Religion retards scientific disovery?

[crosbiegrad]

Another night in film and culture class and another controversy. Someone said in the class that as a nation (maybe even world) we have allowed our religious beliefs to govern and temper our scientific fervor. My knee jerk reaction to this was no way but what say ye? Just as a point of interest, it was the Muslim armies and scholars that brought modern mathematics to the world, which I think is possible the greatest scientific achievment in our history as a world. Also, before anyone informs me that it was infact the greeks who pioneered mathematics, I know that, however, it was the Muslims who translated took it and ran with it, giving us modern mathematics

[hoosier]

Another night in film and culture class and another controversy. Someone said in the class that as a nation (maybe even world) we have allowed our religious beliefs to govern and temper our scientific fervor. My knee jerk reaction to this was no way but what say ye? Just as a point of interest, it was the Muslim armies and scholars that brought modern mathematics to the world, which I think is possible the greatest scientific achievment in our history as a world. Also, before anyone informs me that it was infact the greeks who pioneered mathematics, I know that, however, it was the Muslims who translated took it and ran with it, giving us modern mathematics

I agree with the idea that science and religion are currently part of a power struggle in this country. Not so much in the rest of the developed world. "We have allowed..." is too strong, it implies that the religion has the upper hand in this power struggle. I think the tide is starting to ebb for evangelical political power in the US.

The analogy between Islam mathematics and evangelical Christianity with science is a strange one. It's certainly true that Islam played a big role in preserving and translating Greek knowledge and though. What role do you see Christianity playing today in furthering the advance of science? All I see is certain brands of Christianity trying to impede science or compete with science.

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread is just to juicy to remain in this dull place called Romper Room.

Sooner or later, I predict, the powers that be around here will magically divert it to a brave new world where intellectual discussion is in fact, encouraged rather than stifled, a place called FYI.

[Tarlam!]

Excellent thread.

Certainly religious groups or ethic lobbyists (oftentimes rooted in a religious grouping) have an impact on certain research. Think stem cells, animal cloning, gene manipulation. I am talking Europe now.

In the USA, from what I can gather, the bible belt is a much sought after voter collective and anyone looking to achieve political office appear to go out of their way to make concessions to these voters.

I agree with Hoosier, though. Despite the strong lobby religion has formed and exercises (boycotting certain products), I don't believe they have yet tipped the balance in their favour in the 1st world countries.

In poverty stricken Muslim countries like Iran, Afghanistan et all, religion has the upper hand by law. In poverty stricken Pakistan, research is a boon. In poverty stricken India, research is a boon.


So, the degree of a country/regions wealth is not a valid parameter. Neither is the religion itself.

Depending on the level of insanity of the zealot running the religion and how powerful they are in their respective societies would seem to be the two key indicators.

[Freak Out]

Curiosity and the unending human drive for knowledge may be slowed by but will always overcome a barrier put in place by an organized religions doctrine or its disciples.

[HowardRoark]

Another night in film and culture class and another controversy. Someone said in the class that as a nation (maybe even world) we have allowed our religious beliefs to govern and temper our scientific fervor. My knee jerk reaction to this was no way but what say ye? Just as a point of interest, it was the Muslim armies and scholars that brought modern mathematics to the world, which I think is possible the greatest scientific achievment in our history as a world. Also, before anyone informs me that it was infact the greeks who pioneered mathematics, I know that, however, it was the Muslims who translated took it and ran with it, giving us modern mathematics

I agree with the idea that science and religion are currently part of a power struggle in this country. Not so much in the rest of the developed world. "We have allowed..." is too strong, it implies that the religion has the upper hand in this power struggle. I think the tide is starting to ebb for evangelical political power in the US.

The analogy between Islam mathematics and evangelical Christianity with science is a strange one. It's certainly true that Islam played a big role in preserving and translating Greek knowledge and though. What role do you see Christianity playing today in furthering the advance of science? All I see is certain brands of Christianity trying to impede science or compete with science.

How in Allah’s name do you get “The analogy between Islam mathematics and evangelical Christianity with science is a strange one” out of his original post? You are so myopic that everything looks as you want it to look.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


All I see is certain brands of Christianity trying to impede science or compete with science.

What are these specific imediments?

I suppose I do agree with you that the religion of Global Warming is impeding good science.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ty finds most science to be heretical and wishes that we could place scientists under house arrest and their movements restricted.

[hoosier]

Another night in film and culture class and another controversy. Someone said in the class that as a nation (maybe even world) we have allowed our religious beliefs to govern and temper our scientific fervor. My knee jerk reaction to this was no way but what say ye? Just as a point of interest, it was the Muslim armies and scholars that brought modern mathematics to the world, which I think is possible the greatest scientific achievment in our history as a world. Also, before anyone informs me that it was infact the greeks who pioneered mathematics, I know that, however, it was the Muslims who translated took it and ran with it, giving us modern mathematics

I agree with the idea that science and religion are currently part of a power struggle in this country. Not so much in the rest of the developed world. "We have allowed..." is too strong, it implies that the religion has the upper hand in this power struggle. I think the tide is starting to ebb for evangelical political power in the US.

The analogy between Islam mathematics and evangelical Christianity with science is a strange one. It's certainly true that Islam played a big role in preserving and translating Greek knowledge and though. What role do you see Christianity playing today in furthering the advance of science? All I see is certain brands of Christianity trying to impede science or compete with science.

How in Allah’s name do you get “The analogy between Islam mathematics and evangelical Christianity with science is a strange one” out of his original post?

The original poster points out that it was Islamic scholars who introduced Europe to Aristotle, Ptolemy and the likes. That was a case in which a devoutly religious community helped further the cause of science. The original post suggested that, contrary to what the person in the poster's film and culture class was arguing, something analoogous might be happening today.


You are so myopic that everything looks as you want it to look.

I'm myopic. Ok. I guess that makes you just intentionally dense.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ty needs a scientist to explain to him about when mathematics became a science. :oops:

Science: Astronomy, medicine, biology, chemistry, earth science, evolution, genetics, physics.

[HowardRoark]

I'm myopic. Ok. I guess that makes you just intentionally dense.

Eureka! Eureka! You discovered my density….excellent!! Why do you presume that Christians are the impedement to science? Maybe it’s Islam. And again, could you cite any examples of Christians impeding science? A little verantwortungsfreudig concerning your original post is in order.

Do you think that science is anything more than measuring things? What is electricity?

Have you read Limits Of A Limitless Science: And Other Essays yet? Why not?

[hoosier]

ty needs a scientist to explain to him about when mathematics became a science. :oops:

Science: Astronomy, medicine, biology, chemistry, earth science, evolution, genetics, physics.

I'm not a scientist, but...No, math isn't a science in the modern sense of physical, biological and social sciences. But it is a systematic body of knowledge, and the Greeks didn't make any meaningful distinction between math, astronomy, medicine or philosophy. But these fields and the modern idea of the sciences is relatively recent (late 18th century) compared to the long time that elapsed between Plato and then.

[hoosier]

I'm myopic. Ok. I guess that makes you just intentionally dense.

Eureka! Eureka! You discovered my density….excellent!! Why do you presume that Christians are the impedement to science? Maybe it’s Islam. And again, could you cite any examples of Christians impeding science? A little verantwortungsfreudig concerning your original post is in order.

Do you think that science is anything more than measuring things? What is electricity?

Have you read Limits Of A Limitless Science: And Other Essays yet? Why not?

So many questions. I can only focus on one at a time. You ask for examples of (evangelical) Christians impeding science. (I specifically included evangelicals to make clear that I'm not accusing all Christians of being anti-science. Surely not all evangelicals are anti-science either, but we have to draw the line somewhere.) You want examples? Here are three, a trinity so to speak: Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ty needs a scientist to explain to him about when mathematics became a science. :oops:

Science: Astronomy, medicine, biology, chemistry, earth science, evolution, genetics, physics.

I'm not a scientist, but...No, math isn't a science in the modern sense of physical, biological and social sciences. But it is a systematic body of knowledge, and the Greeks didn't make any meaningful distinction between math, astronomy, medicine or philosophy. But these fields and the modern idea of the sciences is relatively recent (late 18th century) compared to the long time that elapsed between Plato and then.

I know what you are saying, but his post and the people he talks about certainly weren't talking about math as a science.

Futhermore, bringing modern math to the europeans isn't a scientific achievement.

Even if it was to be considered as such...no way is it the #1 scientific achievement.

Bigger than? (off the top of my head):

1. The earth moves
2. Planets move
3. Microoranisms
4. Cell nucleus
5. Oxygen
6. Atomic theory
7. Earth cores
8. Dinosaur fossils
9. Rules of heredity (mendel)
10. Genes/chromosomes
11. Human anatomy
12. Germs
13. blood circulation
14. Falling bodies
15. Univesal Gravitation
16. laws of motion
17. Thermodynamics

[HowardRoark]

So many questions. I can only focus on one at a time.

Typical of a myopic.

Here is another question: what is an Evangelical? And how do they differ from a non-Evangelical?


Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

Let me first say that I could have posted your reply it is so predictable. I this the Daily Hoosier?

1. We already went over this one at length. Neither should be taught as the origin of the universe in government schools.

2. Should we do experiments on old people with dementia? This is where my book recommendation would be of use to you.

3. Science (the measurement of data) shows that since sex education has been introduced, problems in society with their origins in sex have multiplied. Disease, unwed parents, age of single mothers, etc. Why do you impede science?

[HowardRoark]

1. The earth moves

Johannes Kepler said, "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner."

I bet he wasn't an Evangelical.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So many questions. I can only focus on one at a time.

Typical of a myopic.

Here is another question: what is an Evangelical? And how do they differ from a non-Evangelical?


Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

Let me first say that I could have posted your reply it is so predictable. I this the Daily Hoosier?

1. We already went over this one at length. Neither should be taught as the origin of the universe in government schools.

2. Should we do experiments on old people with dementia? This is where my book recommendation would of use to you.

3. Science (the measurement of data) shows that since sex education has been introduced, problems in society with their origins in sex have multiplied. Disease, unwed parents, age of single mothers, etc. Why do you impede science?

1. Ridiculous. Evolution/big bang fits under science. Science should be taught. If either of those are "improved" upon..then the teaching changes.

2. He gave you an example. Now, you want to discuss ethics/morality.

3. Please provide proof. It is doubtful that any science was done on this...seeing as the "control" would be impossible.

In the end, you can not dispute the fact that religion tries to impede science. What you seem to want to argue is whether doing so is actually beneficial.

[texaspackerbacker]

The original poster here is playing kind of fast and loose with the facts. While the ARABS indeed did translate and preserve many Greek concepts of math, as well as astronomy and other science in a time period when Europe considered that sort of thing heretical, it was NOT the Muslims. Furthermore, a lot of the reason for this was that they--the Arabs--had access to the great library of Alexandria in Egypt. If I'm not mistaken, when Islam began to infest the Arabs, they sacked and destroyed that library in 642 A.D. The Muslim general who did it was reported to have said concerning the items in the library, "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

The rotten anti-Christian sentiment of the original post notwithstanding, there is a lot of merit to the idea that the Christian Church for much of the 2,000 or so years of its existence, really did--some would say still does--stifle science.

How can a true Bible believing Christian correlate the Church's attitude toward science with goodness and truth? Well, Christian churches/denominations--Catholic and Protestant are a far cry from representing true Biblical teachings--and that has been true almost since the beginning. In addition, there is a great difference between provable measurable science and theoretical science--although that differentiation may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

True believers--the Christian variety, at least, have nothing to fear from anything science can measure or prove.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. The earth moves

Johannes Kepler said, "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner."

I bet he wasn't an Evangelical.

If the earth dies before accepting jesus will it's soul go to hell? :oops:

Oh, those wacky Lutherans.

[HowardRoark]

1. Ridiculous. Evolution/big bang fits under science. Science should be taught. If either of those are "improved" upon..then the teaching changes.

2. He gave you an example. Now, you want to discuss ethics/morality.

3. Please provide proof. It is doubtful that any science was done on this...seeing as the "control" would be impossible.

In the end, you can not dispute the fact that religion tries to impede science. What you seem to want to argue is whether doing so is actually beneficial.

The Big Bang? You mean the science that measured that out of nothingness, in an instant, the universe began, and it is heading toward an end time? Hmmmm…sounds familiar. I don’t dispute the Big Bang.

One of these days I will show the scientific data that proves that with Sex Education come societal problems. Too tired right now (to quote Hoosier).

His examples were elementary; therefore easy to dispute. If science is not beneficial; why pursue it? Should we allow the likes of Josef Mengele to pursue whatever science he deems appropriate?

What you and Hoosier fail to understand is that Christians have the capacity to understand that science and religion can and do coexist. We/I don’t have a childish belief in some kind of pie in the sky made up character, as much as you might think we do. If there is a God and it is truth, then it is nothing more than discovering what God has created. You can look up quotes from just about any of the scientists on your list above, and they will have said things much more articulate than I can on the subject.

When there is no limit on what science can potentially do, do we as humans have to put some limits on it?

[HowardRoark]

1. The earth moves

Johannes Kepler said, "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner."

I bet he wasn't an Evangelical.

If the earth dies before accepting jesus will it's soul go to hell? :oops:

Oh, those wacky Lutherans.

Does the Earth have a soul?

[texaspackerbacker]

Precisely.

The Big Bang is simply the way God did it.

There is nothing involving fossils, dinosaurs, geologic time, "little" i.e observable evolution, physics, biology, or anything else in PROVABLE science that contradicts Biblical teachings

[crosbiegrad]

Texas, although my facts may not be thorough to the extreme, it was definetely the banner of Islam that united the Arab tribes in such a way that they could get to the great library. Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping. Modern Mathematics found its way in the world with a heavy hand from Islamic scholars.
Also, remember Darwin himself was a devout chrisitian untill his death. In fact, there are many religious figures at the forefront of scientific discovery.
I do agree that christian opposition to stem cell research is completely illogical. However, as a scientific 'fact' the big bang theory is just that, a flawed theory.
I stand by my original point, mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyrone, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?

[HowardRoark]

mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyler, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?

I agree with this.....physics a close second.

[texaspackerbacker]

Texas, although my facts may not be thorough to the extreme, it was definetely the banner of Islam that united the Arab tribes in such a way that they could get to the great library. Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping. Modern Mathematics found its way in the world with a heavy hand from Islamic scholars.
Also, remember Darwin himself was a devout chrisitian untill his death. In fact, there are many religious figures at the forefront of scientific discovery.
I do agree that christian opposition to stem cell research is completely illogical. However, as a scientific 'fact' the big bang theory is just that, a flawed theory.
I stand by my original point, mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyrone, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?

cbg, Alexander's empire was divided shortly after his death, and virtually non-existence in the sense of Greek dominance not long after that, the Egypt portion in the hands of Arabs--more than two centuries before Islam came along in the early 600s. Less than two decades after that, the great repository of Greek knowledge in Alexandria was reduced to rubble.

I did NOT state or imply that I had any problem with the Big Bang Theory. In fact, I praised Howard's post pointing out that the BB Theory was consistent with true Christian teachings. A lot of theoretical science IS flawed, but some are not. There seems to be observable evidence of the BB Theory--red shift, etc.

[crosbiegrad]

Hate to turn this into some kind of argument but the great strides in mathematics taken during the Abbassid dynasty were not only due to greek translation but information obtained from India. At any rate, I think It's unfair to say that religion is the enemy of scienctific progress. Sure, 'religious' men and women have sought to stifle some scientific progress but there are many scientists who have stifled religious progress, consider Tesla and Edison.

[Tarlam!]

...Furthermore, a lot of the reason for this was that they--the Arabs--had access to the great library of Alexandria in Egypt. If I'm not mistaken, when Islam began to infest the Arabs, they sacked and destroyed that library in 642 A.D. The Muslim general who did it was reported to have said concerning the items in the library, "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

From Wikipedia:

"Amr ibn al 'Aas conquest in 642

Several historians told varying accounts of an Arab army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas sacking the city in 642 after the Byzantine army was defeated at the Battle of Heliopolis, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library. He gave the famous answer: "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." It is said that the Arabs subsequently burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers. It was also said that the Library's collection was still substantial enough at this late date to provide six months' worth of fuel for the baths.

However, this account has been dismissed by some as a legend.
While the first Western account of the supposed event was in Edward Pococke's 1663 translation of History of the Dynasties, it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713 by Fr. Eusèbe Renaudot. Over the centuries, numerous succeeding scholars have agreed with Fr. Renaudot's conclusion, including Alfred J. Butler, Victor Chauvin, Paul Casanova and Eugenio Griffini. More recently, in 1990, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis argued that the original account is not true, but that it survived over time because it was a useful myth for the great twelfth century Muslim leader Saladin, who found it necessary to break up the Fatimid caliphate's collection of heretical Isma'ili texts in Cairo following his restoration of Sunnism to Egypt. Lewis proposes that the story of the caliph Umar's support of a library's destruction may have made Saladin's actions seem more acceptable to his people.

Recent underwater excavations in the harbor of modern Alexandria have also lent credence to the idea that several catastrophic earthquakes between the third and fifth centuries AD may have played a role in the decline and/or destruction of the library (as well as the city itself)."

[Tarlam!]

Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping.

Frankly, the literacy levels in todays Muslim world are pretty low. Ignorance is bliss.

http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/holy-islam-holy-illiteracy-holy-poverty-holy-backwardness/

[texaspackerbacker]

Hate to turn this into some kind of argument but the great strides in mathematics taken during the Abbassid dynasty were not only due to greek translation but information obtained from India. At any rate, I think It's unfair to say that religion is the enemy of scienctific progress. Sure, 'religious' men and women have sought to stifle some scientific progress but there are many scientists who have stifled religious progress, consider Tesla and Edison.

Tarlam, I read that exact Wikipedia entry--the reason I said, "It was reported ....." instead of "The general definitely stated .......".

Crosbie, I hate to fall back on somebody else's argument that math isn't exactly science, but there is a clear differentiation here. Yes, Hindu scholars--from India--did also contribute to the basics of modern math along with Arabs translating from the Greek--generally in the pre-Muslim time period. However, the foundations of science back then did NOT require much of any math. More recent science, of course, uses a lot of applied mathematics--but that's a whole other level and a whole other area of discussion than the development of Arabic numbers, algebra, geometry, etc.

I thought from the tone of your original post that YOU were the one who was a detractor of religion for stifling scientific advances. The thread title certainly seems to say so--depending on how you interpret the question mark. Yes, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and others were reputed to be religious. In those days, anybody who wasn't was ostracized and demonized--as opposed to now, when those who ARE religious get that treatment. It's difficult to know what their beliefs really were.

In any case, I'm not talking about true Biblical teachings when I acknowledge that Christian and other religious organizations stifled science. Rather, I'm talking about the bureaucracy of those religions and the human additions and editions to those religions that science was in conflict with, NOT real Biblical teachings--which is sort of the same thing as you said at the end of your post.

[hoosier]

Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

Let me first say that I could have posted your reply it is so predictable. I this the Daily Hoosier?

My answers reflect the quality of the original questions.



1. We already went over this one at length. Neither should be taught as the origin of the universe in government schools.

I must have missed that day. Evolution doesn't make claims about the origins of the universe; it talks about the origin and evolution of species. Why shouldn't it be taught? Do you want to do away with physics and astronomy too because they were once seen as making controversial claims about the movement of celestial objects?



2. Should we do experiments on old people with dementia? This is where my book recommendation would be of use to you.

Your inability to see the difference between fetuses and the elderly makes it perfectly clear why you take the positions you do. But don't expect me to follow you in your refusal to see the difference.



3. Science (the measurement of data) shows that since sex education has been introduced, problems in society with their origins in sex have multiplied. Disease, unwed parents, age of single mothers, etc. Why do you impede science?

I'm struggling to follow your logic and your syntax, Howie. I assume your point is that correlation doesn't prove causality, but I'm making a bit of an interpretive leap here. Could you please be a little more specific and less cryptic with your statements and questions?

[crosbiegrad]

Sorry, I can see how my title was misleading, I am a practising christian and a geology major, a soft science but a science all the same. I do not feel like my beliefs are in any way detrimental to my learning. I hate to sound like a cry baby but it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.

[hoosier]

Sorry, I can see how my title was misleading, I am a practising christian and a geology major, a soft science but a science all the same. I do not feel like my beliefs are in any way detrimental to my learning. I hate to sound like a cry baby but it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.

In my experience it's not religion that comes under attack, it's specifically the efforts that are made--in the name of religion--to eliminate or severly restrict the teaching of science. No reasonable person has a problem with practicing religion, it's when religion is used to drive science out of the schools or to distort the teaching of science (for example, mandating that evolution and intelligent design be taught as "competing theories" in HS biology classes) that pro-science people start to attack.

[Tarlam!]

...it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.

See, now, this is gonna sound really provocative, and it has nothing to do with the topic, so please forgive me.


BUUUUUUT: As a non practising (as in church going) believer in a positive superior being I happen to call God, I am always dumbfounded when a football player thanks the Lord during interviews or after a great play, TD so demonstratively.

What if said player was a practicing Muslim and prayed to the East for a few seconds after a TD? It would be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike for starters, but the public outcry?
What if said player was a practising devil worshipper and thanked Lucifer or pointed downwards and crossed himself "upside down"?

No, I am NOT a devil worshipper. And no, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but it just occured to me.....

[Gunakor]

What if said player was a practicing Muslim and prayed to the East for a few seconds after a TD? It would be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike for starters, but the public outcry?


The NFL decided that dropping to your knee to praise God in celebration is still acceptable. They weren't specific as to which God, so I'd assume that a Muslim player dropping to his knees for just a moments prayer would be allowed within NFL rules. The public outcry, on the other hand, would still exist I'm sure. Though I couldn't venture a guess on how grand of scale that outcry would be. The outrage would be greater in some parts of the country than others, so it would depend on which city it happened in.

[HowardRoark]

Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

Let me first say that I could have posted your reply it is so predictable. I this the Daily Hoosier?

My answers reflect the quality of the original questions.



1. We already went over this one at length. Neither should be taught as the origin of the universe in government schools.

I must have missed that day. Evolution doesn't make claims about the origins of the universe; it talks about the origin and evolution of species. Why shouldn't it be taught? Do you want to do away with physics and astronomy too because they were once seen as making controversial claims about the movement of celestial objects?



2. Should we do experiments on old people with dementia? This is where my book recommendation would be of use to you.

Your inability to see the difference between fetuses and the elderly makes it perfectly clear why you take the positions you do. But don't expect me to follow you in your refusal to see the difference.



3. Science (the measurement of data) shows that since sex education has been introduced, problems in society with their origins in sex have multiplied. Disease, unwed parents, age of single mothers, etc. Why do you impede science?

I'm struggling to follow your logic and your syntax, Howie. I assume your point is that correlation doesn't prove causality, but I'm making a bit of an interpretive leap here. Could you please be a little more specific and less cryptic with your statements and questions?

What, now you channel Ben Bernanke(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFFAL56sEc)? It was not a poorly posed question; I was merely asking you to back up your posit.

Evolution does not prove the origin of species either. As I mentioned before, this is not terra incognita. We can disagree.

I am not looking at your #2 in a parochial manner; I am looking at the bigger picture. There are more sides to an issue when it comes to this kind of science. Stem cell research was not illegal before Obama’s thoughtful one-sided proclamation on the subject.

Data shows that with Sex Education comes more societal issues derived from sex. Once again, your original pugnacious posit was wrong.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. The earth moves

Johannes Kepler said, "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner."

I bet he wasn't an Evangelical.

If the earth dies before accepting jesus will it's soul go to hell? :oops:

Oh, those wacky Lutherans.

Does the Earth have a soul?

It does according to Kepler. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand by my original point, mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyrone, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?


Which of those can stand without the alphabet. The alphabet, mankinds greatest scientific tool. :roll:

[hoosier]

Evolution does not prove the origin of species either. As I mentioned before, this is not terra incognita. We can disagree.

It offers a theory about the origination of species, one that can be tested and evaluated against other theories. That's the difference between evolution and any theological account of biological diversity--they can't be tested or disproven. So while evolution may not be "proven"--it is always subject to testing, revision, debate, etc.--it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

That cigarettes cause cancer isn't "proven" either, but it's a pretty safe bet.



I am not looking at your #2 in a parochial manner; I am looking at the bigger picture. There are more sides to an issue when it comes to this kind of science. Stem cell research was not illegal before Obama’s thoughtful one-sided proclamation on the subject.

I used this as an example of religious driven attempts to change how science is done and funded. That this attempt wasn't successful doesn't change the fact that it happened.



Data shows that with Sex Education comes more societal issues derived from sex. Once again, your original pugnacious posit was wrong.

What data are you talking about, and how does it go about "showing" a causal connection--and not just an association--between sex ed and change in social behavior?

[MJZiggy]

How can you positively associate an increase in sexual issues to sex education without taking into account the concurrent increase of sex in the media that one would argue creates the need for the sex education? It's not like James Bond ever heard the phrase "no glove, no love..."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sorry, I can see how my title was misleading, I am a practising christian and a geology major, a soft science but a science all the same. I do not feel like my beliefs are in any way detrimental to my learning. I hate to sound like a cry baby but it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.

They didn't offer geology at Liberty U?

[texaspackerbacker]

Sorry, I can see how my title was misleading, I am a practising christian and a geology major, a soft science but a science all the same. I do not feel like my beliefs are in any way detrimental to my learning. I hate to sound like a cry baby but it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.

For some reason, I thought you were a liberal or secular progressive or some other variety of wrongheaded specimen. Glad to hear otherwise.

I had a minor in Geology--along with a Finance major forty years ago at U.W. Are you familiar with Professor Velakovsky and his theory of Catastrophism? He actually spoke at U.W. when I was there, and the whole Geology Department--full professors and all--shamefully heckled him. Back in those days, Huttonian Uniformitarianism--the geologic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution--was taught as gospel. Plate tectonics was dismissed as too common sensical or something. That has all turned around now, and Velakovsky and other early detractors of Uniformitarianism have been vindicated.

How do you justify the first chapter of Genesis with Geologic Time and the fossil record?

[HowardRoark]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

[Tarlam!]

Personally, I think the co-existance of religion and science is in many ways similar to the co-existance of differing beliefs/ denominations.

Let's view science in a similar light to any religion/belief for a moment. Depending on the tolerance of any "rival" belief or religion, science will be tolerated, persecuted, belittled, accepted etc. etc. etc.

Ultimately, I believe the day will come when science and most world religions will walk in step with eathother. I truly believe all mainstream / legitimate religions (i.e. those that really exist to worship, not those that exist to take money out of gullible pockets) will one day conclude that we all pray to the same God - we just do it with differing rituals.

And, I believe science will be the key to lifting the current ignorance that is the root of many heated debates, hurled insults, wars, terrorist attacks and hostilities around the world.

I firmly believe it will take another thousand years before this happens, though.

[crosbiegrad]

As for the account of the creation in the book of genesis, I have no idea how long each of the 6 creative periods were. In the bible it assigns it as a day but who's to say that God works on the same understanding of time that we do? It's be come very apparent that various species have evolved and adapted to their environments and the Earth has also undergone massive change in its 4.6 billion years. What is important for me in the Genesis account is that there is a master designer, how did he do it? Dunno, does science offer a glimpse into how? sure.
As for Velakovsky, never heard of him but I'm going to google his name and see what I can find. Huttons model of Uniformitarianism is still taught as the most feasible explanation as to how the earth developed. I have to say that what I've been taught about catastrophism doesnt sound very viable but I'll look into it more.

[texaspackerbacker]

I would have thought they'd have shit-canned Hutton by now with Plate Tectonics being closer and closer to positively proven.

Tarlam, that "religion in step with science" thing will undoubtedly occur fairly early in Christ's Millenial Kingdom on Earth. Maybe that was the thousand years you referred to. :)

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't say when He did it or how He did it. 12 billion years ago with a Big Bang for the universe--which has been expanding ever since? No problem if that's what science determines. 4.6 billion years ago for the earth? Again, no problem. Fossils as evidence of life as much as 3 billion years ago? OK, again no problem. Dinosaurs and glossopterous flora 160 million years ago? Again no problem. A catastrophic end to the Mesozoic Era with dinosaurs and glossopeterous flora mostly wiped out? No problem--possibly explained in Revelation 12:9-12, as well as Genesis 1:2: "The earth became void and without form".

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years.

It basically takes a helluva lot less faith-based reasoning to accept that scenario than to twist observable facts and numbers to try and make the theory of evolution add up.

[MadScientist]

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
(etc.)

It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.

[Dylan McKay]

Funny how obody has mentioned wizards yet. Interesting.

[MadScientist]

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years..

The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.

Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.

To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

[HowardRoark]

You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

OK. Have fun Googling Wiki in the meantime.

[arcilite]

Wizards.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

[texaspackerbacker]

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years..

The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.

Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.

To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

MS, the dirty little secret about your "overlapping tree ring" thing is that prime factor contradicting it is not the Bible, but carbon 14 dating--which dates the "8,000 year old" logs to be only 4,000 years old.

Since there are no trees 8,000 years old, they take logs that they speculate to be 8,000 years old, and try to match some of the outer rings with some of the inner rings of newly cut trees--very inexact.

The oldest trees ever found--Joshua trees or Sequoia redwoods, both in California--are around 5,000 years old, both very consistent with the idea of seed plants originating 6,000 years ago.

[HowardRoark]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

[mraynrand]

Do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim with the mouth of its wisdom and science that there is no crime, and therefore no sin, but only hungry men? No science will give them bread so long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and proclaim: "Better that you enslave us, but feed us."

[texaspackerbacker]

Do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim with the mouth of its wisdom and science that there is no crime, and therefore no sin, but only hungry men? No science will give them bread so long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and proclaim: "Better that you enslave us, but feed us."

A pretty gloomy outlook! Who gets credit for that quote? Or did you write it yourself?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

Already answered by a previous post.

[HowardRoark]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

Already answered by a previous post.

Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

[MJZiggy]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

[Tarlam!]

If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth?

Oh that's easy!

"Great A'tuin is the star turtle (genus Chelys Galactica) that carries the Discworld through space. 10,000 miles long and nearly as big as the disc itself, not much is known about A'tuin, even it's sex remains a mystery. A mystery that the astronomers of Krull were determined to solve, unfortunately their space ship - The Potent Voyager - was misappropriated.

The Discworld is supported atop A'tuin's back by the four great elephants Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, and the whole assemblage is circled by the small discworld sun and moon."



All we need to figure out is what the Earth's star turtle's name is and, bingo!

[texaspackerbacker]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

You've just managed to come of with a bogus stereotype for both sides, Ziggy--a bad one of course for the good people, and an unjustifiably lofty one for the damned atheists.

I would suggest that there about an equal percentage of total sheep--people just believing the dogma spewed to them--rightly or wrongly--among Christians, among believers in pagan religions, and among atheists. That might be considered the low end--although there is a lot to be said for faith too. I would further suggest that there is a much larger percentage of deep thinkers on the high end who have explored the alternatives and come to rational conclusions among Christians than among either pagans or atheists. There is also that large segment, of course in the middle who have a degree of faith and a degree of inclination to come to an intellectual decision, which probably is the majority in all three groups.

[MJZiggy]

Why is it that if they're not Christian, they're pagan. They believe their religions as much as Christians do...?

Oh, and who is teaching the atheists to be atheists?

[texaspackerbacker]

Why is it that if they're not Christian, they're pagan. They believe their religions as much as Christians do...?

Oh, and who is teaching the atheists to be atheists?

Hell Yeah! There is the TRUE religion--Biblical Christianity; There are a bunch of false ones--paganism; And there is no religion at all--atheism.

Who's teaching kids atheism? Oh, I don't know; How about LIBERALS--secular progressive God-hating/America-hating/everything that is good-hating liberals?

[MadScientist]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

There's no point in discussing anything with Howard, he was given the links with detailed information and has proven to be far too much of a coward to try and discuss it. So he just acts like an ostrich with its head in the sand and tries to pretend the information isn't there. Then he throws out insults to try to change the subject.

Howard the Coward is proof positive of the original posters question about religion retarding scientific discovery (or religious retards inhibiting scientific discovery).

[HowardRoark]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

There's no point in discussing anything with Howard, he was given the links with detailed information and has proven to be far too much of a coward to try and discuss it. So he just acts like an ostrich with its head in the sand and tries to pretend the information isn't there. Then he throws out insults to try to change the subject.

Howard the Coward is proof positive of the original posters question about religion retarding scientific discovery (or religious retards inhibiting scientific discovery).

The ad hominem started here:


How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
(etc.)

It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.

I read your deeply informative crap from Wiki and responded:


Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?

Pull your angry scientist head out of the ground yourself and respond.

[MadScientist]

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years..

The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.

Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.

To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

MS, the dirty little secret about your "overlapping tree ring" thing is that prime factor contradicting it is not the Bible, but carbon 14 dating--which dates the "8,000 year old" logs to be only 4,000 years old.

Since there are no trees 8,000 years old, they take logs that they speculate to be 8,000 years old, and try to match some of the outer rings with some of the inner rings of newly cut trees--very inexact.

The oldest trees ever found--Joshua trees or Sequoia redwoods, both in California--are around 5,000 years old, both very consistent with the idea of seed plants originating 6,000 years ago.
So lets see, you are saying C14 dating is not accurate and can't be reliable, and the tree rings are not reliable because they don't agree with the C14 dating :roll:

Of course you have your information backwards as well, since uncalibrated C14 dates are older than the calibrated ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

Inconsistent and inaccurate in a single post. I guess that explains why you believe what you do.

[MadScientist]

How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
(etc.)

It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.

I read your deeply informative crap from Wiki and responded:


Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?

Pull your angry scientist head out of the ground yourself and respond.[/quote]

I took you post as indicating you did not read it as instead of you completely not comprehending what you read. At no time was the eye nonfunctional. Photoreceptors are functional. Photoreceptors in a pit are functional, and directional. A deeper pit with a smaller opening gives better directionality and leads to a pinhole camera style eye which produces basic images. Etc, etc. All stages functional, all could confer selective advantages.

Furthermore a human eye has a blind spot, and can suffer from things like detached retina. These are products of the backwards nature of the human eye, that is the light passes through the neurons and blood vessels to get to the rods and cones, and the neurons have to go back through the retina at the optic nerve (blind spot). When you look at a squid, it's retina, it's retina is laid out in a more straight forward way with the neurons and blood vessels behind the photoreceptors. This makes sense as an artifact of evolution. Without evolution, are you saying that god likes squid better than people? The the intelligent designer was using a buggy genetic compiler? Insufficient QA for the deadline of populating earth?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim with the mouth of its wisdom and science that there is no crime, and therefore no sin, but only hungry men? No science will give them bread so long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and proclaim: "Better that you enslave us, but feed us."

Interesting how you chop the key sentence out. :oops:

If and when Jesus shows up...i know you'll be in favor throwing him in guatanomo. Radical middle easterner, promoting radical ideas about peace, socialism, etc.

If not guantanamo then at least call ICE. We can't have any illegal aliens in our country.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.

From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.

Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?

How did new species evolve?

How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.

Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.

Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.

Already answered by a previous post.

Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

1. Semi formed eye. Who knows? There are various reasons that being light sensitive might benefit a creature. But, it isn't a far leap that being light sensitive might help against predators.

2. Stage. Why is that important for me? I don't know. Just like you don't know that god created them. If eyes are god's creation..why did he create so many that failed? Or, in we believe in evolution..emerged and then
withered away.

3. Species. You show an alarming lack of knowledge. Several different eyes came and went.

But, thank you for mentioning species..as every stage in scientist's theories of eye development exists in species living today.

Sheep. You are so right. Why should i look at the many writings of scientists, learned men and women, etc...when i can base my beliefs off of one book written in the bronze age. :roll:

[texaspackerbacker]

Then God started over 6,000 years ago--beginning with Genesis 1:3--with the six literal days described. The various events like separating light from darkness, day and night, and sea from dry land are reasonably close to what science tells us happened. There is no ironclad evidence of seed plants or mammals prior to that time.

Potassium dating is notoriously inaccurate, and Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to around 4,000 or so years..

The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.

Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.

To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.

MS, the dirty little secret about your "overlapping tree ring" thing is that prime factor contradicting it is not the Bible, but carbon 14 dating--which dates the "8,000 year old" logs to be only 4,000 years old.

Since there are no trees 8,000 years old, they take logs that they speculate to be 8,000 years old, and try to match some of the outer rings with some of the inner rings of newly cut trees--very inexact.

The oldest trees ever found--Joshua trees or Sequoia redwoods, both in California--are around 5,000 years old, both very consistent with the idea of seed plants originating 6,000 years ago.
So lets see, you are saying C14 dating is not accurate and can't be reliable, and the tree rings are not reliable because they don't agree with the C14 dating :roll:

Of course you have your information backwards as well, since uncalibrated C14 dates are older than the calibrated ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

Inconsistent and inaccurate in a single post. I guess that explains why you believe what you do.

You're failing to read, MS.

What I said--and what the consensus of science is--is that Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 4,000 years. Are you familiar with the graph of a hyperbola? That's C 14 dating as you get out to around 4,000 years.

This ring dating thing has never found a tree or even an old log with 11 thousand or 8 thousand or whatever rings--nothing more than a thousand or two of that variety of tree, nothing more than 4 or 5 thousand of any tree. What they have found is logs with several thousand rings which they claim to have matched up the outer things of with the inner rings of recently cut logs--like there could be any remote hope for scientific accuracy in that. The old logs they use are presumed to be 8,000 years old. The Carbon dating tended to disprove that presumption.

It's pretty ludicrous the lengths these anti-Christian loons will go to try and sling mud at our predominant--and TRUE-- religion.

[HowardRoark]

Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.

Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.

While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?

There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?

From my perspective, it does not take much courage in this day and age to profess one’s atheism or to be an agnostic. The Christians of the world are the ones who take the scorn of the so called sophisticated. We are bombarded in all media with anti-religion and anti-Christian messages constantly.

It matters not what I, or you, believed when we were growing up. Nor for that matter does it matter one iota whether or not you or I believe or don’t believe. Belief does not make it true. It either is or isn’t true.

You are probably already aware of these authors and books, but if not, they give a nice account of atheists who became theists or deists, and then moved to Christianity (in the case of Lewis).

C.S. Lewis:

Mere Christianity http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

Surprised By Joy http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Joy-Shape-Early-Life/dp/0151001855/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238372432&sr=1-1

Antony Flew (notorious ex-atheist now a deist)

There Is A God http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238372479&sr=1-1

Also, check out this interview/book…..

http://www.amazon.com/God-World-Conversation-Peter-Seewald/dp/0898708680/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238374577&sr=1-2

These will give a much better answer than I could to your questions....if they are true questions.

[mraynrand]

Do you know that centuries will pass and mankind will proclaim with the mouth of its wisdom and science that there is no crime, and therefore no sin, but only hungry men? No science will give them bread so long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and proclaim: "Better that you enslave us, but feed us."

A pretty gloomy outlook! Who gets credit for that quote? Or did you write it yourself?

That's Dostoevsky from 'Brothers Karamazov.' A section entitled 'The Grand Inquisitor.' I was reading a newer translation (Pevear and Volokhonsky) as opposed to the old standard Garnett translation and ran across those lines with science referenced. The section basically centers around the Inquisitor having Jesus as his prisoner and telling Jesus that people don't want his freedom, rather they want 'Miracle, Mystery, and Authority.' - and of course bread. It explores the Devils' three challenges to Christ in the desert. It's fantastic literature - I highly recommend it. Since people are talking about atheists, it's interesting to note that Dostoevsky was an atheist and became a believer saying 'My hosanna came forth from a crucible of doubt.' He wrote 'Brothers' in an effort to answer all the questions about religion that he had. He said basically that his religious critics couldn't even conceive of so strong a denial of God as he presents and answers in 'Brothers.' If you are an atheist or skeptic, you will identify with Ivan (who essentially serves as that aspect of Dostoevsky's mind), and if you are a believer you will identify with the naive and devout Alyosha. But I guarantee this, if you read the book, you will never be the same afterwards, regardless of what you believe.

[HowardRoark]

I took you post as indicating you did not read it as instead of you completely not comprehending what you read. At no time was the eye nonfunctional. Photoreceptors are functional. Photoreceptors in a pit are functional, and directional. A deeper pit with a smaller opening gives better directionality and leads to a pinhole camera style eye which produces basic images. Etc, etc. All stages functional, all could confer selective advantages.

Furthermore a human eye has a blind spot, and can suffer from things like detached retina. These are products of the backwards nature of the human eye, that is the light passes through the neurons and blood vessels to get to the rods and cones, and the neurons have to go back through the retina at the optic nerve (blind spot). When you look at a squid, it's retina, it's retina is laid out in a more straight forward way with the neurons and blood vessels behind the photoreceptors. This makes sense as an artifact of evolution. Without evolution, are you saying that god likes squid better than people? The the intelligent designer was using a buggy genetic compiler? Insufficient QA for the deadline of populating earth?


Atheist fundamentalists all seem a little too touchy for my tastes. I think the presence of a person who thinks differently than you scares you. I find your frantic posts amusing, as you hurl invective all those who dare to deviate from your fundamentalist positions. You remind my of some religious people I have met – angry, afraid of other ideas, head in the sand, not willing to listen to those who do not exactly agree with you.

As for the eye/retina; I'm sure the same crowd that is mesmerized by bright shiny spinning objects is also impressed by your use of jargon. But buried in you meaningless jargon (yes, I understand the histology and physiology of the eye, it is actually not that difficult to understand), is an interesting phrase, "all stages functional, all could confer a selective advantage." What if they didn't? It seems farfetched to me that they all did. I think it requires a lot of faith to believe that all of those strange configurations resulted in a selective advantage in the environment hundreds of millions of years ago, an environment that we cannot possible comprehend. But that is something you have an abundance of - faith. Your blind faith in your belief system is more impressive than the faith of most Christians I know. Maybe you'll tell me that "of course the intermediary stages conferred a selective advantage, because we have the eye today." Please don't do that. The illogic of such a statement would be beneath such a high end thinker as you.

So animals evolve. So what? You may be surprised to hear that I believe in that wholeheartedly. I am debating with you because fundamentalists like you scare me. Nowhere in this thread have I talked about Intelligent Design or Creation. The reasonably elegant, though extraordinarily lacking, theory of evolution probably partially explains some of the observable facts about the natural world. I'm not the one trying to use a crowbar to make this specific 19th century scientific theory (described a hundred years before the discovery of DNA) explain everything is the cosmos. You are. And you seem to be very angry with anyone who might not think that a 19th century British scientist didn't explain everything from why there is an eye to why some marriages fail. But guess what? Darwin's theory is not able to explain everything under the sun. So your attempts to take this modest theory and force into contortions for which it is completely unsuited will only continue to anger you, and will force you to continue to ridicule kind, gentle people like myself, who just happen to believe something different than what you believe.

[mraynrand]

This makes sense as an artifact of evolution. Without evolution, are you saying that god likes squid better than people? The the intelligent designer was using a buggy genetic compiler? Insufficient QA for the deadline of populating earth?

Ahhh, God, the Null Hypothesis.

[hoosier]

Pardon the digression, but I found this somewhat amusing :lol: :


You wax poetic about things pathetic.


Darwin's theory is not able to explain everything under the sun. So your attempts to take this modest theory and force into contortions for which it is completely unsuited will only continue to anger you, and will force you to continue to ridicule kind, gentle people like myself, who just happen to believe something different than what you believe.

[australianpackerbacker]

[quote="HowardRoark"][quote]Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
quote]

Well here's one that has been surpressed more than any religious organization in the known history of our planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

In short, around 6000-7000 years ago we were created by a race of highly intelligent people, (for the record, the only thing that differs between us and them is their brain capacity, we are only capable of using 10% of our brains, yet they are able to use a much higher percentage, although i am not sure as to the accurate perentage) genetically engineered in THEIR image, thats why when you read the bible it says "God made man in his image", the bible, according to fact, is a shortened version of the original creation story, The Book of Enoch, and key elements of higher knowledge are omitted from the Bible for control/power reasons. That is why it does not make sense.

Religion is the ultimate tool of control, the scholars of past knew this, and thats were we get Christianity from. There is a reason why Jesus was crucified and three day later rose from the dead. He is a sun God, which was later changed to The Son of Man/The Sun of God.(http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5736) His resurrection has more to do with astronomy then anything else. Horus, the God that the ancient Egyptians worshipped, was also a sun God. Strangley enough he was also born on the 25th of December and was crucified and died? Coincidence?

The problem with religious people is that they tend to take their beliefs as fact and truth, because after all, that is exactly what the religion asks of you right? The will do anything to justify their "truth". By doing so they ignore common sense, logic and practicality, this is how you get ignorance. Religious people are ignorant not because they choose to be, but because that is exactly what the religion asks of them. Trust me i used to be a Catholic(and a devout Catholic at that, or so i thought!) before i stumbled onto a little more TRUTH, i know EXACTLY how they think, it is irrational, and one would do just about anything to prove his faith is truth, even senseless murder, in the name of religion. Speaking of murder, did you know religion has killed more people over the last 2000 years than all the history's war's(not including religious wars!) and dictatorships combined? The numbers aren't even close. Also in the dark ages if you were caught with any type of book, you were killed, nobody but the Catholic church was allowed to read books for a very long period of time. That was the type of control that they had back then. A religious person will come in and try to justify the last few sentences, saying something like "well we were much less intelligent than we are today blah blah", but the fact of the matter is that there is something sinister going on behind the scenes about which people are kept in the dark. As the saying goes, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Religions ultimate weapon of control is fear, it is the fear that gets you, after all, all i have to do is believe in Him and i will have eternal life in heaven, right? And if i choose not to i will go to burn, for eternity? Well in my mind, i know which one im choosing, hmmm eternal pleasure or eternal pain? Common sense indicates that this answer is pretty simple.

That is another problem with religion. It does not take you anywhere spiritual-wise, because that is not in its design, the way in which it is set up is to hold you down. Keep each other bickering about stupid shit like you are, it teaches you from a young age not to ask questions, and to just take things at face value, it has no critical aspect. 95% of "religious" people i run into have absolutley no spiritual side to them, yet they make bold claims and walk around with an air of superiority because they think they know something more than you, and that they are better than you. The other 5% actually know most of these things, and they are much more normal and civil than regular believers, in terms of their arrogance(or lacktherof). Religion actually hinders your spiritual growth, im speaking from experience, there are so many bullshit rules you must follow that its practically impossible to live up to, and 100% of Christians break at least one command DAILY, i guarantee you.

DO NOT mistake true spirituality for religion, they are two completely different things, one is practical and the other is not. Thats not to say religion is not a beautiful thing, because it is, but in terms of its practicality, there is zero to none in my opinion. In other words what im trying to say is that there are really good aspects about religion(i.e. the commandments, the theme of forgiveness, and also prayer/meditation) but if they are not applied intelligently there is absolutely no spiritual growth to be had.

In summing up, im not trying to demean anybodys beliefs in anyway, but im sorry in advance, because i know the truth hurts, it did when i first found out, and it completely flipped my view of the world upside down. But if you are truly a seeker of truth and not a follower of religion, you will find your path and undertake your own spiritual journey for the quest of ultimate knowledge.

Peace and much love

[HarveyWallbangers]

Most people that grew up Catholic aren't religious anymore because they grew up Catholic. j/k


all i have to do is believe in Him and i will have eternal life in heaven, right?

No.


It does not take you anywhere spiritual-wise, because that is not in its design, the way in which it is set up is to hold you down.

Disagree whole-heartedly, but I've never been Catholic. Maybe to those 95% of people you talk about. (I don't think the number is 95%, but it's probably a much bigger percentage than most people would care to admit.)


The other 5% actually know most of these things, and they are much more normal and civil than regular believers, in terms of their arrogance(or lacktherof).

I tend to agree with this, but I wouldn't classify the others as true believers. I'm not sure what a regular believer is. Probably not a true believer.


there are so many bullshit rules you must follow that its practically impossible to live up to, and 100% of Christians break at least one command DAILY, i guarantee you.

I don't think there are that many rules and I think we all have the God given ability to follow them. However, I know very little about Catholicism. Of course, everybody is a sinner, but it's about your conviction.

I always find it interesting and disheartening to find so many people that grew up in the Catholic faith that have turned from Jesus Christ completely. I guess I should be thankful that I grew up in an agnostic family and came to know Christ on my own.

[Joemailman]

As a Catholic, I would argue that it is not so much religion (Catholicism, in my case) that stifles spirituality. What often stifles spiritual growth is secular and political concerns that often cause people to disregard what their religious faith should be telling them. Pope John Paul II was bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and the invasion did not meet the Catholic Church's requirements of Just War Doctrine. Most Catholics however, disregarded the Church's stance on the war, and were swayed by the drumbeat for war by the secular press.

It is a tendency to be swayed by secular and political concerns and judgments (War is necessary, abortion is choice, capital punishment is deterrence) that causes Catholics to ignore their religion and turn away from spirituality.

APB's views on the rigidity of the Catholic Church seem a bit pre-Vatican II to me. Things are not as rigid as they once were, although there are conservative sects within the Church who would like to go back to what they regard as the good old days. Yes the bishops can seem a bit rigid, but they are not the only voice of the Church. John Dear, a Jesuit priest, author and peace activist has a considerable following and has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Dorothy Day, who co-founded the Catholic Worker movement, may be canonized a Saint some day, These are strong spiritual voices who are also very much Catholic.

[australianpackerbacker]

Quote:
all i have to do is believe in Him and i will have eternal life in heaven, right?


No.


You know what i mean, not in that sense, just trying to exxagerate it a little.


Quote:
It does not take you anywhere spiritual-wise, because that is not in its design, the way in which it is set up is to hold you down.


Disagree whole-heartedly, but I've never been Catholic. Maybe to those 95% of people you talk about. (I don't think the number is 95%, but it's probably a much bigger percentage than most people would care to admit.)


Yes the number is probably not that high, but a good majority of them are exactly as described.

[/quote]I always find it interesting and disheartening to find so many people that grew up in the Catholic faith that have turned from Jesus Christ completely. I guess I should be thankful that I grew up in an agnostic family and came to know Christ on my own.


It is clear to me Harvey, that we have a different meaning for the terms "religious" and "spiritual". What im trying to say to you is that there is a level of spirituality that is attainable, that goes beyond any level religion claims to have. I am not trying to degrade your beliefs, im just trying to make you aware of the fact that you can get more than you are currently getting by exploring other avenues, that doesnt mean you have to give up Jesus Christ, people seem to think that there is only one way, but different people are more receptive to different kinds of paths of information.


By the way, i dont mean to say that a God does not exist, like i said in my previous post, the religion itself is fairly good in its message and there is plenty of truth to it. But the people that run it and the intention for which it was created should lead people to be skeptical. God exists, so take it easy, enjoy your life, live it to the full and dont get too caught up in the small time game that these elitists are currently playing with us.

Peace and much love

[australianpackerbacker]

[As a Catholic, I would argue that it is not so much religion (Catholicism, in my case) that stifles spirituality. What often stifles spiritual growth is secular and political concerns that often cause people to disregard what their religious faith should be telling them.

Yes there is truth to that as well, but in my opinion for secular and political concerns to arise one probably does not have an appropriate view of the situation, or knowledge(through either ignorance of opinion, or some form of negative reaction that stifles the clear thoughts), so one must do their own research into the matter, but 95% of people believe the media are being honest around 80% of the time, whereas realistically it is more like 25/75. Still, at the end of the day know one held a gun to your head and forced you to vote this way or that. Its still up to the individual.


Pope John Paul II was bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and the invasion did not meet the Catholic Church's requirements of Just War Doctrine. Most Catholics however, disregarded the Church's stance on the war, and were swayed by the drumbeat for war by the secular press.


If you dig a little deeper you will find that the Catholic Church was a fairly big player in this whole game, but its up to you to find out that information on your own, i do not want to be the cultivator of bad fruit.


John Dear, a Jesuit priest, author and peace activist has a considerable following and has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Dorothy Day, who co-founded the Catholic Worker movement, may be canonized a Saint some day, These are strong spiritual voices who are also very much Catholic.

Yes this is the extreme minority of people that i was talking about, the 5%! They are the pinoeers of the future, a future that can exist with or without religion. 5% is not nearly good enough however, considering the other 90%-95% of people that lose there way along their own journey.

Peace and much love