Creationism... again.
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
and finally man
Got to take issue with that. Not "and finally man", for man began in the primordial soup 4 billion years ago, we are a dynamic, evolving organism, not the final product. And certainly there are species that have evolved after Homo Sapiens started wandering around.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Not "and finally man", for man began in the primordial soup 4 billion years ago, we are a dynamic, evolving organism, not the final product.
I doubt that. Certainly not currently. For evolution to occur there needs to be a net positive impact on propagation over time due to some factor. I doubt any such factors currently exist.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Me, I tend to follow my paternal grandfather's "religion"... He paraphrased Thomas Paine in saying, "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's it. No sky pixies, no heaven or hell, no reincarnation, no temples, fasts, child-molesting priests, or praying... And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever.
So what objective criteria do you use to measure whether you are in fact doing good?
The simplest rule of morality in existence. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
Not "and finally man", for man began in the primordial soup 4 billion years ago, we are a dynamic, evolving organism, not the final product.
I doubt that. Certainly not currently. For evolution to occur there needs to be a net positive impact on propagation over time due to some factor. I doubt any such factors currently exist.
jschell wrote:
I doubt that. Certainly not currently.
Oh? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm[^]
-
I'm going to throw the 'Liberal Christian' take into this. I believe the Bible, it is a very good analogy of early world history. Take Genesis 1, there was nothing, then light [big bang], the earth formed, land and sea separated [forming the continents], all the plants and animals, and finally man. It did happen that way, just not in seven days. All these numpty dumpties forget that Darwin was a clergyman before being a scientist. There is no conflict, for me at least, between biblical teaching and scientific fact. FFS half the breakthroughs used to question religion where made by very religious people. [No I can't be fraked to list any more] Take the religion out of what the Bible, or Koran for that matter, teaches and it's good common sense with a strong moral overtone of looking after everyone. Just my penny's worth.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
All these numpty dumpties forget that Darwin was a clergyman before being a scientist.
Nobody forgets, it's just that it's largely irrelevant.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
There is no conflict, for me at least, between biblical teaching and scientific fact.
Take, say, evolution. Sure you can believe that God 'uses' evolution to achieve his ends, but then why would God choose to do it through the only possible method that doesn't require his existence?
-
Tut tut tut. Nope, not letting you get away with this one. I take it you mean such stupid people as : Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck and (arguably) Einstein. All beleived in the sky-pixie. Even ignoring the pre-modern ones the list is impressive and this is just the scientists. Mendel is interesting, his work filled many of the gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution, to do with inheritance and the passing on of traits. He was also a monk. Of course it could be argued that the society we live in is the result of the rennaisance (which lead to the Enlightenment), itself started in the context of Christian religous thought.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
Tut tut tut. Nope, not letting you get away with this one. I take it you mean such stupid people as :
Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck and (arguably) Einstein. All beleived in the sky-pixie.The only reason why religion was invented was to stop the human race from going mad. Think about it for one minute. If people didn't believe that they would go to a better place after a life of servitude what would be the point of life itself? So, some bright spark boss thought 'oh shit I better come up with something to keep my workers working otherwise they'll all just sod off once they realise this is all there is.'
You do trust me, don't you? IF EVERY nation gets the leaders it deserves, what in God's name have we done to deserve Francis Urquhart?
-
The simplest rule of morality in existence. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
That isn't objective. It isn't measurable. And it is unlikely that what you want is what everyone else wants.
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
You said "And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever." If it is neither objective nor measurable then if you think you are in fact doing "good" (also what you said) it is self-delusional. Proving that is as simple as finding something who also claims that they are doing good yet whose actions you find abhorent on some level.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Who said it had to be objective or measurable? It's a moral code, not a book of laws.
You said "And most importantly, no self-delusion whatsoever." If it is neither objective nor measurable then if you think you are in fact doing "good" (also what you said) it is self-delusional. Proving that is as simple as finding something who also claims that they are doing good yet whose actions you find abhorent on some level.
That's not contradictory at all. That person is doing what they think is good, and I do what I think is good. I'm not deluding myself, and neither is he. The golden rule has nothing to do with how OTHER people behave. Your example only becomes valid if there's an objective definition for "good", which is exactly the point under debate here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
That's not contradictory at all. That person is doing what they think is good, and I do what I think is good. I'm not deluding myself, and neither is he. The golden rule has nothing to do with how OTHER people behave. Your example only becomes valid if there's an objective definition for "good", which is exactly the point under debate here.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The golden rule has nothing to do with how OTHER people behave.
Then your self delusion occurs because it is only you who gets to decide what others want because it is based solely on what you want (because that is the golden rule.)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Your example only becomes valid if there's an objective definition for "good", which is exactly the point under debate here.
I am responding to what I quoted in the first post which I quoted. Nothing else.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The golden rule has nothing to do with how OTHER people behave.
Then your self delusion occurs because it is only you who gets to decide what others want because it is based solely on what you want (because that is the golden rule.)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Your example only becomes valid if there's an objective definition for "good", which is exactly the point under debate here.
I am responding to what I quoted in the first post which I quoted. Nothing else.
What are you smoking? Are you intentionally misreading everything I type, or is that just a convenient accident? The golden rule does not govern how other people behave. It governs how you behave. I means "Treat others how you would like to be treated." I wouldn't like to be robbed or killed, so I don't rob or kill others. I don't like to be lied to, so I don't lie to others. If they don't follow the same rule, then that's their decision, not mine.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)