Poor Kids

[Nickg]

depends on your interpretation of Genesis. Just like evolution, there are many viewpoints......

yes and many interpretations.

thats what makes it so flimsy because not even those who believe in it can tell you what happened.

the whole book is a fable to some who believe others take it literally... obviously some take it as given, with a pinch of salt.

[fuddam]

hear hear.
(science along with most things) should be taught, full stop, not taught as right, wrong, or according to the teacher's opinion.

scientific method, yes.

what constitutes truth: a different kettle of fish

[fuddam]

yes and many interpretations.

just as you have many intepretations of ethics, morality, meaning, significance, relationships, politics, and SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

thats what makes it so flimsy because not even those who believe in it can tell you what happened.

really? where did you get that from?

[iranu]

Fuddam,

I'd love to hear your response to my last post further up.

The thing with Religion/Science, which just hit me is this:

You have a group of people, who dedicate their life to Religion, be it Hindu, Christinaity or whatever else. They will obviously back Religion.

You have another group of people, who dedicate their life to Science. They research and prove their work the best they can. They will obviously back Science.

Then you have people like me, who isn't religious and doesn't partake in experiments or know a huge amount about science of religion.

You know what I back? Religion. As I imagine most other people do who don't know much about either. Why? Because Religion makes sense. Science may as well be part of a Harry Potter novel.

Changed Science for Religion (Bolded) that's a personal opinion and can work either way. Sorry.

Just as an aside what do you think of Ken Miller or for that matter religious scientists? They are rare but they are there.

[TheAnimus]

nope, we have to take it down to the nitty gritty: when one species changes to another, not simply that one species triumphs over another

But this is the problem, you won't define what it is when one species changes to another.

Its not Shape, its not Size, its not genetic makeup.

What is it exactly?

(obviously you can't awnser this question, without letting someone demonstrate evolution, so i doubt you will give a useful awnser)

[fuddam]

Edit: Yes on post #26. Do you have any comment on how they are teaching and the environment they are in?

If I was teaching God as the author of creation, I'd say: don't take my word for it, go examine the evidence for yourselves. After all, I'm human, with a flawed view of 'reality', and as such, can not pretend to know it all, or even to have an entirely consistent POV. We are all full of contradictions. All I can present to you is my intepretation.

Iranu, just a quick question: are you really trying to find out what I think? or prove a point? or get me to go against other Christians? or.......? Your query sounds like you want me to make a stand, but am not sure of the motivation.

[fuddam]

But this is the problem, you won't define what it is when one species changes to another.

Its not Shape, its not Size, its not genetic makeup.

What is it exactly?

(obviously you can't awnser this question, without letting someone demonstrate evolution, so i doubt you will give a useful awnser)

well, there must be something that differentiates a species enough for anyone who finds a new species to be able to classify that species as unique. Is it not ultimately genetics (genuine question)?

[fuddam]

Changed Science for Religion (Bolded) that's a personal opinion and can work either way. Sorry.

Just as an aside what do you think of Ken Miller or for that matter religious scientists? They are rare but they are there.

I don't know who Ken Miller is - consider me ignorant - but I know many, many religious scientists. None of them have a problem / conflict with their POV, and I would consider myself in that camp.

[Gr44]

Changed Science for Religion (Bolded) that's a personal opinion and can work either way. Sorry.

Just as an aside what do you think of Ken Miller or for that matter religious scientists? They are rare but they are there.

I don't know who Ken Miller is to be honest, will look when I get home though.

Fair enough, but that said, MOST people who are religious, will be part of a religion. People who 'back' science, won't always have anything to actually do with it, was my point. Maybe badly put across.

Well, I'd imagine that a relgious scientist must work in fields a long way from 'evolution' and that side of things. But you'd need to speak to one to understand their views.

I don't think religion and science are mutually exclusive, which is where this thread has been heading because of the video in the first post. But people who believe in relgion have openly been ignoring scientists findings which I suppose has brought out anger in many.

As I've previously said in the post, I don't have an issue whatever youre beliefs are. But I honestly don't think it is likely God, in any context that is portreyed in any major religion, exisits. I'd find it more plausable if you said an alien came along and made Earth as an experiment after the universe was created.

[TheAnimus]

well, there must be something that differentiates a species enough for anyone who finds a new species to be able to classify that species as unique. Is it not ultimately genetics (genuine question)?

Well my ex who could explain, she isn't talking to me right now so i can't get a gospal awnser from someone who seams to want to spend her life doing just that.

but the problem is, every recent form of classicification revolves around evolution, allowing for evolution to happen accross species.

if you think of it as a stage of 'hops' its quite easy for one species to hop to another, there are plenty of bacteria where this can be observed (because they reproduce so swiftly). A guppy, dosen't instantly give birth to an angelfish, there are many many many hops required, far more than odds would allow from mutation.

Scientific classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Even the whackypedia has a nice selection on the older (outmoded in favour of evolution).

[fuddam]

I think the fact that was your response is 'nuff said' actually.

My point is do you honestly think that before anything ever existed there was something all powerful, he made this in 7 days ( how the hell do you know that anyway? Did he tell someone several thousand years ago? ).

Then it had a huge interest in making 'us' making Adam and Eve a great gardan but said DONT TOUCH NO APPLEZ - they did. Then he banished them forever, along with billions more people who never did anything wrong other than be part of the biggest incest case in history?

Is how a 'loving' god who 'forgives all' works?

Yeah, Okay.

it's amazing what different intepretations one can come up with. The more interesting question, though, is.....why? Why does someone have such a jaded view of Christ, and yet others think He is the epitomy of love and light?

Guess it MIGHT have something to do with assumption vs experience.

One person could describe person X as a bastard, while others could say that person X is a saint. Who is right? Well, methinks the person who really wants to know would find out for themselves, rather than basing it on assumption or the views of others. btw, I'm not having a bash at you specifically, Gr44, but what you have said simply illustrates someone who doesn't know much at all about the subject matter. You don't know God, simply by the way you are describing Him. I know Him. It does not mean I consider myself in any way superior, either.

[Koolpc]

You know what the problem is, when you get right down to it, when you get right into the heart of the matter.

The problem is this, and this is it - it is:

Fuddam, KoolPC and 'them' deep down, deep, deep down, know that the athiests are correct. Or, more correctly, they know that in the cold light of day, the athiest viewpoint, such as no afterlife etc, are 99.99% likely to be true.

Well, you would think that. Many many thousands of people of gone through 'Near death' experiences that science cannot understand. How about the thousands of people who have had visions of god etc etc? How can you say there is no afterlife when you said earlier that Science is the only true thing we know? How can you say that when you cannot prove, scientifically that there is no afterlife?

This nugget of information lives inside them, in much the same way as the nugget of info that says 'you are going to die someday' lives inside us athiests. They hates it. They can't stands it.

What a load of garbage

It is always there, growing, like a cancer or a Yukka plant, and nothing can be done about it. 99.99% chance that there is no God, no afterlife. But to admit this is to face death in the... well in the face, and given the choice of a quick trip to heaven to play blow football with Laurel and Hardy, or the rest of time as nothing... which would you choose?.

So, you are saying there is a 99.99% chance there is no god? So deep, deep down inside you there is 00.01% chance that think there may be a god etc etc?

Fuddam knows he will die, be buried, and decompose. I know this as well. I can handle this, Fuddam cracked under the pressure and his mind went wondering, looking for a sort of cosmic get out of jail free card.

Again, comments from a schollkid if ever i saw one!!

Praise the Lord, its a miracle! I'm going to heaven!

Of course you are mate, of course you are...

At the end of the day it all boils down to FAITH. If you don't have it then so be it. Doesn't mean you are right though just because you don't believe in anything if you can't see it. I can't see the wind but i know it is there!! At the end of the day, people like me or Fuddam don't have to prove anything because we have our faith. Science is the one that needs to scientifically prove things. When you believe in god you don't need proof. Why would i need to have proof? I have faith!

[DDY]

Just because science has no explanation doesn't mean god did it or any thing else supernatural... That's exactly what people said about magnets before science could explain it.

And how many times (already mentioned in this thread). Science is not there to prove, it's there to explain.

I know the wind is "here" not only can I feel it but I've detected it, studied it and found it's a large amount of air molecules moving from one area of high pressure to low. - See, this is explaining.

[Stewart]

Your faith means nothing. I can have faith that the rain is simply Gods tears. It doesn't mean they are. Faith, as you seem utterly unable to grasp, changes nothing.

You know the wind is there because it can be felt, heard, its effects can be seen, its origin can be explained. You do not need faith to believe in the wind.

As for the ignorant and lazy cop out - 'science needs to proove things I'm just a wooly headed God botherer dat pruuf stuff means nothing to me praise the lord its a miracle be-jesus' stuff, if that is how you want to live your life, so be it.

Problem is, with the complete absence of proof, reason, logic, or even sanity, your faith is blind.

Also, there are many other religions, and many other Gods, and all those people worshiping these Gods have faith as well. Do you also have faith that all non-Christian Gods do no exist?

If so this faith thing is well handy. It allows you to stick your head, as well as reasoned argument, right up your arse.

[iranu]

I understand the theory well enough, as you have explained it. However, the missing linkage is the problem. Between all species, in fact........

Missing linkage(s) is actually not a bad way of putting it. People often talk of a missing link as the magic bullet but there is no such think as a "missing link" because links cannot be thought of as individual species, they are rather graduations of a scale.

The completion of a chain does not make one realise all of a sudden that one is holding a chain in their hand. It's obvious that a chain is forming if you've got most of the bits of the whole. The thing is that evolution is not linear (other than with time). Species compete with each other and therefore the environment becomes far more complicated.

It's akin to a jigsaw whereby some rotten bugger has hidden some of the pieces. It may take time to find the piece under the sofa that fits in with that grassy bit in the bottom left hand corner to form the Savannah in the picture but we may well never discover the bit that goes at the top because the thief flushed it down the loo. However, we can deduce that we are missing a bit, the bit fits in here, it's surrounded by other blue bits with white stuff on them so the missing bit is likely to be very similar. If the bit turns up and it fits, but is purple with yellow spots then there is going to be a problem. If it's blue and has white fluffy bits we'll know it belongs as sky and the theory (read jigsaw) is still intact.

Similarly, if we assume it's sky and find that two of the surounding pieces are mostly blue with white fluffy stuff along with a hint of red then it's safe to assume that we got it right and the bit we are missing is not the bit with purple and yellow spots.

[Nickg]

just as you have many intepretations of ethics, morality, meaning, significance, relationships, politics, and SCIENTIFIC THEORIES



really? where did you get that from?

well, if no one can say whether jesus was a, the son of God, b, the same thing AS God, c, neither of the aforementioned

nor from reading the passages can they tell you whether Jesus actually delivered a Miracle, or whether he just provided "miracles" in parable form.

that level of interpretation tells me that the basis of Christianity (i.e Jesus the Son of God, and his Miracles) may/may not have happened. indeed even Christians cite this.

You can have interpretations of Ethics or whatever, because ethics are SUBJECTIVE.

the idea of the bible is that it provides, FACTUAL accounts for its followers to internalise is false, it was written, and rewritten by many non first-hand account holders. It was written without impunity. There was an editor, and a cut. So even the stories that are placed within the bible must be viewed with an air of sceptesism...

Evolution as a theory is not subjective, it is objective, i.e based upon facts. As are many other "theories"...

i hope that has helped you to distinguish between subjectivity - i.e YOU MUST HAVE THE FAITH TO BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE vs. OUR DATA ACCURATELY SHOWS X TO BE TRUE, and objectivity