Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
What's it got to do with moral authority?
The supreme court looked at a document and said "It doesn't in anyway forbid abortion". That's all.
If you think it does, point out where it does so.
Just as I can't intrepret a law which says I have to drive on the lefthand side of the road as meaning I can drive on the right hand side of the road. Neither could the supreme court have intrepreted it differently.
If you have a problem with their decision, then your problem lies with the original document, not with the court tasked with reading it.
Stop looking for conspiricies and deceptions. There isn't a big liberal plot.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:If you are liberal it would be whatever is right for you, therefore the right to choose for oneself would be the overriding principle.
How exactly does being liberal meanm that you what what is right for you. Being liberal means trying to create a more just society. It means helping those who can't help themselves. It means putting people before business. It means caring about others besides yourself.
Personally, I think you're just trying to shape a world to fit in withyour narrow vision.
Think of it this way, Jesus was a liberal.0 -
St_Crispin wrote:How exactly does being liberal meanm that you what what is right for you. Being liberal means trying to create a more just society. It means helping those who can't help themselves. It means putting people before business. It means caring about others besides yourself.
Personally, I think you're just trying to shape a world to fit in withyour narrow vision.
Think of it this way, Jesus was a liberal.
To clarify, those are the accepted worldviews of liberal vs. conservative in the context of North American politics.
Everyone wants to have a just society. The vision of that society is different between liberals and conservatives and comes down to the question of what one uses as their foundation for morality? When you look at the history of the Liberal Party of Canada they change their ideas of morality as the wind changes, they have no basis. Their underlying philosophy is that the rights of the individual is what is best for society. Wheras the conservative will say that what is best for the whole society will benefit the individual. It has nothing to do with a narrow vision.
The liberal says 'you poor person let me give you money because you are a victim'. The conservative says 'how can I help you get back on your feet'. Both are compassionate and want to help the less fortunate, but their means are different, one perpetuates poverty, the other helps people out of it.
I wouldn't say Jesus was a liberal, He was a conservative in that His desire was to bring the Jews back to God and he challenged the societies norms. He was therefore a radical. To state that only liberals care about a just society and the state of the less fortunate is a false premise. Their approaches are different.
Besides do liberals care about the unfortunate child in the womb? that doesn't sound very just or compassionate. Abortion is a multi-million dollar a year industry in Canada. The liberals are putting that business and profit ahead of the people in the womb and the trauma of many mothers to be.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:...and the trauma of many mothers to be.
Heavens! Are they being forced to have abortions then?BrianCalgary wrote:Abortion is a multi-million dollar a year industry in Canada. The liberals are putting that business and profit ahead of the people in the womb...
Even worse - forced to have abortions so that the abortion industry can profit.BrianCalgary wrote:The liberal says 'you poor person let me give you money because you are a victim'. The conservative says 'how can I help you get back on your feet'. Both are compassionate and want to help the less fortunate, but their means are different, one perpetuates poverty, the other helps people out of it.
So, then, what is someone who: says 'how can I help you get back on your feet' to the poor person, but still supports abortion (although not casual abortion); is pro gay marriage but against positive discrimination; detests political correctness and right-wing spin?0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Heavens! Are they being forced to have abortions then?.
No they aren't foced, but speaking with counsellors in the city, women who have abortions end up feeling very guilty to the point of suicide as they come to realize what they have done. They go willingly but, without having the opportunity to discuss alternatives and the trials ahead as the abortion industry leaves them high and dry. For goodness sake the abortuary can perform an abortion on my 15 year old daughter without me ever knowing, why bring the parents into it, could cost them the business.Scofflaw wrote:Even worse - forced to have abortions so that the abortion industry can profit.
Again not forced, but not properly informed by the pro-abortion lobbies such as Planned Parenthood. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those out there on the radical fringe of the pro-abortion movement that see every abortion as a victory.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote:I sometimes get the feeling that there are those out there on the radical fringe of the pro-abortion movement that see every abortion as a victory.
Possibly, but then there are those on the fringes of the anti-abortion movement who see dead doctors in the same light. Neither represent the majority opinions.BrianCalgary wrote:If you are liberal it would be whatever is right for you, therefore the right to choose for oneself would be the overriding principle.
Whereas being conservative you would say that the right of the unprotected child would be the overriding principle and that in becoming pregnant you have given over your right to self.
And unwilling or unplanned pregnancies? Persons not capable of making the decision to 'give over the right to self'? Medically dangerous pregnancies? You're sure this isn't just code for "you had sex you sinner, and now you have to take the consequences"?
Your aware that the current US reduction in crime is being attributed to the 'aborticide' of welfare kids?0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Possibly, but then there are those on the fringes of the anti-abortion movement who see dead doctors in the same light. Neither represent the majority opinions.
I agree.0 -
Quote Scofflaw
you exclude evolution from faith - and you'll note that others on this board, who are Christian, do not do so.
I certainly DON’T exclude evolution from faith – in fact, the only way that it can be believed-in, is through faith, because it isn’t empirically or evidentially supported,
Quote Scofflaw
Evolutionary theory makes various testable assertions about the world. If these were found to be false, then the theory would be knocked down. Contrary to your stubbornly held opinion, it is not a faith.
Then please list ANY testable assertions made by Macro evolution.0 -
Scofflaw wrote:
And unwilling or unplanned pregnancies?
Unplanned pregnancies, indicates a willingness to have sex but not understand that pregnancy is the natural byproduct?Scofflaw wrote:Persons not capable of making the decision to 'give over the right to self'?
Who would you classify as not being able to make the decision?Scofflaw wrote:Medically dangerous pregnancies?
Some mothers would sacrifice themselves for their babies.Scofflaw wrote:You're sure this isn't just code for "you had sex you sinner, and now you have to take the consequences"?
Not code. But do you not think that rational people should be responsible for their actions?Scofflaw wrote:Your aware that the current US reduction in crime is being attributed to the 'aborticide' of welfare kids?
Now that you mention it yes. However that equates crime to poverty. Ithas been shown that the lowest crime in the USA was during th edepression when the nation was at oit's poorest economically. A rise in economic poverty does not equal a rise in crime. A rise in moral poverty equals to a rise in crime, as the self becomes more important and the resulting satisfaction with total disregard of who gets hurt.0 -
J C wrote:Quote Scofflaw
you exclude evolution from faith - and you'll note that others on this board, who are Christian, do not do so.
I certainly DON’T exclude evolution from faith – in fact, the only way that it can be believed-in, is through faith, because it isn’t empirically or evidentially supported,
Quote Scofflaw
Evolutionary theory makes various testable assertions about the world. If these were found to be false, then the theory would be knocked down. Contrary to your stubbornly held opinion, it is not a faith.
Then please list ANY testable assertions made by Macro evolution.
JC... I have already presented a testable assertion, and you have not addressed it. And regarding faith issues... See my last response to you (pg 32)wolfsbane wrote:Either you haven't bothered to read the creationist material, you dismiss it as non-science because it is not evolutionist, or we are talking at cross purposes about the nature of creationism and ID.
I won't go over the second again and I will assume the first is incorrect. So maybe the problem is what you expect of creationism/ID. I get the impression from all you have said that you are asking them to explain how God did it. Any explanation of how the data is consistent with ID and inconsistent with evolution would therefore fail to meet your requirements - am I right?
If that is the case, you are barking up the wrong tree. That would be like me demanding an explanation of the eternality of matter of an evolutionist. Both evolution and creationism begin with matter. Evolution, as I understand it, says it always existed. Creationism says God spoke it into existence. Neither offer a scientific explanation of how that came to be. We say a fully mature universe came into being over 6 days. You say it began as energy and evolved to what we see today, maybe returning to its former state to begin all over again. Creationism has to show it is consistent with the observed historical record, e.g. regarding the oldest living things, geological record. Evolution likewise, but it also has to show how great complexity has come from much simpler arrangements of atoms, in aeons-long defiance of entropy.
So then we agree that science is the wrong tree to "bark up" regarding the investigation of ID. Attack evolution all you like, the fact that you cannot give ID a formal definition means it is not a scientific theory.
And regarding entropy..... You are talking to a 3rd year physics student. Are you sure you want to drag out the tired old 2nd law of thermodynamics argument?
Now... regarding irreducible complexity. I assume you know what an irreducibly complex system is. Just in case, it's a system that requires multiple components to function (removal of even one component results in the whole thing going "arseways" so to speak). It cannot be 'reduced', which has lead some people to believe evolution, a gradual process, could not be responsible for certain biological systems. This view is not supported by molecular biology.
"Irreducibly" complex biological systems can arise for a variety of reasons. All parts of a system may become specialised (increased efficiency at the price of dependance) but originally such specialisation was not present. The most obvious example is the cell, whereby the tiny organelles, originally independant (in forms similar to cyanobacteria/typhus etc), developed symbiotic relationships, each specialising in different roles until they all fully depended on each other. Other ways of forming irreducibly complex systems include gene duplication, which can allow simple "reducible" systems to change function, making them irreducible in the context of their new function. This can even result in a subtraction of parts (i.e. The venus flytrap lost its glue) which gives the appearance of an irreducibly complex system. (Note: Gene duplication is also responsible for apparently irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting). It's all about sacrificing independance for efficiency. I'm trying to be as general as possible, but if you would like a specific example (such as blood clotting, or the venus flytrap, or bacterial flagella) or have an example of your own I'd be happy to explain it.
And regarding the whole science conspiracy. The only info I can find on the case is from the internet, but it seems his tendered paper was of very poor quality, and exaggerations are rife. But I'm not going to comment on it too much till a formal investigation is out there.
Regardless, it must be made clear that there is no controversy regarding the acceptance of Evolution by 99% of the scientific community. There is no argument that has been left unadressed, yet IDers still flog the same dead horse in a hope to give the illusion of controversy. This is not my opinion, this is the observed history of the ID movement.0 -
Advertisement
-
> But do you not think that rational people should be responsible for their actions?
What's this sudden respect for rationality? I thought you had an absolute "moral code" which was true then, now and forever which didn't need any input from rational thought? And which didn't need any notion of responsibility, because whoever was sticking to your "moral code" was right and responsibility simply doesn't come into this?0 -
J C wrote:Then please list ANY testable assertions made by Macro evolution.
Well, there's the current, rather abstruse, example:When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.
But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.
If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.
"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.
Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.
I quite like, on the other hand, the rather simpler ones:
1. Whales: it was something of a puzzle that whales were warm-blooded, air-breathing, live-young-bearing animals. The assumption (not unreasonably) had been that they were fish (that is, their 'kind' was fish). However, since life was assumed to have evolved out of the sea, and most mammals are land animals, whales were an early test. Evolution predicts that the most likely explanation is that they are sea-adapted land mammals, and the fossil record bears this out (see here for some nice pictures of the transitional forms). In addition the fact that the flippers of a whale are nothing like a fish, but are instead an adapted mammalian 'hand' fits the theory very well.
2. Humans: if we evolved from apes, we should expect there to be transitional forms, and there are. Since apes have no civilisation, and humans do, we would expect a gradual increase in the level of civilisation (such as fire, tool use, clothes etc) alongside the physical evolution. This is what we find, which again fits the theory.
3. Body Lice: since humans are assumed to have evolved as above, and have only been wearing clothes for part of their history, we would expect human body lice and hair lice to be somewhat different, which they are. In most animals they are the same, because the same covering (fur, feathers, etc) covers the whole body including the head.
4. Whale lice: since we assume that whales are derived from an ancestral stock (their embryology recapitulates their evolution), but are usually sociable within their species, and are large free-swimming animals, we would expect whale lice to be mostly related, but showing lineages that are similar to the whale lineages. This is what we find.
5. Evolution suggests that humans, in the form of Homo Sapiens, would most likely have been one offshoot of an evolutionary tree,and that there would almost certainly be extinct or living species that were related to the human line but not ancestral to humans. The long-extinct group is the Neanderthal, the more recently extinct (or possibly still surviving?) form is Homo florensis (which also illustrates another evolutionary trait - island dwarfism).
6. Birds and dinosaurs: birds, from their morphology (micro-scaly skins, egg-laying, soft anatomy, and skeletons) appear to be closely related to the reptiles (genetic evidence now also suggests this). This led palaeontologists to suggest that they probably evolved from extinct reptiles - the main candidates being the dinosaurs. For those who supported the dinosaur-to-bird pathway (the debate within science was settled in the 1970's), Archaeopteryx was a particularly important find, representing a proper feathered dinosaur. The large number of transitional forms have narrowed birds down to being descendants of the maniraptorial dinosaurs, although there are still a few paleontologists who argue for a crocodilian ancestor.
7. While Darwin postulated evolution, and the selection mechanism, he had no knowledge of genetics. Nevertheless, the theory required that there be something to allow heredity. In other words, evolutionary theory predicted, before modern genetics, that there must be genetic material, and that the genetic material was probably going to be the same across all life (because all life is related). All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this. The few known exceptions are, nevertheless, simple and minor variations from the "universal" genetic code (Lehman 2001; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 967), exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists, if common descent were correct, years before the genetic code was solved.
I can probably do this for several weeks if necessary, but we can start with these. What explanations would ID or creationism offer for the same evidence in these cases?0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Unplanned pregnancies, indicates a willingness to have sex but not understand that pregnancy is the natural byproduct?
Which is why you take contraception if you don't want the 'natural byproduct'. If your contraception fails, you're saying what exactly?BrianCalgary wrote:Who would you classify as not being able to make the decision?
The underage, and the mentally defective. Also the morally defective (contentious, I know). Those under coercion or undue influence, to use the legal terminology.BrianCalgary wrote:Some mothers would sacrifice themselves for their babies.
'Medically dangerous' includes cases where neither the mother nor the baby is likely to survive. I won't deal with the liberal view, which is 'and some would not', but why is the life of the unborn more important than that of the mother? Certainly I love my daughter very dearly, but I would not have sacrificed my wife to have her (and it was an emergency C-section birth, so it was an issue).BrianCalgary wrote:Not code. But do you not think that rational people should be responsible for their actions?
Yes, they should take contraception or have a vasectomy. That, too, is 'taking responsibility for your actions', particularly if you can't afford another child but you can afford contraception. Are you suggesting that people should refrain from sex apart from procreation?BrianCalgary wrote:Now that you mention it yes. However that equates crime to poverty. Ithas been shown that the lowest crime in the USA was during th edepression when the nation was at oit's poorest economically. A rise in economic poverty does not equal a rise in crime. A rise in moral poverty equals to a rise in crime, as the self becomes more important and the resulting satisfaction with total disregard of who gets hurt.
No. Crime is not related to absolute poverty (as in the Depression example), but is provably related to 'relative poverty'. In other words, someone poor, even if they are absolutely much wealthier than most people on the planet, will be more inclined to commit crime if they live in a high-income-inequality society. Everyone poor together tends to bring out the best in people, but me poor and you rich tends to make me envious and you fearful. This is one of the arguments for income redistribution.0 -
A wonderful new version of the Bible that closses the door on Creationism for ever. A very funny read.
Strewth, it's the story of Genesis in Strine
By Nick Squires in Sydney
(Filed: 24/01/2006) Daily Telegraph (UK)
The Australian broadcaster who translated large sections of the New Testament into Strine has turned his attention to the Bible once again.
This time Kel Richards has rewritten well-known Old Testament stories in the Australian vernacular.
Published in 2003, the 90-page Aussie Bible (well, bits of it anyway) proved an unexpected hit and sold 100,000 copies in Australia.
It was promoted as a "ripping yarn about Jesus of Nazareth" in which Mary was "a pretty special sheila" and the Three Wise Men were "eggheads from out east."
The sequel, More Aussie Bible, which recasts Genesis and Proverbs, will be published in May by the Bible Society of New South Wales.
Instead of the familiar opening of "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", Richards offers: "Out of the blue God knocked up the whole bang lot … God said 'let's have some light' and bingo - light appeared."
The Aussie Bible also retells the story of Joseph, whose jealous brothers sold him into slavery and told their father he had been killed by a wild beast. Joseph's father, Jacob, cries out: "He's been killed! Maybe a dingo got my boy!"
Mr Richards, a presenter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said inspiration for the second book came from the large number of people who said his work had inspired them to read the full-length Bible.0 -
Morbert said:
No, science is not the wrong tree, just your demand for an explanation of how matter came into existence.So then we agree that science is the wrong tree to "bark up" regarding the investigation of ID.
The definition of ID is obvious: That irreducible complexity can only arise from Intelligent Design, not random chance. I'm a layman, so maybe that's not jargon enough for you, but you should get the sense. See the ID articles for more formal presentation.Attack evolution all you like, the fact that you cannot give ID a formal definition means it is not a scientific theory.
It may be a tired old law to you - but it is an established law. Not a theory based on interpretation of facts, but a law based on observed reality.And regarding entropy..... You are talking to a 3rd year physics student. Are you sure you want to drag out the tired old 2nd law of thermodynamics argument?
In your opinion. What of the biologists who say otherwise? It is down again to how to account for these dissenters - liars, fools, or honest men willing to buck the dogma of the current consensus?Now... regarding irreducible complexity. I assume you know what an irreducibly complex system is. Just in case, it's a system that requires multiple components to function (removal of even one component results in the whole thing going "arseways" so to speak). It cannot be 'reduced', which has lead some people to believe evolution, a gradual process, could not be responsible for certain biological systems. This view is not supported by molecular biology.
Thanks for the explanation. It is good to hear the other side. But I am left as a layman still with the opposing scientists and their arguments."Irreducibly" complex biological systems can arise for a variety of reasons....
I agree.Regardless, it must be made clear that there is no controversy regarding the acceptance of Evolution by 99% of the scientific community.There is no argument that has been left unadressed, yet IDers still flog the same dead horse in a hope to give the illusion of controversy. This is not my opinion, this is the observed history of the ID movement.
What if the answers to ID are not the reality, just mistaken interpretations of the evidence? Would that not explain why ID and creationist folk continue to argue their case?0 -
Asiaprod said:A wonderful new version of the Bible that closses the door on Creationism for ever. A very funny read.
Hmm. Why would such a version close the door on Creationism? Would a humourous edition of 'Origin of the Species' close the door on Evolution?
BTW, any insight on the sensation going on in Nepal regarding a young boy, Ram, and his alleged existence without food or water for months? Thousands of Buddist pilgrims are flocking there to see what they believe to be the modern incarnation of Buddha. Being a non-creationist, would this constitute for you a leap in evolution for mankind?0 -
He isn't saying the law is tired. He is saying the argument based on it is. It's a dreadful argument, which involves a dreadful misrepresentation of entropy.wolfsbane wrote:It may be a tired old law to you - but it is an established law. Not a theory based on interpretation of facts, but a law based on observed reality.0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Which is why you take contraception if you don't want the 'natural byproduct'. If your contraception fails, you're saying what exactly? .
No problem because the married couple have a child. Outside of marriage why should the child suffer because the sper donor and his squeeze screwed up?Scofflaw wrote:The underage, and the mentally defective. Also the morally defective (contentious, I know). Those under coercion or undue influence, to use the legal terminology..
Force the coercer to look after the child. Or put it up for adoption. Why punish the child?Scofflaw wrote:'Medically dangerous' includes cases where neither the mother nor the baby is likely to survive. I won't deal with the liberal view, which is 'and some would not', but why is the life of the unborn more important than that of the mother? Certainly I love my daughter very dearly, but I would not have sacrificed my wife to have her (and it was an emergency C-section birth, so it was an issue).
I do thank God that my wife and I never had to face such a decision and my heart goes to anyone who has. I can't imagine.Scofflaw wrote:Yes, they should take contraception or have a vasectomy. That, too, is 'taking responsibility for your actions', particularly if you can't afford another child but you can afford contraception. Are you suggesting that people should refrain from sex apart from procreation?
Not all. Because the participants are in a stable marriage. Are not the vast majoority of abortions done by those who wish to participate in recreational sex outside of marriage? If that is the case then the child is being sacrificed to the gods of 'my own pleasure and my life'. Sex should be done when you are ready to take on the responsibility of raising a child. Until then abstain.Scofflaw wrote:No. Crime is not related to absolute poverty (as in the Depression example), but is provably related to 'relative poverty'. In other words, someone poor, even if they are absolutely much wealthier than most people on the planet, will be more inclined to commit crime if they live in a high-income-inequality society. Everyone poor together tends to bring out the best in people, but me poor and you rich tends to make me envious and you fearful. This is one of the arguments for income redistribution.
Government instituted wealth redistribution. Another topic for a different board I think. (Understand that I am not painting you as a socialist or communist or anything of the sort) Mine is just a comment as I'm sure yours is.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:No problem because the married couple have a child. Outside of marriage why should the child suffer because the sper donor and his squeeze screwed up?
Ah. Sex outside marriage IS wrong then, is it?BrianCalgary wrote:Force the coercer to look after the child. Or put it up for adoption. Why punish the child?
Being looked after by a rapist or put up for adoption is punishing the child. A lesser sentence than non-existence, of course.BrianCalgary wrote:I do thank God that my wife and I never had to face such a decision and my heart goes to anyone who has. I can't imagine.
Certainly it makes one consider the joys of a relativist morality.BrianCalgary wrote:Not all. Because the participants are in a stable marriage. Are not the vast majoority of abortions done by those who wish to participate in recreational sex outside of marriage? If that is the case then the child is being sacrificed to the gods of 'my own pleasure and my life'. Sex should be done when you are ready to take on the responsibility of raising a child. Until then abstain.
No. That's why contraception was invented. I don't see any point in turning that clock back. You clearly feel that sex is inherently sinful. I absolutely don't, and find your belief both wrong-headed and damaging. I do sincerely hope that you are unable to persuade anyone else of it.BrianCalgary wrote:Government instituted wealth redistribution. Another topic for a different board I think. (Understand that I am not painting you as a socialist or communist or anything of the sort) Mine is just a comment as I'm sure yours is.
True. It's not something I'm absolutely committed to, in any case. After all, I'm self-employed (having been an employer, and aiming to be again shortly), so I have a good deal of sympathy for the "your own hand is the best hand up" attitude. Voluntary, as opposed to government-mandated, redistribution is fine, as long as no strings are attached by the giver.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:BTW, any insight on the sensation going on in Nepal regarding a young boy, Ram, and his alleged existence without food or water for months? Thousands of Buddist pilgrims are flocking there to see what they believe to be the modern incarnation of Buddha. Being a non-creationist, would this constitute for you a leap in evolution for mankind?
Possibly religious credulity. It's not confined to Christians, after all.0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:Ah. Sex outside marriage IS wrong then, is it?
.
Yes.Scofflaw wrote:Being looked after by a rapist or put up for adoption is punishing the child. A lesser sentence than non-existence, of course.
I knew a number of kids that are adopted that are in great homes. I also know of a kid who was set to be aborted. It's great to have her. Being looked after by the rapist would not be done in a relational sense, only financially. The child could be raised by a loving family.Scofflaw wrote:No. That's why contraception was invented. I don't see any point in turning that clock back. You clearly feel that sex is inherently sinful. I absolutely don't, and find your belief both wrong-headed and damaging. I do sincerely hope that you are unable to persuade anyone else of it.
Unfortunately we see all the negatives of sex outside marriage. It spreads disease, causes emotional pain, abortions, among a few.
I do not believe sex is sinful at all. Sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed within the context of marriage.
I find the belief that 'if it feels good do it' to be wrong headed as it leads to the negative consequences. The progressive thing to do would be to put sex back into marriage alone and the problem of abortion and std's would be over.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Unfortunately we see all the negatives of sex outside marriage. It spreads disease, causes emotional pain, abortions, among a few.
I do not believe sex is sinful at all. Sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed within the context of marriage.
.
What about priests?Do you think that they should be given the option to get married and have marital sex ?.Surely all priests should be given the choice whether to remain celibate or not.Should this be considered especially in the light of the the amount of sexual defiancy/abuse cases that have been come to public knowledege recently?
It is a humans most basic primal urge to be sexual,and to keep these urges pent up inside you cannot be the good for anyone?0 -
Wolfsbane wrote:Hmm. Why would such a version close the door on Creationism? Would a humorous edition of 'Origin of the Species' close the door on Evolution?
Oh Wolsfsbane:) , lighten up. I don`t always post in argumentative mode. This is a bit of light humor for heaven sake. How could it possibly close the door on anything. Quite the reverse, it will probably encourage a bunch of Aussie to read the original for comparison.
Re the Boy Ram
I am skeptical for the following reasons.
1. nobody can get within 50 meters of him and those that can only look at him for 30 seconds
2. He is occasionally covered with a blanket so he cannot be seen
3. His mother has refused to let him be medically examined.
4. They are collecting a lot of money.
5 He has not said anything of any real impact other than he is not the Buddha but meditating for Bodhisattva,
6. He has deep knowledge of Yoga and is only seen to breath 3 time per minute
7. he was bitten by a snake and spent a number of days behind a blanket being attended to. What went on behind the blanket?
8. The publicity and actions of his minders are materialistic and work against the principle of Bodhisattva. If he was really serious about this the one thing he would know he does not want is the publicity.
And most important of all, humans have a long and proven history of becoming idiots when things turn religious.
Being a non-creationist, would this constitute for you a leap in evolution for mankind?
No, should it? This is common practice in Tibetan monasteries. The purpose of this world to a Buddhist is Bodhisattva, a Buddha cannot exist on this earth (see my post in Buddhism Forum re Nirvana) The very act of becoming a Buddha cuts the ties to this world.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:Unfortunately we see all the negatives of sex outside marriage. It spreads disease, causes emotional pain, abortions, among a few.
I do not believe sex is sinful at all. Sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed within the context of marriage.
I find the belief that 'if it feels good do it' to be wrong headed as it leads to the negative consequences. The progressive thing to do would be to put sex back into marriage alone and the problem of abortion and std's would be over.
Hopefully you've seen this: link.
I note with particular interest that STD's are nearly eliminated in only a couple of countries - heavily secular Scandinavia. Really, Brian, you simply couldn't be more wrong. If anything, the correlation is the other way - increased public practice of religion appears to go hand in hand with more teenage pregnancies, STDs etc. Note that this is not a causal link, it is statistical - it is possible that people in more violent & disease-ridden societies tend to go to church more. However, I certainly don't think you can glibly claim that repression is the answer - this is the Prohibitionist mentality that has done so much damage over the years. So, no, the regressive thing to do would be as you suggest - regression of a couple of hundred years, all told.
On abortion - interestingly, my brother's wife considered an abortion, while married, on the basis of the instability of the marriage. Mind you, I don't consider her to be a very moral person.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Morbert said:
No, science is not the wrong tree, just your demand for an explanation of how matter came into existence.
How matter came into existence is irrelevant. And science is indeed the wrong tree. Now if you'd like to have a debate on the philosophy and definition of science then fine, that's for another thread. But the fact still remains that ID is not science.wolfsbane wrote:The definition of ID is obvious: That irreducible complexity can only arise from Intelligent Design, not random chance. I'm a layman, so maybe that's not jargon enough for you, but you should get the sense. See the ID articles for more formal presentation.
It does not lay out the resultant postulates which are to be tested. How can we test that some irreducible system can only arise from intelligent design? (Especially when we have perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations)
And evolution is not random chance. I suggest you double check your sources.wolfsbane wrote:It may be a tired old law to you - but it is an established law. Not a theory based on interpretation of facts, but a law based on observed reality.
It is a tired old argument which has been refuted many times. The law is just fine.wolfsbane wrote:In your opinion. What of the biologists who say otherwise? It is down again to how to account for these dissenters - liars, fools, or honest men willing to buck the dogma of the current consensus?
They're wrong. That's how the scientific community has accounted for them. They have been reduced to repeating the same refuted arguments in the hope that people sympathetic to their cause will ignore the fact that they have been refuted and conflate the whole thing to give the image of controversy and debate where there is none. This is not just opinion, it has been demonstrated that they are wrong by the scientific community. Whether or not you accept this is unimportant.wolfsbane wrote:Thanks for the explanation. It is good to hear the other side. But I am left as a layman still with the opposing scientists and their arguments.
What if the answers to ID are not the reality, just mistaken interpretations of the evidence? Would that not explain why ID and creationist folk continue to argue their case?
Well then it seems you have no platform left to stand on. If you are not willing to recognise the failure of ID and its followers then that's your own problem. The bottom line is neither you, nor any IDer, from Behe to Dembski, has presented a testable scientific theory of ID. Nor has any IDer presented an objection to evolution (i.e. The irreducible complexity argument) which still stands.
So to boil it all down, the only argument you have left is that ID must be valid because some people say it is (Which of course is no argument at all). You don't seem to be willing to investigate it further. You claim it is a matter of opinion, yet when people try to show you why it isn't a matter of opinion you shrug and say: "Hey, I'm just a lay person, there are those who disagree with you." which is a meaningless stance.
So here's my advice to you. Go out, learn about the postulates and tenets of evolution, learn about Intelligent design, and learn about the reasons behind the methodology of science. Because if you aren't willing to roll up your sleeves and learn about the issue, then you have no place defending it.0 -
I am thinking about doing something positive from this thread- which is to start a sticky. The sticky's purpose is to recommend books, periodicals and websites for people to nerd up on the three options available- Creation Science, Intelligent Design and Naturalistic Evolution. Me and my "sell out the Gospel" troop might propose a few Bible studies for the people who want to take Genesis seriously.
(JOKE LADS, CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN)
So, if you think this is a good idea, pm me with some suggestions for reading material so that if someone happens along here they can find a handy resource for nerding up themselves.0 -
I'd be interested to know what ID/Creation proponents make of this: link.
The first couple of paras, given the high turnover at the BBC site:BBC wrote:Researchers have found that the shape of the human skull has changed significantly over the past 650 years.
Modern people possess less prominent features but higher foreheads than our medieval ancestors.
Writing in the British Dental Journal, the team took careful measurements of groups of skulls spanning across 30 generations.
The scientists said the differences between past and present skull shapes were "striking".
The two principal differences discovered were that our ancestors had more prominent features, but their cranial vault - the distance measured from the eyes to the top of the skull - was smaller.
Dr Peter Rock, lead author of the study and director of orthodontistry at Birmingham University, told the BBC News website: "The astonishing finding is the increased cranial vault heights.
"The increase is very considerable. For example, the vault height of the plague skulls were 80mm, and the modern ones were 95mm - that's in the order of 20% bigger, which is really rather a lot."
He suggests that the increase in size may be due to an increase in mental capacity over the ages.
Might explain the growth in secularism...0 -
Quote Scofflaw
We actually have flood sediments from the end of the glacial era which we can compare with the rest of the record, and the Flood hypothesis doesn't hold water (so to speak). If you have to bend or ignore the truth to make your theory fit the world then your arguments are indeed non-science.
I did geology at college (to post-graduate level, so I'm at least as qualified as the handful of scientific supporters of Creation), and I worked on the oil rigs and assorted other geological jobs after college. During that time I looked at a lot of rock, and JC's assertions regarding Flood Geology are nothing like the world (for example his claims about the purity of limestones are utterly false).
I also took Geology as a subject in my NUI degree course.
The ‘flood sediments’ that you speak of, from the end of the Ice Age are just that. The Ice Age came directly after Noah’s Flood because of a ‘Nuclear Winter’ type effect due to the enormous quantities of dust and steam released by the Flood Event itself.
Commercial Limestone is indeed very pure and the ‘eroded fissures’ where the ‘fountains’ of subterranean waters emerged are indeed still there – buried underneath many Limestone formations and coming to the surface in limestone caves.
Many Limestone caverns run deep underground and they show that enormous quantities of water once issued forth through these chambers. The typical small streams currently running through many enormous caverns are clearly not capable of creating such structures. The smooth walls of many caves also show water pressure patterns that indicate that they were formed by the rapid passage of huge quantities of water – rather than by the slow erosion of ‘trickling streams’.
The age of Limestone Caves have also been grossly over-estimated by using stalactite lengths as a guide. I was amazed to once be told by a Geologist that the 10 cm stalactites in the roof of a particular cave took hundreds of thousands of years to form.
I asked him to explain why stalactites in excess of 10 cm can be freely observed on 19th Century limestone railway bridges if it actually takes hundreds of thousands of years to form such structures.
He didn’t provide any answer!!!
Quote Scofflaw
When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.
These scientists are confusing quantity with quality.
The Human Brain and a Water Melon are both 95% water – but that extra 5% makes ALL the difference!!!
So too with Chimp and Human DNA.
Slime Mould contains a protein that has gene sequences that are almost identical with Human Haemoglobin – does this mean that we are closely related to slime moulds – or would you think that a Slime Mould ‘transfusion’ would be a good idea?
Quote Scofflaw
1. Whales: it was something of a puzzle that whales were warm-blooded, air-breathing, live-young-bearing animals
I can confirm that Whales CONTINUE to be a puzzle that evolution is unable to explain.
Whales are a good example of enormous Irreducible Complexity (versus land animals). There are a multitude of fundamentally different physical and physiological systems required by any land based animal who would “return to the sea” as postulated by evolution. The production of even ONE of these systems using undirected processes is mathematically impossible – it would be like trying to ‘solve’ a Rubik Cube while blindfolded – only a lot worse!!.
Quote Scofflaw
2. Humans: if we evolved from apes, we should expect there to be transitional forms, and there are. Since apes have no civilisation, and humans do, we would expect a gradual increase in the level of civilisation (such as fire, tool use, clothes etc) alongside the physical evolution.
We actually find Human Beings building the Pyramids of Egypt and cremating their dead in Newgrange RIGHT AT THE START of recorded Human History – and therefore NO gradual increase in the levels of civilisation has ever been detected by Archaeology.
The so-called Human ‘missing links’ have been variously found to be diseased Humans, apes or, in the case of Nebraska Man, an extinct pig and in the case of Piltdown Man, a hoax!!
Quote Scofflaw
3. Body Lice: since humans are assumed to have evolved as above, and have only been wearing clothes for part of their history, we would expect human body lice and hair lice to be somewhat different, which they are.
This is an example of “Lousy” Micro-evolution in action – i.e. the Natural SELECTION of different PRE-EXISTING Louse genetic information to produce different VARIETIES of Lice.
Quote Scofflaw
4. Whale lice: since we assume that whales are derived from an ancestral stock (their embryology recapitulates their evolution), but are usually sociable within their species, and are large free-swimming animals, we would expect whale lice to be mostly related, but showing lineages that are similar to the whale lineages
Advances in our understanding of embryology means that recapitulation is now regarded as totally invalid (even by evolutionary scientists).
The Whale Lice WOULD show similar lineages to Whale lineages as described by you – but the REASON is that they have been ‘Naturally Selected’ in parallel with the Whales over the past 6,000 years – and NOT because of any Macro evolutionary processes.
Quote Scofflaw
5. Evolution suggests that humans, in the form of Homo Sapiens, would most likely have been one offshoot of an evolutionary tree,and that there would almost certainly be extinct or living species that were related to the human line but not ancestral to humans. The long-extinct group is the Neanderthal, the more recently extinct (or possibly still surviving?) form is Homo florensis (which also illustrates another evolutionary trait - island dwarfism).
We know that all Human Beings are fully Human and descended from ONE original man and woman – so there is NO scientific basis for the assertion that ‘Island Dwarfs’ or any other aboriginal people are not fully Human.
Equally, Neanderthal Man is also now known to be a ‘fully paid up member’ of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
Quote Scofflaw
6. Birds and dinosaurs: birds, from their morphology (micro-scaly skins, egg-laying, soft anatomy, and skeletons) appear to be closely related to the reptiles (genetic evidence now also suggests this). This led palaeontologists to suggest that they probably evolved from extinct reptiles - the main candidates being the dinosaurs. For those who supported the dinosaur-to-bird pathway (the debate within science was settled in the 1970's), Archaeopteryx was a particularly important find, representing a proper feathered dinosaur. The large number of transitional forms have narrowed birds down to being descendants of the maniraptorial dinosaurs, although there are still a few paleontologists who argue for a crocodilian ancestor.
And there are quite a number of equally qualified palaeontologists who KNOW that ALL birds had BIRD ancestors!!!
Claiming that Archaeopteryx is a ‘Feathered Dinosaur’ has just about as much scientific validity as claiming that an Ostrich is a ‘Feathered Camel’.
Archaeopteryx was a BIRD – and not a ‘feathered Dinosaur’.
There were actually FLYING Dinosaurs, such as the Pteranodon – but they were no more like Birds than a Bat is.
Quote Scofflaw
7. While Darwin postulated evolution, and the selection mechanism, he had no knowledge of genetics. Nevertheless, the theory required that there be something to allow heredity. In other words, evolutionary theory predicted, before modern genetics, that there must be genetic material, and that the genetic material was probably going to be the same across all life (because all life is related). All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this.
Darwin may not have known anything about genetics.
However, Gregor Mendel, who was a Creation Scientist (and a contemporary of Darwin) actually KNEW and DEMONSTRATED that there was a genetic mechanism that controlled inherited traits.
BTW Mendel was a fully orthodox Roman Catholic monk at the time – and his Creationist beliefs rather contradicts the view that the Roman Catholic Church has always held evolution to be valid.
Creation Science predicts that an elegant, orderly genetic mechanism would be used by a Common Creator across all of life – and this is in fact the case, as you have confirmed.
On the other hand, Macro evolution (as an undirected information generating system) would predict a wide divergence in genetic mechanisms paralleling the divergence in phenotype mechanisms observed in different life forms – but this ISN’T the case.
Quote Asiaprod
A wonderful new version of the Bible that closses the door on Creationism for ever. A very funny read.
Instead of the familiar opening of "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", Richards offers: "Out of the blue God knocked up the whole bang lot".
Despite it’s 'vernacular' style – it still provides a solid Creationist account.
I can see no sign of any reference to evolution in the above quote.0 -
I'm going to be a dickhead and ask you to show me a derivation of that mathematical impossibility.J C wrote:1. Whales: it was something of a puzzle that whales were warm-blooded, air-breathing, live-young-bearing animals
I can confirm that Whales CONTINUE to be a puzzle that evolution is unable to explain.
Whales are a good example of enormous Irreducible Complexity (versus land animals). There are a multitude of fundamentally different physical and physiological systems required by any land based animal who would “return to the sea” as postulated by evolution. The production of even ONE of these systems using undirected processes is mathematically impossible – it would be like trying to ‘solve’ a Rubik Cube while blindfolded – only worse!!.0 -
Advertisement
-
In this discussion I was wondering if anyone has mentioned some of the debate and new findings surrounding Mt. Saint Helens in the United States. I saw a very boring program a couple of years back with some interesting facts. Some of the findings would change how science dates and looks at things. For example the way the volcano cut through rock and the river going through it. Previously science would have stated this took thousands of years but after observing Mt. Saint Helens they know that to be incorrect. Also, previously when dating the earth and looking at the way there were levels of forests scientists might have stated there were 27 different forests. After Mt. Saint Helens they realized that the way the logs settled it could appear to be over large periods of time but they knew that wasn't accurate based on the observation of the erruption. Well here is a web site love to hear others' thoughts. http://www.ac18.org/research/Origins/MSH.htm0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement