWS IT WAS VOLCANO GOD."

"Oh, have I mentioned I'm religious?"


SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP

Sweet merciful crap, didn't we ban Simply Majestic for shit like this?

Yes we did actually.

BRB GOIN TO MODHUT

God told me it'll be ending sooner than that.

That creation science is a load of bunk?

It is if you're God I guess, QED this thread

God doesn't need to do shit to prove how powerful He is to you. So, with that in mind - prove it. Don't prove to me God exists, prove to me that physics is wrong.

Or show me how creationism can create predictive models that can be used for technology ie vaccines, like Evolution can. Yeah I capitalized it. Show me how creationism can be useful for anyone other than people who're butthurt by science.

God says He gave you a perfectly useable brain, and he's pissed off 'cause you let it rot.

edit: lol drama while I wasn't paying attention

Are you seriously trying to uh, allay the doubt of God in the hearts of us heathens or something?

Because, sir, if that's the case - you are an UTTER FAILURE.

You haven't convinced anyone here. In fact, I'm willing to bet that when you spout off your Bible-laced gibberish, you're too busy thinking about YOU to understand that your message is not getting across AT ALL. I'll bet that you're all like, Ohhh, lookit me, I'm striking a blow for God, ohhh, I'm showing these people how unassailable creationism is.. in other words, I I I ME ME ME ME ME ME.

You really don't get it. Preaching the word of God is about how the other person feels about his life in context to Jesus, not HAR HAR I'm WINNING THE ARGUMENT GOD RULES. That's why you've utterly failed in talking about God - you do not actually look outside yourself when you're doing it. That's why people like you are very bad missionaries - in fact, more people get turned AWAY from Christianity because of you. Your efforts are turning people away from God.

Look. You said that I understand Christian values. This is because I converted to Christianity myself, 12 or so years ago, and read widely about Christianity. I have a uncle who is a doctor and a missionary in China, whom I joined for a couple of weeks to see what his work was like. He doesn't beat people over the head with God. He doesn't rant and rave about evolution. He lives the life of a Christian, and without having to beat his chest about God, people come to him.

Compared to that, you are nothing but an embarrassment. You have shown nothing but a superficial, shallow understanding of theology. Go away, read more of the Bible, and actually think about it before you abuse it by pasting it all over your "arguments" like self-help slogans. Then maybe we can have a talk about Christianity.

What I want to know if LordSword understands that if there is a God, he's an athiest.

That means I'm either right that there isn't a God - or God understands why I don't believe in him. Means I have a better shot at an afterlife than some blowhard cumbag who thinks that acting anonymously on the internet for his idiot religious morals is the new way to pull bedsheets over your head and burn black people's houses.

Right now, the only thing thats pointing is my ass in the toilet. Duchess double cheeseburgers go through you like a buffalo stampede.

I tried to get this across to him on so many occasions. I tried to explain that when he acts this way, he will naturally elicit hostility. He prefers to believe that the hostility is because non-Christians have too much anger and no self control. I tried to explain that it's because he provokes people deliberately.

When he still didn't understand, I gave examples. When he then explained his behaviour by saying that anything may be justified in the name of God, I lost all interest in talking to him. He's either completely blind to other perspectives or he's deliberately trolling. I have never been entirely certain which of those two possibilities is the most likely. If he is putting on a show for the internet, then the illusion is almost complete.

Funny thing is, he PMed me afterwards asking me to stop arguing with him in public because it would threaten the show of peace and harmony among Christians. That's the word he used: "show".

This guy just gets better and better.

Colossians 3: 18-21 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

See, because of this, we know that God made the universe and didn't just make physical laws and whatever you're trying to make me see.



I swear, the quote's entirely relevant.

delicious copypasta
 

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Interesting. I wonder if this will actually sway anyone's opinion, but interesting nevertheless. Though the arguments on both sides seem flawed to me it's still good food for thought.

To me, that story just illustrates that people on both sides of this argument are arrogant dicks.

And that neither actually knows the fundamentals of their own arguments. :(

Can you quickly elaborate ? :3

Temperature is defined arbitrarily. Not just the scale of it, but if we choose to measure it as it goes to zero (as we have chosen) or as it goes to infinity. Hence, cold could be measured as the distance our temperature is from infinity. Hell, heat doesn't exist either. It's just a construct we use to give ourselves a simplified description of the universe. In reality it's just energy in a certain form. It's like asking if the color blue exists. Not really, we just use it as a method of describing something we perceive.

The asking of if humans evolved from monkeys is also a bit flawed, since I'm sure any science professor looking for a fight on religion would do the standard dance around how we didn't evolve from monkeys but had a common ancestor (minor issue).

This also smacks of current day Creation Science definitions of what science is, and not what is not actually representative of what it truly is.

Of course, there is a testable hypothesis here which can readily be verified using any sort of modern day or ancient techniques, and with the help of induction, we can make the fairly safe assumption (on the faith that our perception of the rest of the world is real) that the professor's brain exists.

Yeah I was kinda disappointed that it started to sound like the usual anti-evolution tract at the end. Still, I found it amusing. =j

That's a pretty bad professor. I wondered why he didn't answer the student's question about "evolving from monkeys" with a sound no, too. Although both sides were pretty arrogant, there's a huge difference between induction and blind faith, as was said.

The other part was when the professor said "What is night if it isn't darkness?" This doesn't sound like a professor to me. Besides being wrong, it also smacks of biblical language.

What bothers me is that stories like this serve two purposes to two different groups: to believers it's a way for them to feel comfortable that SOMEHOW science and faith can exist on top of each other, and for non-believers it's a way to say "Let's be apathetic and agnostic because no one knows!"

Not really. Theres dozens of quotes that logically dismiss the idea of God; the only thing that keeps him perpetuating is self-willed ignorance or the naturally vapid.

Fits in the thread ~

My question for this thread is the following:

When will Christianity, and all other forms of religion going to go out like the greek myths and roman myths of their time? Because, if I'm not mistaken, isn't religion based upon myths? Myths, in this case, are stories to explain things that the comman man does not know how to explain factually?

I mean, shit...according to the native americans, wasn't the earth placed on a turtle's back, a gigantic turtle that would encircle the sun while the earth rolled around on it's back?

Shit son, Noah's Arc was probably based off some myth involving poseiden being extremely pissed off, with his trident stuck up his ass. Speaking of Noah's Ark, where the hell is the bitch that road with Noah's testimony? I mean fuck, the woman he fornicated with SHOULD have at least given props or something.

All and all, the Bible was plagerized :(

Believers do not consider the events of the bible to be myths. There is some evidence in the historical records of a massive flood that seems to coincide with events of Noah's arc. But it's not much more than a little peace of mind to a believer, and I assume not terribly convincing to everyone else.

I doubt very much that Judaism is going anywhere since the practitioners of that faith have been documented for at least 3000 years. Christians and Moslems, who also believe in the God of Jacob and Abraham, probably aren't going anywhere either. The importance of the bible is not about historical or scientific accuracy. Those who believe understand that the bible is the word of God to tell us how to get to heaven.

I understand that a lot of what's in the bible is hard to swallow. It's even hard for many devout Christians to accept all of it. Was Jonah really living inside a fish's stomach for three days? That can be a tough sell, I know. What is more important to me though is what I can learn from the choices Jonah made and God's response to those choices.

The Christian faith differs from Romans, Native Americans, and the like because Christianity isn't a culture nor is it confined to a geographic area. And the myths associated with certain culture, like the Romans, are oftentimes not believed by its people. China, Scandinavia, Central America, Africa...these areas today all have rich mythologies tied to their cultures that are clearly not embraced as truth by most of their inhabitants.

Going back to this thread...many Christians get offended when people question their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. And then other people get offended right back. These issues don't really affect my faith because I'm more focused on the getting-into-heaven thing. To me that takes precedence over whether or not the Old Testament is 100% factual.

Um...not to burst your bubble, but in all actuallity Christianity started out like that. It was confined to one area, and well, it spread like a plague of sorts.

Think of it this way. What if instead of Europeons landing on American soil, the native americans would have been the first to become more sophisticated, and went to spread their beliefs among the many other lands? Safe to say if that happened, you might be looking at your corn right now and praying to it.

As you point out, Christianity wasn't confined very long. Probably not even for a year. That hardly fits the definition of confined considering that Christianity is almost 2000 years old.

It's not safe to say that. A person doesn't automatically grow up to become their environment. I wasn't raised as a Christian. I went to public school. Growing up in Los Angeles certainly didn't persuade me to believe in Jesus. Sure, there are a number of people undoubtably who may be 'forced' to adopt a religious view by simple fact of where and to whom they were born. But that's a far cry from being a 'safe' bet. The Romans didn't inflict their mythology onto the Jews, the Egyptians, or even Christians. There are unfortunate times in history where some so called Christians spat in the face of Jesus and tried to convert people by force. But the people who committed those grievous sins were not following the teachings of Jesus.

The United States was founded by Christian deists. You see it in the constitution, our currency, the pledge of allegiance, the justice system, etc. Is it safe to say that every American grows up to be a devout Christian? Not really.

Er no, but it would have been kind of a bit less likely that you would have become a christian if the Native Americans would have conquered and slaughtered most of the european/african christian population.

Bullshit. Christianity was fairly confined until Constantine I effectively made it Rome's state religion in the early 4th century. That's 300 years, not less than a year. It's quite a bit longer than that if you include the Zoroastrian mythology that the Christian mythos seems to have been based on.

You're trying to draw parallels between now and thousands of years ago. It don't work quite like that. Nowadays, we've got tons of choices. We're inundated with different sets of religious beliefs.

Back then, I do not believe that was the case. Your choices tended to be more along the lines of conformity or death. Also, christianity was only confined for a year, before dwhat, it suddenly encompassed the world? Pretty sure Christianity didn't take off until Constantine converted back when. Would have been a few hundred years after inception.

Also, I think historically, the religion did spread through conquest. 100 years' war as a relatively recent example, every time some poor german province got seized by another prince, the official religion of the province changed. You had Catholic mothers with a son raised protestant, who may have then had a catholic daughter. It's not like people had a choice to opt out back then.

One could argue that the prevalence of Christianity today is a result of it being the religion of a bunch of empires, in which case Grail's got a point that if the Hope's had spread out from Arizona to conquer all of North America, and then discovered the new world of Spain, we might think naughty women were impregnated by coyotes or something.

You know what Noah's Ark/the Babylonian Flood story/Ys/Mu/Lemuria/Atlantis/R'yleh says to me?

Somewhere some city/island/"the world" was flooded. It fucking happened. Note that "the world" was in quotes. I don't believe that Noah saved all the animals in the world. I believe that if Noah happened, it was confined to a region. YAY LOGIC.

Possibly nitpicky, but for further edification etc, R'yleh at least is part of an artificial mythos created by Lovecraft and then reinforced by other authors of the time. I don't know that it has the same significance as other mythologies with similar references. Basically an oshit you lost a data point.

I know that. I'm just including it for the morons who really believe in the Great Old Ones.

I personally believe that even though they were completely uptight pricks, the gods of Greek mythology were pretty fucking simple.

I mean seriously, if you were a sailor, you prayed to posiedon and worshiped him, if you were a swinger you prayed to aphrodite, if you enjoyed killing the fuck out of people you worshipped Ares, and if you were an emo prick, you'd worship Hades.

But all in all, in greek and roman religion, it all started with ONE being, I believe it was Chronos for Greek, and his roman name escapes me now.

The one good thing Greek and Roman mythology had going for it was that yes, these gods were all powerful, and demanded your worship, made you sacrifice things you held dear, and all around were used to explain how things happen...and this is why I enjoy Greek and Roman mythology the most...

NO ONE EVER CLAIMED THAT THE GODS LOVED US AND CARED ABOUT US AT ALL.

Unlike a certain diety that hides behind the idea that as long as you do what he says, you'll experience a blissful afterlife...but if you don't you suffer for eternity...but he still loves you.

I don't think that was unique to greek or roman myth. In fact I think it was characteristic of the time that the gods were part of a fickle and uncaring nature. You did what you could to appease them, and otherwise went on with your life and hoped you didn't catch their attention.

In God's defense though, there is some difficulty reconciling free will with bliss for everyone. If you define infinite love as bliss for everyone, things get sticky. I think all that implies is that bliss for everyone and infinite love are not necessarily identical. Assume that heaven and hell are natural consequences, rather than assignations and you see where I'm going.

So you're essentially trying to kiss your god's ass to get into his post-death rave?

You don't really care about his really awesome book, but more how you're going to get past the bouncer and through the pearly gates?

I'm just trying to understand, here.

Thats the way I read it.

Basically, if I had a really good pitch, I could say "Give me $500 and you go to heaven when you die" and I'll be just as legit as his current bullshit theological idealism.

Natural consequences is perfectly fine, and I gladly accept that. If I'm a deadbeat asshole that only seeks to cause harm to others somewhere down the line in an extreme way, I'd accept the fact I'm going to burn.

But I think if I'm a generally nice guy, who makes people laugh, has a good time without it being at others expenses (not all the time >.>) and all around doesn't harm a soul, I don't think I should be damned to an infinate abyss of torture and slavery just because I don't believe in God.

But that's the way it is...most the time if you don't believe in God, you burn, or in some cases, the J-Dawg. That's just messed up in my opinion

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church already tried that one a few decades ago. At least you know it could work! =D

Of course geopolitical situations are going to influence the growth and development of religions, but the opposite statement is true as well. There is no truth to find in between, sincere conversions are as numerous as political ones. Religion is a factor of coherency, and has been used as such since the dawn of times.

Now, as to say the fact the ones that spread by far the most are all monotheistic and advocate a personal spiritual development is purely the coincidence of geopolitics seems like quite a statement.

If by decades you mean centuries? I thought indulgences was around Chaucer's time.

Gumby, I was thinking more along the lines of natural consequence of not being God's pet is not chilling with God after death. Might get kind of twisted into eternal suffering in comparison maybe. Thing that's fucked up with religion is there's a lot of people who can't do logic mucking around with it. Makes it difficult to discuss internally consistent ideas of God. Kind of like a Where's Waldo book, except with ideas. =(

That's what the corrupted popes tried 500 years ago, and it created protestantism.

Decades? I take it you're not familiar with the fact that Martin Luther abolished it a long time before that...

It only seems like quite a statement until you realize that all of the major monotheistic religions are just variations on a theme. Judaism was built on to form Christianity, which was built on to form Islam. All three of these religions believe basically the same thing about God, they just argue about who wrote it all down best.

In any case, Hinduism is probably the best possible argument for religion as a geopolitical characteristic. I'm not sure there's any other way to look at it.

It's late ... It indeed didn't translate in what I wrote but I was actually including sets of Asian religions in my line of thought (Buddhism, Taoism ...). The advocate a personal spiritual development is what matters in that argument, whom core problematic is to know if wealth creates those religions or if it's the other way around.

I don't know much about Hinduism, honestly. =/

I would argue that by and large, Christianity and Islam don't realistically advocate personal spiritual development. I do not dispute that it is possible to achieve personal spiritual development through those religions, but I think it's a tad idealistic to think that is the actual goal of either of these greater religious organizations.

Yea, I meant to say centuries, I am sorry. I am a dolt. (Protestants and all that stuff, check.)

Standard modern Christian argument.

If the Old Testament is not true, then Christianity loses all validity. You'll have to try better than that.

So was the original Yahweh of the Jews. He was pretty damn human. It wasn't until the Prophets section of the Hebrew Bible that Yahweh God who cast plagues on people he thought might be worshiping other gods became "the Lord" who loves His people.

For the record.

Wow! About the 'confinement' thing. I guess I'm approaching it the wrong way. If someone asks me to describe the spreading of Christianity throughout history I just wouldn't think to use the word 'confined'. I'm the one who brought it up so I apologize for inadequately explaining what I meant by it. I didn't really look at it in small chunks, and when I did I was thinking about Israel, then Asia Minor, Roman provinces, and then Rome which, to me at least, seems like pretty good progress for that time frame.

Gee, that's one way to look at it. I certainly wouldn't word it that way. :) "Kissing ass" implies that I do something even though I don't want to...but that isn't the case with true Christians. And I do care about the bible a great deal because it offers a lot of insight into what is important to God. I don't want to "get past the 'bouncer". I want the bouncer to look at me, my past, and the motives behind all the choices I've made. And hopefully he'll deem me worthy and let me in.

About the Old Testament not being 100% true. I belong to the group of Christians who have trouble interpreting all events of the Old Testament literally. There are biblical principles that explain why this doesn't invalidate Christianity. It goes hand in hand with why Christians don't have to adhere to the Mosaic law the way that the Jews do. But again, if you're not a believer then you'll hardly be satisfied with that. Still, interpreting a few parts figuratively hardly puts me in the position of discrediting the Old Testament. I think it's great, it is necessary to understand the sacrifice Jesus made, it is an essential source of prophecy...but without the new testament it just wouldn't matter to anyone but the Jewish people.

More to address. Post too long already. Sorry for getting on so many people's nerves. :(

That's such a complex question. If we talk about dogmas, which Christianity ? Which Islam ? At what point in time ? In which context ? =/

Western Christianity alone can be so different whether you look at it at a certain point in time or another. I personally think the purpose and true spirit of the western Christian church was lost some time around 1200 when the society it had been designed for evolved to something else.

Jesus' sayings very clearly invalidate numerous things from the Old Testament, though. There again, it's more complex than that in both ways.

Yeah, but this is what following most religions is all about. You do things in your life on an everyday basis, but for the most part, it has to be within a certain set of rules.

It's actually human nature to want to do everything one can without consequences, to have no worries of repercussion at all, to be truly 'free' as one would say. Every Sunday people go to church, some are bred to believe that they SHOULD go to Church every sunday, and learn to enjoy it...but deep down I'm sure that a lot of the times they are going there just to kiss ass.

There's quite a bit of truth in what you say, although I would still shy away from the "kiss ass" phrasing. I think many Christians feel pressure to attend services. There's so many things that time could be used for; fun, friends, studies, work, yadda yadda. So why do they go? Some fear God (which plays directly into the ass-kiss stance), others may go strictly for the social aspect (which can be a good or bad thing), others have responsibilities to the church, and still others because their family makes them. The best reason to attend I suppose would be to experience the joy of communing with God and learn His way while in the company of fellow believers.

I totally agree that a lot of people go to church not so much because they want to, but because they feel they are supposed to. I see it all the time. I used to be one of them. But I realized that I was offering my time as a sacrifice that was pleasing to God and eventually it brought me joy to do so. Some Christians find that joy right away, others may struggle their whole lives. Additionally, the simple fact of just being there exposed me to teachings I wouldn't discover on my own.

A lot of things about the Christian faith stand in opposition to what is generally accepted in the world. Conflict, such as the one prevalent throughout this thread, occurs when Christians promote their way of thinking. The term "slave to Christ" is certainly not going to sound very appealing to the masses, but it is something that Christians actually strive for. It's corny, it's cheesy, but it's true that there is freedom to be found when you willingly abide by the Christian principles Jesus established. It's a freedom from the stress, anger, depression, and other pains any person must endure. ?! Good golly, it's getting even cheesier. :P *bracing myself to get flamed*

Jesus was most likely a Pharisee with major influence from the Essene sect. When we look at him from a non-Christian perspective, he never specifically went against the Law, but was a left-winger who struggled to fight against the status quo. (i.e. the Sadducees and the more right-wing Pharisees).

Still, I wasn't arguing about that, exactly, but the Christian interpretation. Anyone can read Jesus as a Jewish commentator in line with the other prophets; to convince people that he was the Messiah that had been predicted (not to mention warping other verses in the Old Testament to make him appear godly), it is necessary to accept the Old Testament as fact.

While I am all for reading the Old Testament (and the New Testament, for the record) with a figurative outlook, I'd question any Christian about which verses they choose to be figurative and which literal.

Case in point: Jews since before Jesus read the verse that predicts that the Messiah will hail from Bethlehem as meaning that he will be descended from King David (who was born there); the Christians created this entire story based on how a couple from Nazareth (Joseph and Mary) were somehow in Bethlehem when Mary gave birth. Clearly, they took the Old Testament a little more literally than the Jews, at that point.

But why?

That's what you're doing. You're saying "I don't really pay attention to the whole BIBLE thing - I just want to get on God's cool list!" Which, if you ask me, is not very Christian at all.

You're afraid of the consequence - you're not actually paying attention to the point. I'm not a religious person, but if I were, I'd be offended.

What does church have to do with what you believe? It's just a big building where a certain type of believer congregates to worship. Apparently, God hears you better if you're all praying at once in the same place?

Which seems a little weird to me.

If you want to worship your lord, you shouldn't need a building and an organization to do it.

You can commune with god (and I sincerely believe this of any religion) anywhere you go, no matter your company. At least that's what they say about god. And it's the nicest thing I can think of when it comes to a deity. I would love it if everyone for their own path to god, and found it without the "help" from a church or organization.

You know why people "fear" god? Because the church wants you to. It keeps you in check. It creates (no offense) people like you who follow the religion not because of the good message it brings, but because you're scared shitless of going to hell.

I don't know why you keep talking about "going to church." It has very little to do with actual religion and a belief structure.

Yes, of course it is. Because that's what you're taught to be.

I don't understand how this isn't transparent to you. You're pretty much admitting that the GOAL is to be a slave to Christ.

Yes, it's freedom. You know how? Because you willingly reduce yourself to a little robot.

You don't have to challenge yourself. You don't have to think about what is actually right and wrong. You don't have to think about morals. You only have to do what the church tells you to do.

They say ignorance is bliss, afterall.

It is important to point out before anything else that, if you are a (sigh) "True Believer", it's nice to find places to congregate and pray together. Even if God hears no matter what, merely for the sake of the "saved" praying together has its benefits.

More technically, although you seem to have been speaking broadly, I know that the Church isn't exactly extra-biblical. After the Gospels, the New Testament is wrought with the history of the Church, or merely references.

I get the social aspect. You want to chill with people who are like you. TOTALLY respectable. I'd do the same. (Until that group started asking me for my money, telling me how to behave, telling me what's right and wrong despite what I think of the Bible)

I don't think (to the best of my recollection) that the Bible says "Thou shalt attend church at least 4 times a month in order to get into Heaven." ((I know some of are you going to come back with "But the Sabbath!" which is not "church."))

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/8...spouses3xl.jpg
NOT CHRISTIAAAAN!

It is simply way too difficult to get on the 'cool list' without familiarizing yourself with the bible. I wish I didn't have to repeat myself, but interpreting parts of the Old Testament figuratively does NOT mean I don't pay attention to the bible. Please stop trying to make it appear otherwise. Yes, I'm afraid of going to hell. No, I pay very careful attention to the teachings in the bible.

Yes. It is clearly written in the bible that God will pay more attention when two or more people pray in one accord. Church is not a building, it's a group of people who worship together so you're correct about the location not being important. However, fellowship is an integral part of Christian development. Good question.

I disagree, but this is based purely on my religious beliefs. I won't attack your ideals.

Yes, I fear God. But that doesn't mean I don't willingly do the good things I do. A young child may fear his parents and be motivated by this, but it doesn't mean that child won't also do things out of love for his parents too. My church wants me to both fear and love God. Without love I am no better than a fallen angel who has only fear. A Christian motivated more by fear and less by love is a Christian who doesn't understand God. When I pull over to help someone in a car accident it isn't because I'm afraid of God, it's because I simply want to help. I happen to credit God with my desire to do so. Of course, without religion, I'd like to think I was a pretty decent person. But now having believed, I'd like to think I'm capable of even more good.

Yup. It sounds lame, idiotic, and obtuse; i know. I don't expect most people to accept it or even understand why Christians would think this way. It really only makes sense to the devout.

I find it impossible to think of myself as a robot because I still feel passion and temptation. I think about right and wrong all the time. Sermons and bible reading aren't going to spell out the solution for every single problem. Life is just too complicated. I have to take what I know and constantly apply it. Sometimes I fail, but I learn and become better for it.

While not as blissful as I'd like, I still think I have a lot of bliss. ;)

I'd like to say for one second that I'm impressed you haven't taken the usual route by those who defend christiantiy by calling us a bunch of heretics and going off on a god spam, you have my respect.

Though to the above, in the quote, that god pays attention to those who pray with more than one person...that to me just says that as a single entity we don't matter, a single person doesn't matter, but a group does. Kinda sounds like the government to me >.>

This is like a battered wife saying that other people don't understand how much her abusive, redneck, tank top wearing, mullet cut husband loves her.

While it is anyone's prerogative to start a museum, and I'm not opposed to its existence, I think the term "creation science" is pretty amusing. No offence, but to me, that's the same as "middle earth science", or (since I can just see the outrage coming here - Lord of the Rings isn't as old and influential, etc.) "the scientific mechanism of the sirens' calls". The analysis of fictitious stories is literary, not scientific.

BUT IT'S NOT FICTICIOUS YOU HEATHEN GRRRR :mad:

Think about it this way. If Scientology exists, and we all know that it is fake/doesn't even matter, think about how easy it was for people back 2000 years ago to believe that a man could walk on water blah blah blah.

Sure, Hubbard was one guy, but get enough people to back up your claim, and soon it spreads. Hell, I don't even know if Hubbard actually STARTED that damndable religion, but hey...Following what went on with the whole "God" thing, only a few people have seen 'god' and wrote about it...same with Hubbard...yet we bash scientology because Tom Cruise is an active member. So what's the big difference?

The difference lies in how deeply rooted and accepted Christianity is in our society. Its influence (both positive and negative) on our very basic laws is far greater than the influence of a -so far deviant- group of scientologists. It's easy to stigmatize an out-group.

Deep rooted or not, the Bible is still just a ficticious account. I'm sure if there is a God, I SERIOUSLY doubt that he would enjoy having several groups made out of his image bickering about how one is better than the other.

Christianity states that there is only one God correct? And if anyone doesn't recognize their god, they are heathens and will suffer for all eternity. Well, if God created man in his image, that's pretty much saying that a LOT of what God is is rubbish, and isn't worthy. Know what I'm saying?

That is why I love Greek and Roman, even Egyptian and Norse Mythology. Sure, there was one God that started it all, but you have CHOICES as to who to actually worship without everyone going up in arms. And the great thing about it is, no matter who you worshipped, everyone went to the same place...though that place wasn't just black and white, it was an entire account of what good deeds you did and what bad deeds you did...and if the bad outweigh the good (and I mean seriously bad shit like murder for profit yadda yadda) Then your ass unfortunately got sent to the bad side of things.

Christianity: What? You don't belive in OUR god? Well shit...off to the fryer with you then.

To alter one of the oldest arguements against God - If there is a God, why does he allow people to argue over him? Either he doesn't exist and thusly cannot care or he's a dipshit and enjoys watching people argue.

Well it does have to do with the whole free will thing, but more importantly, if there is a God. Though I just think it's hilarious that most of the time it's the ones who worship him the most that are the ones probably going to burn for insulting him unintentionally.

One would think that acceptance would rule high up their on God's list of things he wants from Man, but shit...guess not.

And I do believe that if God does sit up there and enjoy watching people argue over him, then we actually MIGHT be in his image...I mean shit, how many people watch Jerry Springer or fucking Maury Povich?

YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER

OH HELL YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BOOOOOI

There is a very simple problem with your arguement. You say that people are insulting him unintentionally by improper worship. Unless you have direct, proven contact with God himself - how are you doing any different than they are? How do you know differently than them? (Admitting athieism after this point only proves you may not understand what you're saying.)

It's not necessarily improper worship, I just think it's a little odd that most everyone believes that we are made out of God's image, and if that is so, having intolerance for another's beliefs, race, sex etc. etc. would be indirectly insulting God's image would it not?

It's just an idea, I'm not any different than anyone else, but I'm not a bible thumper either. What you're asking me, I believe, is if I know exactly what God's idea of proper worship is...and I don't. I just don't think a good way of worshiping one god would be to completely alienate everyone who doesn't agree with me. To me that would be more along the lines of kissing ass, which was mentioned above...brown nosing to get into heaven if you will.

Of course it's a fictirious account. I was just saying that it's one which is deeply rooted in our society (whether I like it or not). Alternative groups threaten this authority, which is why they become stigmatized.

My personal take on church (assuming you are religious in the first place) is that it's good for offering opinions/teachings/theologies you wouldn't otherwise be exposed to or learn about. However, it can be bad if you just take everything in and assume it is correct. If you never think about it, never apply laws of common sense, or indeed, what the Bible/Jesus actually teaches to what you heard in church, that can become a very bad thing. Consequently, I've got a lot of beliefs the church would probably find pretty heretical. I'm not trying to say that everyone just goes out and does their own thing, and decides what truth is - but I don't think getting your truth by being a "church sheep" is an intelligent idea at all.

The idea behind this is that we were created perfect, but then everyone is fallen through the sin of Adam and Eve. Now I know we can debate endlessly whether or not that account is meant to be taken metaphorically, literally, or if it's just plain fiction, but that's the explanation I've always heard, and it makes sense. God makes us in his image, (not physical, more the ability to think, create, etc, more abstract stuff) but we end up being disobedient, and are fallen.

--------

I don't think the Bible is very clear on specific ways to worship in a church setting. I think fellowship is important, but the how is not. Nobody knows what the idea of proper church worship is, but it's not like everyone is doing it wrong because of that. People just have different ways of doing things, ways that make them feel closer to God, etc. I don't think people should make a big deal out of someone who thinks having "tongues" in service is a good idea, or someone who thinks it's better to take communion every single service, etc. Whatever floats your boat. Some of things Christians debate about are quite petty and irritating.

The original topic, at any rate:
Creationism is not science. It's a religious theory that uses scientific methods to make it more plausible. As such I don't think it has any place being funded by any sort of public money. A creation museum is just laughable. Creation scientists have thought up some of the dumbest things I've heard of in years. Not to say I haven't heard interesting, thought-provoking, and intellectual arguments for Creationism, but I'd be afraid to go to a "Creation museum" for fear of busting out laughing. I'd be throwing a huge fit if my money were going to fund something like this. If it's completely privately funded, then whatever. Let the people who enjoy that sort of thing enjoy it.