View Full Version : Should evolution be taught in schools?
IronParrot
10-22-2002, 02:24 AM
This follows upon a comment in the "History, your opinion" thread, which I figured would probably lead to a tangent completely irrelevant to the French and American Revolutions, so I thought it warranted its own thread.
Well, the question lies above. Should evolution be taught in schools?
My concise answer (as I don't have time to fully elaborate tonight) is a resounding "yes", combined with a bit of confoundment at why anybody with a solid knowledge of what evolution actually is could possibly answer "no".
Really, I don't quite understand why this is even an issue to begin with. I think the root of the problem is that people who have limited knowledge of the entire subject of evolutionary biology immediately dismiss it as being some kind of antithesis to the Book of Genesis or whatever other creationistic belief/superstition you want to cite here. That notion is, of course, incorrect.
Evolutionary biology is, quite simply, a process. The study of genetics, even at a very macroscopic level, is practically a necessity for anyone who plans to extend biology into further studies or profession, be it either research or practice. Now, I didn't ever specialize in biology and haven't taken any of it since the tenth grade, but it's evident that the entire argument against it - at the level that's taught in schools, nay, at the level that's understandable in schools - is completely founded on Socratic-Platonic views of everything in the universe as a variation on some sort of ideal, divine model. Which, by the way, is a completely philosophical argument with no empirical support.
Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Bible said that God made the sky blue, there would be a fierce fundamentalist opposition to the teaching of the atmospheric scattering of sunlight in high school physics.
Have I opened a can of worms here? And more importantly, will that can of worms adapt to its surroundings as they breed?
crickhollow
10-22-2002, 02:54 AM
*chuckles* You have indeed opened a can of worms, my friendAnd more importantly, will that can of worms adapt to its surroundings as they breed? and thatwill remain to be seen.
To start off, I'm a Christian (I hope there isn't any doubt about that), but I do believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom. What teachers ought to make sure they put across to their students, is that theory that has yet to be proven. Perhaps the lecture/class should come with the disclaimer, "we believe this because no one has come up with anything better."
Personally, I believe in creation, but I'm not naive enough to suggest that teaching creation theory in a public school is ever going to happen.
I would like to see a class taught where the two views are compared and contrasted. Alas, all of my teachers at the State college I attended for two years would go nowhere near creation, and the Christian teachers that I have now won't touch evolution with a "39 and a half foot pole", to quote the venerable DR. Suess. ;)
BeardofPants
10-22-2002, 03:13 AM
Crickhollow:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm
Yes, I think it *should* be taught. As should a comparative ideologies class.
mirrille
10-22-2002, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by crickhollow
What teachers ought to make sure they put across to their students, is that theory that has yet to be proven. Perhaps the lecture/class should come with the disclaimer, "we believe this because no one has come up with anything better."
Theory my left foot! It's an observable phenomenon. I've played with it in my bacteriology labs. Nice short reproductive cycles let us "watch" it happen. It has huge biological significance, not to mention clinical implications, such as antibiotic resistance and being a big reason why no one has been able to design an AIDS vaccine yet.
I propose that scientists stay out of our Sunday schools if these quasi-scientists will stay out of our science classes and labs. They aren't speaking the same language anyways.:rolleyes: Best to keep them 2 sword-lengths apart, as it were.
Arathorn
10-22-2002, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Crickhollow:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/theory.htm
Yes, I think it *should* be taught. As should a comparative ideologies class.
I agree. Did you mean to include religion in when you mean ideologies? I'd be very much in favor of that.
Schools should show us all the possible ways we can look at the world and leave it to us to choose or not choose. As long as we are well informed and not say "WITCHCRAFT!" "BLASPHEMY!" at every other idea we don't understand.
BTW, I still choose to be part of the Catholic tradition. It's just a matter of learning to make an educated choice (only you can tell yourself this, IMO) which teachings to take symbolically. Oops, went on a tangent there again... :D
BeardofPants
10-22-2002, 03:59 AM
Yes, I was bracketing religion under "ideologies", as well as political systems, and stuff.
katya
10-22-2002, 07:45 AM
I don't think science or evolution should be taught in schools because I am bad at it and think it is boring. And my teacher is a pirate. Seriously yeah though I thnk we should be taught about all different things. Obviously though if you do teach it it is important to say that it is a theory, and so is all science in my twisted world but that's just me. I don't personally have a problem with evolution being taught but some people might... but I think that I definately agree with letting people see all the possibilities and choosing for themselves. Otherwise we all become ignorant or the world. (which as far as a lot of science goes (like the life cycle of moss) i wouldnt mind but oh well) It is way to early for me to be trying to think. So let's just stick with the original theory that we should not teach science because it bores me into a freakin coma. Seriously dude my teacher is a pirate. And a really boring pirate.
Lizra
10-22-2002, 09:25 AM
Yes, Of course!
Sween
10-22-2002, 10:00 AM
A better question is should elgion be taugh in school seeing as it has no proven basic and causes all the suffering in the world
Draken
10-22-2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by crickhollow
*chuckles* You have indeed opened a can of worms, my friend and thatwill remain to be seen.
To start off, I'm a Christian (I hope there isn't any doubt about that), but I do believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom. What teachers ought to make sure they put across to their students, is that theory that has yet to be proven. Perhaps the lecture/class should come with the disclaimer, "we believe this because no one has come up with anything better."
I doubt any real scientist would claim anything different of ANY theory - though hopefully he/she would would emphasise the balance of evidence rather than "belief".
Arathorn
10-22-2002, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Sween
A better question is should elgion be taugh in school seeing as it has no proven basic and causes all the suffering in the world
I think different religions should be taught as well; at least to give a basic understanding of what and how people of those beliefs generally think. It is part of the culture as politics, economic, sociology, and technology are. It is much better than just putting on blinders and earplugs and bunching all people who have a religion together and generalizing.
What I'm saying is that it should be taught for knowledge's sake and not for people to start worshiping. If they want to learn more, someone could offer an elective. If they want to worship, then that's the time they should go to the churches, mosques, synagogues, or groups who would provide that need.
crickhollow
10-22-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by mirrille
Theory my left foot! It's an observable phenomenon. I've played with it in my bacteriology labs. Nice short reproductive cycles let us "watch" it happen. It has huge biological significance, not to mention clinical implications, such as antibiotic resistance and being a big reason why no one has been able to design an AIDS vaccine yet.
I propose that scientists stay out of our Sunday schools if these quasi-scientists will stay out of our science classes and labs. They aren't speaking the same language anyways.:rolleyes: Best to keep them 2 sword-lengths apart, as it were. I have no problem with micro-evolution, I was referring to macro evolution.
Coney
10-22-2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Arathorn
What I'm saying is that it should be taught for knowledge's sake and not for people to start worshiping. If they want to learn more, someone could offer an elective. If they want to worship, then that's the time they should go to the churches, mosques, synagogues, or groups who would provide that need.
Definitly. At my school (Church of England based school) we were forced to pray, sing hymns etc etc and all it acheived was to give us one-sided view of world religion, it was pathetic and not one of the 50 or so of my school companions I am still friends with is a practicing christian..........all it left us with was a feeling of disdain after so many years of having christianity force-fed to us (although it did raise a good classroom debate about genocide. If the Bible is to believed as truth then Adolf Hitler did not commit the greatest act of genocide in history, God did, with the Great Flood. Not surprisingly the teacher soon brought this debate to a halt :rolleyes: )
As for Evolution, I think it should be stressed as a theory but emphasis should be given as to the actual scientific facts that belief, and research, in the theory has proven.
Faith, or the rejection of Faith, is a purely personal decision and IMO should not encouraged in the school system.......a recent argument in the UK about the schools resoponsibilty to encourage religious commitment in the young erupted when a school had more pupils whose culture followed the Hindu religion than the previous Christian majority, the Hindu parents (rightly IMO) argued that as their children were the majority in the school then the tradition of christian prayers and hymns should be replaced with Hindu ones. Luckily the authorities took the sensible option and banned all compulsory worship in the school, a tred being followed throughout the UK.
If we are to treat anything that contradicts (or even proves against) the bible as a theory then where will it end? Should we still teach that the world is round as a theory?:rolleyes: ............then again the Flat Earth Society has been growing in popularity lately:p
Science and religion have long battled against each other but the Pope said on evolution that "it's more than just a theory" and Einstein conceded that "eventually you must look to God for the answers".
Lief Erikson
10-22-2002, 11:54 AM
Good post, Coney.
Contrary to those Sunday School teachers, I think that things like God's destruction with the Flood should be discussed, for people to get a better understanding. God wouldn't want someone to simply accept what he does because they have to, I'm certain that he would prefer them to understand it and know that he is just.
And if things are found in science that are contradictory to Christian beliefs, then I simply think that Christians should gain a good grounding in those fields and start trying to find out whether the error is in science or in the Bible, and they should look hard, and from all angles. Evading the question isn't going to make it go away; it's simply going to make Christians look stupid.
Compulsory worship . . . I doubt that you'll find anyone here who thinks that that should exist.
Wow, you just pushed one of my buttons! By all means, let's discuss it (politely, of course :D which doesn't mean being a silly doormat caving into other people's opinions, it just means not insulting people when that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed)
Go crickhollow! I will have to be content with a short post for now, I'll post longer when I get a chance over the next few days to put together a thoughtful reply, but I agree - since when did the word "theory" deserve to get dropped from "theory of evolution"? Did a heavenly stamp of approval float down from above? but wait, there is no intelligent being above! (I assume we are discussing the theory of evolution without "intelligent design" behind it, as opposed to the offshoot idea of the theory of evolution with an intelligent being giving little gentle nudges to things at critical points. Or do you people want to discuss both?)
Anyway, this should be interesting and fun! See you all soon :)
azalea
10-22-2002, 02:12 PM
I am a Christian, but I think it would be silly NOT to teach evolution in science classes. You're in a public school; there would be no justification for not teaching it. It's SCIENCE.
But I do think it should be adjusted for different age levels. Teaching first graders about it would be confusing. I would just teach about adaptations, etc. Then, by middle school you can bring in more in depth info., and so on through high school. If a parent objects so strongly, that student should be allowed to take a science class besides biology to earn a science credit (anatomy or chemistry or something).
There is one ideology I believe it is a teacher's duty to teach in a public school in the U.S.: democracy. Students need to know how our government works. They need to know what it means to be a citizen here. In the upper grades, of course, you would teach about political systems in other countries.
I think it would be nice to offer a comparative religion class in high schools. I think that understanding different religions helps people to understand the world better. And it would help in history studies. You really can't thoroughly teach about a time or country without bringing the peoples' religious beliefs into it.
Earniel
10-22-2002, 03:09 PM
I think evolution should be taught at schools. I admit it still has some grey areas but it helps (well at least for me) to understand how this world works. The religious side is taught in religionclasses (well at least at the catholic school I went to) so I think it's not only fair that students learn the scientific side of it as well. Let them decide for themselves which they believe but at least they should get the choice.
On a side note, I think it's interesting to teach something about the other religions as well. I had a few lessons on islam, boedhism and jewish religion the last year of highschool and I found that rather enlighting.
sun-star
10-22-2002, 03:46 PM
I have to agree with you all and say evolution should be taught in schools. It's a widely accepted theory today and informs not just science but literature as well, and students need to know something about it. It is as important to understand this viewpoint as to learn about other religions - all part of understanding where other people derive their beliefs and opinions from. Even if you disagree with the theory, you need to understand what it's about to form a coherent argument, don't you?
The only unhelpful thing, as other people have said, is when it's taught as 'the only truth'. When I learnt it in school (as a Christian) I didn't have a problem with it, but my Christian friend had some more trouble - mainly because of the attitude of her teachers, which could be summarised: "Evolution is what all intelligent scientists now believe. A long time ago, when people were less clever than we are, they believed God made the world, but we know better than that!". Not exactly sensitive :rolleyes:
Lief Erikson
10-22-2002, 04:43 PM
Well then, I think we're all in agreement. Basically everyone says that it should be taught in schools, and everyone who doesn't only believe in evolution, but also believes in some other religion, emphasizes that it should be taught as a theory. Now, unless someone turns up with an opposing point of view, we might want to change the subject. Genocide, anyone? I'm speaking of the biblical genocides or seeming injustices done by God, although it can be about other historical genocides as well, and the reasons for them.
Either that, or some other topic, or we can continue this nice happy continuous agreement.
katya
10-22-2002, 05:49 PM
Happy agreement is nice. It helps calm my poor brain. But it's not so interesting. So sure let's talk about genocide. By the way my post from before is edited now.
katya
10-22-2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by R*an
...as opposed to the offshoot idea of the theory of evolution with an intelligent being giving little gentle nudges to things at critical points. Or do you people want to discuss both?)
I have often wondered about that theory. I mean, why not, eh? If you were God would you rather just be like "poof here's a nice CD" or would you actually play the music first? Like a symphony. It seems odd that something would move without anything to make it move, or for say an atom to just do what it does because "it's just like that" or "because the nature of an atom is this and so it does this." Or what's more that whole ecosystems would evolve to be like so one "organism*" could fit in with the others (there may be some disagreement about how much this is true to begin with). Just a thought.
*It was so funny one time in English we had vocabulary and one of the words was organism, and this one kid raised his hand and he was like "what's an orgasm?" all innocently...yeah that's my story for the day.
entss89
10-22-2002, 06:11 PM
to say it flat and straght
NO.........
i dont believe in all this monkey crap! i think its wrong to put stuff in childrens mind that maybe a christian or something! and for one thing im a cristian so i think that there were no monkeys here that just happened to turn into us! now my ? is if we were monkeys then why are there still monkeys on earth? did they fail thier monkey evolution in school? he he ! but this is no joke i think it is wrong for these stupid teachers to talk about something totally nonsense! woooo im tired!
Fred Baggins
10-22-2002, 06:28 PM
Argh I am probably kill myself for getting caught up in this discusion but here goes...
I am as well a Christian, and belive in the creation theory. I have heard MANY facts supporting it as well, and not I assure you just from the Bible, though I belive every word of the Bible. I have tried to learn what I can about PHYSICAL evidence to support the creation theory. I will not put it down here, because it will take up to much room. But I geuss what I am saying is that evolution should not be taught as a rule, as a positive thing, but as a theory. As well I think that the creation should be taught as a theory. Something that you can belive if that is what makes more since to you.
whoa, there - I just got home and everyone is agreeing? :D
I was hoping someone would have addressed crickhollow's post about macro evolution by the time I got home. Actually, though, *checks thread title* if we are only to answer "should it be taught", I'll say sure, as one possibility, creation by intelligent design being another.
Does anyone want to discuss the merits/problems of the theory of evolution, or should we just close the thread and move on to, um, genocide :eek: (my goodness, what made you think of that topic - did you have a really difficult day or something? I think I'll pass on that one)
wow, 3 people posted while I was typing in my previous post, and now it seems we don't all agree. Well, my previous question stands - shall we discuss the merits/problems of the theory, or just should/shouldn't teach it? I'm up for either.
katya
10-22-2002, 06:54 PM
How about another thing we can all agree on:
George Bush looks like a monkey!!!!!!
No but seriously though R*an I think we are only talking about whether it should be taught. Otherwise I would run and hide and wait for it to be all over. No one seems to be open minded enough to listen to others and you know we can't come to a real solid conclusion anyway so why bother talking about evolution vs. Creation. Seriously.
Bush looks like a monkey!!! hahaha!!! monkey!!!!
NO evolution or science teaching in school!!! no!!! so...boring! no... must...not...fall...asleep...life cycle of a moss....no...zzzzzzz
(sorry I have had a very intersting day today. I am so out of it. All my posts seem to reflect that. and i keep having urges to spam. must resist.)
Lady Vixen
10-22-2002, 06:58 PM
No
Lizra
10-22-2002, 07:04 PM
I don't call it a theory. I believe! :)
IronParrot
10-22-2002, 07:35 PM
In response to the "evolution is just a theory" argument:
There is a huge difference between evolution as a theory and creation as a theory.
Evolution, like Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity, is a scientific theory in that a) it can and must be rejected/refined with the introduction of new evidence that flatly contradicts it outside the bounds of error, and b) the employment of this theory can be applied to real-world engineering processes.
Creation, albeit a theory, is not scientific, in the sense that it has not been shown to work by any real-world technological applications, and furthermore, Creation as described in the Book of Genesis (for example) cannot be revised. It can be re-interpreted in whatever manner you wish, but despite any new empirical evidence, you can't change the words in the Bible. (There's a sneaky way around this called "translation" but that's a different debate entirely.)
Regarding the second part there, if you're talking about Creation as a general principle of spontaneous divine origin regardless of whether you're dealing with Zeus or Odin or Yahweh (the Hebrew God) or Iluvatar, then obviously that doesn't apply. But currently, I see no empirical basis for such a theory.
So, on that note...
'I have tried to learn what I can about PHYSICAL evidence to support the creation theory. I will not put it down here, because it will take up to much room."
I'd like to see at least a sample of this, please.
crickhollow
10-22-2002, 07:47 PM
yeah, there is a creation v. evolution thread around here somewhere, but it might have gotten closed, because when I poked my head in there, nasty things were being said. Also, if there wasn't a post limit before, then that's where it came from, because no one bothered to concisely sum up any relevant info, they just copy/pasted really long articles instead.
katya: ok, let's keep the republican jokes to a minimum, ok? I never see the conservatives around here bashing the dem. party leader. oh yeah. you don't have a leader. sorry. :D
Let me clarify something, folks. Some of you seem to have taken the idea that I was suggesting in my first post that religion be crammed down peoples' throats, and that budding young atheists should be forced to bow to God Almighty in Government funded, State run educational institutions.
It would serve you well to pay more attention to what you read. I am not condoning that at all. I was merely stating my wish to see an educator with enought guts to address both sides of the issue. I was lamenting the fact that teachers in Christian schools are afraid to address evolution, and teachers in public schools do nothing with creation but ridicule those who subscribe to that theory without any regard for those in their classroom, who may hold to it.
Do I make sense now?
cassiopeia
10-22-2002, 07:53 PM
Oh, I love these debates. Evolution is FACT and the actual details of it is the theory. If you don't believe in theorys why don't you go outside and jump out of a building and see if gravity is only a 'theory'? Please explain why we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and the fossils from around the world which show species evolving.
What was the title of this thread? Yes, of course evolution should be taught in schools, just like Newtons laws and calculus. Creationism should be kept in Bible class and not be taught in science class. I am disturbed that people believe every word of the Bible. Maybe I will believe every word of the Silmarillion. Please show me some evidence of creation and maybe I will rethink my views, unitl then I'm sticking to the scientific facts.
IronParrot
10-22-2002, 08:13 PM
"i dont believe in all this monkey crap! i think its wrong to put stuff in childrens mind that maybe a christian or something! and for one thing im a cristian so i think that there were no monkeys here that just happened to turn into us! now my ? is if we were monkeys then why are there still monkeys on earth? did they fail thier monkey evolution in school? he he ! but this is no joke i think it is wrong for these stupid teachers to talk about something totally nonsense! woooo im tired!"
First of all, the statement that "if we were monkeys then why are there still monkeys on earth?" is a misinterpretation of what evolutionists claim. Nobody's saying that we were once monkeys in the sense of monkeys that we know today - they're just talking about common ancestry. Furthermore, speciation is merely the evolution of a new species, and not the elimination of an existing one to make room. Analogously, nobody's saying that English is French here, we're just saying that they both share common Latin roots.
As for the rest of your comments (other than "woooo im tired", because I agree completely), what would you say if I said something like this:
"I don't believe in all this crap about some mystical Hebrew entity creating the world in six days! I think it's wrong to put it in the minds of children that they are all inherently sinners by birth and that some completely unrelated guy died for them on a cross! I think it is wrong for teachers to poison the next generation with brainwashing nonsense!"
You'd be pretty offended at my ignorance of the issue's intricacies, wouldn't you?
Going perhaps a little off-topic, here's a question for you... mules are created by the interbreeding of horses and donkeys. Were there mules on the Ark?
(Actually, bad example... of course there aren't - mules can't interbreed and there would be no point to keep them around anyway. But still.)
Let's pick some more nits here...
"Evolution is FACT and the actual details of it is the theory."
Well... the process of evolution is factually observed. The theoretical part that everybody seems to have a hard time dealing with is the extrapolation that homo sapiens as we know it derived from some other species, and was not created directly from God's image.
"Maybe I will believe every word of the Silmarillion."
Maybe you should.
Interesting comment there... you see, the only reason why we can clearly reject Tolkien's mythos as fact and claim that it is fiction is because we know the origin. We have documented evidence that Middle-Earth originated from the mind of an author, about whose life we know plenty.
Not the case with the Bible, a heavily edited and translated work with scattered origins, all claiming divine inspiration - something we can't prove either way, because we don't have the documentation.
Of course, that's not to say the Bible shouldn't be taught in schools at all. After all, Greek mythology is taught too...
IronParrot
10-22-2002, 08:21 PM
Strictly back on topic here, my primary argument in favour of evolution being taught in schools is this:
You cannot pursue a career in genetics - an increasingly budding field of modern scientific research - unless you have an educational background in that field. And let me tell you, universities aren't going to teach biology from the ground up - there is a certain high school entry requirement.
And it's not just genetics, either. There are subjects from A to Z - anthropology to zoology - that students are interested in, which they would not be able to take successfully without at least a basic appreciation of evolution and/or speciation first.
If schools shied away from all evolutionary theory entirely, they would be disadvantaging their students and restricting their opportunities.
In high school, people can choose not to take biology. I made that choice. But the school should not actively refuse to make reference to evolution. That's like saying history classes in America aren't allowed to talk about the American defeat in Vietnam. (I'm told that many of them still don't.)
Just a quick note on this....
Originally posted by IronParrot
In response to the "evolution is just a theory" argument:
There is a huge difference between evolution as a theory and creation as a theory.
Evolution, like Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity, is a scientific theory in that a) it can and must be rejected/refined with the introduction of new evidence that flatly contradicts it outside the bounds of error, and b) the employment of this theory can be applied to real-world engineering processes.
and why, may I ask, should it be rejected/refined? could it be that at least parts of the theory are WRONG? Obviously, only something that is incorrect needs to be fixed.
I'd like to see at least a sample of this, please.
I will get you some w/in the next day or two, I would ask you to please be patient, as I can only do quick posts (like many others, so please be tolerant!) right now, as I have 3 small kids whose care is a high priority to me :D But I will be back w/in a day or two. Thanks.
IronParrot
10-22-2002, 08:38 PM
"and why, may I ask, should it be rejected/refined? could it be that at least parts of the theory are WRONG? Obviously, only something that is incorrect needs to be fixed."
I didn't say that evolution is currently problematic. I'm just saying that in the case that some part of it is indeed wrong (should there be any evidence to claim this), it can be revised.
On the other hand, nobody's going to revise the Bible anytime soon, eh?
crickhollow
10-22-2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by IronParrot
nobody's going to revise the Bible anytime soon, eh? Perhaps R*an's point was that it doesn't need be revised?
katya
10-22-2002, 08:48 PM
Crickhollow, I am really sorry. I meant no offense. I was just making an observation. entss89 said somthing about monkeys so I was just reminded of that. It's been a long day. And secondly, I am not a democrat.
entss89
10-22-2002, 08:48 PM
yeh im sorry for being so critical iron parrot its just i feel so strongly on this subject but i should be open minded to other peoples opinions and beliefs! and yeh i would have felt offended if you said that so i guess i reallly was being so block headed and stubborn that i forgot about all the other peoples that have a diff. opinions. sorry everyone !
crickhollow
10-22-2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by katya
Crickhollow, I am really sorry. I meant no offense. I was just making an observation. entss89 said somthing about monkeys so I was just reminded of that. It's been a long day. And secondly, I am not a democrat. well, if no offense was meant, then none will be taken. :)
katya
10-22-2002, 09:00 PM
Crickhollow: ok good. thanks for understanding. I want to go delete that now. I didn't mean in any way to diss republicans. hey my brother has big elephant ears. I am never going to this thread againg though. It has bad vibes. (not your fault!)
Fred Baggins
10-22-2002, 09:24 PM
Epp, I agree Katya! I new it would be a bad Idea.
emplynx
10-22-2002, 09:32 PM
As a christian I have to say, YES! Evolution is a good THEORY. I don't belive in it, but it's the best out there for non-Bible believing people. I wouldn't mind Creation being given as another theory, but I don't see it happening.
emplynx
10-22-2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
Please explain why we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees
According to R. May quoted in the "New Scientist " We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana.
I don't believe I need to say anymore.
Erawyn
10-22-2002, 10:23 PM
I do not really think that creation should be taught in schools at all, if people want a religious education, they can do that on their own time, and there is obviously nothing wrong with that.
I was merely stating my wish to see an educator with enought guts to address both sides of the issue.
I don't totally disagree with that, but if we were going to go down that road, we would have to teach the creation theories of many religions to be fair wouldn't we? so i think its best to keep the whole issue out of public schools!
Originally posted by crickhollow
Perhaps R*an's point was that it doesn't need be revised?
That's exactly my point, crickhollow! :)
and BTW, congrats on your new status, you beat me to it :D
and katya - yes, I think Pres. Bush does look rather like a monkey, too (and i typically vote Republican :D ) And your "life cycle of moss" was hysterical - oh, the difficulties of staying awake in class sometimes! I had a Physics instructor in college who was Indian and spoke in that lovely, sing-song Indian voice. Unfortunately, I had the class right after lunch, and staying awake was sometimes difficult! However, I did manage to pick up a thing or two...
IronParrot - Speaking of physics, wouldn't you say Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and *whoops, forgot the third, back in a flash with an edit* oh, ok - Einsteinian relativity would be considered fields of study, not theories? Now there are theories within these disciplines, but that is a different matter. And speaking further of physics, wouldn't you say that the second law of thermodynamics really rules out the types of things that the theory of evolution says happened? 2nd law - when all systems taking part in a process are included, the entropy either remains constant or increases. (entropy - a thermodynamic measure of the amount of energy unavailable for useful work in a system undergoing change; a measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or a system: entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a closed system, as the universe.)
In other words, things tend to disorder, not order and further refinement, unless there is an external source of energy, such as an intelligent designer/creator.
emplynx - a BANANA!?! Well, that explains why I peel when I get a sunburn! :D
and I like how you worded this : Evolution is a good THEORY. I don't belive in it, but it's the best out there for non-Bible believing people. and I agree.
Treebeard's apprentice
10-22-2002, 11:23 PM
(I assume we are discussing the theory of evolution without "intelligent design" behind it, as opposed to the offshoot idea of the theory of evolution with an intelligent being giving little gentle nudges to things at critical points. Or do you people want to discuss both?)
This is interesting because we were just discussing evolution in my philosophy class the other day. One thing the prof said that I wasn't aware of is that the Pope himself actually subscribes to this idea, which is called theistic evolutionism.
So I guess my question is: Why can't we sort of believe both at the same time? Why can't God and evolution coexist?
Being a Christian, I don't really have a problem with evolution. Who cares if the world was created in six days or billions of years? To me it doesn't matter, as long as you believe that ultimately God created it all.
Starr Polish
10-22-2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
Oh, I love these debates. Evolution is FACT and the actual details of it is the theory. If you don't believe in theorys why don't you go outside and jump out of a building and see if gravity is only a 'theory'? Please explain why we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and the fossils from around the world which show species evolving.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but evolution is a theory. It can never be made into a scientific law because it cannot be proven mathematically. Gravity, on the other hand, can (and several things pertaining to the 'law' of gravity are slightly flawed. Two objects don't really fall at a constant rate...maybe I'll explain later).
Should it be taught in schools? Yes, of course, as well as intelligent design. It shouldnt' be taught in a way that it completely degrades those students who believe in God. And whoever said you can't believe in God and evolution? (Heck, I'm going to be a biology major.) Darwin's theories never attempt to disprove a divine creator. I myself believe in it, in a way. I believe that God created Adam and Eve, and yadda yadda, but I think if we saw them today, they would look very different than we, because we live in a very different enviroment.
Also, there are other theories considering the origin of life, one of the most outlandish being that aliens planted it here. But where did that alien life come from? I discussed this with my AP Bio teacher who said that if you tried to follow that theory, it would inevitably lead to divine origin.
IronParrot
10-23-2002, 12:22 AM
"Speaking of physics, wouldn't you say Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and *whoops, forgot the third, back in a flash with an edit* oh, ok - Einsteinian relativity would be considered fields of study, not theories?"
Nope.
Well, actually, yes to quantum mechanics. Nope to the other two... they are only "studied" in the sense that people try to understand the damned thing. They are clearly posited theories that stand until proven otherwise. And actually, Newton's equations have indeed been proven otherwise, but the error is considered negligible at the macroscopic level.
Rian, thank you for falling into the exact trap I'd laid out - a blatant misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That's okay, you're not the first one I've seen who's tried to use that argument, and I knew somebody was going to bring it up. Let's examine this, shall we...
entropy - a thermodynamic measure of the amount of energy unavailable for useful work in a system undergoing change; a measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or a system: entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a closed system, as the universe.
Isolated system, actually, not closed... but that's okay, that's not what I'm arguing with here. What I'm lacking is a comprehensible link between the above idea and this one:
In other words, things tend to disorder, not order and further refinement, unless there is an external source of energy, such as an intelligent designer/creator.
Incorrect.
The Second Law does not disprove the notion of spontaneous order, as it deals with positive change in entropy, not absolute entropy itself. In other words, it is merely a description of the sum of a set of entropic changes, and does not imply that each of those individual changes in a single reaction or system must increase in disorder.
What needs to be understood here are "entropic forces", also known as depletion/excluded-volume forces. Let's take a textbook example of a system consisting of small particles and large particles. If the Second Law was to be taken at face value, the expectation is that these particles would be randomly dispersed. However, what actually happens at a certain microscopic scale is that the large particles are clumped together to maximize room for the smaller particles to move freely, a process that a) orders the large particles, but b) maximizes the entropy of the system.
In other words: as net entropy (in this case, that of the universe) increases, this merely means that the entropic advantage of one part of the system outweighs the ordering of another part. A system's increase in entropy does not imply that all constituents of the system also increase in entropy.
Thus, the Second Law doesn't prove a bloody thing about intelligent design or creation.
IronParrot
10-23-2002, 12:23 AM
"Sorry to bust your bubble, but evolution is a theory. It can never be made into a scientific law because it cannot be proven mathematically."
Incorrect. The reasoning, anyway... as I said earlier, the extrapolated conclusions from macro-evolution are indeed theoretical, but the process itself has been empirically observed.
Mathematical proof does not determine what a scientific law is or is not. The Law of Ropes cannot be proven mathematically, but it is considered to be a scientific law. (It basically states that flexible cords cannot undergo compressive forces, i.e. you can't push on a string.)
"Gravity, on the other hand, can (and several things pertaining to the 'law' of gravity are slightly flawed. Two objects don't really fall at a constant rate...maybe I'll explain later)."
First of all, objects don't fall at a constant rate. They do so with constant acceleration (the result of a constant force on a constant mass). And Newtonian gravitation concerns itself with the relationship between the distance of two objects and the magnitude of the force attracting them. Nobody has been able to argue that these laws don't hold (when isolated from other forces - frictional, electrostatic, etc.)... the only reason why gravitation is still a "theory" is because gravity may not actually be a force at all, but rather a warping of the fabric of space. I don't know much about Unified Field Theory and developments in that regard, so I won't take this any further here.
"Should it be taught in schools? Yes, of course, as well as intelligent design. It shouldnt' be taught in a way that it completely degrades those students who believe in God."
Disagree with the first statement, in agreement with the second. Analogously, hen students are taught about lightning, I don't think they should be told that Zeus chucks bolts from the sky or Thor clangs his hammer around, either - but that stops just short of saying that the Greeks and the Norse were dead wrong.
"Darwin's theories never attempt to disprove a divine creator."
Bingo. I was hoping someone would notice.
In fact, Darwin was a God-believing man whose remains lie in the crypt of Westminster Abbey... not too far away from Newton, in fact.
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 01:19 AM
I wonder though how you explain the human eye? If everything on the overall scale is gradually becoming more and more complex, and in short term tends to disorder, then how can you explain massive accumulations of order, such as the human eye? It seems rather incredible to me that such an unbelievably complex and detailed thing could be created out of overall, slow design.
But anyway, it's true that the Bible doesn't disprove evolution, even though I personally don't like to believe it. Evolution is outside of the interpretation that Christians have held for years, and that interpretation is what many are fighting to keep. I actually think it might be rather nice to be able to lay down the swords on that subject and simply say, "maybe that's true."
afro-elf
10-23-2002, 04:01 AM
Yes it should be taught. I can't post as much as I but Iron Parrot, Cassiopeia, Bop etc are my cohorts
afro-elf
10-23-2002, 04:03 AM
PS the human eye is not perfectly designed. Squids have some really well designed eyes now.
Draken
10-23-2002, 07:15 AM
What an interesting debate. It's not one I hear discussed too much here - it would have as much credibility as suggesting we teach that the Earth is flat and rides on the back of a giant turtle.
I put it down to most of our Puritans getting into boats and sailing away some time ago. Anyone know where they ended up? ;)
emplynx
10-23-2002, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by R*an
and I like how you worded this : and I agree. Thanks. I cannot honistly expect a non-God believing person to believe that God created the world, so I can't really expect them to teach it. I definitely think teachers should have a choice as to weather they teach it or not, though.
Lizra
10-23-2002, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by emplynx
According to R. May quoted in the "New Scientist " We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana.
I don't believe I need to say anymore.
I don't understand your point Emplynx. Banana is a living thing, so are we....That is why we share DNA with it. Banana (millions of years) monkey (millions of years) man, Makes perfect sense to me!!
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 11:45 AM
:) I didn't say that there was nothing better or more perfect than the human eye. All right, let's ignore the human eye and focus on the squid. It doesn't matter which. How did evolution create the squid's eye?
Draken
10-23-2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by azalea
I think it would be nice to offer a comparative religion class in high schools. I think that understanding different religions helps people to understand the world better. And it would help in history studies. You really can't thoroughly teach about a time or country without bringing the peoples' religious beliefs into it.
That's what we have here - Religious Education is a compulsory subject in state secondary schools, and it is indeed comparative, aimed at informing on a wide range of religions.
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 12:10 PM
No Evolution should not be taught in schools. for those of us who are Catholics and go to public school don't want to study evolution and take tests on it. what about death?? if evolution is true(which it isn't in my opinon), where do we go after death?? do we just dissapear?? do we fall into nothingness?? I mean evolution says that we were there was one great big boom, and everything just happend to land like this. and then of course some molecules became slime, and then it became plants, and then worms, and then fish, and then the fish grew legs and became dogs, and then monkeys, and then apes, and then us. one science book I was looking over said something like "there is excess tissue in your forehead that was proboly a third eye". now where would we get a third eye?? I will write more later.
Ms. Undomial
Treebeard's apprentice
10-23-2002, 12:32 PM
I wonder though how you explain the human eye? If everything on the overall scale is gradually becoming more and more complex, and in short term tends to disorder, then how can you explain massive accumulations of order, such as the human eye? It seems rather incredible to me that such an unbelievably complex and detailed thing could be created out of overall, slow design.
The human eye did not appear all at once. It was formed very gradually over millions, maybe billions of years. You might say what good is five percent of an eye? But five percent of an eye is better than no eye at all.
Example:
Assume there was a bunch of blind flatworm-type creatures swimming in a shallow pond. Their food is near the surface of this pond, but they have no way of knowing where the surface is. Assume there is a particular worm with a patch of skin that reacts to light. When it is turned toward the surface, it feels the light and can stay near where the food is. This creature would have an advantage over the others in that particular environment. It would therefore have a better chance at surviving and therefore passing on its genes to a new generation that would have the same patch of skin. Given enough time, a creature could appear that has an even better 'eye'. These gradual improvements are the basis of evolution. Given millions of years and gradual improvements you eventually arrive at the complex human eye.
Does that answer your question?
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 12:33 PM
*later* Do the people that say that we have a third eye, have any proof?? no they don't. they just say it for the sake of saying it.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
Oh, I love these debates. Evolution is FACT and the actual details of it is the theory. If you don't believe in theorys why don't you go outside and jump out of a building and see if gravity is only a 'theory'?
oh, cass - did we deserve that? :confused: :( :(
Originally posted by Draken
What an interesting debate. It's not one I hear discussed too much here - it would have as much credibility as suggesting we teach that the Earth is flat and rides on the back of a giant turtle.
I put it down to most of our Puritans getting into boats and sailing away some time ago. Anyone know where they ended up? ;)
What are you referring to by "it" when you say "it would have as much credibility... " - the theory of evolution? :D Watch the use of those pronouns! :)
Hasty Ent
10-23-2002, 12:43 PM
The theory of evolution should absolutely be taught. It is as necessary a foundation as learning basic math and grammar. If it conflicts with your religious beliefs, perhaps you should be in a private school funded by your religious organization, and not by taxpayer dollars. I have always been a firm believer in the separation of Church and State, and resented any religious statements I was forced to repeat as a student (as in the Pledge of Allegiance). The government should not endorse religion. That is not its role, and it creates resentment and feelings of exclusion in a world which is diverse and multicultural. The theory of evolution is not a religion. Studying the theory of evolution need not deny your faith, just as learning a foreign language need not necessitate the abandonment of your native tongue. Information IS power, and the more you know, the better equipped you are to make decisions.
Originally posted by Treebeard's apprentice
Example:
Assume there was a bunch of blind flatworm-type creatures swimming in a shallow pond. Their food is near the surface of this pond, but they have no way of knowing where the surface is. Assume there is a particular worm with a patch of skin that reacts to light. When it is turned toward the surface, it feels the light and can stay near where the food is. This creature would have an advantage over the others in that particular environment. It would therefore have a better chance at surviving and therefore passing on its genes to a new generation that would have the same patch of skin. Given enough time, a creature could appear that has an even better 'eye'. These gradual improvements are the basis of evolution. Given millions of years and gradual improvements you eventually arrive at the complex human eye.
(please insert this sentence right before the "Given enough time" sentence in your quote - "And then a creature that is really well adapted to finding food finds the ONE flatworm-type creature that has this "beneficial mutation" and gobbles it up.")
Oh well...
I think you are asking us to swallow an absolutely incredible amount of "gradual improvements", or the so-called "beneficial mutations". First of all can you name any observable beneficial mutations? The only mutations I know of are called "birth defects" - and for a very good reason - they are not beneficial. But - even granting the beneficial mutations for the sake of the discussion, I would say even ONE would be an incredible amazing event and WAY out of the norm - you, however, are asking us to swallow MILLIONS! Upon reasonable reflection, I consider your example to be totally invalid.
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 12:54 PM
Hasty Ent- How is evolution a "necessary foundation as learning basic math and grammar."?? Quite right, it is not a religon. but if you go to public schools, and don't want to study evolution, you have to. there is nothing you can do about it. it should not be taught in schools. also "If it conflicts with your religious beliefs, perhaps you should be in a private school funded by your religious organization" what if your religious organization does not have any funds?? what if there is a public school that is within walking distance and the closetest privite school is a minimum of an hour away?? and what about people who do not have any religion, and do not want to learn about evolution, go to public schools and have to do tests on it? also what about children? they don't know any better, and they go to public schools and some of the teachers say that evolution is true and if you do not belive in it, you are wacko(they would probably use a differnt word that "wacko")?
and NO ONE laughed at my banana/peeling joke! I thought it was really funny ... oh well :(
Treebeard's apprentice
10-23-2002, 01:00 PM
You have to remember this idea of what's known as Deep Time. We are talking about hundreds of millions of years. Are you saying that in such an amazingly fantastic stretch of time, not even very gradual improvements seem plausable?
Originally posted by IronParrot
Nope. Well, actually, yes to quantum mechanics. Nope to the other two... they are only "studied" in the sense that people try to understand the damned thing. They are clearly posited theories that stand until proven otherwise. Well, I don't agree, but I think it's just a wording problem, so I'll drop it, as you seem ok to drop it too and it isn't really very relevant.
Rian, thank you for falling into the exact trap I'd laid out - a blatant misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That's okay, you're not the first one I've seen who's tried to use that argument, and I knew somebody was going to bring it up. Let's examine this, shall we...
why you naughty admin, you! Laying a trap for a poor innocent Entmoot newbie, and a helpless female to boot! :D I'm telling ... *"oh Sister Goollldeeen Haaaiiirrrrr......"* :D
First of all, if you're going to lay a trap, you shouldn't lay a shallow one *steps easily out of trap*. I think you are the one blatantly misrepresenting the 2nd law. Let's go ahead and examine, but unfortunately I think we will probably end up still disagreeing...
Isolated system, actually, not closed... but that's okay, that's not what I'm arguing with here. OK, I'll leave that one too, only noting that open systems can have an even greater increase in entropy.
The Second Law does not disprove the notion of spontaneous order, as it deals with positive change in entropy, not absolute entropy itself. In other words, it is merely a description of the sum of a set of entropic changes, and does not imply that each of those individual changes in a single reaction or system must increase in disorder.
What needs to be understood here are "entropic forces", also known as depletion/excluded-volume forces. Let's take a textbook example of a system consisting of small particles and large particles. If the Second Law was to be taken at face value, the expectation is that these particles would be randomly dispersed. However, what actually happens at a certain microscopic scale is that the large particles are clumped together to maximize room for the smaller particles to move freely, a process that a) orders the large particles, but b) maximizes the entropy of the system.
In other words: as net entropy (in this case, that of the universe) increases, this merely means that the entropic advantage of one part of the system outweighs the ordering of another part. A system's increase in entropy does not imply that all constituents of the system also increase in entropy.
OK, I'll grant that (I don't agree totally, but I'll grant it for now just to save space), and going off that, I should be able to look around and see one tiny little organized area and huge masses of disorganization. *looks around* um, well, what I see when I look around is an amazingly organized creation. Don't you? :)
Thus, the Second Law doesn't prove a bloody thing about intelligent design or creation. I agree that the 2nd law doesn't prove anything about intelligent design or creation (although it meshes incredibly well with it). What I am saying is that it is an incredibly strong proof against the th. of evolution.
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 01:05 PM
How do you know that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old??? you don't! I mean look at the moon, it has no atmosphere so there for it must have been huge because of all the meateors hitting it, it decreases in size. and what about moon dust? if it was million of years old then there would be much more dust on it.
Ms. Undomial
Cirdan
10-23-2002, 01:06 PM
Didn't we cover every last inch of this topic in the Theist and the Anti-Theist threads. If anyone who didn't has enough free time to read the thousand plus entries and still has anything to contribute should lecture on the subject.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Treebeard's apprentice
You have to remember this idea of what's known as Deep Time. We are talking about hundreds of millions of years. Are you saying that in such an amazingly fantastic stretch of time, not even very gradual improvements seem plausable?
I would say the sheer amount, both in terms of quantity and quality (by quality I mean going from a "sensitive patch" to the eye, and by quantity I mean even if I grant you the eye, which I don't, what about the ear? and the heart? and the brain? and the amazing process by which trees get nutrients to the very tips of their lovely branches? etc) - whoops, better start again, the stuff in parenthesis was too long - ok, I would say - yes, the sheer amount makes it totally implausable.
Treebeard's apprentice
10-23-2002, 01:13 PM
How do you know that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old???
Actaully this has been proven with carbon-dating. Most estimates place the earth itself somewhere around four billion years old. The first simple organisms came along much later, but it was still a long, long, long, long time ago.
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 01:17 PM
How do you know that it isn't a fruad?? how do you know that this carbon based dating stuff really works?? has it ever been tried on a something new???
Treebeard's apprentice - Carbon dating has had errors. And what did you think of my response to your example and your follow-up post? Could you please respond? :)
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 01:41 PM
Carbon dating actually has a high amount of error potential in it. Things that are recent, like within the last few hundred years, I'm talking very recent, can be identified to within a relatively small margin of error with carbon dating. It does work for recent things. However, the farther back in time you go with it, the more errors you get. I remember hearing from my Dad about one time fairly recently when they observed a phenomenon in the ocean, and then they used carbon dating on it twenty years later, and got thousands of years! Another thing they identified with carbon dating: there was a statue in some big city or other . . . Venice, maybe? It had an enscription written upon it by a conqueror, over the one that was beneath. The scientists came along and dated it using carbon dating, and they found that the one written on over the previous one was actually older! Rather unbelievable, eh?
But really, the farther back in time things go, the more errors there are in carbon dating. Archaeological evidence is taken as a vastly better dating method, as is solar dating. But these can only go back so far, and even though the farther back in time you go there are more errors in radio carbon dating, since they have no alternative method of dating, that's what they use. They use it to gain dates millions of years back in time, even billions. If it is proven that carbon dating gets more and more inaccurate the farther back in time you go, then why do they use it to gain dates like that?
Ms. Undomial, I noticed that earlier you said
Originally posted by Ms. Undomial
No Evolution should not be taught in schools. for those of us who are Catholics and go to public school don't want to study evolution and take tests on it. what about death?? if evolution is true(which it isn't in my opinon), where do we go after death?? do we just dissapear?? do we fall into nothingness?? I mean evolution says that we were there was one great big boom, and everything just happend to land like this. and then of course some molecules became slime, and then it became plants, and then worms, and then fish, and then the fish grew legs and became dogs, and then monkeys, and then apes, and then us. one science book I was looking over said something like "there is excess tissue in your forehead that was proboly a third eye". now where would we get a third eye?? I will write more later.
Ms. Undomial
Well, some of this is different theories that you are quoting. Evolution doesn't go against life after death. Some of the people who only believe in science as a god probably do believe that we simply become nothing, or just disappear. But that isn't part of evolution. Evolution is uncertain on a lot of these things, like exactly which animals came first and how things went. But also you're mixing two other theories, Evolution and the Big Bang. The Big Bang is unrelated to evolution, it is a different theory. Some people tie the two theories together, and that's fine for them to try and do, but the Big Bang isn't a fundamental part of genetics, or evolution.
And about the third eye . . . there is very little tissue left in the human body that some use hasn't been found for, and we are still always finding more. Ever since the human body was first studied, more and more has been being found out about it. I believe that every part of it has its uses, personally.
Earniel
10-23-2002, 01:45 PM
No Evolution should not be taught in schools. for those of us who are Catholics and go to public school don't want to study evolution and take tests on it. what about death?? if evolution is true (which it isn't in my opinon), where do we go after death?? do we just dissapear?? do we fall into nothingness?? I mean evolution says that we were there was one great big boom, and everything just happend to land like this. and then of course some molecules became slime, and then it became plants, and then worms, and then fish, and then the fish grew legs and became dogs, and then monkeys, and then apes, and then us. one science book I was looking over said something like "there is excess tissue in your forehead that was proboly a third eye". now where would we get a third eye?? I will write more later.
*later* Do the people that say that we have a third eye, have any proof?? no they don't. they just say it for the sake of saying it.
Let me get this straight... You don't think evolution should be taught because it doesn't explain death and because you read somewhere in a science book that people should have a third eye? Oooookay, I must remember that one, it's one of the most original I 've ever heard. :)
How do you know that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old??? you don't! I mean look at the moon, it has no atmosphere so there for it must have been huge because of all the meateors hitting it, it decreases in size. and what about moon dust? if it was million of years old then there would be much more dust on it.
Just because the moon has no atmosphere doesn't mean it can't have gravity. Otherwise Armstrong would have been in a lot of trouble. Also, think me silly but since when does the presence of dust equals old age?
OK - one more point, and then I will do my wrap-up post. (and there will probably be 10 or 15 posts in the time that I am writing this! oh well)
One very interesting observable point that the TOE (th. of ev.) doesn't have any solution for is the very curious propensity of the human race to use the word "should". For ex, if someone bops you on the head for no good reason (i.e., they're not your sibling that is retaliating for you stealing their crayons :D ), your response would be "you SHOULDN'T have done that!" But the use of the word "should" implies that there is a moral law which has been violated. I won't even get into which moral law is correct, the very fact that all people have some moral law, whether you or I happen to agree with it or not, is enough to go on for now. Well, the TOE model cannot account for this observable fact (I won't get into the theistic TOE thing, for reasons which I will explain in the next post.) There can be no morality in an amoral ("without the presence of morals") system.
The TOE says things happened thru beneficial mutations over a huge amount of time (very much a simplified statement, I know, but correct in the essentials), and there is no God behind it. What, then, is the meaning of "good", or any other moral idea? There can be none. Evolutionists typically say we have moral laws for the preservation of the species, but they are then claiming that the preservation of the species is "good", which is invalid, because it is a moral judgement. Much of our morality doesn't even make sense in a survival of the fittest system - for example, putting yourself in danger for someone whom you love - "why should I endanger myself to help this person? why not just let them die? I'm obviously better suited to live."
I think most of us would think that is a terrible attitude (whoops, just made a moral judgement!)
However, given the creation model, the existance of morals makes perfect sense - after all, God said He created us in His image, and He is a moral being.
Something for you guys to think about :)
Hey, there were only 2 posts while I was typing my last one! OK, here's my final post, because actually I agree with what has been said several times - there is no "solution" for the debate "which model is correct", because they are both beliefs and cannot be proven in the sense that we have been trying to do. We can, though, examine observable phenomenon (oh bother, is that spelled correctly?) and see which model is the better fit, which is why I addressed the 2nd law of thermo, etc. I personally believe that Christianity (and thus the creation model) is the truth.
People, evolution is not a science, it is a belief system about the past. We do not have access to the past, we only have the present. Fossils are in the present! We can only make reasonable conjectures about what they were (remember the bronosaurus fiasco - turned out to be the head of one and the body of another - whoops! Now called the bracheosaurus, I believe. And the whole spotted moth thing which has recently been revealed to be a hoax). We cannot directly test the past using the scientific method (which involves repeating things and watching them happen), since all the evidence we have is in the present.
Now I won't bother to "lay a trap" and wait for someone to say "but special creation is also a belief about the past". Of course it is. The difference is that creationists base their understanding of creation upon a book which claims to be the word of the One who was there, who knows everything there is to know about everything, and who tells us what happened. Evolution comes from the words of men who were not there and who do not claim to know everything (at least the honest ones don't! :) ) This leads into, of course, is the Bible true, but that is not the issue I wish to cover here, although I will state that it is in a class by itself, and at the top of the class, as far as ancient literature goes. Christianity is an incredibly reasonable faith. My main point here is to reveal some of the many inaccuracies and invalid claims of the TOE.
And finally, I will let you in on my one and only purpose for even taking time to post on this thread, when I would MUCH rather be on the "writing in Tengwar" thread, and I should be doing some laundry :D - I have such a concern and compassion for those people who believe that the TOE is the only valid option out there, that I have sacrificed a lot of time to post here (hey, a moral action that is against my supposed best interests!) to show that there are other valid options out there. It really, really grieves me to think that many people think that they are only the result of mutations over a vast amount of time and have no intrinsic worth, or that the only worth they have comes from achievements, etc. People, you are of GREAT, GREAT worth, to me and to other Christians and to God Himself, for He created you.
And that's my post! I need to get to work now, I'm already terribly late (I do part-time engineering consulting at a radar company during school hours - see, laundry isn't the only thing I'm good at :D I work with military air traffic control - really fascinating) PM me if you want to, I'd be glad to discuss more if anyone desires it.
BeardofPants
10-23-2002, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Treebeard's apprentice
Actaully this has been proven with carbon-dating.
No!!!!!
Carbon dating can only date back 50,000 years or so, and is only used on organic material.
The estimate of the earth at about 4.55 billion years comes from other dating methods.
Regarding the eye, it would have started out that cells containing light sensitive cell walls would have had a beneficial advantage over those that didn't. It would have gradually been honed over several million years via natural and sexual selection.
Bah humbug to those who don't know enough about the second law of thermodynamics. It refers to the distribution of energy, NOT the depletion. You are thinking of the wrong sort of entropy. This has been covered before. I suggest you read up on the theist and anti-theist threads so that we don't cover material that has already been bashed around to death.
Rian, evolution *is* a science. It can be observed. The theories about how we evolved are the ones that are questionable. Nobody questions that evolution did occur, it is the how and whys that we are hung up on.
The thing you have to understand, is that evolution is not about PERFECTION, it is about selecting for the best possible fit. Species who have a better fitness have an advantage over those that don't. Take the moth. Prior to industrialisation, it was white, and blended in very well with the bark on the tree. Birds had a hard time seeing it. But in this species, there were also grey moths, which were more easily observed by birds, and hence, their numbers were smaller, and they were less successful finding breeding partners. Then industrialisation occured, and the tree bark turned grey. Suddenly the grey ones have the selective fitness advantage, and the white ones are eaten by the birds.
Evolution is all about selective fitness. The best possible fit.
Regarding mutations, remember that well over 90% are neutral. They don't do anything.
More later: I'm running late for work.....
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 02:42 PM
Earinel- Now I never said that. well anyway, why do you believe in evolution?? evolution is a religon for the people in the world that think God is a theory and just something for people to think that they are actually going somewhere after death. well I am sorry but is all evolution is in my opinion.
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Ms. Undomial
...if you go to public schools, and don't want to study evolution, you have to. there is nothing you can do about it. it should not be taught in schools....what about people who do not have any religion, and do not want to learn about evolution, go to public schools and have to do tests on it? also what about children? they don't know any better, and they go to public schools and some of the teachers say that evolution is true and if you do not belive in it, you are wacko(they would probably use a differnt word that "wacko")?
Your logic seems a bit flawed here. If I don't want to study the comma rules and take tests on the eight parts of speech, should this mean that I get out of it? People that weasel out of schoolwork on the basis of religious belief (one of my friends did this last year, it irritated me to no end) should have to do the same work as everyone else. For my freshmen biology class we were required to write a paper on evolution, and create teh world in a billion years. A friend of mine (in fact, the same one I mentioned earlier), took bio a year after me, and was constantly complaining about how unfair it was that she, a CHRISTIAN, had to do a paper. Ugh...deal with it.
Also, what does evolution have to do with life after death? Absolutely nothing at all! You can easily believe in God and evolution, I am a living example of this (though I don't believe in it exactly the way it is taught). Evolution is not the religion of people who don't believe in God...first off, it's not a religion. And, as has been stated before, evolution in NO WAY attempts to disprove God. Too many Christians take this way out of proportion and give the rest of us a bad name.
Treebeard's apprentice
10-23-2002, 02:52 PM
The TOE says things happened thru beneficial mutations over a huge amount of time (very much a simplified statement, I know, but correct in the essentials), and there is no God behind it.
I never said there was no God behind it. As I have said before, even the Pope believes in theistic evolutionism. I'm just saying that the ToE is more believable than an entire universe appearing fully formed and filled with creatures in less than a week.
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 02:58 PM
Star Polish- I would love to do a paper in school! I think school is fun!! I just would not want to do it on evolution.
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Treebeard's apprentice
I'm just saying that the ToE is more believable than an entire universe appearing fully formed and filled with creatures in less than a week.
::voomp:: Now I'm going to defend the religious side of this debate :)
I've always wondered about the whole 'making the world in a week' as well. The thing is, God doesn't experience time as we do. I suppose you could say he is "outside" of time as we know it. In an attempt to put it in terms we could understand, the writer of these books (is it beleived to be Moses? Can't remember) used that terminology. Or, perhaps, he used different words that have been lost in the translation. OR, the word 'day' coudl just refer to an amount of time, not necessarily what we call a day today.
Ms. Undomial, my point was the paper was ON evolution.
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 03:07 PM
Starr Polish- yes I know. alright, do you beleve in evolution??? you friend could of done a paper against evolution but she would of failed on it(most likely). why didn't she ask the teacher about it? why didn't she write a paper against evolution? all she wanted was to get out of writeing a paper.
IronParrot
10-23-2002, 03:18 PM
Ms. Undomial:
"if evolution is true(which it isn't in my opinon), where do we go after death?? do we just dissapear?? do we fall into nothingness??"
Evolution has nothing to do with the concept of a soul. The former is a scientific process regarding the propagation of current species and the creation of new ones. The latter is still a philosophical argument that you can neither prove nor disprove.
"I mean evolution says that we were there was one great big boom, and everything just happend to land like this."
No it doesn't.
R*an:
"First of all can you name any observable beneficial mutations? The only mutations I know of are called "birth defects" - and for a very good reason - they are not beneficial."
Birth defects have nothing to do with evolution, as they are not propagated traits, and are not a result of adaptation. A man born without arms can still have a son with all limbs intact.
Propagated mutations - part of the definition of a species - are observable in many cases all over the world. Certain tropical fish develop bands of colouration for the purpose of camoflauge in a coral reef. Porcupine fish develop venemous spines for self-defense and survival. Some bees have stings, and others don't - depending on whether or not it is a demand of their environment. Polar bears have fluffy coats because they live in cold weather. Darwin's own pet example was, of course, the tortoise population in the Galapagos...
Ms. Undomial again:
"Hasty Ent- How is evolution a "necessary foundation as learning basic math and grammar."?? Quite right, it is not a religon. but if you go to public schools, and don't want to study evolution, you have to. there is nothing you can do about it. it should not be taught in schools."
First of all, I agree that evolution isn't quite that fundamental... in fact, it's complex enough that it should really wait until high school level biology (which, in most schools, you have the option of not taking). Speaking of basic math and grammar... well, what if you don't want to study math and grammar? Maybe they shouldn't be taught in schools either, eh? Apparently most students don't really ever pick them up anyway...
Evolution has no church. Teaching evolution in public schools does not violate a separation of church and state.
Let me put it this way again: science is not a religion. The difference between scientific theories and religious theories is that the formulation of scientific theories follows Galilean method - "accepted until disproven." Religious theories do not follow Galilean method, but the doctrine that "if the evidence contradicts the gospel, the evidence must be discarded."
R*an again:
"OK, I'll leave that one too, only noting that open systems can have an even greater increase in entropy."
Don't know why you're bringing open systems into this at all, as the laws of thermodynamics don't apply without conservation of mass-energy...
"what I see when I look around is an amazingly organized creation. Don't you?"
Nope, afraid I don't.
Random kinetic motion in gas particles - or, at the subatomic level, the probabilistic movement of electrons - or, say, the ion flow of the earth's core - all of these are examples of extreme disorder. The very air you breathe is a case of highly random motion - and just wait until you pump up the temperature... then you're talking.
You can't even describe the petals on a rose without complex multidimensional fractal algorithms - and the adage that no two are alike is just one example of the impressive degree of randomness exhibited here.
That's hardly organized. If you're bringing thermodynamics into this, true organization would be where most everything is a perfect immobile crystal exhibiting no motion at a temperature of zero Kelvin. (See the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which defines the reference point for standard entropy.)
"I agree that the 2nd law doesn't prove anything about intelligent design or creation (although it meshes incredibly well with it). What I am saying is that it is an incredibly strong proof against the th. of evolution."
Don't see how.
The theory of evolution deals with speciation - the propagation of current species resulting in the creation of new ones. As evidenced by the thousands of species of birds in the Amazon rainforest, this leads to extreme diversity - and very little uniformity. Evolution may deal with organized complex biological systems, but that is outweighed by the sheer diversity of the systems that exist.
I'd hardly say the world around us is organized when everything is so diverse that we are unable to visualize a pure, perfect Platonic idea for anything.
IronParrot
10-23-2002, 03:19 PM
Cirdan:
"Didn't we cover every last inch of this topic in the Theist and the Anti-Theist threads. If anyone who didn't has enough free time to read the thousand plus entries and still has anything to contribute should lecture on the subject."
Nah, this is a specific issue... it just has a lot of crossover tangents.
R*an:
"The difference is that creationists base their understanding of creation upon a book which claims to be the word of the One who was there, who knows everything there is to know about everything, and who tells us what happened."
And who made that claim?
The Hebrews who wrote it.
BeardofPants:
"Evolution is all about selective fitness. The best possible fit."
Well, humans are actually a bit of an aberration in terms of pure physical fitness, as the development of tools gave them an advantage of survival... if humans were released into the wild with nothing, and no knowledge of tools, they wouldn't survive.
Finally, I came up with another insight I should add here:
Nobody told you that you have to believe everything you're taught in schools. A lot of people still don't believe in quantum physics and Schrodinger's Cat and all that jazz. And a lot of people (correctly) know that the War of 1812 was a draw, despite what some American textbooks may claim about it being a victory.
As such, evolution should be taught at the appropriate level of understanding.
emplynx
10-23-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
I don't understand your point Emplynx. Banana is a living thing, so are we....That is why we share DNA with it. Banana (millions of years) monkey (millions of years) man, Makes perfect sense to me!! I believe you should research the "system of interchangeable parts" it was a brilliant idea. I'm sure God thought it handy too.
Originally posted by Ms. Undomial
How do you know that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old??? you don't! I mean look at the moon, it has no atmosphere so there for it must have been huge because of all the meateors hitting it, it decreases in size. and what about moon dust? if it was million of years old then there would be much more dust on it.
Ms. Undomial I hate to argue with you, but that argument was thrown out 30 years ago.
Originally posted by Starr Polish
Also, what does evolution have to do with life after death? Absolutely nothing at all! You can easily believe in God and evolution, I am a living example of this (though I don't believe in it exactly the way it is taught). Evolution is not the religion of people who don't believe in God...first off, it's not a religion. And, as has been stated before, evolution in NO WAY attempts to disprove God. Too many Christians take this way out of proportion and give the rest of us a bad name. I don't know about you, but my bible gives a clear account of creation of the universe, and it has nothing to do with god creating a one celled organism that evovled into other things.
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 04:19 PM
It doesn't say anything against it either, does it, emplynx? It never says how God made anything, simply that he made it by speaking.
Ironparrot, just because things are at random doesn't mean they weren't created. The petals of a rose may be incredibly complex and each one different, but what does that show? God can use apparently random circumstances to bring about a purpose; look at the end result of the rose. Organization isn't necessary to design when the design is made by God.
And it isn't just the Hebrews who wrote the Bible that claim it is God's inspired word. Millions of Christians claim that and have always claimed it, and that is based on experience, not upon what the Hebrews said.
Earniel
10-23-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Ms. Undomial
Earinel- Now I never said that. well anyway, why do you believe in evolution?? evolution is a religon for the people in the world that think God is a theory and just something for people to think that they are actually going somewhere after death. well I am sorry but is all evolution is in my opinion.
You never said what? That about the moon or the third eye? Further I don't see evolution as a religion. A religion is (in my view) something wherein you accept certains things without scientific proof. I also hate it when people say you either believe in evolution or that a god created the world. Nothing is just black or white. The two can coexist or even be entwined in my view. Neither sides have enough evidence to rule out the other. You can't prove that God does or doesn't exsists or whether he did or did not meddle with the world.
Why I believe in evolution? Because it makes a lot more sense to me than creationism. Evolution as well as creationism have been part of my life for a long time. I went to a very strict catholic school. But I watched documentaries about dinosaurs ever since I was 5 or so. Creationism just didn't make sense. It was too rigid, it seemed to me it could not accept that it was wrong on some parts. It took centuries and plenty of bloodshed before the Pope accepted that the world wasn't the center of the universe. Evolution gave me facts, tangeable things where as creationism gave me nothing of that kind. Evolution gave me dinosaurs and fossils. Creationism didn't even have room for them. So to me science proved more reliable. It can change, admit it was wrong when the opposite is proven. Also I found evolution to be more flexible. When something doesn't fit the evolutionary model it is not immediatly discarded as incorrect, something I found creationism does. Evolution constantly questions itself, it doesn't assume it has all the answers, which is I believe a healthy attitude.
Our knowlegde of evolution to this day isn't perfect, new facts are discovered every day and scientific theories have to be adjusted to that. But at least they do so. Carbondating and other methods may not be as mathematically exact as we would like but that doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.
Also I find it insufficient to turn to a religious explanation when something doesn't fit in the evolutionary model. Just because the afterlife doesn't get discussed in the evolutionary model doesn't mean that creationism is right.
emplynx
10-23-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It doesn't say anything against it either, does it, emplynx? It never says how God made anything, simply that he made it by speaking.
I'm pretty sure that evolution can't happen in 6 days. That's how long it took for God to create the worldl.
IronParrot
10-23-2002, 06:19 PM
"Ironparrot, just because things are at random doesn't mean they weren't created. The petals of a rose may be incredibly complex and each one different, but what does that show? God can use apparently random circumstances to bring about a purpose; look at the end result of the rose. Organization isn't necessary to design when the design is made by God."
I was using that example in reference to the whole debate about entropy earlier... I didn't say organization was necessary to design. And I didn't say that it disproved the existence of God, either. I believe that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.
"And it isn't just the Hebrews who wrote the Bible that claim it is God's inspired word. Millions of Christians claim that and have always claimed it, and that is based on experience, not upon what the Hebrews said."
But the Bible - the Old Testament anyway - is what the Hebrews said! So if you'd like to provide me with evidence of such experience to which you refer, please do... because right now, it looks pretty tautological to me.
"I'm pretty sure that evolution can't happen in 6 days. That's how long it took for God to create the worldl."
Only by the literal interpretation of the Bible, the same literal interpretation that implies the world is 6000 years old and pi is equal to 3.
Most people, yes, most Christians today subscribe to the fact that the Bible is written in a subjective literary prose where ambiguities, approximations and metaphors - such as the use of the word "day" here - are present to some degree.
I think "day" was a flawed translation of some arbitrary Hebrew term for a given period of time, too, but I'm not certain about that one.
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 06:30 PM
IronParrot:
(which, in most schools, you have the option of not taking).
Not so in mine, it's a requirement, unless you have a severe learning disability. It is also required to enter most colleges.
Ms. Undomial:
Starr Polish- yes I know. alright, do you beleve in evolution??? you friend could of done a paper against evolution but she would of failed on it(most likely). why didn't she ask the teacher about it? why didn't she write a paper against evolution? all she wanted was to get out of writeing a paper.
You obviously did not understand what I posted. Perhaps you should slow down while reading the posts and actually find out what the poster means. My friend did the paper, it's was an assignment that she couldn't get out of. What got irritating was the fact that she constantly complained about why she had to do the paper, when all of her other Christian friends had done it without so much as a word. You couldn't write a paper 'against' evolution. We had to invent new species, change biomes and create symbiotic relationships between the new species (one of the new species being a sentient being).
I have already stated that I believe in evolution, to a point. I guess it would be more correct for me to say that I believe wholly in natural selection, survival of the fittest (though with technological advances humans have nearly completely omitted 'natural selection', making it now artificial).
Emplynx:
I don't know about you, but my bible gives a clear account of creation of the universe, and it has nothing to do with god creating a one celled organism that evovled into other things.
A clear account of creation? A clear account would tell us exactly how He did it, and why. Though the Bible was divinely inspired, it WAS written by men, and we can never claim to have a full understanding of God, meaning we will not have a full understanding of how life came to be, until we meet Him.
No, the bible never sepciically says that life began from a single celled organism, but Jesus also never directly refers to Himself as the Son of God, but I believe it to be true.
I'm pretty sure that evolution can't happen in 6 days. That's how long it took for God to create the worldl.
If you think that six days to God is the same as six days to us. I've already said that God, most likely, does not experience time the same way we do. He CREATED time.
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 06:30 PM
You know what, Emplynx, that entirely depends upon your definition of 6 days. I mean, when Jesus came down to Earth in the New Testament, shortly before he rose back to heaven he said that he'd be coming back soon. Several centuries later I don't think of as 'soon,' by human standards, but it could well be by heavenly standards. I mean, come on! In heaven we're talking about eternity!
Earniel, I think it's a mistake to judge the Bible the way you are, just as it might be a mistake for some Christians to hold too rigidly to the interpretation they have held of it up till now. Creation and Evolution don't necessarily disagree. Sometimes God uses natural means to bring about divine ends, like when he used Assyria to punish the Israelites in the Old Testament. Notice that he didn't use an army of angels or demons. He may have used evolution to create life.
Artanis
10-23-2002, 06:31 PM
Wow, this is incredible, this thread is only 2 days old, and there's already 5 pages! It's clearly an engaging topic. :)
I agree with IronParrot and BoP in that evolution is a scientific theory and creation is a faith. Really I don't see how anyone can compare a scientific theory to a religious belief? Good scientists are evaluating their theories by carrying out repeatable experiments according to strict rules. Note that a scientific theory can never be proved, only made more or less plausible. It must be rejected at the first scientific observation that contradicts it, and possibly replaced by a new and refined theory. Whereas religious belief, or faith, comes from an inner, personal experience that cannot be evaluated, and by nature does not need to be made plausible, at least not in the scientific sense. If you believe in God then you naturally believe in creation, and vice versa, and any attempt to either prove or disprove (doesn't sound right, is it the right word?) it is folly.
Answer to the original question: Yes, I think evolution should be taught in school, because it is the dominating scientific theory that seek to explain what humans are in biological terms. And I also think the main worldwide religions should be taught in school, as it broadens the mind and helps to understand societies everywhere better. The overall principles of evolution and the main foundations of the religions should be taught to everyone, but leave the heavier stuff to those who take special interest in it.
webwizard333
10-23-2002, 06:38 PM
I don't know about you, but my bible gives a clear account of creation of the universe, and it has nothing to do with god creating a one celled organism that evovled into other things.
Funny, mine gives me two different Creation accounts. :p
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 06:40 PM
IronParrot:
The Hebrews who wrote it.
Really? I wasn't aware they ones who actually wrote it were still alive. Perhaps we should alert the Guiness Book of World Records. They may have to change "oldest person alive". ;)
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 06:44 PM
Well, Ironparrot, the experience I speak of is hearing God speak through his inspired Word. And that's not something I can very easily explain to a nonbeliever. It's a spiritual experience.
You know what, I think that argument between Creation and Evolution is pretty pointless. People thinking evolution is the only truth, when they try to use that against Christianity don't succeed, and neither do Christians who try to disprove evolution. There isn't any way of saying that God didn't do it, as it isn't in the Bible that he didn't. It's all a matter of personal belief.
Aeryn
10-23-2002, 06:47 PM
I found something really cute while trying to find some info on EVOLUTION.
Evolution by Jame H Hunter
Once I was a tadpole, grubbing in the mire,
Till I became ambitious and started to aspire;
I rubbed my tale so vigorously against a sunken log,
It disappeared completely, and I became a frog!
I struggled from my puddle and I jumped upon dry land,
And the feeling that was in me was glorious and grand;
It made me kind of frisky, so I hopped around a tree,
Till I landed on the branches, just as happy as could be.
And there I spent some aeons evoluting without fail,
Till I became a monkey, and grew another tail!
But still I had ambitions as the aeons wuickly sped,
So I descened from the tree, and walked the earth instead.
Till my tail got tired with trailing on thehard ground every day,
And twice within my process that appendage passed away.
Once again I evoluted, and, believe it if you can,
I awoke one summer morning and I found myself a man!
Now you tadpoles in the mire, just think what you may be,
If you'll only in your puddles start to climb the family tree!
I am the genus homo finished for all the world to see;
For when I told my story, I was giv'n a Ph.D.
Fred Baggins
10-23-2002, 07:03 PM
I'm back for two seconds. Just think about the people who don't belive in evolution. point in fact, they don't want to listen to evolution.
Aeryn
10-23-2002, 07:10 PM
I don't want to listen to evolution, it's a joke.
That is what the poem was about.
cassiopeia
10-23-2002, 07:31 PM
Whew, so many posts! The difference between science and religion is that I'm (being a scientist) ready to change my opinion when given new evidence. As someone said, the bible isn't going to be changed soon, so I don't think that creationists are going to change thier minds. The only way I could beleive in creationism is if God 'tricked' us by putting all the fossils in the ground and making our DNA similar. But I prefer to go for the simpler option of evolution.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but evolution is a theory. It can never be made into a scientific law because it cannot be proven mathematically. Gravity, on the other hand, can (and several things pertaining to the 'law' of gravity are slightly flawed. Two objects don't really fall at a constant rate...maybe I'll explain later).
I have done university science, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. A theory is something which is experimentally validated, like Einsteins theory of relativity. People get confused about theorys and hypotheses. I agree that you can't prove evolution mathematically like Einsteins laws. As IP said, things fall at a constant acceleration, the only reason a feather and rock fall at different speeds on Earth is because of air resistance (ever see that experiment by an astronaut on the moon?)
I do have some trouble understanding how all the complex life around us came to be from inert molecules, but I think that it can be explained scientifically, just like I find it hard to comprehend that light is a wave and a particle. Creationists say that God made us in his own image, what if there are extra-terrestrials who don't look anything like us?
Ms. Undomial
10-23-2002, 07:37 PM
I agree totally with Aeryn. evolution is a joke.
cassiopeia
10-23-2002, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Ms. Undomial
I agree totally with Aeryn. evolution is a joke.
Why? Is is because you dislike the idea of people evolving from animals, so we arn't that special? Or you don't understand the science of it? Or you believe every word of the bible? The problem I have is that I think people should question everything and make up their own minds based on the evidence presented, not just because it says so in a book/TV/movie/magazine.
Lizra
10-23-2002, 07:47 PM
Ms Umdomnial, What happens when you die? Not much! (ha ha) Your body rots. Your "soul" was nothing more than energy supported by your functioning body parts. When your heart stops beating, your brain gets no oxygen, everything stops functioning, and your so called "soul" goes pffft. There is some energy in the organic components that make up your body, and these will go back to the soil, (or wherever) waiting to nourish something else.
Evolution is not a religion.... who worships it? Is astronomy a religion too? How about the religion of aerodynamics? You sound a little silly, take a deep breath and stop throwing words around. A debate is no reason to get so crazed! :)
I suppose I won't go into what I think of the "creation" story. No need to rain on my virtual friends parades. Peace. :)
Emphlyx...What is the theory of interchangable parts?
Aeryn
10-23-2002, 07:47 PM
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
If we evolved from whatever you 'scientics' are saying now-a-days why aren't those creatures evolving today?
You base alot of things off of rock, a rocks age is based on years, thats how you know the earth is so old. Tell me WHAT METHODS do you take to know what a million year old rock looks like?
Lizra
10-23-2002, 07:58 PM
Lots of thinking people believe it. What a dumb thing to say! I think and I believe it. Ahem...
I've never heard of this theory of "devolving", or rolling back. Exactly what causes this to happen? Is this what Devo were talking about? "All things that go forward must go backward" :D Good one!
All creatures are evolving. You don't see it because you are just a tiny squeak of a second on the evolutionary time line. Honestly, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. The theory of evolution is based on a lot more than "rock" :rolleyes: The statements you are making underscore the reason why it should be taught in school. After learning about it, and understanding it, if you choose to reject it because it clashes with your faith, that is your decision. No need to make a bunch of false, irrational statements about a well documented scientific theory. Don't be an ostrich!
webwizard333
10-23-2002, 08:25 PM
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
No, if you understood evolution, you'd understand that de-evolution is not possible. Mutations can occur that can be considered throw-backs to an early stage, but they do not bring about any advantage in breeding and passing the genes on, thus de-evolution would not occur.
Aeryn
10-23-2002, 08:36 PM
Mmmmhmm....I'm not in public school...and im not religious and i dont believe in evolution....FYI
okay, so I may not quite get where all these ...er 'facts':rolleyes: have sprung up from...but oh Yoda...teach my ...bonhomme mind...
:D
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I have done university science, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. A theory is something which is experimentally validated, like Einsteins theory of relativity. People get confused about theorys and hypotheses. I agree that you can't prove evolution mathematically like Einsteins laws.
I am currently taking a college level biology class, and the difference between theories and hypotheses was cleared up for me a long time ago. I was one of two people in my class that knew the difference at the beginning of the year (why, I don't know). I can't claim having finished the class, but we have already done our unit on evolution.
When I asked my teacher why evolution wasn't a law, he told me because it cannot be proven mathematically. It is the most widely accepted among scientists because it has the most proof to back it up.
As IP said, things fall at a constant acceleration, the only reason a feather and rock fall at different speeds on Earth is because of air resistance (ever see that experiment by an astronaut on the moon?)
Air resistance isn't the only intereference. When Newton and other phsysists (sp?) were inventing calculus and came up with the equation for the 'two objects falling at a constant rate', they did not include the wieght of all things on the earth as well as the earth, because it was considered 'too insignificant'.
The Bible may have small alterations made with it with each new translation. Though my source comes from a fictional verse, supposedly the Hebrew word for "camel" is the same as for "coarse thread", only with a different pitch. "It is easier to pull a camel trhough the eye of a needle than get a rich man to heaven..." or would that be coarse thread?
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by webwizard333
No, if you understood evolution, you'd understand that de-evolution is not possible. Mutations can occur that can be considered throw-backs to an early stage, but they do not bring about any advantage in breeding and passing the genes on, thus de-evolution would not occur.
Not true, de-evolution can occur. There is a disorder called Huntington's (I think...), I believe that is a dominant trait, and it eventually kills the person who has it. Makes you think that they would die before the could reproduce, correct? Wrong. The symptoms of the disease usually don't show up until the vicitim is in his or her thirities, and often tiems they have had children by then, possibly pasisng along their dominant yet fatal gene.
cassiopeia
10-23-2002, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Aeryn
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
If we evolved from whatever you 'scientics' are saying now-a-days why aren't those creatures evolving today?
You base alot of things off of rock, a rocks age is based on years, thats how you know the earth is so old. Tell me WHAT METHODS do you take to know what a million year old rock looks like?
Guess what, all creatures - even humans - are evolving at this moment. It's just that it happens over millions of years and how long have you been here? A very small fraction of that. We date rocks by carbon dating. I won't go into the exact details, but if we know how much carbon has been lost from the rock, we can use some simple equations to work out the age of the rock. Since the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, this is plenty of time for evolution. I think we got the age of the Earth from moon rocks bought back by the Apollo missions. You say people evolved from animals - why is that so hard to believe? Why are we so different from other animals? Actually no THINKING person would believe something just because it says so in a book.
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 09:57 PM
Perhaps not, but if we believed what we believed simply on the basis of what it says in a book, we'd be a sorry lot indeed. Christianity is an experiential religion. The reason that people sometimes stop believing, like those people that are posting on this thread who have a Catholic background, but never got the faith because it looked like a lot of garbage, is because they didn't come to know God in the first place. There was no basis for belief, and I can completely understand all of the reasons they have for leaving. But God spoke to Elijah, and Moses, and Paul, etc. Those aren't things of the past, they are experiences that all Christians can have. The Bible isn't just a book.
I also disagree with carbon dating, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post . . . I don't know if you've seen it. Archaeological dating and astronomical dating are two types of dating which are counted to be much more accurate than radio carbon dating. Radio carbon dating is known to be less and less accurate the farther back in time you use it. But it is the only dating method they have for things that date back to before humanity, so that's what they use. The totally illogical thing is that even though this inaccuracy is known, they use it mostly for the farthest points of time in history. It's because it's the only dating method that they have for things back then, but that doesn't make it correct.
Coney
10-23-2002, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Starr Polish
Not true, de-evolution can occur. There is a disorder called Huntington's (I think...), I believe that is a dominant trait, and it eventually kills the person who has it. Makes you think that they would die before the could reproduce, correct? Wrong. The symptoms of the disease usually don't show up until the vicitim is in his or her thirities, and often tiems they have had children by then, possibly pasisng along their dominant yet fatal gene.
I presume that you are reffering to Huntingtons Corea Starr Polish?..If so, then you are very much incorrect. Huntingtons Corea is by no means a de-evolution...this genetic disease does frequently 'skip' a generation, so ensuring that the families DNA and and subsequentialy 'evolution' continues. Also tests for Huntingtons Corea are viable, therefore 100% reliable, from the age 18+.
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 10:35 PM
I got the info from my AP bio book, which I will admit is a bit dated (a first year teacher in our school had it for her freshmen year in college).
Coney
10-23-2002, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Starr Polish
I got the info from my AP bio book, which I will admit is a bit dated (a first year teacher in our school had it for her freshmen year in college).
No problem:) ............ One of my friends wife and his brother-in law suffered from Huntingtons Corea (she had to go through a historectomy to prevent the disease from killing her, he was totally clear of the disease).......hope your book is up to date;) (sorry, that was not meant to sound quiet so sarcastic).
Starr Polish
10-23-2002, 10:51 PM
It didn't come off as sarcastic, so don't worry. It's becoming harder and harder to offend me...I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not :confused:.
(P.S. Tir Nan Og, eh? Not sure if I would want to live there :))
Aeryn
10-23-2002, 10:56 PM
Lief, hmmm, wonder who you're talking about;) :p :rolleyes:
Anyway...
Willow Oran
10-23-2002, 11:17 PM
Personally I believe in creation more than evolution. I have considered both and I feel that neither are one hundred percent believable but for me creationism is what I started out believing and I find that no matter how much I try to change my beliefs to more scientific theories I cannot, my mind always reverts back to catholasism and creationism in the end. This is because for me the very fact that humans have the intelligence to figure out things like evolution and other scientific theories proves the exsistence of interference on the part of a divine being. In otherwards, evolutionism and creationism only make sense when they are combined. Besides that it makes it far more interesting.
I think it's time we considered some of the good and bad points of both as opposed to arguing which one is true. Both the faith and the theory should be treated with caution as they can both be corrupted in similar ways to cause racism, prejudice, and bloody wars that kill people based solely on their physical features/beliefs depending on which is causing the war. People in history have interpeted evolution to mean survival of the fittest and have used that as an excuse to discriminate against anyone that they consider to be unfit. This is not much different from the way people discriminate against others based on religion. Some people have discriminated against people based on both saying that belief in a certain religion is akin to a genetic default. I think that evolution should be taught in schools, partly because I found genetics at least to be very interesting and it's useful for when I making up a fictional world to write about. As for religion, religion gets taught whether it shouldn't or should. It's so involved in human history that the basics of each religion end up gettning covered in order for understanding of historical events that tie in with those religions. There are parts of each that I disagree with but there are also parts of both that I agree very much. They should both be taught in schools in such a way that they balance eachother out and allow students to make educated choices about their own beliefs.
afro-elf
10-23-2002, 11:52 PM
But it is the only dating method they have for things that date back to before humanity, so that's what they use. The totally illogical thing is that even though this inaccuracy is known, they use it mostly for the farthest points of time in history. It's because it's the only dating method that they have for things back then, but that doesn't make it correct.
Damn it Jim....You don't use carbon dating for things after a certain period. You will use things like urainium.
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals.
That was argubaly the most philistine comment on the subject of evolution that I have heard in a LONG time if not ever.
I guess that makes people who believe in talking snakes tempting people are genuises.
If you really wanna learn and like entmoot comb through the old these threads
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=1780
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=3951&highlight=antitheist
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=1757
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=2186
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=3948&highlight=theism
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?threadid=2299&highlight=evolution
BeardofPants
10-24-2002, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, humans are actually a bit of an aberration in terms of pure physical fitness, as the development of tools gave them an advantage of survival... if humans were released into the wild with nothing, and no knowledge of tools, they wouldn't survive.
It is true that humans appear to sit outside the equation in terms of physical fitness. Our sucess as a species has depended more on our ability to adapt than a dependence on physical fitness. However, you will note that I wasn't talking strictly physical fitness; I was talking about the best possible fit - in which our adaptability comes into play.
BeardofPants
10-24-2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I also disagree with carbon dating, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post . . . But it is the only dating method they have for things that date back to before humanity, so that's what they use. The totally illogical thing is that even though this inaccuracy is known, they use it mostly for the farthest points of time in history. It's because it's the only dating method that they have for things back then, but that doesn't make it correct.
I'm sorry. Bullshit.
Radiocarbon dating can only be used from 1950AD - 50-60,000 years ago. There ARE other absolute radiometric dating methods that are used to go back further.
Have we got this straight, people?
Radiocarbon dating. ONLY 50-60,000 BP. ONLY on organic material. ONLY on dead organic material. No rocks, no live samples, no going back further than 60,000 years.
If you go back further then use rubidium, uranium, or something similar.
BeardofPants
10-24-2002, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Aeryn
No, it is because no THINKING person would believe that oveer millions and millions of years, people evolved from animals. again I bring up devolving, if something can go forward it can roll right back.
If we evolved from whatever you 'scientics' are saying now-a-days why aren't those creatures evolving today?
You base alot of things off of rock, a rocks age is based on years, thats how you know the earth is so old. Tell me WHAT METHODS do you take to know what a million year old rock looks like?
There is no such thing as devolving. A species can be at a disadvantage, in which case they will go extinct, but sorry, no devolving.
Those creatures as you call them, are not around today because they went extinct. We are the only species to have survived.
The earth "rocks" can be dated using Rb-Sr isochron, 207Pb-206Pb isochron, U-Pb discordia, Th-Pb discordia, or Lu-Hf isochron sequences.
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 01:40 AM
I apologize, BeardofPants. I just double checked my source about the length of radio carbon dating, and you are right about the length of time it goes backward. But radio carbon dating is really the only dating type that shows how far back human beings go. Isn't that correct?
And I do not withdraw my statement about the margin of error. There is a strong argument for error in the radio carbon dating process within the last three thousand years, but before that, there is little argument for radio carbon dating's being right. It doesn't line up with historical or archaelogical records from the time periods at all. Since it doesn't during times where they can put it beside such records, and assuming it keeps consistently getting less accurate the farther back in time you go, then there is little reason why Christians should believe, on the basis of that, that mankind is as old as evolution says it is.
BeardofPants
10-24-2002, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But radio carbon dating is really the only dating type that shows how far back human beings go. Isn't that correct?
Well, considering that A. afarensis is said to be a few million years old, and the limit on carbon dating is set at 60,000 BP, I'd say NO.
And there ARE other dating methods for "young" dates. Remember that there are relative dating methods, as well as radiometric.
Lief Erikson:
And I do not withdraw my statement about the margin of error. There is a strong argument for error in the radio carbon dating process within the last three thousand years, but before that, there is little argument for radio carbon dating's being right.
I can tell you know very little about the process from this post. Radiocarbon dating DOES have a degree of error, yes. But, when you conisider that it is probably only +/- 1-2%. Now what is 2% of 60,000? I rest my point.
And have you not heard of callibration? Obviously not, since you fail to mention it.
More....
then there is little reason why Christians should believe, on the basis of that, that mankind is as old as evolution says it is.
Based on what? You have demonstrated a complete ignorance for the process of radiometric carbon dating. Have you not perhaps heard that more than one method is used to date sites? I'm sorry, but unless you can get your facts straight, I'm not going to take you seriously.
Ms. Undomial
10-24-2002, 11:47 AM
BoP- do you believe in evolution??
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 12:37 PM
BeardofPants, I do realize that there are other dating methods for recent dates. And radio carbon dating does have a relatively good success rate for recent things. But that's because radio carbon dating is assuming that the C14 isotope in all living things is at a constant. It is breathed into a creature throughout their life, and at death it stops being breathed in. The C14 isotope decays at a steady rate, and they can use the rate of decay to judge how old the creature is.
I realize there are other ways as well, like when they tried to match their radio carbon dates with those given using tree rings. But their original radio carbon dates, when tested with earlier historical data, have not shown to match up at all. They showed everything to be a good deal older. And when compared with tree rings, everything appeared to be older yet.
You're right, I don't know about very many of those other dating methods, but I am largely talking about radio carbon dating here. And I realize that evolution assumes that man was a gradual creation, so radio carbon dating certainly can't go before man. But Christians believe that man was a quick creation, and that there was a first man: Adam. Evolutionists would probably say that apes slowly evolved into man, and that if Adam was the first, then he was only the first because he was very similar to how we are now, but his predecessor was only a hair different then him.
Radio carbon dating demonstrates dates of man preceeding Adam, and because it does discuss organic material, it is the dating method that I am picking on.
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
Ms Umdomnial, What happens when you die? Not much! (ha ha) Your body rots. Your "soul" was nothing more than energy supported by your functioning body parts. When your heart stops beating, your brain gets no oxygen, everything stops functioning, and your so called "soul" goes pffft. There is some energy in the organic components that make up your body, and these will go back to the soil, (or wherever) waiting to nourish something else.
Lizra, that is entirely a matter of opinion. Every other religion on Earth would disagree with you, and science doesn't say what happens. Sure, science says that your body rots and turns to dust. Doesn't the Bible say that too? Your brain gets no oxygen and everything stops functioning . . . we know that too. But that your so called soul goes pffft . . . well, all that is proven by science is that your so called soul doesn't remain within your body. Whether it goes pffft or not is a matter of opinion, although I could give you some accounts that it doesn't. There are people who have died and then been revived after death, quickly after, (By doctors, not miracle workers ;)) and these people tell of brief moments after death. They don't simply not remember things that were happening, they weren't pffft. However, as I said, that is all a matter of opinion and what you choose to believe. Not extremely many people, I expect, have come back after death like that by medical means.
Earniel
10-24-2002, 01:35 PM
Earniel, I think it's a mistake to judge the Bible the way you are, just as it might be a mistake for some Christians to hold too rigidly to the interpretation they have held of it up till now. Creation and Evolution don't necessarily disagree. Sometimes God uses natural means to bring about divine ends, like when he used Assyria to punish the Israelites in the Old Testament. Notice that he didn't use an army of angels or demons. He may have used evolution to create life.
I believe I said somewhere that evolution and the idea that god created the world could be entwined since I have no evidence to rule it out. Well I believe I did say that. I think I did. Anyway I meant to. :rolleyes: The thing is, I don't think god created the world as described in the bible. Beings did evolve over a long period of time. But I never said a god couldn't be the starter of life down in the 'primeval soup' to put it bluntly.
BeardofPants
10-24-2002, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But that's because radio carbon dating is assuming that the C14 isotope in all living things is at a constant. It is breathed into a creature throughout their life, and at death it stops being breathed in. The C14 isotope decays at a steady rate, and they can use the rate of decay to judge how old the creature is.
Yes, I know this. I ask again: have you not perhaps heard of callibration?
But their original radio carbon dates, when tested with earlier historical data, have not shown to match up at all. They showed everything to be a good deal older. And when compared with tree rings, everything appeared to be older yet.
Dendrochronology is now a standard part of the callibration process. We now know that the radiocarbon dates need callibration - we didn't then. We also use deep sea cores as well.
Evolutionists would probably say that apes slowly evolved into man....
We did NOT come from apes. We share a common ancestor.
Radio carbon dating demonstrates dates of man preceeding Adam, and because it does discuss organic material, it is the dating method that I am picking on.
No. All radiocarbon dates show is that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years. Other dating methods, ie rubidium and uranium are the ones you should be picking on, since they demonstrate that "man" is a lot older than creationists' suppose. I'll bet you're only picking on carbon dating because that's the only one you know, and the only one mentioned on those creationist sites. :rolleyes: I've seen where they dated a live worm trying to disparage carbon dating. :rolleyes:
Lizra
10-24-2002, 02:43 PM
LE, my remark to Ms Umd. was MY belief of what happens after you die. She asked, I answered!! The near death experience is simply the way a brain shuts down. (IMO) That's why so many people who have almost died (they weren't totally dead, or they wouldn't have been able to be revived, unless a miracle :) was involved) have similar experiences. The brain shuts down pretty much the same way for everyone.
emplynx
10-24-2002, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
Emphlyx...What is the theory of interchangable parts?
Some guy once decided that if the made the some parts on different products the same they could be interchanged and not hvae to be specially made for each product. (So every handle could work on any shovel blade.) That way was much more efficient.
I'm saying that us having 99% of the same DNA as monkeys makes since because we are so similar.
I don't think it says anything against Intelligent Design or Evolution.
Starr Polish and all others interested in Theistic Evolution please read this http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-111b.htm which I agree with 100%.
Starr Polish
10-24-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
The near death experience is simply the way a brain shuts down. (IMO) That's why so many people who have almost died (they weren't totally dead, or they wouldn't have been able to be revived, unless a miracle :) was involved) have similar experiences. The brain shuts down pretty much the same way for everyone.
Yet, more and more scientists are leaning toward a possible "life after death", though it isn't necessarily religious. Not all people see the white tunnel...I think about half of those who have had NDEs have had visions of hell.
afro-elf
10-24-2002, 08:18 PM
well, all that is proven by science is that your so called soul doesn't remain within your body
science doesn't support ANY belief in a soul.
You are your brain. Your emotions are in your frontal lobe.
Love is not sacred
Stage 1: LUST
Lust is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen. Testosterone is not confined only to men. It has also been shown to play a major role in the sex drive of women.
Stage 2: ATTRACTION
This is the truly love-struck phase. When people fall in love they can think of nothing else. They might even lose their appetite and need less sleep, preferring to spend hours at a time daydreaming about their new lover.
In the attraction stage, a group of neuro-transmitters called 'monoamines' play an important role:
Dopamine - Also activated by cocaine and nicotine
Norepinephrine - Otherwise known as adrenalin. Starts us sweating and gets the heart racing
Serotonin - One of love's most important chemicals and one that may actually send us temporarily insane
Stage 3: ATTACHMENT
This is what takes over after the attraction stage, if a relationship is going to last. People couldn't possibly stay in the attraction stage forever, otherwise they'd never get any work done!
Attachment is a longer lasting commitment and is the bond that keeps couples together when they go on to have children. Important in this stage are two hormones released by the nervous system, which are thought to play a role in social attachments:
Oxytocin - This is released by the hypothalamus gland during child birth and also helps the breast express milk. It helps cement the strong bond between mother and child. It is also released by both sexes during orgasm and it is thought that it promotes bonding when adults are intimate. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes
Vasopressin - Another important chemical in the long-term commitment stage. It is an important controller of the kidney and its role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole
Your thoughts dreams hopes etc are part of your brain.
And its all chemistry and physics
No soul
afro-elf
10-24-2002, 08:23 PM
Starr WHO are these scientist?
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 01:12 AM
Afro elf, the soul is spiritual, and you cannot prove or disprove the existence of spiritual things with science. I disagree with you that you are your brain, and there's no way that science can show that my disagreement is wrongheaded and that there are no souls. You can say that all the emotions we feel and thoughts we think are chemical reactions, but regardless as to whether this is true or not, this doesn't destroy the idea of a soul.
Also about love. Simply because love is a chemical reaction doesn't mean that it isn't sacred. If God put chemicals in you purposely to react a certain way, and then he gives spiritual and moral reasons for you to use them only a certain way, you are obligated to obey those rules. Whether love is a chemical reaction or not. God does frequently create or do things in a natural way. In the Bible, he uses natural as well as miraculous ways to fulfill his perfect designs. Simply because there is a scientific explanation for something doesn't prove that God didn't make it.
BeardofPants, when you get into calibration, that really depends also on the reliability of the things they compare the dating to. I know they have done it with tree rings, but water density within the tree messed with their methods. Because of that, they started using the trees at really high altitudes because these were deemed to be more reliable, as the mountains are counted as extremely old, and the water couldn't reach them there. However, Christianity assumes a flood not thousands of years ago, and this flood would have affected these trees as well, making them impossible to use for dates. The archaelogical and historical dates I don't know as much about, so if you want to enlighten the thread, you can.
All of those different methods, uranium dating, etc. all use radio activity, assuming that this amount in the atmosphere remains at a constant. However, there are things that can affect this atmospheric amount, making it unstable and thus unreliable. If you want to describe to me more about uranium dating and those other methods, you can do that as well if you wish. They are outside of my main realm of knowledge, but I'd be happy to learn more.
BeardofPants
10-25-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I know they have done it with tree rings, but water density within the tree messed with their methods.
Fires pose a problem as well; not to mention that the oldest trees are only about 5000 years old. This is why we rely on other methods as well, such as studying the geomagnetic reversals on deep sea cores.
All of those different methods, uranium dating, etc. all use radio activity, assuming that this amount in the atmosphere remains at a constant. However, there are things that can affect this atmospheric amount, making it unstable and thus unreliable. If you want to describe to me more about uranium dating and those other methods, you can do that as well if you wish.
Again: deep sea cores can allow us to callibrate. Appropriate material from within a certain timeframe between strata, can be associated with the amount of uranium, etc, during a particular time period. Basically. Obviously, it is a lot more complicated than that.
afro-elf
10-25-2002, 01:24 AM
Afro elf, the soul is spiritual, and you cannot prove or disprove the existence of spiritual things with science. I disagree with you that you are your brain, and there's no way that science can show that my disagreement is wrongheaded and that there are no souls. You can say that all the emotions we feel and thoughts we think are chemical reactions, but regardless as to whether this is true or not, this doesn't destroy the idea of a soul
The idea may exist true but the evidence for it is lacking.
Preternatural feelings can be produced in the lab. There is no need for superaltive agencies. If it can be expalined naturally.
"isn't it enough to see the garden is beautiful without having to add faeries?"
The point is that when there is nothing to support a preternatural claim believer retreat to the unassailable.
I will take reasonsable evidence over faith/hope any day
Also Leif thank you, for having the composuer to discuss without fighting.
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 02:14 AM
Well Afro elf, I'm going to change my argument a bit. Let's go to the quantum level, shall we? Not everything is governed by mechanics when you go to the level of quantum mechanics. There, there is chance. Chance isn't part of the rule that things can happen only one way, and that chemical reactions are the brain. And when you get into probability mechanics and things at the quantum level, things are irrational and depend upon chance. There is no way of saying that that chance isn't design.
There is no way of disproving that the thought which the soul thinks causes the brain activity that is observed, and the chemical reactions that follow. The soul or spirit can have a will and have thoughts of its own, and when it thinks one of those thoughts, chemical reactions go on in your head and you think that thought. People can go brain dead and then their brain cannot function, making their soul not able to act through the body. But we believe that the reverse is also true, and that when the soul is captured or suppressed, the brain is no longer capable of acting as the soul guides. This we believe is demon possession. It acts rationally, but a different soul is speaking through it, and what is you no longer commands.
There isn't any proof for these things, or against them. There doesn't have to be any proof for them, because God intended that we rely upon faith. How can you have faith in something you can't see? All you can do is seek God and find out if he does exist. If you find that he does, because he reveals himself to you the way that he has to me, then you will have something to base your faith on. And it will become a daily walk with God, a life full of miracles and wonder as he teaches you new things.
Alas, BeardofPants, I have a lot less to say on the subject that we have gotten into on deep sea cores and uranium dating, for I know little about these things. Because of this, I don't feel myself as capable of entering into an argument/discussion with you. Although if you wish to PM me about these things, I can only repeat that I am (obviously) interested in these subjects, and would be happy to increase my knowledge.
afro-elf
10-25-2002, 02:33 AM
Basically, Lief you accept things on Faith that I need evidence for.
If only all differences in the world could be so simple as our discussion.
Arathorn
10-25-2002, 02:51 AM
This discussion is starting to remind me about which side of the egg to crack in Gulliver's Travels to Lilliput(sp?) :)
I agree with you on that last comment, A-E.
Rûdhaglarien
10-25-2002, 08:31 AM
I'm going to be simple and answer the question stated at the beginning of this thread. Yes.
When I last went to CCD... in the... 2nd grade(?), I asked my teacher if we could discuss the difference between the theory of evolution and creation. Her answer was a resounding, "no". She then proceeded to call all scientists (and myself) heretics... yadda, yadda, yadda.... Needless to say, I finished that year and didn't return.
In any case, I believe that both sides of this should be covered. My CCD teacher was very closed minded and that's not good for her or her students. People shouldn't only be taught about creation... nor should they only be familiar with the THEORY of evolution. (Yes, it is a theory.) In order to decide what you yourself believe in, you need to familiarize yourself with both aspects of the argument.
I don't think that really made any sense, but, hey, I'm in a first period study hall, here, what do you want?
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 10:52 AM
Yes, Afro elf, I am not trying to find evidence for spiritual things, nor do I wish to. But my faith is based on more than just what it says in the Bible, as anyone else's will become if they truly do seek God and he answers. He can tell whether each person seeking him is really serious in their quest, and if they are, he will take the time to reveal himself to that person. If, however, they only seek him for a day or two, or a week, he knows they weren't truly interested anyway. I had to seek for months, although seeking him of course wasn't everything I was doing. It for me was as simple as praying that if he existed, he'd talk to me, and praying that every night.
I now know that he isn't the sort of God that simply starts a universe and then watches everything play out. You might simply say that because there isn't enough evidence to support such a claim (Which there doesn't have to be anyway), it's not worth even looking into. You could discredit the millions of Christians who have and can talk to God, live by him and who can see daily direct evidence of his existence. My own testimony is included in theirs. But if you do, you'll be making the worst mistake you can make.
I'm personally not going to really say what my opinion is on whether or not evolution should be taught in school, because I'm simply not sure. I think that it should be available to everyone who wants to learn about it, and that people of other faiths should also learn about it, at least simply to be aware of what they're saying and to be able to make opinions for themselves. However, I don't think that people should necessarily be coerced into learning about a science that they don't want to know anything about. Such people are probably making a mistake, and limiting themselves as to what kind of a career is available to them, but it should at least be their choice.
I think that there should also be a religious course it is possible to take in schools, but likewise not mandatory. Wouldn't it be easier if people everywhere wanted to increase their own knowledge?
Lizra
10-25-2002, 11:11 AM
It seems to me LE, that you wanted "God" and you wouldn't be happy till you found him, so you did. Good for you, :) It's all just a bunch of fairy tales to me though, all of them! (religions) Religions were created to explain things that people didn't understand. (IMO) As we learn more and more about how the world works, there seems to be less "need" for religion. Things change! I didn't like algebra, I wish they hadn't coerced me into studing something I didn't want to learn about and don't seem to use. Same with spanish. (I'm being sarcastic here)
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 12:26 PM
I believe, Lizra, that you're right that the religions were created to give someone the truth about something they didn't understand. But the Bible explains things on the spiritual level, less then on the physical level. God wanted people to walk with him, so he helped them to do so by revealing to them what was pertinant to such a walk. The journey of the soul, and his truth. He is concerned with souls, not his creatures' knowledge of the universe that he created. That knowledge isn't vital to where people go when they die, or the life that they lead upon earth. We can discover more and more things about the universe he created, and he's fine with that. As a matter of a fact, the more that is revealed to people about this wondrous spectacle of creation, the more he probably is pleased. Yet that is not really what is important to God, and what is really important to him is bringing cleansed souls to heaven.
I think that the interpretation that was put upon the creation story, and which has been believed for so long, could possibly be in error. I believe that creation, as the Bible says it did, did happen in the described way. But that doesn't necessarily follow that it happens in the way and the time frame that is classically taught, and evolution could have been involved. Evolution doesn't have to be contradictory to Creation, it can simply be that we are discovering, and I emphasize that it is still only be discovered, there is still a lot more to learn, it could be that we are discovering the means by which he did create. But if God is perfect, then discovering this means, though wonderful and beautiful to see, is less than the most important thing, which is you all.
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 02:22 PM
I apologize if I'm killing the discussion by bringing it more and more into the Christianity aspect. If someone wants to return to the main subject, should evolution be allowed in schools, they're more than welcome. We've discussed the Christianity side quite a lot, and we likely will more as well, but it might be a good idea to draw the debate back into focus.
BeardofPants
10-25-2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Rûdhaglarien
... nor should they only be familiar with the THEORY of evolution. (Yes, it is a theory.)
the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
[list=1]
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.[/list=1]
Starr Polish
10-25-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Coney
I presume that you are reffering to Huntingtons Corea Starr Polish?..If so, then you are very much incorrect. Huntingtons Corea is by no means a de-evolution...this genetic disease does frequently 'skip' a generation, so ensuring that the families DNA and and subsequentialy 'evolution' continues. Also tests for Huntingtons Corea are viable, therefore 100% reliable, from the age 18+.
I have my AP Bio book with me, and this is what it was to say on it (It is simply called Huntington's Disease in teh book)
Huntington's disease is a hereditary condition caused by a dominant allele that causes progressive deterioration of brain cells. It is the disorder that killed folk singer and songwriter Woody Gutrie. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 individuals develops the disorder. Becqause Huntington's disease is a dominant condition, every individual that carries an allele expresses it. You might wonder why in this case the genetic disorder doesn't die out. THe answer is that symptoms of Huntington's disease do not usually develop until the individuals are more than 30 years old, by which time most of them have already had children. For this reason, the allele is transmitted before the lethal condition develops.
It was my teacher that told me about de-evolution, I can't remember if it's actually in the book. Yeah, the book is a bit dated though...1989.
cassiopeia
10-26-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by BeardofPants
the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Thank you, BoP, I think the statement above correctly explains what a theory means in this context.
When I was at school we had an option of attending Bible class. I did because I didn't know any better. As I said, I think evolution should be taught at schools and creation should be taught in Bible class. It is no different than any other theory (theory as what BoP said) of science. You don't see people getting worked up about how Einsteins laws say we can't go faster than the speed of light or that light can be a particle and a wave.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
[list=1]
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.[/list=1]
I popped back in here to bring up another thought to consider, but since I saw this, let me address it first.
EXACTLY!!!!! I totally agree!!!!! Now let me show you how it works.
Here is a fact before me - a thing, existing in the present, that scientists have given the name "fossil". Let me examine it - how very interesting it is! Now, it looks remarkably like this thing that I have here, called a bone, that a reliable person has told me came from the jaw of a dog. I think it is reasonable to think that this fossil is an old jawbone of a dog, possibly very old indeed (or actually, not the bone itself, but you guys know that :) .
Now let me make an educated guess as to its age. I know that this element has always been observed to act in this certain way (thought that is no guarantee that it WILL continue to do so! but it is certainly a VERY reasonable assumption) so I think I will use this observable fact as an aide to make an educated guess as to its age. It will be an extrapolation, since I haven't actually observed it acting this way for thousands of years, but again, it is a reasonable thing. (but we all know how dangerous an extrapolation is, vs. the much less dangerous interpolation, which however is also not guaranteed to be accurate). OK, based on the observable facts, and using very reasonable assumptions, I will postulate the theory that this is the jawbone of a dog that is "x" years old.
See the difference? The theory is NOT the observable fact itself, it is only a reasonable (hopefully all the scientists involved in my scenario have been intelligent AND honest) thought as to what may have happened to the observable fact that is in the present.
And the thought I wanted to present : can anyone prove to me, scientifically, that (1) Darwin existed, or that (2) JRRT wrote LoTR?
BeardofPants
10-26-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by R*an
See the difference? The theory is NOT the observable fact itself, it is only a reasonable (hopefully all the scientists involved in my scenario have been intelligent AND honest) thought as to what may have happened to the observable fact that is in the present.
We are agreed then. Because I'm certainly not going to state otherwise. However, the key part of a theory is that it has been repeatedly tested to be true or false.
Now let me just work on getting some dna samples from Darwin's grave.... ;)
I'm glad we agree :)
Actually, I chose Darwin on purpose, because DNA samples would be available (I was originally going to choose Aristotle (sp?) or someone farther back). Now how would his DNA prove that he lived? And can you prove scientifically that JRRT wrote LoTR?
Well, to save time, I'll just answer myself - what I wanted to show is that there are beliefs, held by many intelligent people, that are entirely reasonable to hold, based on the written accounts of reliable witnesses that were there, and that cannot be proven using the scientific method. Would you agree? After all, maybe JRR's wife Edith really penned LoTR and just was very nice and wanted to give her husband all the credit! :D
Lizra
10-26-2002, 06:17 PM
What are you working at Rian? Yes it is very plausible that JRRT authored a book with his name on it. But many of the things in the bible are not so "easy to believe", they are downright "fantastical" miracles that no remotely modern people have ever seen, or have ever been able to recreate. That people author books is believable. That an invisble being in the sky created the entire universe in six days isn't so easy to swallow. This is too big of a "stretch" to fly in my book. I think everyone knows what we mean here by theory. One, evolution, has been bolstered by repeated scientific experimentation and research, so much so that is accepted by most people. The other, religion, has never been proven , just passed down from generation to generation as a way of explaning what was once unexplainable and also as a way of controlling others and maintaining power.
And looking back at my other post, I see that I really didn't express myself well. All I wanted to do is say that just because a theory references certain observable facts, doesn't mean that it, itself, is a fact. After all, there can be bad theories formed from good facts.
*and I see a smile on your face here - you are going to say that the theory of creation is a bad theory - and you know what, that doesn't even matter to me - my goal has been to disprove the popular notion that the theory of evolution itself is a fact, instead of a theory formulated and held by many sincere and intelligent scientists from the observation of facts. To me, that is an absolutely critical distinction.
Now can you grant to me that there are many sincere and intelligent scientists that believe in the theory of intelligent design for a model, based on observations of the same facts? I think that it would be only honest of you to do so, if you really think about it. Do you agree?
whoops - hi Lizra! You posted while I was busy trying to get my thoughts down straight. I gotta run now, kid duties call - but I'll get back to you. :)
BeardofPants
10-26-2002, 06:30 PM
Rian: Evolution itself can be proven to some extent. It is the "how" that we don't understand. We can be certain that hominids evolved; the uncertainty comes into play when we try and place together the pieces as to how they evolved.
As to your arguments that nothing can really be proven, that it all comes down to belief in some form or another... You are correct. I can not prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am not in fact part of the Red King's dream. However, it seems likely, whether or not I am part of someone elses dream, or my own, that in this existence, that evolution is probable. Heck, even a divine creation is possible... but certainly not the one given in the bible.
I used to be purely an atheist. Now I am an agnostic. Why? Because the fact of the matter is that there IS no way to prove how life began. BUT, there is compelling evidence to suggest that evolution is the key. Unlock this, and we will find the answers for the beginning of life. Until then, I'm not writing anything off.
Lizra
10-26-2002, 06:35 PM
I hate to "think" this much :D, but this type of debate is good. I get bogged down with long posts filled with quotes from other sources. (I don't read lot's of them! shhhh!) I appreciate orignal thought and input Rian. :) Thank you.
Thanks, Lizra - I'm enjoying it, too :) And how can you not believe in "fantastical" miracles? The fact that I can get several coherent sentences strung together here while 2 kids and a big hairy dog keep running thru the study is a miracle!! :D
And I really DO have a point, BoP and Lizra, which I should be able to post tonight, after said kiddos are in bed and the dog settles down. This is a complex subject, and I would like to be able to really think about and post my point in relative calm. Sorry I can't post as quickly as I'd like, but like the tortoise, I do eventually get there :) .
Lizra
10-26-2002, 09:12 PM
Hmmm, my problem is the tyrannical 6 year old, "are you done yet, MOM!!!Are you done yet, you said I could play my game , are you done yet" SCREAM! :) (I'm the one screaming) I'd love to hear your point Rian, Believe me when I say that. I have tried every way possible to go for the "Christian" line. Sometimes I'm almost jealous that I can't be one! It seems like such a simple life. How fullfiling it would be if all I had to do was read, study, and discuss with others (every Sunday) the "way to salvation and happiness". I am very good at being a "good girl"! I did it for years as a child. (and I'm doing it now of course! :) ) I have some good friends who are very Christian, they would love nothing more than to have me join them, It would be good for the children, Christians are such nice people....BUT, I am like Afro Elf, I need some sort of proof that I can sincerely believe in. To be very blunt, I can not have faith in something that deep down I think is a bunch of hooey made up by the ancients because they knew nothing, and then fanned and fired for all it's worth into a political power system. The "evolution, creation problem" is probably the #1 sticking point with me! I am not a hypocrite, therefore, I can't subscribe to the christian "faith", because I simply do not believe it. So if you can expose something new, great, "make my day"! (You are very sweet to try !
Well, going back to the subject of this thread, “Should Evolution be Taught in Schools”, I would answer: “Sure – I don’t think it’s the correct model for what we can observe, but it is a model with some good points, so go ahead. But I ask you to have integrity and refer to it as a theory, not a fact. And I also would ask you to present any other reasonable models that are out there, such as creation by intelligent design (you don’t even need to mention the God of the Christian faith), which is also a model with some good points, to be fair to the students. And please present the applicable scientific evidence in an unbiased way.”
So, one more time, what I’ve been trying to show on this thread is that (1)the theory of evolution is not in itself a fact, but (2)it is a theory about some facts (just like creation by intelligent design). This may seem like a small thing, but it’s not, because the ramifications involved are HUGE! (The word “not”, which is a small word, may be in a very long sentence with lots of big words, but take it out, and there are big ramifications too!!) And I have seen several posts that come out and say that the theory of evolution is indeed a fact. I hope that they will honestly and logically consider what I have posted here in this thread.
And “what I’m working at” is this - phrase #(1) says that there is NO intelligent design behind creation, while phrase #(2) admits that intelligent design IS a possibility (again, as I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, I’m not dealing with the theory of Theistic evolution – if you accept that, even though I think it’s wrong, at least you are open to the possibility of the existence of God.) So if you really think the theory of evolution is absolute fact or truth, as opposed to a theory, however reasonable a theory, then you will never even consider an alternative theory, however reasonable it may be. And you will not even take time for a rational and serious consideration of the question “Is there a God? And if so, what does that mean for me?” And that would be tragic.
As a Christian, I believe in absolute truth, and that the absolute truth is with the God of the Bible. (BTW, the whole “buffet-line” approach to “religion” (well, that religion is good for them, and I kinda like this one for now, but maybe I’ll change to another one later) is actually the belief that there is no absolute truth.) And, as I stated earlier, as a Christian, I believe that every person is a created being of GREAT worth, and that’s why I’ve taken the time to post here – to present some information that will at least take away a barrier to your considering the very important question mentioned above.
I’m sorry I can’t address here the many logical reasons for accepting the Christian faith as the truth – that would really be outside the scope of this thread! Besides, if I could convince you guys in a few posts, then there wouldn’t be much to the Christian faith, would there? But I will be glad to discuss this issue off-line with anyone who is interested via email or PM.
Thanks so much everyone who has thoughtfully considered these issues, and you guys are in my prayers (whether you like it or not!! :D )
Very Sincerely, R*an (aka Sharon :) )
Originally posted by Lizra
[B]Hmmm, my problem is the tyrannical 6 year old, "are you done yet, MOM!!!Are you done yet, you said I could play my game , are you done yet" SCREAM! :) (I'm the one screaming)
LOL! Especially the part about YOU screaming! That was funny (and all too often true.... :D)
... It seems like such a simple life. How fullfiling it would be if all I had to do was read, study, and discuss with others (every Sunday) the "way to salvation and happiness". OMGoodness, no wonder you aren't a Christian!! How terribly unfulfilling that sounds!!!! The Christian life is the most difficult thing around (for one of the major issues it addresses is the sin in our lives, which we are really very attached to and don't want to give up), and yet the most fulfilling. Just like a marriage is so much more difficult than just dating, but so much more deeper and fulfilling!
I am very good at being a "good girl"! I did it for years as a child. (and I'm doing it now of course! :) )
How depressing it is to be good with no relationship involved - Christians are "good" (when they are good, which certainly doesn't happen as much as they would like, at least in my case :D) because they obey the reasonable and beneficial rules set out by God out of a love for God. Like a child with good and loving parents who obeys the reasonable and beneficial rules that they set down that are for her good - it is joyful.
I have some good friends who are very Christian, they would love nothing more than to have me join them, It would be good for the children, Christians are such nice people....
ARG! Christians are nice, Christians are obnoxious, Christians are smart, Christians are not so smart ... they are real people that believe in the absolute truths expressed in the Bible and act on that belief. But the amazing thing about them is that they, if they are truly seeking God's ways, are improving - God makes permanant changes in Christians from the inside out, not just temporary surface fixes. And that's so wonderful!
BUT, I am like Afro Elf, I need some sort of proof that I can sincerely believe in. To be very blunt, I can not have faith in something that deep down I think is a bunch of hooey made up by the ancients because they knew nothing, and then fanned and fired for all it's worth into a political power system. The "evolution, creation problem" is probably the #1 sticking point with me! I am not a hypocrite, therefore, I can't subscribe to the christian "faith", because I simply do not believe it. So if you can expose something new, great, "make my day"! (You are very sweet to try ! I'm so glad you're not a hypocrite, it is so hard to talk to one! Shall we continue in emails? I hope the admins aren't too mad at me by now, but I was addressing the points in a post, and I'd be glad to pull it off-line (I'd also be glad to keep talking in this thread, if they'll let me :) )
(darn double posts - computer is slower than molasses now :mad: )
cassiopeia
10-27-2002, 01:33 AM
I see what you are saying, and it is reasonable, but I think its more 'plausible' that evolution occured and that we are not created by some divine being. I have given this matter a lot of thought since this thread came up - I even borrowed a book to read, even though I have exams coming up. :rolleyes: I, too, am an agnostic - I don't believe that you can prove the existence of God. You can never prove anything in science, so we will never prove that evolution does occur. But there is so much evidence for evolution that I cannot see any other way. I really wish that there was a God and that He created us as special and intelligent beings - but I really can't swallow it. The scientist in me says "No, there is a simpler explanation, you don't need a divine being." I actually just read some scientific facts that may be interpreted as the universe was created by a devine being. But that would not be good for my argument (although I could problably refute them). :D
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 01:34 AM
Lizra, I can completely understand your feelings, your need to have something firm to believe in and not some "faith." I can understand Afro elf's reasons too, and both of you are making sense. And I can tell you, it was exactly the same way with my Dad before he became a Christian, and I also needed badly some evidence of God's existence, although it was different for me then it was for my Dad and you two.
Let me tell you now, God can understand this need for a basis of faith. You can't simply have faith in something and hope it's there. For you to have faith, you need to have some reason to believe that God exists, and he can understand that.
My Dad needed that too. He's a mathmetician and an educated scientist, just for the record ;). He didn't believe that God existed for a long time, but then he became a little smarter and realized that his own judgement was a human judgement, and therefore fallible. He prayed that God would prove his existence to him, if he did exist. So my Dad prayed that the Lord would show him his existence by some real evidence. I'm not sure how my Dad would feel about my describing what he prayed for. But Dad set a time limit on its happening as well, to give him added evidence, so that a year or so from then he wouldn't be wondering whether he'd be answered or not.
God answered his prayer, and he brought my Dad to himself. Now he is a Christian, and he has a reason to have faith. His faith has a reason for existing, and my Dad walks with the Lord.
I myself was sent an emptiness that couldn't be filled, and I realized that that emptiness was a need for God. I prayed that God would fill it, and the Lord answered my prayer and touched my heart, and spoke to me, and I heard his voice.
And I have a reason for my faith, and I believe.
Christianity is an experiential religion, for God wants us to believe in him, not simply hope in him. Those people who haven't encountered him but call themselves Christian merely hope. Those who have come to know him believe.
I can completely understand any of you having trouble believing in something for which there is no evidence, and the only evidence for Christianity's truth is the eye witness reports, and the personal testimonies. I also am completely willing to email any of you on this subject and others.
Lizra
10-27-2002, 01:36 AM
Rian, we can continue in our emails, we've gone too off topic. :) LE thank you for the insight!
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 01:48 AM
Cassiopeia, I just read your post; I was writing my last one as you sent it. Evolution really isn't against Christianity. I don't know whether I believe it or disbelieve it, but I do believe in the loving God that you wish existed. The manner in which he created all things is less important, really, although it can be exciting to find out, if we can find it out. That really is all that evolution is, is a theory, or near fact, or whatever anyone wants to call it, of how God created all things. The difference in belief is simply whether he used that method to create all things, whether he did it some other way, or whether everything just sprang into being without a God.
I don't believe that science can ever possibly find any sort of solution as to why matter or anything at all exists. Matter and everything that physically exists has to have come from somewhere, it can't simply, by science, have always been, in one form or another. At the beginning there has to have been something/someone to start everything, and create the first matter. That spark cannot have been from some weird variety of chemicals, for these chemicals would have had to have come from somewhere, and so on.
This point of view is possibly arguable, I suppose, but I personally don't see how. Perhaps one of you readers of this thread will be interested in clashing with this idea of a necessary 'divine breath.' But I don't see how you can think that something can have always existed.
cassiopeia
10-27-2002, 02:02 AM
I do have some problem imagining the Big Bang - the creation of the universe. How could all this matter around us be not there and then suddenly something happens and particles and energy are created. I would prefer that the universe is static, but the envidence is that it is not. But does this imply a God? I don't think that anyone will ever find the anwer to this, but it's fun to ponder! (I think we are going way OT here :D )
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 03:10 AM
I personally am of the belief that it does imply a divine origin, because everything has to come from somewhere, including the particles that started the Big Bang, if it happened (Which, for the record, I don't believe it did). Something can't come from nothing, no matter what that something is, or what form it takes. The Creator, on the other hand, doesn't have to come from something, because he doesn't follow the laws of science and matter, but rather was the one who made them.
Well, we can all have our own opinions on that topic though, and a few of us might even have opinions on the making of the universe :eek: . You're right, the Big Bang is rather far afield from "Should evolution be allowed in schools?" :) It should probably have its own topic.
afro-elf
10-27-2002, 03:11 AM
BH once had a post that said SOMETHING like this
You can't prove anything. the best you can do is gather a ponderance of evidence and make an assumption
Science is the an endeavor based on it. Faith or me is similar to what ambrose pierce wrote:
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Of course it is a sarcastic remark but you get the point
I was not trying to offend with the above
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 03:32 AM
No offense is taken.
Here's my definition of faith in God:
You believe that God exists, that he acts, that he is loving, and that he knows best.
This is my belief:
Faith comes with knowledge, and it is very difficult, or well nigh impossible to gain this faith without having some reason to believe. Some people perhaps are able to have faith without knowledge, but I call this hope rather than faith, even if they call it faith.
I believe that faith begins when God divinely reveals his existence to you. I believe that faith comes only when you have a basis, or reason for belief, and that God is willing to supply an individual with that reason. God wants people to rest on him, and to come to know him intimitely. His will is perfect and righteous, and because of this, he wants all people to follow his will. He loves each individual dearly and wants all the world to come to know and believe in him.
afro-elf
10-27-2002, 03:35 AM
But that kind of Knowledge is qualitative not quantitative.
I was there once and it was my need to believe.
I gotta run sorry I can't post more
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 12:57 PM
The proof of God's existence may be qualitative to the outsider. I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists, for trying to accomplish such a thing would be impossible. God wants Christians to have faith anyway, and if it was possible to prove his existence, then there would be no reason for such faith, you could simply scientifically know. Science seeks to discover all that it can about ecology, nature, the cosmos, etc. Science seeks to understand what exists and the way it works.
Christians believe, therefore, that science seeks to understand more about God's creation. God made things, and he probably made things so that they are largely self supportive. Although I could be wrong on that one.
I'm not attempting to prove to any of you that God exists. Science doesn't go against Christianity. For quite some time I thought that it did, but now that I've been introduced to this thread it has been shown to me just how lacking the evidences science has against God are. Science can give explanations for things, and show, perhaps, some small amount of how God made things. It is very interesting research, and I applaud the pursuit of science. But simply because you know, or have evidence to believe that this is the way that God made things . . . that doesn't follow that he wasn't the creator, but is a superstitious belief held by the ignorant and protected by ignorance.
It says in the Bible: "Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you." God answers those who seek him, and reveals himself to them. Then the evidence becomes quantitative to that believer, and they can have faith.
Lizra
10-27-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
"I'm not attempting to prove to any of you that God exists. Science doesn't go against Christianity. For quite some time I thought that it did, but now that I've been introduced to this thread it has been shown to me just how lacking the evidences science has against God are. Science can give explanations for things, and show, perhaps, some small amount of how God made things. "
How God made things!? That is your opinion. Science can show how things are made, you put the "God" part in! :)
" It is very interesting research, and I applaud the pursuit of science. But simply because you know, or have evidence to believe that this is the way that God made things"
Once again, The God part doesn't fit in here.
. . ." that doesn't follow that he wasn't the creator, "
It also doesn't follow that he was, so nothing is realized here.
"but is a superstitious belief held by the ignorant and protected by ignorance. "
I not sure what you are saying here, my first reaction is to think this is a good description of religion, but I doubt that was what you were inferring!
"It says in the Bible: "Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you." God answers those who seek him, and reveals himself to them. Then the evidence becomes quantitative to that believer, and they can have faith. "
If you veiw the bible as fiction, then this gives you nothing, just another "heavy" statement.
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 03:57 PM
Lizra, I think that from your response it is safe to say that you missed the point of what I was saying.
You're quite right in most of your objections to what I was saying, you simply weren't realizing that you and I weren't disagreeing.
I was speaking of God from the Christian standpoint when I said that science shows some things of what God did when he created. I am completely aware that science doesn't say God existed.
When I said it doesn't follow that he was the creator, I am completely aware that it also doesn't show he was. I believe that I actually said myself in that same post you were quoting from, "I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists, for trying to accomplish such a thing would be impossible. God wants Christians to have faith anyway, and if it was possible to prove his existence, then there would be no reason for such faith, you could simply scientifically know. Science seeks to discover all that it can fabout ecology, nature, the cosmos, etc. Science seeks to understand what exists and the way it works."
I know that many people do hold the view that Christianity and other religions are all superstitions held by the ignorant and protected by ignorance. I have already asserted and maintained that science doesn't and cannot prove Christianity, for Christianity gets into the spiritual realm and morals and other things that science isn't and cannot cover in the manner that it is.
Now please listen to this example, and see if you understand what I'm trying to say.
If you want to dig a hole to plant a flower bed, and you also want to build a car, then you would go to the store at which you can get each set of tools. You would go to a technical store to get your mechanical equipment for the car and then you would go to a planting oriented store to get your shovel and seeds. Science cannot go to the technical store for a shovel and seeds, which is what it's trying to do with Christianity. Of course there will be a lacking of evidence!
The only way to get your evidence is to go down to the flower store and get your seeds and your shovel there. Then go and see if you can plant with this, rather than the car construction tools. That is what I am encouraging you all to do. We all agree that science doesn't prove or disprove Christianity, for obviously it cannot be used for such a purpose. However, simply because you cannot dig a hole and plant flowers using car equipment, don't give up all together! The gardener is offering every person the tools. God wants every person to come to know him, and he is waiting for people to turn to him and to ask if he exists.
Lizra
10-27-2002, 04:15 PM
I see what your saying, but I don't feel it's totally logical. Yes, you need the proper tools to do a job. But if the "job" is a make believe ideal, (this so called" spiritual realm", nice words, means nothing), then the logic of the statement looses its meaning for me. An apples to apples thing I guess. I'm not sure what you mean when you say science cannot go for the shovel and seeds. Science disproves "miracles" (for me). I can not think of one "honest to God" :) miracle that has been documented in modern times. Yet it is common place in the Bible. Why don't you believe the black and gold books of all the other religions? Well, I'm glad you believe and it works for you. I need realistic proof. Therefore, I think evolution should be taught in schools, and shudder when it isn't .
Starr Polish
10-27-2002, 05:18 PM
Most ofthe Christians on this board have said what I wanted to say, in a much more eloquent way :).
I agree with Rian, TRUE Christianity is very, very hard. Saying you believe in God and Jesus doesn't mean :poof: your life is all happy because God is with you. Since I've become Christian I've had some of the worst trials in my life, including 9-11, and having to overcome some personal issues as well. There are so many things that I want to hold onto and I try to convince myself that they aren't sins, but I know (in my heart of hearts) that they are. It's incredibly frustrating!
Oh my goodness, so many good posts here today and I'm WAY too tired to post on anything but easy subjects! (see venting thread for reason why I'm tired.... :) ) I'll check in again as soon as I'm less tired.
BTW, Lizra (and others :) ), I wish you could have been with me in church today - great sermon - I think it would have blown some of your ideas about Christianity away. It was on Luke chapter 7, verses 36 thru 50. Check it out, if you want to, and we can continue thru emails! :)
Originally posted by Starr Polish
I agree with Rian, TRUE Christianity is very, very hard. Saying you believe in God and Jesus doesn't mean :poof: your life is all happy because God is with you. Since I've become Christian I've had some of the worst trials in my life, including 9-11, and having to overcome some personal issues as well. There are so many things that I want to hold onto and I try to convince myself that they aren't sins, but I know (in my heart of hearts) that they are. It's incredibly frustrating!
Yes, the hardest thing you can ever do in your life, in many ways, but so incredibly, INCREDIBLY the right thing and the best thing! Absolutely no doubt! Lief is right - it is experiential, too. God doesn't ask you to have a blind faith in the sense of checking your brain at the door, but rather to make a reasonable step of faith after serious examination of the topic. And once you're in - Wow.
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
I see what your saying, but I don't feel it's totally logical. Yes, you need the proper tools to do a job. But if the "job" is a make believe ideal, (this so called" spiritual realm", nice words, means nothing), then the logic of the statement looses its meaning for me. An apples to apples thing I guess. I'm not sure what you mean when you say science cannot go for the shovel and seeds. Science disproves "miracles" (for me). I can not think of one "honest to God" :) miracle that has been documented in modern times. Yet it is common place in the Bible. Why don't you believe the black and gold books of all the other religions?
The reason that science cannot go for the shovel and seeds should be obvious. We're talking about a spiritual realm here, not one that can be proven or disproven. It is something outside of science, and thus must be come to with a different process. There is no way that science can show that such a thing exists or doesn't exist; it would be like trying to plant a garden with technical equipment for constructing a car. Science doesn't disprove miracles. It cannot say yes or no to miracles, but it leaves no likelihood that they should happen. It is a mistake to say that because nothing has been observed in science that can cause a miracle, they cannot happen.
I can fully understand your saying that if this spiritual realm is only nice words, the example cannot work. I can see that you have to have some evidence before believing in something, and all that I am trying to do now is encourage you to go to the place from which you can find that evidence. The place where I and every other Christian who knows God found their evidence: God himself.
In all of the other religions, you have to seek God, and it is usually a search that takes years for you to come close to ascending to his level. Christianity is the only religion where God reaches down to us. And rather than taking years of study, revelation can come the very same day that you ask for it. There are few things that God wants for us to have before we come to him, and these are them: We have to have a sincere desire for the truth, we have to be willing to pray, and we have to be willing to go by his time frame, not our own.
The reason I believe in Christianity was originally because I was brought up that way. That's something I expect most of you can understand. For a long time, I believed simply because of that, and because I believed my parents' accounts. However, my reason for believing changed when I encountered God myself, and heard his voice.
Finally, about miracles again. I have already demonstrated that science doesn't disprove miracles, but simply says that the likelihood of their happening is nonexistent unless some outside influence causes them. If you want accounts of modern day miracles, I can describe to you several books you would be interested in reading. If you want me to list to you some of that material, ask me and I will. R*an probably could also give you some good suggestions as far as those, I expect.
afro-elf
10-27-2002, 09:37 PM
But you are begging the question with your faith.
Lizra
10-27-2002, 10:27 PM
Sorry LE, You are talking in circles,
The only way you can believe in God, is to believe in God, so believe in God and you will believe in God.
azalea
10-27-2002, 11:19 PM
I don't mean to change the subject, but I'm wondering if the agnostics/ atheists think the universe is infinite, and if not, what is at the end? (And don't say "a restaurant!") If this was covered in a similar thread, feel free to ignore this post!:)
Lief Erikson
10-27-2002, 11:32 PM
No, no, no, no, no. I'm not talking in circles. If I've been too verbose to be understood, I apologize.
I'm saying that science cannot prove or disprove Christianity, and if you want it to be proved or disproved for yourself, you have to be willing to look for the truth. You don't have to believe that God exists to ask him if he does exist. So, let's say you don't believe that he exists. But you know your judgement is fallible so you ask him if he exists, and he answers you and says that yes, he does exist. Now you believe that he exists, because you've heard him speak. So now you can have faith.
Is that plainer?
Afro elf, I'm not trying to convince anyone with my faith, I'm simply pointing out the existence of many witnesses, that they might not all be liars, and that if they're not, then Christianity might be something that's worth exploring.
Azalea, there is a theory that connects with the theory of the Big Bang. In that one, everything will stretch to a limit and then gravity pull everything together again, pulling all matter to a point and causing the destruction of everything, and possibly the spreading out of everything again. There might be newer theories.
azalea
10-28-2002, 12:09 AM
I just wonder what they say is beyond that limit.
Lief Erikson
10-28-2002, 12:44 AM
You know what, I'm a Christian, and I don't have any idea what's outside of the universe either. Or if there is an outside of the universe; you know, explorers of old thought that the earth must have an edge. Now we know that that isn't true. It could be the same with the universe, although of course that's entirely just an idea, nothing more. What do you think is beyond the universe?
afro-elf
10-28-2002, 01:24 AM
Yes, I understand you are not trying to convince us;however, you are still beging the question.
But this conversation will not evolve pass this point so we can just nip it here.
As far as the end maybe nothing but void.
Lief Erikson
10-28-2002, 01:52 AM
I'm not trying to argue with you either. You know what, Afro elf, Lizra, Cassiopeia, some of your posts here have implied, particularly for Lizra and Cassiopeia, that you want to believe in a loving God such as the Christians believe. You also want to know the truth. This is the largest assumption I have been making in all of my posts here, discussing Christianity and science. I've been assuming that you want to know the truth (Not necessarily only Christian truth), but you want to know what is really true. You, I am also assuming, don't necessarily believe that you have complete truth already. This truth that you lack can be scientific, spiritual, whatever, but I'm assuming that you know that you could be mistaken in what you believe, and you are open to truth that you don't know already.
I haven't been trying to win an argument, here. What I have been trying to do is answer all questions that are asked, questions that might impede you from coming to truth. What I have been trying to do is give you pointers that will guide you in this search for truth, and I hope that your searches will be successful, and that each of your different paths will finally lead you to God.
Some of you might be becoming rather tired of this long deviation from the main topic here, which is "Should evolution be allowed in schools?". This topic, I believe, was a very controversial one from the start, and naturally would lead to all sorts of tangents. So it has.
But now I think we had best return to the main topic. If any of you wants to email me about what we have recently been discussing, or has any further questions, PM me and I will give you my email address and we can continue from there. And whether you do this or not, whether you listen to what I have said or ignore it (Which is your choice, naturally), you are all in my prayers. God bless you.
afro-elf
10-28-2002, 02:02 AM
Once again lief its been nice to carry on this discussion with the bashing that tends to happen.
I just find your "ways of knowing the truth" suspect and I am sure you feel mine are two.
again if only all "disagreements be so easy
Originally posted by afro-elf
Yes, I understand you are not trying to convince us;however, you are still beging the question.
A-E, just on a side note, this is kinda silly, but I've never really understood the phrase "begging the question". Could you please explain to me what you mean by that phrase, because I really don't understand. (or just reword your comment so that I can understand it) (BTW, since I've seen you on the "grammar, punct. etc" thread, I assume you meant "begging", not "beging" :D :D ) (no offense intended :) )
Treebeard's apprentice
10-28-2002, 01:41 PM
Begging the question, used in the sense of logical arguments, is when you use a premise that is the same as your conclusion. Basically you end up talking in circles.
Lief Erikson
10-28-2002, 03:36 PM
Aha, is that what it means???
I actually didn't know either ;).
Well, I could respond to that easily enough, I expect, but I don't know how many of you are truly interested in continuing along this tangent.
Oh, ok - thanks, TBA. :) So basically "you have not offered a valid solution to the problem"?
What a funny expression - I wonder where it came from.
So A-E, is that what you meant?
afro-elf
10-28-2002, 07:11 PM
BTW, since I've seen you on the "grammar, punct. etc" thread, I assume you meant "begging", not "beging" ) (no offense intended
none taken, I am quite aware of my many culpabilities.
Begging the question can mean arguing in cirlces
or assuming the antecedent
Example"
The bible is the word of God.
How do you know.
Because the bible says
And how do you know that bible is correct?
Because of God....
Aeryn
10-28-2002, 07:21 PM
Lief,
You said something about the end of the galaxy, or universe (?). Scientists sent some space robot (or whatever they send into space) that takes pictures for VERY long distance. Anyway, they said that they KNOW where the end of THIS galaxy is, BUT there is some sort of "ice-belt" that seemingly keeps "outside" things from coming in and insdie things coming out (very simplified, sorry, I can't find the newspaper article on the net, so this is completely from memory). If that is what you are talking about.
oh, ok, that's helpful - I really did not know what that expression meant - thanks, A-E :)
Well, I think I'm about done here. I'd like to comment on one thing that A-E said, though, but not until tonight, when I can get some quiet time (or possibly tomorrow - just remembered I'm babysitting my little niece tonight - my 3 kids plus 1 more - one will be bound to have some problems with something! :D ) It's been very enjoyable talking with you, people, and I'll try to get my post out soon, for anyone that is interested.
cassiopeia
10-29-2002, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by azalea
I don't mean to change the subject, but I'm wondering if the agnostics/ atheists think the universe is infinite, and if not, what is at the end? (And don't say "a restaurant!") If this was covered in a similar thread, feel free to ignore this post!:)
The universe is probably not infinite. I don't have time to post the reasons but you can read it in any good astronomy book. I like the idea the the universe is closed and that if you keep going in one direction you will get back to where you have started. I really think it is meaningless to talk about what is outside the universe, because we will never know.
Aeryn, I'm sorry to say this, but I think your ideas are very mixed up. There is an ice belt outside our solar system. I really don't know what you mean. We know what is outside our galaxy: billions and billions of other galaxies.
Lief Erikson
10-29-2002, 07:29 PM
Doesn't that make one feel small? :)
Afro elf, I think you'll have to explain better what your problem is with what I've been saying, if you want me to be able to respond to it.
And about the thing you posted about the Bible . . . It is called the Word of God for a reason. Both because it is true, and also because the Lord can still speak through it. It isn't simply because the Bible says that it's the Word of God that we believe it is; it's because God still talks through those words of the past to speak to us in the present. Hearing him talk through his Word is another spiritual experience, but I think whoever wrote up that circular argument had the facts wrong, or didn't quite know what they were talking about.
Cirdan
10-29-2002, 09:39 PM
Science is thinking without beleiving.
Religion is beleiving without thinking.
Neither state is maintainable.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 01:45 AM
You know what, I don't think you've read most of what has been posted so far.
OK, folks, here's my thoughts - it will probably take 2 or 3 posts (darn length limit!), so hang in there!
After reading some of the comments out there along the lines of “well, I just can’t believe something that I can’t prove”, etc., it made me think about some things, and I’ll try to express my thoughts to you guys now, because a few of you seemed interested in things that I had to say. This may take a couple of posts, because I thought a lot about it, and it’s kinda long, but I hope you can hang in there and get through it all.
See, you people that posted like that, I think that after you read these things that you will no longer be able to honestly say that, basically, the only worthwhile truths are those that can be proven in a lab. You see, only a subset of the truth is measurable in a lab. Does that mean the truths that are measurable in a lab are the only ones that exist? No, it just means that there are truths that exist that cannot be measured in ways that you would like them to be. They are not measurable, but they are discoverable.
For example, someone that recently posted in this thread posted just a few days ago in the venting thread about how terrible the whole Washington area sniper thing was. Now why is it terrible? It is because the TRUTH is that people are beings of great worth. This person was reacting against the great injustice done to the victims and their friends and family by the sniper. Why didn’t I see a post like “well, good – one less person to consume valuable, measurable resources!”? (Now there are unbalanced people out there that would seriously say that, but the mere fact that we would consider them unbalanced I think supports my point.) Can we measure the victims’ worth by measuring the amount of blood that they lost?
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
Also, there is a thread here called “did anyone else shed a tear” in the Middle Earth forum (or something like that). Why don’t I see posts like this: “I tell you, when I read about the distance between Gondor and Rohan, I really choke up. And when I think about the part where Gandalf falls into the abyss - OMGoodness, to think that I could calculate his velocity along various parts of his path of descent (always assuming an initial velocity of 0, which, however, may not be the case, and that really worries me) – that really brings tears to my eyes.” In other words, the things that we appreciate in Tolkien’s work are very real – because we ourselves have experienced them – things like love, honesty, courage, etc. (and sadly, things like treachery, cruelty, etc.). It is TRUE that they exist.
Now let me say that I think that I am probably very similar to many people that have posted here – I skipped a grade because I was so bored in class, I went to all the AP classes, took calculus in high school, etc. – and I never could understand why the teacher would explain things more than once – it was always perfectly clear to me the first time! In high school, I got into the whole Star Trek Mr. Spock thing – logic ruled! If you couldn’t explain anything scientifically, why, it was worthless!
I thank God that he saved me from that (please hang in a little longer, people!) You see, truths that you can measure are only a subset of the truths in the world, and an extremely cold and unfulfilling subset, at that. I know; I lived in it for many years, even after I became a Christian. But people – you come out of it all the time, you know – and those are your best times! (but sadly, also your most painful). Remember the joys of making a new friend? How wonderful to share your thoughts, or just even hang out and do nothing, with someone that likes and understands you! Then perhaps they betrayed you to “be friends” with someone that was more popular. You had very real (and TRUE in the sense that they are real) feelings of rejection and sorrow. Could you measure those feelings? Perhaps by counting the tears as they fell? You know, the Bible says that God keeps track of our tears, and that He is always faithful and will never betray us. Now, “not betraying” does not mean that He will give Christians the life that we think is best, but rather the life that He knows is best, which sometimes includes sorrowful things. However, many good and deep things are wrought in our souls through sorrow, when we turn to Him, and He is with us every step of the way.
(continued in the next post)
(continued from previous post)
Anyway, all this to say that please don’t believe the lie that the only truth out there, or the only truth worth knowing or basing a belief on, is to be found in a lab. Please consider asking God to show you if He is indeed real (and I mean REALLY ask Him, and continue to ask - not just throw out a flippant prayer). God does not ask you for a non-thinking faith – that would be worthless! - but one decided on by a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence, both measurable and non-measurable (e.g., you can look at the Bible in terms of its accuracy as a valid piece of ancient literature – it’s in a class by itself – no other piece comes close! In addition, you can consider the truth about the existence of moral values in people, and what that means). The Bible says those who seek Him shall find Him. And I tell you, it is worth the world to find Him. Please feel free to PM me with any comments or questions. Thanks again for such thoughtful and polite posts, I’ve really appreciated them. If you don’t feel comfortable PM-ing me, some good books that I would recommend are Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.
And let me close with this thought and then a quote from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, by C.S. Lewis. The scientific world may feel safe to you, but because it does not deal with the whole truth, it is not safe. Indeed, it will betray you at the end. God is truth, and the whole truth is with him, and He is there for the finding, if you truly seek Him.
In this passage, the people are talking about Aslan, who is how Lewis imagined Christ would appear in the world of Narnia. “Ooh!” said Susan, … “Is he – quite safe?” … “Safe? said Mr. Beaver. … Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”
God wants to bless you all - please let Him.
Cirdan
10-30-2002, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You know what, I don't think you've read most of what has been posted so far.
You would be wrong there. It wasn't meant as an insult, if that is the way you are taking it. I posted extensively on this in the "Theist" and Anti-Theist" threads. The point is that pure faith is about belief, but without doubt it would be servitude. Pure science is about rational thought based on fact, but without inspiration it would be dogma without innovation. These goals (pure thought and pure faith), however, are the necessary foundations of each system.
Earniel
10-30-2002, 06:12 AM
I've been thinking (yes, I tend to do that from time to time) and wondering. R*an and Lief, you've been telling how you both found god. I take it that was a personal experience but yet both of you (correct me if I'm wrong here) also seem to uphold the bible as the word of god. How can you be sure? The bible has been 'copied' for centuries by men and men are fallible. Do you really believe that what is written in the bible really happened that way? And further, how is the bible different from say, the greek myths? I know I'm deviating from the original topic, but I'm interested.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 11:22 AM
Ah yes, I was going to respond to that antecedent of Afro elf's, but my computer started glitching up in errors and I never sent my post.
One important thing to note about the Bible is its name. It is called the Word of God, and that isn't simply a Word that God spoke to people in the past, centuries ago.
So here is where I'd deviate from the loopty loop that was posted with that question. On the second answer. We don't believe that it's the Word of God because it says so in the Bible, but rather because of a spiritual experience which is hearing God speak through it. He speaks through the Bible more than any other book. The only other books that I've occasionally heard him speak through are devotional books, because those contain a good deal of truth, and sometimes God sends a message to a person through him. But the Bible is a living Word, and what he said in the past he speaks in the future as well, applied to all sorts of situation.
I'm not simply saying that because it says "Do not steal," in the past you shouldn't steal in the present. I mean he can speak through passages more directly, like to say: "Do your schoolwork today, and don't be such a pain to your parents."
He knows his book through and through, and if you're seeking an answer, you might open the Bible and the next second be looking straight at the answer.
Because of these spiritual experiences, we know it to be his living Word, speaking now and always. And if it is speaking now and always, we can assume that things like the story of David and Goliath aren't make believe, and aren't simple mythology. The contents of the book are important, and I don't think that God would speak through a book that was primarily a lie, or a fantasy.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Cirdan
You would be wrong there. It wasn't meant as an insult, if that is the way you are taking it. I posted extensively on this in the "Theist" and Anti-Theist" threads. The point is that pure faith is about belief, but without doubt it would be servitude. Pure science is about rational thought based on fact, but without inspiration it would be dogma without innovation. These goals (pure thought and pure faith), however, are the necessary foundations of each system.
I didn't take what you said as an insult. But one thing you should note is that faith isn't based upon belief, but is based upon the knowledge that God exists. If he reveals himself to you, then you have reason to have faith. God understands our need for evidence, and doesn't call us to believe in him without reason. Besides, he wants to have a personal relationship with each person, and how can you have such a thing when you don't even know that God exists? Thus, pure faith does have a basis of knowledge, and if you know that God exists and know something of his loving nature, then you can trust him.
So basically the main point that I'm disagreeing with is the "Christianity is belief without thought," concept.
by Lief
So basically the main point that I'm disagreeing with is the "Christianity is belief without thought," concept.
Absolutely!!!! That is the point that I have been trying to show is not valid, too.
whoops, 3 negatives contained in those phrases - NO, Christianity is NOT belief WITHOUT thought - let me rephrase -
Christianity is a belief entered into after much rational thinking and evaluation of evidence, both measurable and non-measurable (such as the undeniable existence of moral values in all people). God does NOT ask us for a brainless faith.
That's a great question, Eärniel - I'll get to it w/in a couple of days - sorry I can't sooner. As always, good, thoughtful questions take a lot of time to answer well, and with 3 small kids I just can't get time every day for thoughtful posts (although I can do lots of quick, fun ones!) (because I am a Christian, I believe that the moral code that God set out is not only right but also good, and one of the highest priorities for parents is to take care of their children). Now I know that Lief doesn't have kids :D and he might be able to get to you sooner!
Cirdan
10-30-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I didn't take what you said as an insult. But one thing you should note is that faith isn't based upon belief, but is based upon the knowledge that God exists. If he reveals himself to you, then you have reason to have faith. God understands our need for evidence, and doesn't call us to believe in him without reason. Besides, he wants to have a personal relationship with each person, and how can you have such a thing when you don't even know that God exists? Thus, pure faith does have a basis of knowledge, and if you know that God exists and know something of his loving nature, then you can trust him.
So basically the main point that I'm disagreeing with is the "Christianity is belief without thought," concept.
Even the statementy that faith is based on the knowledge of God is a statement of faith. Rational and logical don't make truth. The term "rationalizing" doesn't mean finding the truth. It means building a set of justifications. You can say you know God but cannot prove it. Yes, I've seen the posts about proof. They are flawed as well. "Knowing God exists" is a logically flawed way of saying "beleiving God exists". If you are less secure in your faith by admitting this then that is only human. Also I said "religion" not Christianity, so don't short-change the other faiths. I was pointing out that faith is the basis of religion, but CANNOT exist without thought. You are not reading my posts clearly.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 03:21 PM
I did recognize, actually, that you were talking about other religions besides Christianity. But Christianity is the one that I have been discussing. I can discuss the others too.
Some of the other religions are simple beliefs, based entirely on faith, and for which there isn't even any proof to the individual that is believing in them. Some of the other religions actually do get in touch with the spiritual, but Jesus in the Bible says that he is the Way. There isn't another way to access God except through him, and that implies that these other religions lead to access to the spiritual outside of God. The Bible states the existence of such religions, like when it describes the 'miracles' that the Egyptians could do when confronting Moses. Other people who belong to such experiential religions would also testify to the spiritual truth that they find, and which Christians believe to be frequently deception.
Cirdan, as for your other statements about belief and faith, all I can say is that you're wrong. If someone simply believes God exists, then their faith isn't based upon knowledge. A statement that faith comes from knowledge isn't a statement of faith, it's a statement of knowledge.
Let's say you meet someone named Robert, and then you go home and tell your sister about it. She says, "How do you know that you met Robert? That's a statement of faith."
You know you met Robert. You heard his voice, talked with him, encountered him in a way that couldn't be anything other than meeting Robert. Of course, there's not a single way you can prove to your sister that you met Robert, unless you take her to go and meet him too. And if Robert is a really wonderful person, then you might really want her to get to know him.
That is what I am trying to get across to you, Cirdan. If I meet God, you can't simply say that I have faith that I met God. It's an experience, and it's a real experience. Knowing God exists and believing that he exists are two completely different things. And those Christians who admit to not knowing him, but actually only believing he exists, well their faith isn't based upon knowledge, but as you say, upon belief.
Cirdan
10-30-2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I did recognize, actually, that you were talking about other religions besides Christianity. But Christianity is the one that I have been discussing. I can discuss the others too.
Some of the other religions are simple beliefs, based entirely on faith, and for which there isn't even any proof to the individual that is believing in them. Some of the other religions actually do get in touch with the spiritual, but Jesus in the Bible says that he is the Way. There isn't another way to access God except through him, and that implies that these other religions lead to access to the spiritual outside of God. The Bible states the existence of such religions, like when it describes the 'miracles' that the Egyptians could do when confronting Moses. Other people who belong to such experiential religions would also testify to the spiritual truth that they find, and which Christians believe to be frequently deception.
Cirdan, as for your other statements about belief and faith, all I can say is that you're wrong. If someone simply believes God exists, then their faith isn't based upon knowledge. A statement that faith comes from knowledge isn't a statement of faith, it's a statement of knowledge.
Let's say you meet someone named Robert, and then you go home and tell your sister about it. She says, "How do you know that you met Robert? That's a statement of faith."
You know you met Robert. You heard his voice, talked with him, encountered him in a way that couldn't be anything other than meeting Robert. Of course, there's not a single way you can prove to your sister that you met Robert, unless you take her to go and meet him too. And if Robert is a really wonderful person, then you might really want her to get to know him.
That is what I am trying to get across to you, Cirdan. If I meet God, you can't simply say that I have faith that I met God. It's an experience, and it's a real experience. Knowing God exists and believing that he exists are two completely different things. And those Christians who admit to not knowing him, but actually only believing he exists, well their faith isn't based upon knowledge, but as you say, upon belief.
You can say that I'm wrong but surely you can only believe I am wrong, since you have no way of knowing what my relationship to god is like. Yes, my sister believes Robert exists because I told her. "Knowing God exists" and believing God exists are two different things, and you are confusing them. Your particular brand of Christianity is different than most if you claim to have met God. Do you disregard the lesson of Doubting Thomas? In some branches of Christianity it is blasphemy to say you have met god since he was said to have hidden physical proof of his existence so that only through faith can he be realized. I think your use of "knowledge" is just a bit of sophistry that is a substuitute for "profound faith". I don't doubt your faith, but I will not accept your "testimony" as it is hersay. When I meet Robert I'll take his picture and you can post your picture of God.:rolleyes:
Also, don't bother with any more lessons from the Bible as if I had never heard them before. Much of what is in the Bible is beautiful and there is much that is ugly. Some of the Hebrew law is barbaric.
Elvellon
10-30-2002, 04:17 PM
“Willingness to look for the Truth” I’ve heard. Very well and fine, but how exactly does one looks for the Truth? And, most importantly, how does one actually knows he (or she) have found it?
Ask and hear, someone might have said. But what evidence would be that? What certainty could that truly bring?
Would someone truly be hearing the Voice of God, or merely the voice of one’s inner desire?
One can accept it and believe in it, but unquestionable evidence is another thing. To qualify as such it should be able to stand against all doubts, and doubters. And not by simple dismissal, but because the doubt itself could be explained as flawed, beyond any doubt.
It doesn’t exist any clear, undeniable, unquestionable, evidence of the existence of God. At most one can interpret certain events and construct certain explanations about His existence. If such clear evidence existed it should be able to stand any rational analysis.
Evidence outside our physical realm (if it exists) is neither quantifiable nor measurable (as it was already said), but because of that, its nature is unknowable. It may even exist, but cannot be proven.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 04:33 PM
No, I haven't met Jesus in a physical body. Doing that would remove need for faith, I agree. However, I have met Jesus in other ways, and heard his voice. Having these experiences doesn't remove the need for faith: you'd be amazed at how easy it is for people to forget things. Remember the Israelites who were taken out of Egypt?
I'm not trying to convince anyone that God exists. I am trying to convince people that the possibility exists that God exists, and that since numerous other people say that they know he does exist, it is worth looking into, and finding out for yourself.
And it isn't blasphemy to say that you have met Jesus. He continues to reveal himself to people in the New Testament after the resurrection, even if not in the physical. He speaks to Paul and others.
If you have encountered God in some way, and he has proved his existence to you, then you have a basis of knowledge. He knows the human need for evidence, and he is willing to give a person that evidence. He wants a relationship, and you cannot have a relationship with someone if you aren't even sure that the person you're talking to exists. If you have met God, you can then have faith, because you have reason to have faith, and your faith isn't blind. God doesn't want a bunch of people on his side who don't know if he exists and stumble along hoping that he exists and believing that he exists. God loves humanity and the world, and if God wanted blind faith, then that would destroy the possibility of a relationship between God and man, and most reasonable people wouldn't make it to heaven.
I believe that I am justified in saying that you're wrong about faith. The simple opinions about faith that you have hitherto stated have shown that you don't believe man can meet God, for that would destroy the reason for faith. And if you don't believe that man can meet God, but rather believe that faith is all based upon belief, then that shows that you haven't met God yourself. This shows that your relationship to God is very, very likely nonexistant. If this logic is somehow flawed, and you actually have encountered God, then please explain where I got off.
As to whether or not the old Hebrew law is barbaric . . . that's another discussion unto itself, and I won't get into that on this thread.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Elvellon
“Willingness to look for the Truth” I’ve heard. Very well and fine, but how exactly does one looks for the Truth? And, most importantly, how does one actually knows he (or she) have found it?
Ask and hear, someone might have said. But what evidence would be that? What certainty could that truly bring?
Would someone truly be hearing the Voice of God, or merely the voice of one’s inner desire?
One can accept it and believe in it, but unquestionable evidence is another thing. To qualify as such it should be able to stand against all doubts, and doubters. And not by simple dismissal, but because the doubt itself could be explained as flawed, beyond any doubt.
It doesn’t exist any clear, undeniable, unquestionable, evidence of the existence of God. At most one can interpret certain events and construct certain explanations about His existence. If such clear evidence existed it should be able to stand any rational analysis.
Evidence outside our physical realm (if it exists) is neither quantifiable nor measurable (as it was already said), but because of that, its nature is unknowable. It may even exist, but cannot be proven.
As I said in the above post, God understands the need of humanity for evidence, and he is willing to prove himself to an individual. Thomas, in the Bible declares what he needs to have done for him before he believes. He asks for something that most humans now wouldn't ask for, but he was answered.
God will give the proof that a person needs, if the person asks for it. And if, as R*an says, they have a sincere desire to come to know God. This proof doesn't have to be evident to other people than the one person to whom it's given, and it doesn't have to prove to the world that God exists, only to the individual for whom it is meant. No physical evidence in this physical world can prove that God exists, and in that, you are right, Elvellon.
I'm sorry I don't have time to go deeper into this subject, but I really have to go now.
Cirdan
10-30-2002, 05:01 PM
Your response brings us back to the topic which is the kind of "proof" that is accepted in faith, and that which is accepted in science. Heresay and non-verifiable personal experience are fine for an individual seeking a relationship with God. I does not, however, apply to scientific thought. You can say you know God exists because, as you say, you've experienced it. You can't expect me to accept that as proof, in fact, of God's existence. Since you cannot prove it to me, you have little basis to say I am wrong, except your own unverified "observations". If God did "understand" the human need for evindece he would just schedule a press conference. You cannot convince me that what you "heard" was not in your head. My beliefs are different than yours, as are many, many other people. It is a common problem with sects to believe than even people of the same faith but of different sects do not know God because they don't speak of God the same way you do. Yet another reason why scvience and religion are not the same and should not be treated as such. They are different things and cloaking creation in the garb of science is pointless, as it should just be taught as it is and for what it is. Evolution should be taught in schools for what it is, a useful theory for understanding the impact of the mechanisms of genetics, environment, and natural selection have on the world around us. The individual mechanisms are proven facts. The sum of the theory is, of course, conjecture at some point. This, again, comes back to my orginal point. Science and religion are to different ways of thinking that, while not compatible, must share some commonality.
Elvellon
10-30-2002, 06:05 PM
As I said in the above post, God understands the need of humanity for evidence, and he is willing to prove himself to an individual. Thomas, in the Bible declares what he needs to have done for him before he believes. He asks for something that most humans now wouldn't ask for, but he was answered.
God will give the proof that a person needs, if the person asks for it. And if, as R*an says, they have a sincere desire to come to know God. This proof doesn't have to be evident to other people than the one person to whom it's given, and it doesn't have to prove to the world that God exists, only to the individual for whom it is meant.
But this requires the willingness to not question one’s perceptions. I ask again, what makes someone to be sure he has found God and not his own inner desire to find God? What evidence exists that discredits and nullifies all doubts?
I can understand the belief that one has found God; yet, no true evidence that would substitute “simple” faith for Knowledge is extant in such experiences.
*sees the huge amount of posts that have been posted since her post* Wow, lots of catching up to do!
BTW, I didn't mean to imply that you people are not busy, too - I'm sure you are! It's just that the free time of MWSK (Moms with Small Kids) tends to be very fragmented. The interruptions that come into our free time usually must be attended to IMMEDIATELY! (e.g., "mom, I'm bleeeeeeding!" "mom, I accidentally opened the front door and the dog got out and he's running down the street!" "mom, it's ok to eat the small legos, isn't it? :eek: :eek: ) So for people that ask me, specifically, a question, it will usually take me a few days to grab enough quiet time to put out a thoughtful answer.
(Not that anyone really cared about this, but thought I'd put it out. And I know that Lizra understands! :D )
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 09:11 PM
No, we quite understand. And I think you're actually doing quite well to remain on top of all these threads as well as you have, in view of the difficulty of running a household :).
Cirdan, God does understand the human need for evidence, but let me explain to you now why he doesn't just schedule a press conference.
You have to have a sincere heart searching after God. If every person of twenty in a room was willing to serve him if he revealed himself, and was seeking after him, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't reveal himself to them all. But he reveals himself to those who are searching, and everyone who watched those news channels likely wouldn't be searching.
Every person to whom he reveals himself is already at the point where they are ready to follow him; he knows a person's mind and heart, and he wouldn't reveal himself else. And who can understand God's timing? We believe that there is going to be a time when Christ comes back down to earth in power and glory. We don't know all ends, and who are we to question God's motives? He does know all the ends, and I am content to leave such a thing as his return to Earth in God's hands.
And as for my justification in saying you don't have a relationship with God going . . . You still haven't shown me at which point in my logic I was wrong. A relationship with God is to know him, to speak with him, to come to understand him better and to follow him. You have stated that you don't believe such a thing exists. I think you must be defining "A relationship with God," differently than I am.
Cirdan, as I have said before, I am not seeking to convince you, based on my own experience, that God exists. I know that there are many other people that believe differently than I do, and I'll take that a step further and say that there are plenty of people of other faiths that have experienced differently than I have. But there are plenty of other Christians who have experienced as I have; I'm not the only one to whom God has revealed his existence. I'm not going to get into a debate with you that says: because this many people believe this thing, it's truth. It doesn't matter how many people believe one thing; that doesn't effect what is truth itself.
All that I am trying to do is encourage you all to find out for yourself whether or not he exists. God will accept you at your own point of weakness, but you have to be sincerely interested in whether or not he exists. And if you won't believe your own senses when a spiritual message speaks to you, then perhaps God will use another way, like a miracle. He'll meet each person at their own need. But if your heart is unyielding, no matter what evidence you might receive, then God won't reveal himself in the first place.
Attempting to verify all of these spiritual things of which I am speaking would be pointless. God doesn't choose to reveal himself to the Earth in a dramatic way, and he doesn't make everything easy for those who do follow him. Faith comes in during the following of him, not during the coming to first experience him.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Elvellon
But this requires the willingness to not question one’s perceptions. I ask again, what makes someone to be sure he has found God and not his own inner desire to find God? What evidence exists that discredits and nullifies all doubts?
All right, let me turn this same question back on you again. What would make you certain that you'd found God?
God doesn't have to speak to everyone in the way that he spoke to me. He blinded Paul in the Bible for three days, and spoke and acted to him in a powerful way that was verifiable; there were witnesses. This experience completely turned Paul's life around. As I said in my above post, he is willing to reach each person at their point of need. I heard God's voice through the Bible, it fulfilled my need, and I follow Christ. But God can work in another way in your life, if you are sincere about finding him.
God can perform miracles, or act in normal life. Things that aren't simply of the spiritual realm, but are apparent in real life. God will act at your point of need. Ask him to do something to prove his existence to you, and he will.
Lizra
10-30-2002, 10:31 PM
LE, that is you, filling in the blanks! :)
BeardofPants
10-30-2002, 10:32 PM
Excuse me, but this is a thread on whether or not the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, not a pick up joint for God. :rolleyes:
Cirdan
10-30-2002, 11:17 PM
Well LE, God and I have had an on again off again relationship. I know that this doesn't count for you since your definition only includes those that are successful, since failing means a dishonest approach, etc. I respect your beliefs even if I don't agree with all of them, so be nice and don't disrespect my life and experiences with this issue. I have my reasons to doubt which are personal. It's not something I just don't think about. It's something I have meditated about for years.
BoP: Are you really surprised where the discussion has led? It's like a black hole from which no thread that comes near can escape.;)
US #1
10-31-2002, 12:13 AM
God is a concept by which we measure our pain. (John Lennon)
God was invented by man to explain things that we didn't understand and to give some comfort to the fact that we die and cease to exist.
Evolution is a theory that is based on real science. It needs to be taught in schools. Creationism is based on blind faith.
jerseydevil
10-31-2002, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by US #1
God is a concept by which we measure our pain. (John Lennon)
God was invented by man to explain things that we didn't understand and to give some comfort to the fact that we die and cease to exist.
Evolution is a theory that is based on real science. It needs to be taught in schools. Creationism is based on blind faith.
I wrote that in case anyone couldn't tell. :)
cassiopeia
10-31-2002, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by US #1
God is a concept by which we measure our pain. (John Lennon)
God was invented by man to explain things that we didn't understand and to give some comfort to the fact that we die and cease to exist.
Evolution is a theory that is based on real science. It needs to be taught in schools. Creationism is based on blind faith.
I agree with you 100% US #1 (or is it JD?). Especially the John part, down with Paul. :mad: Ooops, sorry OT. :o
Can I ask why God allows so much pain in the world if He exists? I pray to God at last resort and He doesn't deliver. Another reason why I don't believe in Him. I really believe that we (humans) invented God and that the Bible is fiction (mostly). I'm glad your happy LE and Rian, but I think your happiness is in blind faith. Hmm, can you tell I'm depressed? :rolleyes:
Hey, BoP, Lief and I are answering some questions that people asked us :) And hang in there, anyone that wants to hear my response, it's coming (must pick up 20 Nintendo games tomorrow to keep kids busy ..... :D ) And cass, I believe I have a very good answer for your question about pain. I'm sorry if it's painful to wait for it, though! ;)
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 02:40 AM
Lizra, I'm afraid I cannot tell whether what you just said is an objection or not. Please clarify :I.
Cassiopeia, jerseydevil, the question that you have asked about God is one that, I'm sure you're aware, many of people have dealt with and still deal with. I'd like to refer you to a thread called "Did Ilúvatar create evil when he created Melkor," or something like that. We've been discussing there original sin, predestination, several things along that topic.
It all boils down to God granting his creatures free will. Free will is what makes us what and who we are, and God did not choose to restrict our choices. Therefore he permitted us to do evil. By Christianity, he made our original nature good. I think that he made all of the angels, including Satan, originally with a good original nature, but free choice. Evil was among the options open to these beings, and Satan fell into evil. It is my belief that this was through pride and envy, but of course I cannot be sure. In any case, when humanity fell in the Garden of Eden, sin entered into our nature, and when sin entered into our nature, then pain began.
Sin was the starting of pain, and all pain is caused by sin. Therefore, when you say that you hate pain, you say that you hate sin, and hate the fact that bad things happen. Therefore, you hate the fact that the original nature God gave us, if God existed, didn't continue as it was in the Garden of Eden. And the fact that all humanity fell is a tragedy.
God could destroy all sin and all pain in one moment, and bring all humanity into bliss. But would that be just?
And it would also destroy our free will, that which makes us "us." We would be unable to do wrong, and thereby part of our freedom would be severed. One might ask, why did God make us that free? Why did he permit us to choose evil?
Those are the true questions that are being asked, and those I don't know the answer to. All that is shown, however, is that God isn't responsible for our sin, unless you expect him to maintain his creatures' perfection by making them do right, and thereby destroying their free will. I think that this topic really belongs in the thread in the Silmarillion section of Entmoot, where it's being discussed in depth.
Oh dear. Cassiopeia, jerseydevil, the point of view that you two have just expressed about blind faith is the one that I have been trying to combat ever since I entered this thread. Almost all of my posts are on that topic, that what we believe is most definitely not based upon blind faith. If God had wanted humanity to have a blind faith, then that would destroy the personal relationship aspect between God and man, which contradicts the Bible. God doesn't want a bunch of people who simply hope to go to heaven, and he wants to have a personal relationship with each person.
He doesn't demand faith before he reveals himself to the person. Once he reveals himself, through a spiritual or miraculous experience or whatever, once he proves himself to an individual, then faith becomes a requirement. He lets people know that he exists, and then they have a basis of knowledge. Then reasonable, intelligent people can have faith. The faith isn't that God exists, the faith is frequently simply that he will do what he says that he'll do.
Faith is in the walk with Christ, it isn't there in the beginning. Simply look at Paul as an example of this in the Bible, and look at Christian literature for examples in the present. I also have experienced Christ in this way.
Cassiopeia, I read another man's statement once in Entmoot about how his wife was dying and he prayed to God. And God didn't answer, and his wife died. God doesn't promise to answer everyone's problems whenever anyone prays to him. Bad things happen, to Christians and nonChristians alike. There are even instances like that in the Bible. Like in the New Testament, when several young men started trying to do what Paul was doing and cast out demons in Jesus' name. And instead the demon possessed man turned on him and beat them viciously and threw them out naked. People toss Jesus' name around all the time, and a lot of people pray or ask for supernatural help as a last resort. I confess that I've done it too, and it doesn't work.
This doesn't invalidate prayer, it simply means that those who prayed don't understand prayer fully.
On the other hand, sometimes I've prayed and the Lord acts in miraculous ways. And whenever I seriously pray that he give me an answer and tell me what to say, he always answers. God is faithful, and he answers prayer. Sometimes he doesn't answer the way you like it, but all of you who don't know God, I have a piece of advice for you.
Pray that God will reveal himself to you. Pray it sincerely, and don't give up if you don't get an immediate response. And he will answer you.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 02:52 AM
Sorry R*an, I'm afraid I beat you to it. But if you have anything to add, please do so.
Originally posted by Cirdan
Well LE, God and I have had an on again off again relationship. I know that this doesn't count for you since your definition only includes those that are successful, since failing means a dishonest approach, etc. I respect your beliefs even if I don't agree with all of them, so be nice and don't disrespect my life and experiences with this issue. I have my reasons to doubt which are personal. It's not something I just don't think about. It's something I have meditated about for years.
I do certainly respect your search. I apologize.
afro-elf
10-31-2002, 03:26 AM
The free will argument fails here.
God would have know before hand that people would have and burn in hell.
so to create the world know that would make him "ungodlike"
as far as subjective KNOWLEDGE
I suggest reading : Persinger, Ramachandran, Newberg, Dennett, and Beyerstein
Paul had a typical TLE experience. (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by afro-elf
The free will argument fails here.
God would have know before hand that people would have and burn in hell.
so to create the world know that would make him "ungodlike"
God did know before hand that people would end up burning in hell, but that doesn't disprove his existence any more than pain or sin's existence does. He makes himself available to everyone, and if people won't accept him, then it's because of their own decision that they go to hell. Hell is judgement, and judgement is to punish unrepentant sin. I don't see any wrongness in God in that, only justice. Of course he had the ability to prevent sin, and thus the need for justice. But if he did that, he would be destroying part of free will. It is the same argument as the one about pain and sin. I believe that God is just, that he sees each soul and knows what's in it, and that he will treat everyone fairly.
As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid that that is entirely a matter of opinion.
afro-elf
10-31-2002, 03:54 AM
It would make him ungodlike as far as goodness not a argument about is existance.
torturing someone FOREVER is not mercy
the authors I cited are NOT opinion and Paul fits the TLE.
Elvellon
10-31-2002, 06:40 AM
All right, let me turn this same question back on you again. What would make you certain that you'd found God?
Do you ask what would be irrefutable evidence? Simply put, something that could not be explained any other way.
A problem is that we are speaking of subjective experiences, were the observer and the observed are not truly separated. Hence the difficulty to establish certainty. Of this results that faith, and not knowledge, is the pillar of religion.
As for the Bible and Miracles. These are controversial subjects. One was written by men, and therefore theoretically subject to error, one can accept what was written as true or not, in itself it is no proof since the really important events are not verifiable by us. Again is a question of Faith.
Miracles. This brings us the aforementioned problem of subjectivity.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by afro-elf
It would make him ungodlike as far as goodness not a argument about is existance.
torturing someone FOREVER is not mercy
the authors I cited are NOT opinion and Paul fits the TLE.
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to go and read a bunch of authors like that simply because you aren't willing to try explaining what they believe on your own. Please describe what they say, and I'll respond to it.
I believe that God will punish people for each sin, if they go on without repentence. It says in the Bible that he is just, and it never describes hell in full detail. It has several descriptions of it as a place of darkness and pain. I think that Adolf Hitler will be punished in the flames more thoroughly than you, Afro elf, if you have the misfortune to end up there. Whether or not there are degrees of pain in hell is a matter of conjecture, but it is logical that God would have a place of punishment for sin. He is a just God. Humanity has forced him to use his justice on us, because much of humanity is turned away from him. I know that it isn't mercy to send someone into hell. All of us needed his mercy when we were born, for we were born into sin, and he offered it. If you refuse to accept his mercy, and close your ears to his call and your mind to his message, then you are dealt with in justice.
Originally posted by Elvellon
Do you ask what would be irrefutable evidence? Simply put, something that could not be explained any other way.
Elvellon, I encourage you again the same way I did before. Ask God for a piece of evidence that cannot be explained any other way. It doesn't have to be a subjective experience. Ask him for something outside of yourself, if you please. Remember in the Bible when Gideon rolled out the fleece? And God gave him an answer that was plain and couldn't be taken any other way. Maybe that sort of answer wouldn't be proof enough to you, well then ask him for something different. It sounds to me as though you need to ask him for an answer that would plainly be outside of your head and in no way possible to be your imagination. That's fine. I've seen miracles performed before, so I know that they can happen. Go ahead and ask.
The only necessity, as I said before, is that this isn't simply a flippant request. You have to be sincere of heart.
Lizra
10-31-2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Go ahead and ask.
The only necessity, as I said before, is that this isn't simply a flippant request. You have to be sincere of heart.
Well, this is imposible LE! What a "set-up"! ;) Never in a million years could I ask sincerely because I firmly believe it is all make-believe and pretend. This is what I mean by talking in circles. You are saying you have to believe before you will be granted "proof"
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
Well, this is imposible LE! What a "set-up"! ;) Never in a million years could I ask sincerely because I firmly believe it is all make-believe and pretend. This is what I mean by talking in circles. You are saying you have to believe before you will be granted "proof"
I'll be glad to explain this to you. You don't have to believe that God exists to ask him if he exists. And then he'll answer. The sincerity of heart that I spoke of is this: Being really curious to know if God does exist. You have to be serious about this, and not simply shooting off words. For example, I doubt that God would answer a prayer like this: "Dear Jesus, please prove that you exist by getting me a brand new car today."
That, I expect that you can see, would be a flippant prayer. Not praying flippantly and believing that God exists are two very different things, you can do one and not be doing the other. You have to be serious in your search.
Lizra
10-31-2002, 01:02 PM
I see....So you ask, and whatever happens happens. I'm sure I 've done this a few times in my lifetime already, :), If the situation arises, I'll try again, but this isn't much of a revelation for me here! :D Thank you anyway!
jerseydevil
10-31-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Cassiopeia, jerseydevil, the question that you have asked about God is one that, I'm sure you're aware, many of people have dealt with and still deal with. I'd like to refer you to a thread called "Did Ilúvatar create evil when he created Melkor," or something like that. We've been discussing there original sin, predestination, several things along that topic.
I never asked a question. I was making a statement. When people turn to god or a supernatural outside entity is when they feel they can't handle a situation on their own and don't know where to turn. This was plainly displayed by the number of people going to church after 9/11. Now that things have gone back to normal - people have stopped going to church.
Oh dear. Cassiopeia, jerseydevil, the point of view that you two have just expressed about blind faith is the one that I have been trying to combat ever since I entered this thread. Almost all of my posts are on that topic, that what we believe is most definitely not based upon blind faith. If God had wanted humanity to have a blind faith, then that would destroy the personal relationship aspect between God and man, which contradicts the Bible. God doesn't want a bunch of people who simply hope to go to heaven, and he wants to have a personal relationship with each person.
The Bible was written by man to control the masses of people - to set up guidelines on how to act and in order to explain things that they didn't understand. The "one god" is no different than the many gods of Greece and Rome.
Getting back a little to evolution being taught in schools. I went to Catholic school all my life and evolution was taught. We learned about how creationism was a way of explaining something that they didn't understand at the time. But I didn't stop believing because of going to catholic school or what I was taught there. I stopped believing because a "higher power" doesn't make sense. Now if you said that earth's inhabitants were a failed 3rd grade science project from some alien race - that would be believable. :D But to say that there is a heaven and hell and if you live a good life - you'll go there - I just don't buy it anymore.
People should be good to others and do the right thing - not because of heaven and hell - but just because you should treat others the way you would want to be treated. That is the one rule and really the only rule that I feel is necessary. I don't steal - not because I'm afraid of hell or it's a sin - but because I wouldn't want someone to steal from me.
Humanity has forced him to use his justice on us, because much of humanity is turned away from him. I know that it is mercy to send someone into hell.....If you refuse to accept his mercy, and close your ears to his call and your mind to his message, then you are dealt with in justice.
Do you believe that if a person who is good but does not believe in god will go to hell or be punsihed in some form for not believing?
I know that it is mercy to send someone into hell. All of us needed his mercy when we were born, for we were born into sin, and he offered it.
The concept of original sin was the one thing that I was questioning and not believing in 2nd grade. I never believed in original sin - no matter how many people tried telling me that a baby that wasn't baptised and absolved of sin would go to limbo.
Originally posted by cassiopeia
Can I ask why God allows so much pain in the world if He exists? I pray to God at last resort and He doesn't deliver. Another reason why I don't believe in Him. I really believe that we (humans) invented God and that the Bible is fiction (mostly). I'm glad your happy LE and Rian, but I think your happiness is in blind faith. Hmm, can you tell I'm depressed? :rolleyes:
Sorry, cass, I think my first response to this came off as rather flippant - I'm so frustrated that I cannot respond to this thread as quickly as I would like. Let me say that I think I can present some things (by Friday) to you that will solve the intellectual problem of pain. It will not take away the pain, but the bearing of it will be easier, because you can see a reason behind it.
And, BTW, I have a few things to say about the concepts of hell that I see here that I think are totally missing the picture! ;)
Sween
10-31-2002, 01:51 PM
cool we are bashing religion. whos more evil someone that comits evil or someone that allows evil to be commited.
In my opinion relgion should not be taught at all in schools (i know all are covred in rs) i am tallking about in assemblys where they go on about jesus and stuff poluting the minds of people.
schools should teach facts not made up rubbish.
Relgion is root of all evil and those that follow it are servely misguided and many unwittingly comit many an evil
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 05:16 PM
One note: I made a couple writing errors in my previous post, like when I said that it is mercy to send someone to hell. That was a big goof up error, I meant isn't. But God had already offered his mercy, and it was rejected. Therefore it is justice.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
I never asked a question. I was making a statement. When people turn to god or a supernatural outside entity is when they feel they can't handle a situation on their own and don't know where to turn. This was plainly displayed by the number of people going to church after 9/11. Now that things have gone back to normal - people have stopped going to church.
I agree with you there. Frequently people do turn to the supernatural when faced with things that they can't handle. People pray, and their prayers aren't answered, because they simply don't understand prayer. And I also agree that during peace time people tend to lax off. Whenever there is oppression on the Christian church, it has always historically become stronger, but then it has had difficulty when faced with an easy situation, and when people don't care about God, for it doesn't effect them just now. People who seek him because they want to know if he exists or not are the ones who meet him, and who are answered. Not people who simply want him to solve their problems.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Bible was written by man to control the masses of people - to set up guidelines on how to act and in order to explain things that they didn't understand. The "one god" is no different than the many gods of Greece and Rome.
Because I believe the Bible to be God's Word, I think you are wrong about the purpose for which it was written. However, I believe that in the past it has been misused. I think that it has been used by people in the Medieval Ages and possibly other times because people believe it, and to manipulate the masses. I have a lot of problems with certain aspects of the Church hierarchy, and it is my belief that we should ask God who to appoint as pastors, deacons, priests, etc., rather than relying upon our own judgement and people's quallifications, both of which can be faulty.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
People should be good to others and do the right thing - not because of heaven and hell - but just because you should treat others the way you would want to be treated. That is the one rule and really the only rule that I feel is necessary. I don't steal - not because I'm afraid of hell or it's a sin - but because I wouldn't want someone to steal from me.
That's the Golden Rule, a part of the Bible. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Do you believe that if a person who is good but does not believe in god will go to hell or be punsihed in some form for not believing?
I have a few ideas on that, but I don't have any firm answer yes or no. Perhaps there are Christians that do have that answer. I don't think that you can make your way into heaven based upon your own righteousness; you have to have God wipe you clean of all sin. You know, there is one parable in the Bible that goes like this: There were two people, and both of them sinned. One of them sinned knowingly, and the other unknowingly. Jesus said that the one who sinned knowingly would be beaten with many blows as punishment, but the one who did it unknowingly would be beaten with few blows. The Bible says that the Lord is just, and I believe that he will judge everyone with justice.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
The concept of original sin was the one thing that I was questioning and not believing in 2nd grade. I never believed in original sin - no matter how many people tried telling me that a baby that wasn't baptised and absolved of sin would go to limbo.
I believe in original sin, but I don't agree with infant baptism. I think that baptim has to be a conscious decision by the individual, it cannot be simply done for them. And I don't think that a baby that isn't baptised will go into limbo.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Lizra
I see....So you ask, and whatever happens happens. I'm sure I 've done this a few times in my lifetime already, :), If the situation arises, I'll try again, but this isn't much of a revelation for me here! :D Thank you anyway!
I'm afraid you might well have misunderstood me, Lizra. I'm sure you have done what you're planning to do a few times in your lifetime already, and I doubt that if you do it again, God will answer any more than he did the other times. As I said to jerseydevil, plenty of people come to God when they come upon hard times, but it doesn't work that way. You have to honestly want God to reveal himself to you, not simply offer your troubles to him to change into blessings. People frequently only pray that God will solve their problems, but that isn't going to help. Their motive is for themselves to have less problems or for other people's problems to go away, not for God to reveal himself so that they can come to know him. Once a person comes to know God, then he slowly transforms their will to his will, and implants his nature within us, destroying the old. That is the reason why prayer is answered for Christians.
And when you pray that God will reveal himself to you, that is also a prayer that you can know that God wants to answer, because he has claimed to want a relationship with every human being. Therefore this prayer will be answered. You can set the method, but your heart needs to be aimed toward discovering him, not having things done for you.
Originally posted by Lizra
I see....So you ask, and whatever happens happens. I'm sure I 've done this a few times in my lifetime already, :), If the situation arises, I'll try again, but this isn't much of a revelation for me here! :D Thank you anyway!
OK, I actually got some unexpected free time here, so I'd like to address Lizra's post, then lay a little more foundation for my upcoming answer to cass's and earniel's post. Lizra's first :
I think that you have rather a vending-machine mentality of prayer here (and I sure hope that you know, Lizra, that I mean absolutely no offense to you - I am just using that illustration because I think it really points out the full implications of your statement - "so you ask, and whatever happens happens.") So I think that if you really think about what you're saying, it really is something like this: "insert prayer in slot, push button, answer that I requested comes out at the bottom" (and if it doesn't, then kick the machine!) Well, let me ask you this: if your cute little boy asked you "mommy, could I please go and play on the freeway? I REEEELY want to, it looks like so much fun!", what would you say? You, as an adult, know SO much more than he does! You would lovingly say "NO".
Christians believe that God is all-knowing, and thus He can correctly and in our best interests answer a prayer either yes, no, or wait a while, it's not the right time yet. And "getting an answer" is only a small part of the purpose of prayer! Again, as both Lief and I have posted, one aspect of Christianity is that it is relational - we are also reminded to be thankful in our prayers, for we so easily forget all of our many blessings, and we are also told to pray for others. And sometimes, as I'm just starting to see, I think God's answer is "hang in there and keep praying ... that's not quite the question that I want you to ask me ... I have a much bigger blessing that I would rather give you!" See, prayer is also a process - as we spend time in prayer, we become more Christlike, and we will, by ourselves, see how some of our prayers in the past were, by God's great mercy and grace, answered with a "no".
I hope that helps - let me know if I can clarify.
Starr Polish
10-31-2002, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by cassiopeia
I agree with you 100% US #1 (or is it JD?). Especially the John part, down with Paul. :mad: Ooops, sorry OT. :o
Can I ask why God allows so much pain in the world if He exists? I pray to God at last resort and He doesn't deliver. Another reason why I don't believe in Him. I really believe that we (humans) invented God and that the Bible is fiction (mostly). I'm glad your happy LE and Rian, but I think your happiness is in blind faith. Hmm, can you tell I'm depressed? :rolleyes:
Why would you pray to someone/thing you don't believe in?
You have to remember, God is not the only 'being', 'spirit', 'whathaveyou' on the plane outside of Earth.
Also, I'm in agreement with Rian on the 'vending machine' prayer approach. God answers prayers when they're meant to be answered, which is not necessarily when we want them. Also, he may answer them, but not in the way we expect (or in a way that we even notice).
Sween, I haven't addressed your posts because the way I read it, you're not really wanting to discuss things, because you're really throwing out over-generalizations, don't you think? Wouldn't you agree, for example, that there are evil people that are not "religious"? I imagine that you've been really hurt by "religious" people, and I'm so sorry. But God is bigger than "religious" people, and if you truly and sincerely seek Him for your answers, He will give them to you, although they may not quite be what you would like! However, they are true and in your best interests. And God can use all things, even the evil ones that He has allowed for this present time, for our good and the good of others. For example, I imagine that you are a very compassionate person, because you have been hurt. (But I am getting ahead of myself - if you're interested, I am going to address the pain issue shortly). Try checking out the "Did Iluvatar make Melkor evil" thread in Sil or ME - we are discussing some related issues there that you might find interesting. If you have a specific question for me (without the overgeneralizations, please :) ), then let me know, and I'll put it in my queue :) I'm rather slow, though - very busy with small kids - so you'll have to be patient.
Originally posted by Starr Polish
Why would you pray to someone/thing you don't believe in?
Actually, I haven't even touched on that issue yet - I will hopefully get to it in a week or so - I really need to lay some groundwork first so that my answers will make sense.
What I was trying to address was Lizra's belief that Christian prayer meant asking and then getting exactly what you asked for, and if it didn't work, then either prayer is worthless or God is not there or not powerful. That is most definitely NOT what Christian prayer is about.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 06:09 PM
Yes, and Starr Polish, you don't have to believe in God to pray that he will reveal himself if he exists. God is willing to answer that one, and he is waiting for each person to ask it. That's the point I'm trying to emphasize, for he will reveal himself to the person who requests to come to know him.
whoops - I read thru your post too quickly, Starr, and didn't realize you were quoting cass, not lizra. But my answer stands!
And it's very intriguing how people DO turn to prayer as a last resort - I think it shows that there is a very real sense of the presence of God in every person - we just don't want to acknowledge it, because it has so many frightening implications (there IS a being behind the universe - am I accountable to Him for my many evil acts?) (BTW, I'm not talking just murder here - Jesus equates just being angry with someone else with murder). (you see, it's all HEART issues!) But it is a FALSE fear (like someone with an operable disease who doesn't know much about doctors would be afraid), for the SOLUTION to this dilemma is provided by God - and actually, I don't want to get ahead of myself again. I'll just go ahead in the next post with the groundwork that I was talking about.
(BTW, Lief, I think you misinterpreted Starr's post the same way that I did - I think what Starr was pointing out was - why did cass even bother to pray if she didn't believe in God? )
Is that right, Starr? BTW, that's a good point about answered prayers - sometimes we ask, then we don't even notice the answer! But God is faithful.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.