|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 11:31:02 AM | | No one is calling you names. Don't try to distort what is happening in the thread. If someone thinks Brad Pitt, Britney Spears, the Queen of England, or any other famous person is a joke it really doesn't matter. If someone calls you or anyone participating in this thread a joke, now that is innapropriate and it is unlikely the mods observing this thread will tolerate it. That hasn't happened. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 11:34:33 AM | I didn't say someone was calling me names . I just asked nicely not to call me names (that was what I meant). Please don't distort my words. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 11:45:01 AM | I haven't distorted your words. By accusing me of doing so it is you who are distorting my words. Something you have already done several times.
Basically you do this: You say, "My argument is 1 + 1 = 5." and then offer a verbose and convoluted explanation for why we should believe you. Someone else comes along and says simply, "1 + 1 = 2, you are wrong". Then you come in and say, "Why do you hate so-and-so?" and "Don't call people names". Which is to cast the dispersion that someone actually has said that they hate something or called someone names.
See how that works? Not very well.
The fact is that I do not find your argument concerning creationism to be valid and the authorities that you are using as sources I find far less than credible. Others have agreed with me and that is there choice. Just as some others have disagreed, also their choice. I don't take it as an attack on me, personally, that someone doesn't agree with my views on this subject. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 11:48:40 AM | I wonder if Rumiko is related to Alyssa?
Rumiko, can you tell me what your reaction (1) means? What are the compounds you are referring to? What does R mean in your compunds? What is K1? What is 289K? Are there any 'monofunctional amino acid? What do you mean by 'racemise' and how do amino acids do that?
Dharma, I acknowledge your suggestion to limit the discussion to Evolution, but the thread is also about Creation. I'd be happy to comply if there was agreement on that, but you'd have to be more specific about the boundaries of our discussions. Human evolution? Prebiotic evolution? Perhaps there is room for another thread if you have specific topics you wish to discuss.
In a much earlier post, I suggested that some opposition to evolution could arise from the offense that some may take at the notion of being 'descended from monkeys'. It just occured to me that a much more likely cause for outrage and absolute refusal to accept evolution by some individuals is the notion that relationships between races and ancestral descent offends their racial bigotry. Note the word 'some'. I'm not suggesting all creationists are bigots, just suggesting that the differences expressed in this thread may be rooted in much more than scientific and theological differences. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 12:24:15 PM | As to the direction of the thread I, as the OP, was after reasons to support creation being taught as science. I have enjoyed the discussions on evolution, although some distracters seem to oppose it just because they don't understand it (or resent the suggestions they're descended from apes).
I am not sure how a failure to create life in a test tube disproves All of evolution's ideas? Creationist seem to have no trouble believing God sprung up out of nowhere??? I know there are holes in the theory, just like Quantum theory has a few soft spots too, or how/why do bumble bees fly. But we don't give up on nuclear power or building airplanes. We look to understand those holes. And sure those theories will one day go the way of the doodoo bird. The one thing I know from history is that we have always been proven wrong.
What I wanted was a formal reasoning as to why we should consider creation to be any thing other then myth. Creating doubt of one does not add credibility to the other. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 5:15:28 PM | | I noticed some people do not look for answers but look for excuses . I don't even know whom you say I might be reated, what on earth are you talking about? I know many scientist address the issues of creation/evolution and people on this thread address this issue as well. People here resort to ridiculing others who happen to have different oppinion. If evolution was a proven fact then this thread would not exist. For example we do not argue that women give birth because it is proven fact that they do. You did not even mentioned my equations that I showed to prove my point. So prove them wrong (I mean what I wrote about polymers etc). I saw I was not the only one addressing this issue. So others have left but they are not defeated, they believe in creation. Now you all going to agree with each other. But it was an argument that gave this thread a spice. Well, I would love to stay and chat but I found someone and there is no reason for me to stay here. The account is about to be closed. I met some nice people here and have some pleasant experience. Good luck to you | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 5:36:55 PM |
If evolution was a proven fact then this thread would not exist.
By that logic if I started a thread on "babies come from storks" vs. "babies come from eggs which have been fertilized by sperm" then the nature of human reproduction would not be a proven fact.
Where has anyone ridiculed you? If you say something absurd don't cry when someone points it out to you.
Good luck to you too. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 5:39:29 PM | | P.S. I did not want to go without saying good bye (many of you are saying good riddence ). Creationists from different religions and denominations, you are martyrs for your noble cause. Believe in your God and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you are a Christian you are under more fire than the rest of us, I saw it. Ok, bye now. I might check this site one more time before closing the account (my boyfriend is jelous ) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 6:00:02 PM | | Bye Rumiko. I hope you and your boyfriend are very happy and I wish you the best of luck. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 6:01:43 PM | Yes, far more creationists have been burned at the stake or tortured by those espousing scientific views that contradict the bible than the other way around.
Like that time that Galileo had the Pope tortured and sentenced to prison for refuting the Copernican theory of a heliocentric solar system. Or the time Giordano Bruno had the the Pope tried at an inquisition for heresy, in which the Pope was was found guilty and burned at the stake.
Well, I also wish you and your boyfriend the best of luck and happiness, Rumiko. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 561 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 6:53:14 PM | Ah, bother I wanted to ask her a couple questions about her chemistry, such as:
What phase are you assuming the reaction is occurring in?
Why are you assuming the reaction is at equilibrium?
Why are you assuming standard pressure and temperature in your calculation?
Given that one hypothesis is that life may have begun around oceanic vents. What would be the impact of increased temperature and pressure? (i.e. decrease in the Gibbs free energy and make the reaction spontaneous.)
(As an aside, if you are going to copy and paste an argument from a website, why not reference and cite Jonathan Sarfati as the author? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/polymerization.asp )
Critiquing and discussing ideas is what the forum is for, no?
But as for coming under fire, you should see how scientists critique each others work.
I wish you well with your boyfriend as well. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 8:07:52 PM |
P.S. I did not want to go without saying good bye (many of you are saying good riddence ). Creationists from different religions and denominations, you are martyrs for your noble cause. Believe in your God and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you are a Christian you are under more fire than the rest of us, I saw it. Ok, bye now. I might check this site one more time before closing the account (my boyfriend is jelous )
Bye, sockpuppet.
Who will you pop up as next, Alyssa/Rumiko?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 8:18:24 PM | | Bye Alyssa. I hope you and your brother, er boyfriend, are very happy together. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 8:24:14 PM |
Besides the problem of the lack of transitional fossils Evolutionists face the polymerization problem.
Apparently Alyssa/Rumiko, whatever she's calling herself now, didn't bother to read the FAQ that I linked which gives examples of transitional fossils. She apparently prefers to believe a quote taken out of context. Anyway, the quote above proves that she doesn't know what she's talking about (as if we had doubts). Evolution isn't concerned with how life formed, only what happened to it after it already existed. Abiogenesis is not a problem for evolutionists. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/5/2005 11:56:32 PM | It's a long time since I did any chemistry. Can someone explain how the 'concentration' of water works in an equilibrium constant calculation?. How do you calculate the 'concentration' of water?
It occurred to me that there were no peptides to start with, so ANY is a big improvement. Never thought about it like that before. Adsorption or partitioning may also play a role in removing reaction products to keep the forward reaction going. Odd that Sarfati didn't mention those. Don't seem to require much energy relative to the ones he proposes. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 12:51:21 AM | Okay, guys, bear with me here.
I'm really sorry I missed rumiko taking off. Would have liked to ask her a few more questions, myself.
Tsur, thank you for condensing my argument. I didn't mean to get verbose, and you stated it concisely.
...a single transitional fossil...
Sorry, but that's quite possibly the funniest concept I've heard! LOL!!
I noticed some people do not look for answers but look for excuses.
Okay, it's not sporting to refute this when the posting individual has gone, I know. I just can't pass up the opportunity for edification. I know this can be applied to Creationist arguments, such as when, rather than attempting to support their claims, they instead seek to simply disprove the claims of evolution. My question is, _are_ there any instances where this has been done "in the name of" evolutionary theory?
Ah, bother I wanted to ask her a couple questions about her chemistry... As an aside, if you are going to copy and paste an argument from a website, why not reference and cite Jonathan Sarfati as the author?
OMFG!!! Dryad, I want to kiss you! I knew something was wrong there ("Science is wrong, science is evil, science can't prove what science claims, but I'm going to use a scientific proof in an unconscionably limited way to prove that there's NO way yadda, yadda, yadda."), but I didn't think it was bait and switch. Dude, you rock!
Karnation, I'm calming down again, so I'm going to say this. I don't get it. You hurt my head.
Oh, and for future reference, is there a widely accepted definition of the term "transitional fossil?" Seems too vague and wide open for misinterpretation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 9:57:08 AM | Quietjohn2, sorry bout the lateness of my post, I only get one hour every fed days at the PC, there a few links on the web
(http://www.doggenetichealth.org/faq.php)(http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/bragg.html)
(web sources not the greatest but should be suficent for confirmation purposes only) that might give you the referce you require, but you are much better off looking it up in Nature, in Evolutionary biology and in Genes & development Periodicals.
There is also Malcom B Willis's Genetics of the Dog, probly avaliable through amazon or ebay but I doubt you will get it in your local library.
There is a book caled Genitics for Dog breaders but I can't remember who its by.
Both of these books are excelent and very intresting, they have some very in depth information on gennetic addaption and evelotion through selective breading. Even if your not a dog breader (i aint) there still worth the read cause theyre just plain intresting.
I also have to point out, that I was only providing examples with the breads I mentioned, not being a dog breader I can not tell you for certain which breads can not interbread and produce viable offspring, but I do know that the greater degrea of difrence (genetic divergence) there is, the greater the chance of non-viable ofspring, so vastly difrent breads are the most likely to be incompatable.
It is also important to point out that non-viable dose not mean they canot produce offspring at all, but they will produce offspring that are either sterile or that can not survive to breading age. A good example is the mule and the hinny, a cross between a horse and a donkey, that is always sterile. (although there have been aproximately three recorded cases of mules producing offspring, but in each case, genetic testing showed the mules to have inherated almost all of thier genetic material from just one parent, the mechanism behind this freak inheratance is still not understood though.) To go off into a bit of personal reflection here, I remember when I was very young, my mum had sky terrier (looks like a very hairy sausage dog) that was served by a great dane whilst walking in the woods. she fell pregnant and the vet said said that he HAD to abort the pubies because,
A:they would not survive past a few weeks, and
B: the **** (her name was Skyla bye the way, very original for a sky terrier!) would not survive the birth.
Hope that helps you out quietjohn2. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:31:25 AM | Rumiko Wildcat, I hope you hang around long enougth to read this, because I'm going to do what no one els here is willing to do and be rude. You are wrong, plain and simple. Wether you are missinformed or just lying to stir things up I neither know nor care. But to put it simply, your information is false.
Your equations are fairly acurate from what I can tell, I personaly can find no problem with the formula (not being a strict chemist myself), but trying to apply them outside the lab is a scientific eror. If your equations were true outside the lab (they are inside the lab, but that is a closed enviroment) then how do you acount for the FACT that protien polymerization ocours with in the living cells of EVERY creature at every moment of the day. It seams a little wastefull to me for god to creat a host of lifeforms that he has to constantly creat long chain protiens inside of simply to keep alive.
You also state that there is a problem with polymerisation, that water tends to depolymerise substances. Well that would be a problem if we didn't already kow that water is not necicery to the formation of many aminos peptides and protiens. There is no polymerisation problem because polymers do not have to form in water. If they can form in clouds in the vastness of space, they can form just about anywhere I would say.
Your equation dose not take into acount the fact that the universe has no symetry either, we live in a left handed universe, where spin tends towards the left instead of the right. (look at snail shells, the groth of trees, spiral galxies, the rotaion of heavenly bodies and the spin of attoms for more information on this.) and so left handed molacules ARE selectivly prefered by the universe, there will be a greater propencity for thier creationa and survival.
You also do not take into acount the difering conditions in which the protiens could form, the early earth was not like the modern earth. Oxygen, which is very fatal to long chain protiens, was in extreamly short demand in the early atmosphere. Temperature ranged on the primordial Earth form a fed degrees to thousands, Atmospheric presure difered also. Your equation asumes the early Earth was isdentical to lab situations today and not a varied and complex micrology that actualy existed.
Finaly you take no acount of homeostasis. The proces in which organic molecules alter thier environs to a more sutible level. (this is not a magical proces but a very clearly documented scientificly explored and explained natural proces that happens in many chemical reactions, even nuclear fusion shows homeostasis and you cant tell me trhe sun is a life form.) Homeostasis would alow for even the most complex of portiens aminos and pepetides to reguate thier environs to a more appropriate level, for example, protiens might form a blanket of smaller protiens (that will absorb higer amounts of UV than large protiens) around larger protiens which would alow the large protiens to form without being destroyed by UV.
Your lecturers probly didn't tell you all this, because your essay is bassed on Lab equations, and dose not include real world variables. Had they know that you were trying to aplly it to the real world they would most certainly have told you that you will have to take the new variables into acount. (unless of course they wernt scientists)
Now I have destroyed that bit of garbage, I think I shall move onto your most insulting misstruth yet. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 569 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:44:46 AM | Dudette if you will… kiss away Feral 
(I'll see what I can find about the transitional fossil definition... ah... willing to wade into the nightmare of systematics and cladistics... yep, I think I'm touched occassionally)
*dust’s off my aquatic geochemistry textbook*
Let’s see QuietJohn…
the concentration of water in a water-based aqueous solution equilibrium reaction is ‘1’ – so it doesn’t impact the K value. The reasoning is the water molecules are so abundant in a water-based solution; the addition/loss of a few doesn’t change the concentration significantly. In a gaseous phase it’s the partial pressure of the water vapour. And for surface-layer or across-phase reactions … well you’ll need a better chemist than me.
Just a random musing of mine…
I’ve often wondered whether life has developed only once. On Earth, I mean. Although, maybe the different ones destroyed each other through competition. Although sometimes I wonder about the history of prions.
(Of course, I also have this romantic idea that maybe that first little chain of self-replicating molecules has managed, against all probability, with all the mutations that have occurred, to be passed on and is still something living. Ya, it’s likely nearly infinitely unlikely… we likely just have the replicated strands, not the template.
Hehe… self-admittedly that’s got to be the oddest use of romantic )
If u can accept for a minute that the bible is intended to be the word of god
What if you can’t? Or question whose god(s)? Which religion? Or whether there’s a god(s) in the first place?
-----------
PS Tsur, I added you to my favourites list so you can email at will. Cheers, Dryad | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 11:17:50 AM | quote]But what about the lack of transitional fossils? There is not even one.
I would love to know what your explanation of a transitional fosil is? Are you looking specificaly for the fsoil that is exactly half man and half fish to prove that we decended from fish? Cause you wont find one, you will find many thousands of stages in between though.
I won't go into further detail as Feral has given a perfectly curt answer to this alread.
Ah, fossils again. There is Burgess fossil bed near Field, Brittsh Columbia, the love bone bed located 12 miles west of Gainsville, Florida; Kenya, Africa; the asphalt pit of La Berea etc, etc. None have transitional fossils.
What a crock of bull!
Evolutionist said moskitos did not changed a bit in those billions of years.
Theres a reason for that, well two actualy. Mosies are very addaptable, many species of mosquito can drink the blood of any large animal, from snake to pig to bird and so they are not dependant on any other particular species for thier survival. There is also the fact that mosquito is a subfamily, not a single species. And I quote "There are about 422 species of Anopheles worldwide, many of them sibling species that can only be identified using genetic techniques. Of these, about 70 are vectors of the protozoan Plasmodium that causes malaria, but only about 40 are important" to humans (sic). (http://www.museums.org.za/bio/insects/flies/culicidae/anopheles.htm)
As such they have survived as a subfamily, but many species of masquito have died out and new ones have emerged over time.
There is standart geologic column evolutionists use now. In real world the strata is not arranged the way geologic column shows.
This bit is true, but only half the story.
The ages assigned to those strata were determined over 150 years ago and were based on pure assumptions sinse they did not have radiometric dating back then
This bit is not true, the methods used were not asumption, they were logical progresion. Dating methods vary from the imperical methods to the Strigraphical and Typographical methods, but NO archaeologist will ever look at a site and say, that is one hundred percent most defintaley, 3020 years old. Why do you think there age ranges? Radio carbon dating gives an age range of anything from a few tens of years to a fe thousand years in which the artifact could be produced. Archaeologist do not EVER make certain afirmations of the precise date of something.
Stratigraphical dating involves the simple proces of knowing that one layer has to be placed ontop of another layer, it is imposible to place a layer BENEATH the top layer. But layer can get mixed up, they can become "rubbed out" what that means is that at some point during the history of the cite, the layers have been desturbed and mixed together, perhaps through plowing or through industrial activity. Layers can also be cut, you may find one layer that goes down through older layers, such as in landfill sites, or ditch enclosures.
In Typographical situations, they will give you an age rage of, for example a few tens of years when a certain type of pot was produced, or if you find a coin for example they will say when it was produced, but not when it was deposited. Because of this, the archeaological record is constantly being updated to keep it acurate to new finds, it is not 150 years old, as archaeology itself as a disipline is only 55 (aprox) years old.
Besides, fossilisation is not happening now and scientists have no clue as to how it could be done.
Again, another crock of the brown stuff. Lets please discuse fosilisation so I can tell you how it DOSE happen. Or do you realy belive that there were animals walking around with bones made out of sandstone or mudstone or slate?
Are you an archaeologist?
Well I don'tknow if Feral is, but I know for certain you aren't, and guess what else.
I AM!
So yes, I do know all about stratigraphical, typological and other types of datingevidence, I know about evelotion and cell genetics, biochemistry. I know about psychology and can probly tell you more about your own religion and its history (asuming you are from a major religon) than your vicar/parson/rabi/druid/watever. I know about any subject that relates to Archaeology because it is my job to do so and I am a nerd with too musch time on my hands  I also have the plesure of having a VERY inteligent girlfriend who loves to spend time discusing science with me, I never stop learning about archaeology because there is more to learn than could be contained in a thousand human life times if every person on the planet strated studying it now.
This post has ranted on for quite a while, but I do hope you read it because I was infurated by your highly objectioable misstruths. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 1:19:39 PM | Thanks Raziel. No problems with the delay - I should spend less time here.
I wonder if Rumiko and Alyssa ever recognized when we acknowledged thay had contributed something. They are both gone now.
So, would an approximation to Rumiko's ..... er Sarfati's equilibrium equation means that if you started with 100 molecules of each amino acid, there would be ~70 dipeptide molecules whose presence is INEVITABLE, not lucky? That seems hard to believe so maybe my chemistry is wrong. The point about adsorption or partitioning was that different physical properties of the dipeptide may facilitate its selective removal by nearby solids or non-miscible liquids, thereby forcing the forward reaction.
Interesting notion on the dubious path to life, Dryad. Google Graham Cairns-Smith. He postulated clay! Prions are really interesting too. Do they reproduce? Or do they just trigger conformational changes in existing proteins? A transitional 'fossil' between chemistry and life?
Not sure if Trewk appreciates us hijacking his thread for such discussions. Should we find or start another one? There's an 'evolution disproved' thread with a valid, though perhaps contentiously phrased question.
As far as teaching creation, presumably fairly encompassing all creation myths, has there been a discussion of how much material that would involve and what exactly should be included? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 1:45:53 PM | It all depends on what you actualy class as life quetjohn2, is it self replication, homeostasis, the ability to repair damage?
Self replication in itself is not life, as many chemicals are capable replicating themselveves. DNA replicates itself in the right conditions, it dose not nead to be within a cell to do so, dose that mean its alive?
Homeostasis can be achied in all kinds of extreamly basic reactions, Nuclear reactions at the heart of stars are in a state of homeostasis, having achieved a perfect ballance between rate of reaction and energy consumption/production, but as I said earlier, I doubt stars are alive.
repairing damage is not even unique to living things, there was a new scientist journal a few years back that talked about self repair at the atomic level in coper wire. copper when exposed to air, forms Copper-oxide and a few other molecules, when the copper oxide layer is scratched, it was discovered that in high energy system, some of those other molecules were moving around in the oxide layer. When damage was recived, a wave of energy was drawn to the site of the damage as the new reactions there would require energy, along with this wave of energy, the other molecules were also drawn to the site of damage and reacted with each other to create a barier, some forming a scafold structure, others mopping up any oxygen that might come into contact with the copper. They then reacted with the air, to form a fresh copper-oxide layer, thus reparing the damge. (Please don't ask me for the referencing on this though, its in New Scientist from a few years back is all I can remember.) This is remarkably similar to the way in which living arganisms repair scratches to thier protective layer.
I think its clear that we have to play the arbitrary definition game here, oh such fun.
As for the reaction, I think thats right, I realy am not very good at Chemistry below the celular leval though. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 5:48:27 PM | I was gone for a bit, but I'll try to clarify and respond to a few things I've said.
dryad said: And as Dharma alluded to, a theory being ‘scientific’ does not mean evidence discovered in the future will not disprove it. You could say it’s almost Buddhist in nature; cautioning against forming attachments.
Yes, true science is always looking to prove a hypothesis wrong—with empirical evidence. When doing science, I don’t come up with a hypothesis and fit the evidence to prove my hypothesis. Faith? Not as much. Science shouldn’t be a ‘religion.’ Confusing those two seems confusing to all. I like Buddhist thought more all the time :)
quietjohn2 said: I acknowledge your suggestion to limit the discussion to Evolution
I wasn’t suggesting that, really. I was suggesting that the language of ‘war’ for ‘souls’ is to me, problematic. Warning flags go up for me when I hear that sort of language. It implies that there is one ‘right’ way to think and believe and the whole ‘rest’ of thought and people are ‘the enemy.’ I was asking for a specific answer about who is ‘the enemy.’
--
Nothing in the theory of evolution (that I know of and understand) says that people are descended ‘from monkeys.’ I think this is misunderstood. There is a common ancestor we share… that’s what is said. It says that these magnificent, intelligent, creatures share a common ancestor with us from long ago—chimps share 99% (97-99.9%, depending on who you go by) of DNA with human beings.
I would think a spiritual way of understanding poetry of Eden as something like…(again, metaphorical) The Earth is the divine’s—from the beginning of creation. We are intimately connected with all life on Earth. All creatures from the same source—all ‘brothers and sisters’ as the ‘children’ of a higher power… In the sense that G-d and creation are one, we are not ontologically different from all other life. To start the thought…
The sun is an orb made of gold. Does this mean this star is literally made of gold? Should we need to fight for thousands of years about whether the sun is literally composed of Au? No. This is where people reading poetry and religion get confused. Spiritual and religion language is poetic—metaphor, simile, analogy, etc. Reading that as literal causes problems, I think. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 7:47:44 PM | The sun is an orb made of gold. Does this mean this star is literally made of gold? Should we need to fight for thousands of years about whether the sun is literally composed of Au?
To put it simply, there are those who are offended by the notion that a person can arrive at a conclusion of what is morally right or wrong or what is the true origin of natural mechanisms (such as evolution) by the discernment of his or her own mind, without the consent of a higher religious authority.
Those offended tend to see the prospect of this as a threat to their power base. An easy way to brand those who would espouse the freedom of thought as "the enemy" is to point out that they do not submit to the authority of an official religious position on a matter of natural history or science. Because (playing devil's advocate) if such a person does not submit to the will of God in one matter, then that is an indication of their position in all matters; they are inherently evil.
So it isn't about mistakes over semantics or scriptures being taken too literally. Over the millennia, many authorities wanted the scriptures to be taken literally so that the bad apples who think for themselves would be exposed and could be weeded out more easily. The essence of this sort of tyranny isn't some bumbling religious figurehead who doesn't know not to take a moral fable literally. It is an authority who deliberately misses the moral point in a religious text and tries to force others to honor the part of the religion that has the least meaning: its alleged literal truth rather than its moral spirit. And the whole point of that is to control people.
And, contrary to what has been said in this thread, I do not hate religion. I see the moral spirit of religion as being absolutely necessary for a civilization to thrive, and at the same time the corruption of civilization as often being a result of a country's legislation of religion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/6/2005 8:10:12 PM | I can't speak for other people, but for me, I LOVE the 'god-given' ability to reason, question and be in awe all at once. *I* really wouldn't want to know everything (boring :) )... I want there to be always more to know... I like the process of learning, teaching, and learning! :) I don't know, but I think *true* science is *one* good way of knowing... and teaching... and learning... and teaching. I've learned from some people on this thread. I am thankful for that and I hope to learn some more...
I completely understand the way people take an idea and twist it to 'justify' something. AGAIN, MORE reason to foster critical thinking ...and questioning (even IF IN THE NAME OF G-D!) :) | |
|
|
| Page 23 of 156
|
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 |
|
Home
login 
