Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Bullockist wrote: I just love 6000 year old earth theory. A few people lived to over 500 years of age in genesis , how can you possibly believe that is possible with what we see now about peoples bodies not really lasting too well over 90 years.
I have heard that dinosaur bones were placed their by Satan to mislead people and lead them away from God.
From these two statements I do believe that literal creationists have brains made of tripe. I have faith in this belief too
Tripe. I like tripe.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Bullockist wrote: ...how can you possibly believe that is possible with what we see now about peoples bodies not really lasting too well over 90 years.
IIRC, that one is actually explained in the bible. At some point along the way (might have been just after Noah) God decided people were living for two long, and limited our lifespans to 120 years or so.
From these two statements I do believe that literal creationists have brains made of tripe. I have faith in this belief too
Dakka's rules about being polite do apply to people whose beliefs differ from your own. This sort of statement does nothign productive for the discussion.
AgeOfEgos wrote: Ahh, well then I was misunderstanding the way "God Caused the Big Bang" was being employed then. Whereas I understood it to be "No one can explain the singularity, therefore God"--it appears that it's being used more as a a quasi-pantheistic (Or pure deist) belief? I almost typed fine tuner argument--but that's just a very complex god of the gaps as well.
If people do use it in that way, then yeah it's a God of the Gaps argument and quite wrong. I guess it all turns on how an individual uses the argument, and how "divine watchmakers" in general use the argument (I doubt there's been a poll on it )
@ Your statement seb "Whether or not people believe in God, ultimately, doesn't mean a damn thing". Do you really think that to be true? In my experience, dogmatism (which faith would be perhaps the poster child of)--has very real world effects--some good--many bad. Then again, I live in the Midwest...where a church congregation ready to accept your sins is but a knock at your door or drive down the block away...
Probably loose wording on my part. I don't mean to say that belief or lack there of isn't important at all, I mean it isn't important in the way that Peregrine was worrying about, where someone else believed something that he personally felt was wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Well, that may be halfway right. I think you're right in the sense that people who say "God caused the big bang" don't put a lot of thought into it. But I do think it means something specific; namely, that the big bang forms a kind of line as to where it's okay to stop talking about science and start talking about God. That's clearly not scientific. But it's also not suitable as to Christianity given that we Christians hold that God is always present to us (as opposed the the ephemeral watchmaker deity).
If that's how people use the term, then I agree with you. I've never personally experienced people using it in that way, but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Except "god created the big bang" does contradict science. It might not contradict any particular theory/law, but it contradicts the fundamental rules about what is and isn't a legitimate explanation for something. It's a statement that inherently includes the claim that it's ok to make up random stuff and believe it just because you want to, and that attitude is clearly anti-scientific.
Only if it comes with the conclusion "and therefore we shouldn't study that anymore". Which it fething doesn't.
You do realize that this is a thread for debating the subject, right?
Actually this is a thread for debating creationism and it's impact on science.
Which you've turned in to a thread on why people with religious beliefs you don't share are wrong.
And my point here is that those individuals are incredibly rare. Walk into an average church and ask how many people believe in the "divine watchmaker" god, and how many people believe in a more traditional god (miracles happened, Jesus was real, prayer works, etc) that is actively involved in the world. What you'll find is that in the real world "watchmaker" theists are an almost nonexistent minority, and the only place those beliefs show up with any real frequency is in debates where the theist side needs them as an argument strategy.
It's probably different numbers in your neck of the woods than mine. And if that's true, then the last sensible thing you can do is start attacking the divine watchmakers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: You quoted the answer to the question you just asked. Considering you called it "philosophic psychobabble," is it fair to say it was too complicated for you to understand?
Funnily enough, that was one of your few religious posts I didn't have to read twice to understand
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Ham shows a video of the inventor of the MRI stating that he invented the MRI "by the grace of God." He doesn't give any explanation of what he means by that but it sounds dubious in light of him also confirming that he is a young earth creationist.
There are three people who are generally attributed with inventing the MRI, and one them is a young earth creationist. He was also the one that was not given credit when the Nobel was awarded. He maintains this is because he's a young earth creationist.
The specifics of exactly why his discoveries weren't as important as the others is about 15 levels too technical for me, so I can't say if he was really screwed by the scientific community or not, but I do not that personal martyrdom seems to be a pretty common theme among creationists. I suspect it may be a major appeal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
squidhills wrote: So why is it I never seem to hear Jewish people decry evolution or proclaiming a 6000 year old Earth? Why is it that all of the creationists I see and hear are Christian? The Jews have the EXACT SAME CREATION MYTH in their book.
Why aren't they running around trying to disprove science?
What do they understand about Genesis that Ham and his followers don't?
There are Jewish creationists, and there's also a lot of Muslim creationists. And while I've never heard of any, it honestly wouldn't surprise if Hindhus and all the other religions had their own variations on creationists, it just seems a very natural thing to take religious stories as literal events that happened and to then go out and try and prove them.
I think we hear less about those groups because they just aren't as numerous or politically relevant in our countries. When Jews are already a small minority, then the pseudo-science of a fraction of that community just doesn't register among the mainstream.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/02/07 02:29:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
On a whim, I decided to watch a speech by Faulkner (the astronomer Ham quoted in his opening)--mostly because while I can understand how certain educational fields may be able rectify the science with their beliefs--I could not imagine how an educated astronomer could reconcile his worldview with the science within his field.
When he got to the speed of light issue, one of his arguments was--since Adam and Eve had fully mature trees with fruit available to them on day 6, when they were just created on day 3--and we know trees don't mature that quickly---God could also make the light mature more quickly from far away stars.
If you can square the circle with thought processes like that---well, I don't suppose there is any point in debating.
@ Seb----RE: Your debate with Peregrine--I think it might be a misunderstanding of terms. If, for example, you are describing a deist or pantheist--that believes God allows the universe to develop as it would with no interference--then yes, I don't see how that matters much in society. However, I have yet to meet anyone like that outside of online forum debates concerning religion (Not to say that they don't exist, I simply don't think many people are that educated or exact on their beliefs). On the other hand, if believing in an ultimate creator also encompasses a theist divinity--that does meander in our every day lives--and lays out rules that govern the way in which we should direct our lives---well that gets a bit more troubling.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/07 03:34:42
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
It is interesting that the "historical creationism" of Hams is ok, even though you weren't there man so couldn't POSSIBLY know what actually happened... or doea that only work for science and things you can prove?
SilverMK2 wrote: It is interesting that the "historical creationism" of Hams is ok, even though you weren't there man so couldn't POSSIBLY know what actually happened... or doea that only work for science and things you can prove?
He has it in a book and knows which parts are allegory and which are literal, so he's covered. Science doesn't have that.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
d-usa wrote: You know you have a problem when even Pat Robertson thinks that you are nuts!
Well to be fair, if Pat Robertson thinks your nuts, you are probably on to something, most of the time I would take that as a thumbs up. Maybe not this time, but usually
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/07 14:56:18
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Pat Robertson wrote:So I mean, let's be real. Let's not make a joke of ourselves. But I don't believe in so-called evolution as it is currently presented as non-theistic.
A swing and a miss.
"I'm not superstitious but I am a little stitious."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/07 15:26:01
I just finally got around to watching the debate , I felt that a majority of the time Ham was beating around the bush so to speak but when he did give a straight answer it was "It's in the bible" which if you ask any creationist will say or it was something that caused an intellectual stalemate. What I mean by that is something that doesn't prove anything but just simply denies anything Nye said with a simple "you can't" statement. Nye offered nothing but evidence and Ham was creating irrelevant connections with things like " a creationist can be a scientist" and that really wasn't the question at hand. I don't really know how the universe was formed because "I wasn't there" but neither was anyone else. I am still and always have been a strong believer in science because I can see natural laws and things of that nature (no pun intended) in action and being solid fact everyday.
"Beyond the tower of Ghrond lies Saro Kyth, there your soul will perish."
Christians did not write genesis. They took it from the Torah which was a non-literal oral transcription of the word of God.
Rabbinical scholars and the Catholic Church have supported evolution for 1000 years. The have always taken the position that Moses's writings are figurative (how Moses intended, not literal word of god) and that science doesn't disprove religion.
If you actually study genesis from a figurative stance, it is eerily accurate for the actual process for the creation of the universe compared to other religions, almost as if someone who understood science and the origins of the universe tried to explain everything to a caveman sheepherder from the stupid ages and genesis was the result.
When a creationist doesn't know who wrote genesis, they instantly lose any discussion. It is that simple... You can't have faith in something you are ignorant of. If you don't even know what your own faith stands for or originated from, then your faith is non-existent.
At least Mormons know who and what they believe. They can point to Joseph smith and claim to have faith in his divinity and literal Book of Mormon. I can respect that. But people who have faith in a literal translation of figurative stories taken from another religion written thousands of years before with no chain of custody to the "literal divinity" of the text... Have zero foundation for their beliefs in their own religion.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
What I am saying and what Nye was saying is that theology should not be even brought up in science and now im adding to that with my own words and thoughts is that it promotes a sort comfortable compromise that leads to ignorance through the fact that when people are satisfied with something they will no longer pursuit it. When people accept things that are pretty crazy (if taken literally). that's just literally ridiculous. I feel the reason why The United States Constitution put the bit about separation of church and state because a lot of the founders of America were scientifically and practical minded and did not want religion to hinder science, vice versa and they did not want an intellectual stalemate and conflict with in the country caused by something like religion vs science. One more thing how could the Vatican support evolution 1000 years ago when the notion is only about 2 centuries old, and how does one explain other belief systems and peoples before Christ like the Greeks and their view on creation, is that not to be taken literally either .I feel that Creationist desperately are trying to interpret Genesis in a figurative way and trying to connect it to what we now know about the universe. Like seven connections to Kevin Bacon(comedic relief(just in case no one could tell) . I like many others do not wish to rain on anyones parade I just don't want Religion to hinder the progress of science and technology.
"Beyond the tower of Ghrond lies Saro Kyth, there your soul will perish."
nkelsch wrote: Rabbinical scholars and the Catholic Church have supported evolution for 1000 years.
Given Darwin wasn't born until 1809, this claim is a tad bit suspect.
Rabbinical scholars knew of Neanderthals around 1000ad due to skeletons and Neanderthals were mentioned in genesis, especially intermarrying with modern man. (One of the talking points of anti-Semites which likes Jews to Neanderthals)
And Darwin didn't invent evolution, the groundwork was laid by others for the previous hundred years by other scholars who had already observed lineage of animal species and such. Religious philosophers were discussing the issues before they even understood it and have taken the position that when "science proves things, religion supports science." So as they discovered science and medicine, the non-literal nature of religions texts became just that, non-literal.
And since "literal" Old Testament, or literal "Hebrew bible, compiled from 3 torahs around 430bc, translated to Greek in 70ad, and then into Latin 300ad and into English/german 1500ad" popped into being during the reformation with zero divinity declaring the literal state of it... It is hard to figure out where this "science bad, literal translated book good" came from other than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "not listening"
So up until then, the stance of both Jewish and Christian scholars was to "go with science." And after that, it was just an offshoot of Christians as "science good, evolution doesn't disprove god" is still the stance of catholic and most Jewish faiths.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
yes but it only doesn't disprove god because they see gaps as insert god here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: the thing that really gets me though is when people are all like ' RAD dating was made by man, therefore its bias and inaccurate" or similar situations like scientific laws and theories.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/08 06:22:40
"Beyond the tower of Ghrond lies Saro Kyth, there your soul will perish."
DeadMutagen94 wrote: yes but it only doesn't disprove god because they see gaps as insert god here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: the thing that really gets me though is when people are all like ' RAD dating was made by man, therefore its bias and inaccurate" or similar situations like scientific laws and theories.
Well....DakkaDakka was made by man and anything posted here is highly suspect at best
DeadMutagen94 wrote: yes but it only doesn't disprove god because they see gaps as insert god here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: the thing that really gets me though is when people are all like ' RAD dating was made by man, therefore its bias and inaccurate" or similar situations like scientific laws and theories.
Well....DakkaDakka was made by man and anything posted here is highly suspect at best
How DARE you question Dakka?! Off with his head!
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I read this and found interesting, but the only thing I found more interesting was the comments.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is something I always pondered, why are ancient myths dismissed as myths and legends where something that is almost exactly the same is seen as religion and a viable basis for "facts" on our origins as apposed to a nice story. They say they have Historical records...You cant use the bible to prove the bible is true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/08 16:36:48
"Beyond the tower of Ghrond lies Saro Kyth, there your soul will perish."
Genesis was written much way before the Greeks even were Greek. There are many accounts that are similar to the Biblical acounts, which makes sense if all of humanity is derived from a small group such as Noahs offspring.
I.E. they would all have similar stories as they split off into distinct societies yet have slightly different versions.
Are you serious ? that's why there is always going to be a constant stalemate. Nothing can be proven to you, Greek Mythos were not recorded til late but does that really prove tha the book of genesis was written mind you not based in before that . Sumerians and their "myths" pre-date almost every civ. and certainly the book of genesis or any jewish text. Creationist can take poop and turn it into evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Almost every ancient civ. has a story similar to this and that is my point not necessarily the greeks themselves....I Believe that all religion and myths are just cases of derivative plagiarism designed to adapt to the area and culture but with the same basic principles.... I always try to read something in the most un Bias way possible. Bias clouds judgment, destroys truth and reason..
Automatically Appended Next Post: wouldn't we all have strange ass genetic deformities if we came from a long line of super inbred families like the story of the flood tells us we came to be.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/08 17:26:21
"Beyond the tower of Ghrond lies Saro Kyth, there your soul will perish."
wouldn't we all have strange ass genetic deformities if we came from a long line of super inbred families like the story of the flood tells us we came to be.
Not if God didn't want that to happen.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
generalgrog wrote: Genesis was written much way before the Greeks even were Greek. There are many accounts that are similar to the Biblical acounts, which makes sense if all of humanity is derived from a small group such as Noahs offspring.
I.E. they would all have similar stories as they split off into distinct societies yet have slightly different versions.
GG
The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible date to around the 10th or 11th century BCE (Roughly 1200 BC)... People settled on Crete and their Neolithic civilization began with advanced agriculture at around 5000 BCE and reached their height of power and influence by 1700 BCE. Sorry, by the time your biblical flood happened (roughly 2300 BC) there were some 20 million humans spread out on this planet.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
)
