Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

Just to continue destroying Carolinajazz myths... what happened to aboriginal Australian people after flood? How did they repopulated? Are they newly evolved from Noah's relatives which somehow inhabited Australia 4000 years ago after the flood? How about Japanese? American natives? Inuits in Greenland? So if you believer of Noah's ark myth relatives of Noah's ark survivors somehow migrated all over the world and changed their skin color, eye shapes, hair, etc to turn into today's variety of nations and races in just a 4000 years?
Honestly, tales about leprechauns, trolls, unicorns, vampires and werewolves are way more believable...

 

[babe]

babe, have you watched movie Agora? I strongly recommend it for you.

I haven't seen it, though I think I've heard of it. I wiki'd it, and read some reviews. Some critics seem to think the point of the movie is not directed specifically at Catholic adherents but at ignorance in generally fundamentalist zealots. Could be just as relevant to marxist ideologues, or any other ignorant zealots you could imagine. I'll have to see it myself to judge it for myself.

I am aware that real intellectual scholarship disappeared under Catholic statism in Europe until after the black plague restored the concept of how valuable the lower classes were to the elites, and in turn gave the peasants a new sense of their own abilities. The Renaissance followed, naturally.

I am afraid that our darkening intellectual age is turning out too many ignorant zealots who have somehow missed out on the concept of human dignity and human worth and human liberty under the crush of progressive New World Order statism.

I value my ancestry that traces back on some lines to the Berbers in North Africa who became caught up in the Islamic expansion and ended up in Spain, where after a whole lot of fighting, it all resulted in a blending of cultures and traditions to some extent, with some of the ancestors I speak of converting to Christianity. These became significant contributing lines to British royalty and possibly infused England with some appreciation for arts and science. . . . . though not so thoroughly as would have averted a whole lot of ignorant religious zealotry in support of English statism.

It pains me to hear of libraries being burned by ideological or religious mobs of ignoramuses. I'd be just as pained if todays Christians burned all the research that supports understanding of life in the context of ongoing genetic transformations.

I'm pretty sure there were people around for tens of thousands of years before this present age, and I don't quibble about the evidence. The former Lake Bonneville was here until about 10,000 years ago, and whatever floods affected Babylon or any other pre-historic civilization in the Mediterranean Basin had no impact here. Pretty clear to me that the writers of the Bible incorporated verbal legend traditions into their account, not necessarily "the word of God". I watched the movie about the Ark on the side of Mt. Ararat,too. Don't know what I think about that. Haven't been there.

I and my kids have hiked up to the caves where archaeologists have done several excavation projects establishing it was inhabited ten thousand years ago. Lake Bonneville's shoreline would have been a lush grassland in that age, with clear mountain streams teaming with Bonneville trout, lots of deer. There were also saber toothed tigers, woolley mammoths, camels, pterodactyls, and boat-based trade routes throughout all the lakes in the Great Basin.

Too much to ask for/demand that some goatherd scribbler priests in Jerusalem knew all about all that.

 

[Hekate]

you talk like Islamic crusades/conquests did not happen.

I don't suppose either movement, at the grass roots, involved particularly empathetic, tolerant, and conscientious notions about doing good to their enemies. In the case of the Christians, it was a distinct spate of cognitive dissonance in contradiction to the specific teachings of Christ. In their defense, I would note that anyone who thinks their way of life is under attack with threats against their families, their beliefs, and their lives, is going to resort to arms.

You can add them to the discussion as well. I only said Crusades because I was talking to Christian demographic. Crusades were against Christian Values. Jihads were against Islamic Values. Wars did happen before and after Judaism, Christianity Or Islam. So the values of major religions didn't change much.

And just to say Vikings were barbarous because they hadn't met Christianity is absurd while most of the records were written by Non-Vikings. Anyway there are many factors in the development of Scandinavian countries. Which I can't explain because I got to get to the school.(Great Ending. May be I should try this at an uni essay.)

I am sorry for the half-assed reply though. I will try to come back here but this thread and the longest thread ever is hard threads to follow. Have a good day.

 

[babe]

You can add them to the discussion as well. I only said Crusades because I was talking to Christian demographic. Crusades were against Christian Values. Jihads were against Islamic Values. Wars did happen before and after Judaism, Christianity Or Islam. So the values of major religions didn't change much.

And just to say Vikings were barbarous because they hadn't met Christianity is absurd while most of the records were written by Non-Vikings. Anyway there are many factors in the development of Scandinavian countries. Which I can't explain because I got to get to the school.(Great Ending. May be I should try this at an uni essay.)

I am sorry for the half-assed reply though. I will try to come back here but this thread and the longest thread ever is hard threads to follow. Have a good day.

Your point about my all-too-shallow comment about the Vikings being absurd is well-taken. I was, of course, being a bit "half-assed" myself.

Having some red-head Scot ancestry myself probably means I should figure I'm. . . in some small measure. . . . a Viking myself.

When you have the time to do a good job of it, feel welcome to post your treatise in the longest thread ever.

I don't expect to ever end that, because I'm sure I will never know it all. I don't think anyone does, but we can always go on with every new day, and apply ourselves to every new problem we face.

There is nothing new about it, it's always been like that.

We never really get a fresh start in life, and whatever the past has been, it will cast both light and shadow on our present. It should help us to keep it in mind, whether good or bad.

I hope it is the story that never ends.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

They have video evidence that will end this "debate" of creation/evolution.


Here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSWRdbSQK0

 

[LogGrad98]

Creationists should be spat on and then locked away for life

You would have to be insane to believe any of the garbage trotted out by the worlds religions

Turn the other cheek? Rubbish!

Thou shalt not kill? Total crap!

Love they neighbor? Puh-leeze, only if she is 18 and available when the wife is away and accepts cash...uh...or trade.

 

[One Brow]

The Vikings, before they became Christians, were of a wholly different character. They sailed around raiding the villages along the coasts of many nations, taking what they pleased.

You really shouldn't rely on vague notions put forth by the enemies of a culture to describe them.

 

[VINYLONE]

We never really get a fresh start in life, and whatever the past has been, it will cast both light and shadow on our present. It should help us to keep it in mind, whether good or bad.

Can you expound a little more on this statement?

Also, a few questions.

Are you a believer in pre-destination?
Do you believe I can never lead a righteous life because I'm an Atheist and believe in science?
Do you believe I have no moral compass as an Atheist?

Thanks for your time.

 

[babe]

Can you expound a little more on this statement?

Also, a few questions.

Are you a believer in pre-destination?
Do you believe I can never lead a righteous life because I'm an Atheist and believe in science?

Thanks for your time.

context, man. .. . context. Has a lot to do with our thinking, and our decisions.

I believe we make choices within context, and are accountable in the the judgment of God, who puts our choices in their context when judging. And who can be merciful, compassionate, and a lot of other generous things. . . . I think God has plans based on a lot of understanding of us, though we may either disappoint Him or make Him deeply grateful we chose better than He thought we might. . . .

While Jesus said belief on faith is a virtue that God has great compassion on, and unbelief has consequences we won't really enjoy. . . . He also taught that we will be judged righteously, that is to say, on our true merits. I know some athiests who have some principles and seem like pretty decent folks. Some have done me great goodness. I love them for that.

I would probably at this point, refer to you OB, even though I might disagree with him on a lot of things. Seems to make the effort to have a moral compass. I would ask some questions about how he ranks himself as different or better than some specific religionists. But the "no moral compass" is an extreme statement. "inadequate moral compass" or "relatively less reliable moral compass" woujld probably the kind of language I'd use, with specific reasons, and then accept rebuttals on their merits, as best I could. . . .

Overall, I view our "context" as a "test" of a sort. A test of our character. I also view the merits of religion as I embrace it to be manifold. We have choices, and with choices we get results It is possible it make choices for good or bad reasons, for good or bad will. I will admit that in many cases Christians and other "religious" folks have bad reasons and bad intentions/will and consider they will probably not serve as good examples of the faith. I see the same thing with any group of committed believers in whatever ideas/ideologies. I accept that some "athiests" can have a lot of good reasons or good will.

I just think that, after all the God I believe in seems to have done, in my estimation, it would be a shame for me to not love Him.

 

[babe]

You really shouldn't rely on vague notions put forth by the enemies of a culture to describe them.

well, I can't think of any people in history who didn't rub some neighbors the wrong way, but generally I feel the folks with clubs and spears to come over the town to raid a village are somehow perhaps not being the best neighbors.

Are the raids on coastal towns attributed to Vikings mere fictions?

 

[PearlWatson]

Godless countries like Denmark, Norway or Sweden seem to do much better than very religious country like USA in most morality related situations ( crimes, teen abortions, stds, etc ) and in general happiness. We beat that topic to death, being religious does not make you automatically good person and vice versa.
For example I once was fishing in Norway. You come to river, there is a simple box with licence tickets rolled in some roll, you leave your money in a box, peel ticket off and go. None of godless norvegians ever consider just taking ticket without paying or stealing the box with cash. Heck most of their houses used to not have any locks until some immigration from African and Asian countries started to happen. Doubt that would work that well in highly religious Carolina states lol.
So please, rest that "no God no morality" case, real world situations proved it wrong long time ago.

atrocious assumptions and reasoning but amusing nonetheless

While living under godless rule did you get to chose your educational/career pursuit?

 

[One Brow]

Are the raids on coastal towns attributed to Vikings mere fictions?

Vikings raided coastal towns, and Viking coastal towns were raided by other groups. It's a European tradition.

 

[One Brow]

I would probably at this point, refer to you OB, even though I might disagree with him on a lot of things. Seems to make the effort to have a moral compass. I would ask some questions about how he ranks himself as different or better than some specific religionists. But the "no moral compass" is an extreme statement.

I believe that moral systems based on the ethics of compassion, consent, opportunity, and dignity are superior to moral systems based on the ethics of following a set of spelled-out rules, so I try to use the former. I think that both religious and non-religious people use the first sort of system, and that both religious and non-religious people use the second sort of system. Three years ago I might have guessed that religious people were more inclined toward the second sort of system, but I don't think that anymore.

 

[MVP]

While living under godless rule did you get to chose your educational/career pursuit?

Yes and it was free. I paid nothing for my education and actually was getting paid small scholarship.

 

[MVP]

atrocious assumptions and reasoning but amusing nonetheless

Its facts my dear friend. As Metallica sings " Sad but true"

 

[VINYLONE]

VJ whats up bro

Hope all is well

Do you like watching Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss etc etc own religious people ? So many great Youtube vids of those guys and other scientists intellectually annihilating religious people

Even though its not a fair fight its great entertainment

Matt,

I'm doing well.

I was always a fan of the late Mr. Hitchens but I don't really listen to those other folks. My Atheism is a very personal outlook and since I've made my peace with it, I don't need any sort of daily affirmation of it. I'm also not a fan, at all, of the New Atheists.

 

[carolinajazz]

Just to continue destroying Carolinajazz myths... what happened to aboriginal Australian people after flood? How did they repopulated? Are they newly evolved from Noah's relatives which somehow inhabited Australia 4000 years ago after the flood? How about Japanese? American natives? Inuits in Greenland? So if you believer of Noah's ark myth relatives of Noah's ark survivors somehow migrated all over the world and changed their skin color, eye shapes, hair, etc to turn into today's variety of nations and races in just a 4000 years?
Honestly, tales about leprechauns, trolls, unicorns, vampires and werewolves are way more believable...

When the sperm cell from a man unites with the egg cell of a woman, a new human life is conceived even though the parents are of different races. Yet within that very small cell are thousands of genes, the transmitters of hereditary traits. These traits reflect characteristics seen in the parents or other ancestors.

According to the Bible, all humans descend from Noah, through his three sons Shem, Japheth and Ham. Genesis chapter 10 lists 70 descendants of Noah saying: “From these the nations were spread about in the earth.” (Genesis 10:32) One of the many ways in which these nations have been classified is with reference to skin color. In the skin of all normal humans is a blackish brown pigment called melanin.

Noah and his three sons all had a measure of this dark pigment. From Shem came the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Jews and the Arabs who vary from fair to light-brown skin. The descendants of Japheth, who include the Indo-European races, vary from light skin to dark brown. As for Ham (meaning swarthy or sun-burnt), some, but not all, of his descendants had dark skin. The Egyptians, with light-brown skin, descended from Ham’s son Mizraim. Ham’s son Canaan, who was cursed by God because of bad conduct, was the forefather of the light-skinned Canaanites.

In agreement with this, Dr.*Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto, said: “On every continent, and in every geographically defined race, there is a considerable range of variation in .*.*. skin pigmentation, .*.*. the Tamils of South India are considered by many anthropologists to be members of the Caucasoid [white Indo-European] major race, yet in skin pigmentation they are darker than many African Negroes.”

All divisions of mankind have a dark pigment in their skin, some to a lesser, others to a greater extent.

Understanding the genetic principle, knowing how millions of variations occur, we can see why these variations exist, and that all, nevertheless, comprise one human race, one family. There are great differences in some respects, minor differences in most respects. But there is a sameness in human nature everywhere, and all can intermarry and have children. They are all of one kind.

 

[MVP]

When the sperm cell from a man unites with the egg cell of a woman, a new human life is conceived even though the parents are of different races. Yet within that very small cell are thousands of genes, the transmitters of hereditary traits. These traits reflect characteristics seen in the parents or other ancestors.

According to the Bible, all humans descend from Noah, through his three sons Shem, Japheth and Ham. Genesis chapter 10 lists 70 descendants of Noah saying: “From these the nations were spread about in the earth.” (Genesis 10:32) One of the many ways in which these nations have been classified is with reference to skin color. In the skin of all normal humans is a blackish brown pigment called melanin.

Noah and his three sons all had a measure of this dark pigment. From Shem came the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Jews and the Arabs who vary from fair to light-brown skin. The descendants of Japheth, who include the Indo-European races, vary from light skin to dark brown. As for Ham (meaning swarthy or sun-burnt), some, but not all, of his descendants had dark skin. The Egyptians, with light-brown skin, descended from Ham’s son Mizraim. Ham’s son Canaan, who was cursed by God because of bad conduct, was the forefather of the light-skinned Canaanites.

In agreement with this, Dr.*Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto, said: “On every continent, and in every geographically defined race, there is a considerable range of variation in .*.*. skin pigmentation, .*.*. the Tamils of South India are considered by many anthropologists to be members of the Caucasoid [white Indo-European] major race, yet in skin pigmentation they are darker than many African Negroes.”

All divisions of mankind have a dark pigment in their skin, some to a lesser, others to a greater extent.

Understanding the genetic principle, knowing how millions of variations occur, we can see why these variations exist, and that all, nevertheless, comprise one human race, one family. There are great differences in some respects, minor differences in most respects. But there is a sameness in human nature everywhere, and all can intermarry and have children. They are all of one kind.

What a load of rubbish instead of simple answer to simple question.
Again... what happened to Aboriginal people, Natives of Americas, Inuits of Greenland and Japanese people after flood. How exactly the same people and cultures ended up inhabiting those areas again?

 

[Hekate]

I believe that moral systems based on the ethics of compassion, consent, opportunity, and dignity are superior to moral systems based on the ethics of following a set of spelled-out rules, so I try to use the former. I think that both religious and non-religious people use the first sort of system, and that both religious and non-religious people use the second sort of system. Three years ago I might have guessed that religious people were more inclined toward the second sort of system, but I don't think that anymore.

Why the change in the thought? I ask because I do think more religious people than non-religious people have rigid rules about life.

 

[One Brow]

Why the change in the thought? I ask because I do think more religious people than non-religious people have rigid rules about life.

I read a few of blogs written by atheistic feminists, and the bile they receive from other atheists regarding feminism is usually worse that what they get from religious people.