Religion????????
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
My apologies for not looking up the exact quote but I was in a hurry to leave the office so if for that I am an “ignorant fool” then so be it.
The problem is not with the "exactness" of the quote. The problem is that you have asserted something that is simply false, namely that Darwin believed that the supposed inability of the eye to arise from evolutionary processes refuted his theory of evolution.
Richard Parsons wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” For those who would actually like to read about it here is the clickety: Darwin vs the eye[^]
And after the passage you quote we read: "Yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory." So even Answers in Genesis (a notoriously dishonest organization) isn't supporting your original ludicrous claim that Darwin believed that difficulties with the evolution of the eye disproved his theory. Answers in Genesis returns to form in claiming: "Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things." Yeah. Pigs may fly. Belief in evolution among modern scientists is stronger than it was in Darwin's time. The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote: The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html[^]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon. -Richard
-
John Carson wrote: The more evidence we have, the stronger the case for evolution becomes. Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html[^]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html\[^\]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon.
You really are a fool. Here is another link from the same site: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1711.html[^] Is it true that the Moon is moving away from the Earth? Yes, and this has been confirmed through more that a decade of lunar ranging experiments using the reflectors left on the Moon by Apollo astronauts. It has also been verified by looking at fossil deposits. In both cases, the rate works out to be about 3.8 centimeters per year, and the fossil sediment layering records show that this motion has been constant for over 900 million years at this same rate. Let me do the math for you. 900 million times 3.8cm gives 34,200 km. The moon is currently an average of about 385,000 km from earth, so bringing it 34,200 km closer doesn't bring the moon on top of the earth. What about 4 billion years ago? Well, it is in fact widely hypothesised that the moon formed from the earth (probably as a result of a collision between the earth and another object), so there is nothing troubling to standard scientific views in the idea that, if you go back far enough, the earth and moon come together. You show no evidence of any serious thought on this subject so I won't waste any more time on you. If you have any interest in getting a clue, then the following may be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
#hackC++ wrote:
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not.
I believe that religion exists - There is a church at the end of my street and I see people going there on Sunday. There are other churches in town and I've seen people go to them also. I saw people go to church when I was a child. I have seen people go to the mosque in Edinburgh. There is ample evidence that religion exists. :-D
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Nothing like a pedantic reply in a thread about religion... :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Richard Parsons wrote:
Interesting except it is not true, actually the more science learns the more they disprove the theory of evolution. For instance the moon is moving away from earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters/year (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1282.html\[^\]) if evolution were true then at one time (several million years ago – I didn’t do all the math for you) the moon would have been sitting on top of the earth. However if you believe God then the earth is only about 6000 years old and you wouldn’t have a close-up view of the moon.
You really are a fool. Here is another link from the same site: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1711.html[^] Is it true that the Moon is moving away from the Earth? Yes, and this has been confirmed through more that a decade of lunar ranging experiments using the reflectors left on the Moon by Apollo astronauts. It has also been verified by looking at fossil deposits. In both cases, the rate works out to be about 3.8 centimeters per year, and the fossil sediment layering records show that this motion has been constant for over 900 million years at this same rate. Let me do the math for you. 900 million times 3.8cm gives 34,200 km. The moon is currently an average of about 385,000 km from earth, so bringing it 34,200 km closer doesn't bring the moon on top of the earth. What about 4 billion years ago? Well, it is in fact widely hypothesised that the moon formed from the earth (probably as a result of a collision between the earth and another object), so there is nothing troubling to standard scientific views in the idea that, if you go back far enough, the earth and moon come together. You show no evidence of any serious thought on this subject so I won't waste any more time on you. If you have any interest in getting a clue, then the following may be a good place to start. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
Ok so maybe not several million years, maybe several billion years. Either way you are arguing a point you know I am correct on. ;) At one point the Moon would have been on earth (or been apart of it). Now you expect people to believe that something caused the earth to split and it just happened to end up as 2 spherical objects and that one of these objects continued to grow life while the other died and orbited the other? Come on... If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it. Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth. Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life? If so you have more faith than me, to bad it isn’t in something that is real. -Richard
-
#hackC++ wrote:
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not.
I believe that religion exists - There is a church at the end of my street and I see people going there on Sunday. There are other churches in town and I've seen people go to them also. I saw people go to church when I was a child. I have seen people go to the mosque in Edinburgh. There is ample evidence that religion exists. :-D
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
There is ample evidence that religion exists.
I contend that there is no religion. It's just a cosmic electrochemical inbalance.
-
Ok so maybe not several million years, maybe several billion years. Either way you are arguing a point you know I am correct on. ;) At one point the Moon would have been on earth (or been apart of it). Now you expect people to believe that something caused the earth to split and it just happened to end up as 2 spherical objects and that one of these objects continued to grow life while the other died and orbited the other? Come on... If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it. Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth. Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life? If so you have more faith than me, to bad it isn’t in something that is real. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it
Based upon what principle?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth.
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly. Someday the earth will have no moon. How careless of God, eh?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life?
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Nothing like a pedantic reply in a thread about religion... :rolleyes:
Software Zen:
delete this;I aim to please.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
If this were true then both would have continued to contain life or at least some trace of it
Based upon what principle?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Also if some "thing" caused a split then the gravitational forces on both objects (earth and moon) would have caused them to pull back together or the moon would have been shot away from the earth and never quit moving at that speed unless it was hit by more objects that just happen to stop it far enough away from the earth that it could escape not being pulled back together with earth.
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly. Someday the earth will have no moon. How careless of God, eh?
Richard Parsons wrote:
Do you really think that so many coincidences are possible to help "create" and sustain life?
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Based upon what principle?
Based on the "theory" that life evolves. It is a logical assumption that if the earth split than both it and the moon would contain at least some kind of life that would have continued until now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly.
Yes but if it had always moved that slow then when it split to begin with the earth and moon would have pulled themselves back together unless the moon was moving faster away than earth's gravity could pull it back. That lead to the next statement I made that if it was moving that fast then why all the sudden did it slow down? It most likely would have come from yet another collision with another "object" to stop it just in time to still be held by earth's gravity but it also stopped just far enough away that it wouldn't be pulled back to earth killing us all. Seems like a lot of coincidence went into that all working out for us.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results.
Sure I have thought of it. God's word says that there is a time and place for everything and it actually list "chance" as one of those things that just happens. I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh. -Richard
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Based upon what principle?
Based on the "theory" that life evolves. It is a logical assumption that if the earth split than both it and the moon would contain at least some kind of life that would have continued until now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly.
Yes but if it had always moved that slow then when it split to begin with the earth and moon would have pulled themselves back together unless the moon was moving faster away than earth's gravity could pull it back. That lead to the next statement I made that if it was moving that fast then why all the sudden did it slow down? It most likely would have come from yet another collision with another "object" to stop it just in time to still be held by earth's gravity but it also stopped just far enough away that it wouldn't be pulled back to earth killing us all. Seems like a lot of coincidence went into that all working out for us.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results.
Sure I have thought of it. God's word says that there is a time and place for everything and it actually list "chance" as one of those things that just happens. I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh.
What on earth, if I may be so bold to ask, have made you believe that? Ask yourself, has God ever told you this, or have you been told by other men?
-
Richard Parsons wrote:
I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh.
What on earth, if I may be so bold to ask, have made you believe that? Ask yourself, has God ever told you this, or have you been told by other men?
God told me: Genesis 1:31-2:3 (31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. -Richard
-
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not. "When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything." ..........G.K. Chesterson "When in comes to bullshit...bigtime, major league bullshit...you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion." ..........George Carlin "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ..........Ben Franklin
-
God told me: Genesis 1:31-2:3 (31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. -Richard
No, God didn't tell you that. A bunch of humans have written that. You believe though that God wrote it. Also, the bible is poorly written for the most part, so I wouldn't insult the almighty by accusing him of writing it. What amazes me, is that you and many others, put far more faith into the men that came before, than in God himself.
-
Religion is the result of a set of very fundamental instincts which define our humanity. We all place our faith in something. It is impossible not to. The most modern incrnation of religion consists of reason and rationality and the scientific methodlogies. Yet, the notion that the human mind is even capable of comphrehending the true nature of the universe is an act of faith in and of itself. Science, ultimately, is nothing more than a way of quantifying what we observe, of reducing it down to a set of precise mathmatical relationships. The problem with that is that we have to accept on faith that what we are observing and measuring is real, while the only reality we have any direct experience with is the phenomenon of our own conscious existence which we have yet to achieve anything remotely approching a satisfying explanation for. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem with that is that we have to accept on faith that what we are observing and measuring is real, while the only reality we have any direct experience with is the phenomenon of our own conscious existence which we have yet to achieve anything remotely approching a satisfying explanation for.
The nice thing about science is that you can come to the conclusion that you are wrong, and revise your theory to fit your new data. It's worse for Judaism and Christianity, which have to defend the creation. They can't change the theory, because then it'll tarnish the very foundation of these beliefs. On the contrary, science grows stronger for every time a theory is revised to be more accurate.
-
Some people will argue that you are religious for not believing. :rolleyes: OT: Where in Israel do you live?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem with that is that we have to accept on faith that what we are observing and measuring is real, while the only reality we have any direct experience with is the phenomenon of our own conscious existence which we have yet to achieve anything remotely approching a satisfying explanation for.
The nice thing about science is that you can come to the conclusion that you are wrong, and revise your theory to fit your new data. It's worse for Judaism and Christianity, which have to defend the creation. They can't change the theory, because then it'll tarnish the very foundation of these beliefs. On the contrary, science grows stronger for every time a theory is revised to be more accurate.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
The nice thing about science is that you can come to the conclusion that you are wrong, and revise your theory to fit your new data. It's worse for Judaism and Christianity, which have to defend the creation. They can't change the theory, because then it'll tarnish the very foundation of these beliefs. On the contrary, science grows stronger for every time a theory is revised to be more accurate.
On the other hand, science has the problem of being understandable by only an elite few blessed with the intellect and the time to invest in understanding it. The rest of us can only kind of stand around going "Wow! Thats amazing!" without ever really quite understanding completely what the hell it is we are being told. Religion provides a more immediate, populist kind of appeal. I can be one of many with a perfect comprehension of how everything came to be. I would never argue that science is not a better investment of one's faith than is religion. The power of scientific methodologies are indisputably more robust than are those of relgion. ( Just try to determine the structure or even the existence of DNA by reading the Koran or the Bible). But science is more difficlut to approach for the common man. Ultimately, all we really are is little bubbles of consciousness bobbing around in a sea of sub-atomic particles placing our faith in ever more highly evolved ways of trying to figure out how the fuck we got here. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Based upon what principle?
Based on the "theory" that life evolves. It is a logical assumption that if the earth split than both it and the moon would contain at least some kind of life that would have continued until now.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The moon is being shot away from the earth. Its just doing it rather slowly.
Yes but if it had always moved that slow then when it split to begin with the earth and moon would have pulled themselves back together unless the moon was moving faster away than earth's gravity could pull it back. That lead to the next statement I made that if it was moving that fast then why all the sudden did it slow down? It most likely would have come from yet another collision with another "object" to stop it just in time to still be held by earth's gravity but it also stopped just far enough away that it wouldn't be pulled back to earth killing us all. Seems like a lot of coincidence went into that all working out for us.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Ever stop to consider that perhaps conincidence is how God gets his work done? Maybe that is why he created such a huge universe - in order to provide sufficient probability of getting the desired results.
Sure I have thought of it. God's word says that there is a time and place for everything and it actually list "chance" as one of those things that just happens. I however don't believe that it was by chance that everything came into existence because we are told that God created everything in six days and then rested on the seventh. -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote:
It is a logical assumption that if the earth split than both it and the moon would contain at least some kind of life that would have continued until now.
The theory as I understand it, is that there was another planet, or body, that collided with the Earth some 4.5 or 5 billion years ago. The earth didn't just split. This happened prior to any known life. Even if it didn't, it was such a cataclysmic collision that any life would have ceased to exist. The fact that life formed on earth after this point is irrelevent to the fact that there is no life on the moon. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
Whats your take on religion. Do you "believe" or not. "When a man ceases to believe in god, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything." ..........G.K. Chesterson "When in comes to bullshit...bigtime, major league bullshit...you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...religion." ..........George Carlin "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ..........Ben Franklin
I believe, yes, but religion got nothing to do with it.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
No, God didn't tell you that. A bunch of humans have written that. You believe though that God wrote it. Also, the bible is poorly written for the most part, so I wouldn't insult the almighty by accusing him of writing it. What amazes me, is that you and many others, put far more faith into the men that came before, than in God himself.
What is amazing is that you can't see how the Bible was inspired by God and written by men. Over 40 men wrote the Bible in a period of about 1600 years and yet all the books (66 to be exact) still harmonize. It’s not insulting to give credit to God for doing something he gave us, it is insulting to kill innocent people and claim God told you to do it. I’m not saying you have done this but some “religions” promote this. Why are people so incline to violence instead of love? God doesn’t want violence and neither should we. Christians promote Peace, Love, and Repentance and yet we are still insulted (see the above post) and called names by others who differ in opinion. Why? Are y’all so afraid of the truth that you must try to kill it and us? Get real and ask for God to truly teach you and take this hatred out of your hearts. Then maybe you can have a rational conversation about God and begin to understand his true nature. -Richard
-
-
What is amazing is that you can't see how the Bible was inspired by God and written by men. Over 40 men wrote the Bible in a period of about 1600 years and yet all the books (66 to be exact) still harmonize. It’s not insulting to give credit to God for doing something he gave us, it is insulting to kill innocent people and claim God told you to do it. I’m not saying you have done this but some “religions” promote this. Why are people so incline to violence instead of love? God doesn’t want violence and neither should we. Christians promote Peace, Love, and Repentance and yet we are still insulted (see the above post) and called names by others who differ in opinion. Why? Are y’all so afraid of the truth that you must try to kill it and us? Get real and ask for God to truly teach you and take this hatred out of your hearts. Then maybe you can have a rational conversation about God and begin to understand his true nature. -Richard