God, why don't people believe in the idea?

[brainbone]

Actually, I'm a firm believer in allowing con artists and Nigerian relatives to operate their craft, as it serves a necessary function in ruining those who are basicly too stupid to live. They should die and make room for the rest of us.

 

 

Feeding all your genetically disadvantaged to the lions surrounding your dwelling has the unfortunately side effect of increasing the number of lions, leaving you in quite a predicament when you run out of your less than fortunate lion food. That said, we don't seem to have any shortage of "stupid" on this planet now, or for the foreseeable future.

[gwprod12]

The lion analogy doesnt quite work. A lion preys on the weak first, the strong second. No one (of unknown providence) will ever convince me to part with large sums of money. So, those who arent easily tricked arent vulnerable.

[LestatX]

that would be a great idea if we lived in a perfect world. But in fact.. a huge part of the problem of people that have magical thinking is pretty much the system. At least where i live (america), the government even is teaching the biblie in science classes... thats prepostruous. They need a flock they can control, and pardon my opinion, but religion is the perfect tool.

[gwprod12]

So, I was watching Anderson Cooper 360, and they had this segment on this artist who made an anatomically correct Jesus out of chocolate. So, I was wondering if someone might be able to tell me why an anatomically correct chocolate Jesus justifies threats to the artists person? I dont see it as that offensive, actually. Someone explain!

[james2mart]

james2mart: the words sphere or globe do not appear on the link you gave. Please show me a link where the word does. To support your assertion.

 

I'm blind in one eye and can see better than you... Click chuwg. Under the section in the middle of the page called "Hebrew Lexicon" there is an image of a clip of a Hebrew Lexicon. Not hard to see (unless you have some scripting things disabled... might not be running the perl script that the image displays with... use the second set of links i gave because the first ones were attempted links to images...)

[gwprod12]

I'm blind in one eye and can see better than you... Click chuwg. Under the section in the middle of the page called "Hebrew Lexicon" there is an image of a clip of a Hebrew Lexicon. Not hard to see (unless you have some scripting things disabled... might not be running the perl script that the image displays with... use the second set of links i gave because the first ones were attempted links to images...)

 

I searched source and didnt see it. It would be nice if it referred to where that information comes from, as Strong's Concordance does not label the word as sphere. It is derived from chagag (to move in procession). If you look up the transliteration for Sphere in any concordance, you find... nothing.

 

But let's say for a moment that Isaiah is correctly interpreted to mean that the earth is spherical. Is every other passage referring to the earth as flat "figurative"? Can I make up whatever I want and "prove" that the bible says so? My exboyfriend was convinced that the Bible explicitly said that smoking marijuana was God's design. Because God gave "All the trees who's fruit bear seed" to Man, he was referring explicitely to Cannibas because Cannibas comes from a seed. Maybe you think that makes sense. Rational people dont. I dont have a problem with Pot myself, but it's clear how an interested person, wishing to somehow justify their own thoughts, beliefs and behaviors can take the bible, twist it as they like, and "prove" themselves righteous or correct.

 

Perhaps the authors of the bible were superhuman prophets with access to knowledge beyond the pale, perhaps even from God themselves. Perhaps not. But when you twist a religious text in the way you're attempting, you're reallly only destroying it's credibility further.

 

Anyways. If you genuinely believe that the biblical authors were outstanding astronomers and geometricians, then that's fine. But if you're actively deluding yourself to advance your viewpoint, I wish you wouldnt. But think about this. Either the bible is literally factual, or not. Some parts that tickle your fancy cannot be literal, while others that contradict your view are figurative. Otherwise the book is meaningless.

 

And so what if the authors of the bible thought the earth was flat. Everyone at that time thought the earth was flat. For all you know, God told them that to keep them where they were, so his other pet projects wouldnt be disturbed.

 

As an addendum, I found this article about flat-earthers, who use many of the same scriptures you're using to prove the authors of the bible knew the earth was spherical, but instead to prove that the earth is Flat. Now, obviously there's no way to know for sure what the ancients knew or didnt know. But equally obvious is the fact that if you believe the earth is flat, all you have to do is go around it to determine if you're correct or not.

 

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

Nothing pointed or in your face, just an interesting article. At some point, the author directly challenges the spherical apologists. I urge you to avoid that part if you want to.

[LestatX]

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution)

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

 

Just to end any future evolution - christian views... the church has accepted evolution as something real.

[gwprod12]

The Catholic church has... which doesnt mean anything to Lutherans, Baptists or Episcopalians.

[LestatX]

yeah... but i sure don't know why these guys complicate everything so much. In a nutshell, if there are things unkown, why not get to know them?

 

for example... if we would've taken that aproach, we wouldn't have the outstanding medical knowledge we have today... so if lets say your son would've gotten ill, "it is god's will, i hope he will cure him" << that kind of attitude was to be enforced... but today we could examine him and give him medicine and have him all better.

 

Thats possible cause the "unkown" got discovered...

 

If you people are searching for something incredible and great to admire... i sure advice admiring some grat things. Like... your mom, your dad, your best friend, heck, firefighters, nurses, doctors. They actually save lives.... not jesus christ, he hasn't saved anyone, he's just an ideal, crazy one that is, and as I can prove, Rethoric can't raise the dead.

 

It's your choice, reazlity of fantasy.

 

If you want some fantasy stories to cling onto... I suggest some comic book super heroes... they are like a thousand times better stories than the bible, and theyy are better icons

[killbot1000]

This is from talkorigins.org, a site promoting evolution:

10000 > 6000. Try again.

 

 

I dont have to prove evolution to you, you're the idiot.

 

The world is not 6000 years old, its 4.5 billion years old. The bible is a load of {censored}, prove to me that its true. Ill trust generations of established scientific practices to your fictional "stories" any day of the week.

 

10,000 is pretty damn close. Also it takes millions of years for species to evolve to the point in which you are talking about. The problem is not that there isnt a missing link, its that theres too many missing links, we dont know when one species ends and another begins.

[james2mart]

I dont have to prove evolution to you, you're the idiot.

 

The world is not 6000 years old, its 4.5 billion years old. The bible is a load of {censored}, prove to me that its true. Ill trust generations of established scientific practices to your fictional "stories" any day of the week.

 

10,000 is pretty damn close. Also it takes millions of years for species to evolve to the point in which you are talking about. The problem is not that there isnt a missing link, its that theres too many missing links, we dont know when one species ends and another begins.

 

I'll buy that its 4.5 billion years old, but I won't buy that its been around for more than 6 or 7 thousand years. God made Adam a man, not a fetus.

 

Why do you insist on using profanity? It accomplishes nothing except for exerting your anger, which is completely misplaced. It's really hard to be angry and rational at the same time.

 

You said it yourself: "The problem is not that there isnt a missing link, its that theres too many missing links..."

 

Like I said before, I can't prove to you that the Bible is true, and you can't prove that evolution is true.

 

As soon as you start to attack me, you lose sight of the argument in the first place. Calling me an idiot doesn't achieve anything.

 

Either make some rational, nonpersonal arguments or just don't post at all.

[LestatX]

WTF ? Do you live in utah? Evolution doesn't need to be disproved. It is accepted as a true model in science and works just fine. Go have any luck explaining how the bible works cause theres the real challenge.. its magical thinking.

 

If im not mistaken, the bible is extremely ambigous, doesn't really tell any {censored} at all. You are just fallen into ambiguity. If the bible were specific maybe then we could prove or disprove it, but it seems like a load of {censored} someone made up while they were high.

 

Let's make an example.

 

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

So after analizing this... well... you see god created heaven and earth. Erath.. ok it could be like land, or the planet, but it doesn't specify at all. thats ambigous. I'll go for the land, cause, well the whole planet idea wasn't clear at all back then.

 

then it says that the earth was without form and void... and darkness was upon the face of the deep. WHat deep? the ocean? well its still dark today... i don't see how god changed that.

 

To me thats a load of intelligible {censored}. Not specific, just spooky language to suit the minds of the unspecific people. If it works for you, fine. But im sure you don't get too far in life being unspecific.

Heck, im amazed that you are using a computer if you don't know the value of conciseness

[gwprod12]

Okay, to settle this Evolution is true vs God is true debate once and for all. God's truth or falseness is a personal decision everyone can make. Evolution's factuality or lack there of is determined through observation.

 

So:

 

We observe that the earth has been in existence for say fiveish billion years. Let's state that as fact (even though it's really not, but it's probably close.)

Let us also state as true that God sprung the Universe into being seven thousand years ago.

So, we might deduce that when God manufactured the Earth seven thousand years ago, he manufactured a history to go along with it. One that could be probed by human beings. God's seemingly omnipotent, so there's no reason to think God could not or would not do this.

 

This leaves the connundrum, if we are to take the seven thousand year timeline out of the realm of belief and into the realm of observation. There is nothing that has been observed (and under this scenario, there never could be) that would show one way or another if the Earth/Universe was produced (with a history) seven thousand years ago.

 

A rational scientist would say that our observations indicate that the earth is fiveish billion years old, but that no observation proves or disproves whether it is genuinely fiveish billion years old, or manufactured to appear fiveish billion years old. At which point, the question is scientifically irrelevant, and given over for people to decide for themselves.

 

To Evolution: Scientific observation shows that species are collaterally related in such a way that all creatures, great and small, have a common ancestor. Could God have decreed, even though God manufactured the universe as described in Genesis, that species would appear to be related to one another, thus evoking the evolutionary debate? Sure, why not. But this is unscientific, as there is no possible way of determining if something has or has not been specifically generated to fool human inquiry (by an omniscient/omnipotent being, anyway).

 

A lot of legitimate scientists disagree with aspects of current evolutionary theory. But those are real scientists working with real science such as theories of panspermia. Since God cannot possibly be inquired into scientifically, God cannot be the basis of any truly scientific theory. I should say that God or any other supernatural creator. Anything that transcends the observable universe cannot be part of science, as science depends on observation.

 

An example might be to say... God made the sun yellow. Well, the sun is yellow. We observe that the chemical basis of hydrogen fusion in a body the size of the sun produces yellow light. But does that negate that God did it? Does it support that God did it? Neither. God is an irrelevant component.

 

So, the point I'm making is that if people want to believe that God made the observable universe, manufactured it from whole cloth with a history, that, while not genuine, appears genuine... then who cares? But to go back to the flat earth society... If by observation one can disprove a claim, then the claim is false. Maybe the earth is flat, and God merely makes it appear to be spherical. How is anyone to know that for sure?

[TequilaKez]

Well If I make my upbringing am example, perhaps catholicism is a good thing to teach the young as once they come of age, they will realise the ridiculousness of it all, frustrated that their questions cannot be answered, and go find truth for themselves.

 

Oh and don't try and explain god with empirical method. It's like trying to explain the quantum world with classical physics, you won't find answers. From my perspective, it's when we start looking at the early universe do we see glimpses of god and most scientists agree they still don't really know what they're talking about in that regard. Also, why can't they word's 'nature' and 'god' be interchangeable?

The dude with a beard is for lemmings

 

2c

[gwprod12]

God cant be explained with the scientific method, that is why God cannot be a component of a scientific theory, thus causing a theory such as Intelligent Design to be unscientific, and therefore invalid.

 

(God or any other hypothetical hidden creator, such as the flying spaghetti monster.)

[brainbone]

I don't have to prove evolution to you, you're the idiot.

 

I know it can be tough, but please, let's try to keep this civil.

 

God cant be explained with the scientific method, that is why God cannot be a component of a scientific theory, thus causing a theory such as Intelligent Design to be unscientific, and therefore invalid.

 

(God or any other hypothetical hidden creator, such as the flying spaghetti monster.)

 

Yes, and this transcends answering the unknown with "God". This way of thinking about God, however, really never came to be until the "unknowns" and "truths" (like the earth being flat) that a faith was hiding behind slowly started to disappear, one by one due to science, and the "faith" needed a "safer place" to reside, outside of logical thinking. This "place" is not immune from logic however.

 

In the case of faiths that twist reality so they can take the Bible literally:

a ) We've already established in another thread (with the help of james2mart) that no one can know God's will, but God.

b ) This automatically calls into question the validity of the Bible. If no one can know God's will, then how can we be assured of the Bible's accuracy? Hence the "faith" of the religion.

c ) Knowing this; does faith in the Bible translate into faith in God, or, is it simply faith in Man?

 

The correct answer to "C" is "faith in Man". If we cannot know the will of God, then we can't trust the Bible accurately represents it. If we could trust the Bible, then we would know God's will, and we've already established that we can't. To trust the Bible is to trust man's transcription and interpretation of it, not God.

[killbot1000]

I'll buy that its 4.5 billion years old, but I won't buy that its been around for more than 6 or 7 thousand years. God made Adam a man, not a fetus.

 

Why do you insist on using profanity? It accomplishes nothing except for exerting your anger, which is completely misplaced. It's really hard to be angry and rational at the same time.

 

You said it yourself: "The problem is not that there isnt a missing link, its that theres too many missing links..."

 

Like I said before, I can't prove to you that the Bible is true, and you can't prove that evolution is true.

 

As soon as you start to attack me, you lose sight of the argument in the first place. Calling me an idiot doesn't achieve anything.

 

Either make some rational, nonpersonal arguments or just don't post at all.

 

But seriously though, sometimes its difficult to be civil in the face of so much ignorance...jeezus...

 

 

EVOLUTION IS TRUE, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support it, you just want to see evidence for the last 6000 years because it meshes well with your bible "reality". I hate to break it to you but species don't change into other species in 6000 years. Sorry. Show me some evidence that women come from a mans rib, or that we were just spontaneously formed out of nothing. You are asking me to ignore about 100 scientific theories based on some strong evidence, I am sorry, but I will have to trust the evidence.

 

I have made rational arguments and they haven't worked, because you're not a rational person. A rational person would listen to such things as science and evidence, because they make logical sense. You choose to believe things that go along with what you've originally believed and choose to ignore things that dont.

 

And NO, I have not lost sight of the argument, which was EVOLUTION. Of which I have tried to be rational with you but you just choose to ignore any evidence that comes your way. Don't pull the whole profanity losing sight of argument card, it doesn't mean a damn thing. It is just frustrating when somebody willfully chooses to ignore evidence slapping them in the face because they don't like it...I mean...what am I supposed to think about you?

 

If you cant even logically think things out...if you are that far gone, then there is no point in arguing with you because you cant be reasoned with...

 

God has never shown his face and will NEVER show its face because he doesn't exist... he is no different than the tooth fairy or Santa clause, sorry, I know you didn't wanna hear it but you must be a teen by now, its time to grow up.

 

also, your first statement contradicts.

 

This is what I mean by you have flawed (and stupid reasoning)

 

lets move on to the premises of your argument:

 

1. The earth is 4.5 billion years old

2. The earth is 6-7 thousand years old

3. The earth is both 4.5 billion years old and 6-7 thousand years old

4. God made Adam a man

5. God did not make Adam a fetus

6. Evolution is not true

[sO] The bible is true.

 

Now, you might not understand what I'm doing here, but lets logically break your argument here into letters:

 

Before we start the argument B cannot equal C (B being 4.5 billion years and C being 6-7 thousand years)

 

1. A is B

2. A is C

3. A is both B and C and B and C are two totally different ages (contradiction)

4. D Made E an F

5. G is not true

6. so, H is true.

 

Do you see why I am getting so frustrated, your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me...the argument isn't even valid (and I really hope you know what a VALID argument is)

 

 

Seriously buddy, if you want to learn how to argue effectively, take a logic class, and then take about 6 more philosophy classes, it will teach you how to argue like none other.

[3nigma]

You guys are having a foolish debate. The Bible is not a work of science, nor is it a textbook, nor is it a book intended to explain or offer insight into scientific observation whatsoever.

 

The Bible is silent on the topic of evolution. The Bible neither argues for or against evolution, it's not discussed.

 

The Catholic church believed that the earth was flat- science proved it wrong. Did the Bible say the earth was flat? No, the church was just reading their Bible that way, and followed the scientific thinking of the time.

 

The Catholic church believed that the sun revolved around the earth, science proved otherwise. Did the Bible say that the sun revolved around the earth? No, the church was just reading their Bible that way.

 

The atheist/agnostic camp is arguing science, and the Judeo-Christian camp is arguing faith. They are two topics that are parallel with one another. There are many scientists who disagree with all faith, and many scientists who use their studies to validate their faith. There are many people of faith who disregard some conflicting science, and other people of faith who embrace truth that science can offer to shed more light on their faith.

 

You guys are picking a fight that literally doesn't exist.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

It's one thing to say "I dont believe in Evolution, because it contradicts my faith", it's quite another to say "Evolution is false/lies/propaganda/whatever, because it contradicts my faith".

 

No one's forcing anyone to believe anything. (How could they?). The debate is really about whether religion should be taught in a science class. It shouldnt. If the earth is observed to revolve around the Sun, anyone who wants to can believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. What they cannot legitimately do is turn their belief into observable evidence. Which is why it's just easier to focus on the raw religious topics like right behavior, than to try to somehow come to grips with the fact that a religious book contradicts what we can see and measure about the universe.

 

As an addendum: The theories of evolution are not absolutely "true" or "fact". They are accepted science drawn from large amounts of evidence. Science dictates that for a theory to be valid, it must be possible for it to be false. So, dont get caught up in the idea that Evolution is 100% certain. Only death and taxes are 100% certain. On an absolute scale, the theories of evolution are around 30% certain. In comparison to other competing theories, on a relative scale, Evolution is about 95% certain.

 

In english, this could be said as "We're fairly confident that the theories of evolution as they stand now are progressing toward fact." and "We're incredibly confident that the theories of evolution are the most accurate by several orders of magnitude of any of the theories of the development of life."

 

It is entirely possible that the theory of Panspermia, at some point in the future, will evidence itself strongly, which will modify the current theories of evolution in a drastically different way. Intelligent Design, as it stands now, can never be proven correct and can never evidence itself in any way.

[brainbone]

You guys are picking a fight that literally doesn't exist.

 

Unfortunately, the fight does exist. Science is being challenged every day by Christian fundamentalists that claim to find all sorts of goofy realities in the Bible, such as the age of earth only being 6000 or so years old, evolution, and the "appearance" of the earth being billions of years old, just being a strange puzzle put there by God to daze and confuse us non-believers, etc. This argument is no more apparent than the public schools in the US where evolution is continually challenged by lawsuit after lawsuit, sometimes successfully, that "intelligent design" should be taught as an equal to - or even in place of - evolution.

 

Your claim that the "fight that literally doesn't exist" is in direct conflict to reality.

[gwprod12]

Fight that literally shouldnt exist, might be a better way of putting it. If so, I agree. Faith and science shouldnt mix. Unless you're using your faith/imagination to come up with a nifty science experiment. (Like Mythbusters)

[TequilaKez]

My ex-gf tried to tell me that dinosaur's ever existed and the bones were place in the earth to test our faith. She was %100 certain of this and wouldn't budge because her church/parents told her so, and discussion turned to a fight which was instrumental in our breaking up.

 

Just a small example of a real fight between religion and science and the damage it can do. We're old enough to stop teaching our kids fairy stories in school and tell them the truth. ... well maybe santa can stay

 

and taking santa as an example, I do see how telling untrue stories can have a positive effect, but it's only ethical if you tell them the truth when they're old enough. We're old enough now, we've come along since the dark ages,we don't need those kiddy stories anymore, it's time to stop perpetuating the lies.

I say again, not that believing kiddy stories can't improve your life/make you happier, I've seen 'lost' kids come good through churchianity, but it still dosen't make it true.

[james2mart]

Just FYI, if evolution is to be taught (which I do not object to) then it should be taught in a science classroom (obviously). But in my personal opinion, our children would get way more out of a *required* religion/society class than a biology class. I know it sounds all nice and gooey, but i think that while it COULD cause fights and stuff, the overall benefit of being more aware of what your friends believe is more valuable than teaching evolution. This would help kids learn to get along better (and earlier) despite religious differences.

 

Other than medicine, how does evolution really help our teenagers in the here and now? Does it really matter whether or not we came from God or a big bang?

 

Most of all, how does evolution truly help society progress? I do not believe the bull {censored} that we can get a better understanding of ourselves by knowing where we come from. We make ourselves who we are. Either by free will, or God's will, it all looks the same down here.

 

I think I've made what I believe and why I believe it clear enough. I don't want people to feel like I'm beating them with the Bible or anything (if you did, then you really shouldn't be in a topic called "God, why don't people believe in the idea"...).

 

Oh, and those concerned about the little boy that drowned: He's still alive and its been 8 days since the accident. According to the team of three neurologists, Sam's brain didn't even swell. They referred to it as a "medical impossibility." It's amazing things like this that make people believe in a God, and if you seriously have a problem with that, then I sure hope a miracle comes your way so that you can see what its like to experience it.

[killbot1000]

Oh, and those concerned about the little boy that drowned: He's still alive and its been 8 days since the accident. According to the team of three neurologists, Sam's brain didn't even swell. They referred to it as a "medical impossibility." It's amazing things like this that make people believe in a God, and if you seriously have a problem with that, then I sure hope a miracle comes your way so that you can see what its like to experience it.

 

Theres a logical physical reason, you just don't know what it is. (and neither do I for that matter)

[gwprod12]

I am not against both teaching civics and comparative world religions. I see no reason to teach a class of JudeoChristianity.

 

Evolution is taught in a biology classroom because evolution is a key concept of biological theory. Biology makes no sense and is useless unless it is approached from the perspective of complex organic machinery that takes in nutrients and replicates itself. If that part is accepted, then a rationale for it's existence is required.

 

A biologist without understanding of the basics of biological theory is not a biologist capable of performing biology. There are no working alternatives to biological theory. It is a must.

 

Anyone in the field of life-science needs biology, and anyone in the field of emergence needs biology.

 

Science is required in schools because the US, for one, cannot afford a nation of burgerflippers / televangelists. We need scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc. All of which require scientific training (at least the basics).

 

One of the primary reasons why science is required in school is to dispell the superstition of the believers.

 

Please post a link to the story of the drowned boy who lives through a miracle. I missed it the first time, apparently.

 

PS, I dont believe Biology is a required discipline in highschool. I know I didnt have to take it. There's always Chemistry and Physics.