Serious question related to ID...
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity.
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well. The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end? Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote:
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well.
Certainly not unique to Christianity or, in fact, religion in general.
Tim Craig wrote:
The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end?
Perhaps, but none of that results in the conclusion: "therefore secularism must be promoted by the state in order to control religion". Secularism is nothing more than another philosophical world view that should be competing openly with others, such as religion, with no help from government. Separation between church and state is as much about protecting religion from the state as protecting the state from religion. And if the government activiely promotes one philosophy, secularism, as a government sanctioned alternative to religion than it is every bit as much in violation of separation of church and state as if it were promoting a religion. The left worships the "nonestablishment clause" but completely ignores the "free exercise thereof" clause.
Tim Craig wrote:
Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views?
No, not as a religion. But certainly it does for the historic role it has played in American culture. The historic importantance of chrisitianity and protestantism should certainly be taught in school and the display of symbols and quotations associated with it should certainly be allowed at the very least - even on government property. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very foundation of our civilization was built with the bricks and morter of protestant christianity.
Well, no sect of christianity seems to be able to tollerate the other very well. The only thing that saved this country was that the nonestablishment clause guaranteed that none of them would get the upper hand and they bought into the truce. The fact that christianity, in general, got the nod and wink by government is now biting everyone in the ass. Just because at the time the founding fathers didn't forsee many differing religions here and put it into the constitution as you can pick the form of christianity you want to believe but everyone else can just go to hell and we'll help you start your journey doesn't mean that they made a mistake by the modern interpretation. It's just like your problem with affirmative action. When does it end? Does christianity always get favored treatment in the US or does it have to share with other views? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Most churches just seem to be an outlet for the preacher to try to control people. Most of them envision America turning into a theocracy, much like Iran, only with Christianity being the state religion. I am against most organized religion, though I am not an athiest. I hate their whole idea of "hell". They try to terrorize people with it. It is always "you are going to hell if you read that version of the bible", or "you better get saved or you are going to hell". Then, there are some of them that believe in the "rapture". The rapture is an idea that they have that any second, they could literally vanish and go to heaven, then everyone else would have no chance to ever get saved. I guess we all better get ready to burn with the devil in the lake of fire for eternity. :rolleyes: :zzz:
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Thanks, another line for my sig.
Im flattered.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Why do you liberals always personally attack people when you disagree with them?
Who said I am a liberal? What defines a liberal? Do you think the whole world fits into two categories?
Josh Gray wrote:
Who said I am a liberal? What defines a liberal? Do you think the whole world fits into two categories?
Ok, maybe I wrongly accused you. For you to say I am brainwashed, I assumed you diagreed with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. Oh come on, what's not to trust about this guy? :laugh: (I always love how every kooky cult leader implements some type of "The great one/alien/orb/etc has informed me that as your leader, I must sleep with 10 women a night" clause in their doctrine) I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. I like the theory that states we're some type of discarded alien experiment that went wrong. What a blow to the human ego that would be. The 8-Track Tape of spacekind. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy. I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average". We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up". "When you know you're going to eat crow, it's best to eat it while it's still warm." - Reader's Digest
Jack Squirrel wrote:
We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up".
This could very very easily describe some scientific explanations.
Jack Squirrel wrote:
I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average".
Really? Wow! My science teachers must have only showed me all of science's mistakes, and very little of their true findings. Actually, you're right. Most of religion is based on lie after lie, but science is far from infallible. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Jack Squirrel wrote:
Who's this God you speak of? The real truth can be found here.
form the above mentioned website For example, in Genesis, the Biblical account of Creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God", but it is actually a plural word which means "those who came from the sky", and the singular is "Eloha" (also known as "Allah"). does the site owner not trying to say that Christianity is actually worshiping of several gods?is it not against the teachings of bible? MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God",
Actually, Elohim is the plural of god (note, god not capitalized here). The word god can mean 'divine', or 'divine-like'. Even Satan and the demons are called gods in the Bible. There are several places where Elohim is used to denote God and one or more angels (e.g God and Jesus). Also, in Hebrew a word can be made plural to denote greatness. The plural Elohim, depending on context, can denote the [true] God, also called God Almight or the Most High. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
I saw the show you're referring to. It was low on real explanation and as you said and really didn't emphasize what was fact and what was speculation. I suppose part can be blamed on how much time they had to present the material, Well over 200,000 years of human development crammed into an hour. Another argument the film maker might use is that he wants to get people interested in the subject so they'll did deeper on their own and find more clarification, hence the drama. One thing I think would be important to the teaching of science is to teach just what the philosophy of science is and the methodology one employs to do science. Generally, observations are made or general experiments are done. With that data, speculation and hypothesis are used as to how those observations might be explained. Arguments go back and forth until a consensus is reached that a certain theory reasonably explains what is going on. However, more importantly, theories are never just accepted as holy and everyone puts big check mark beside it and moves on to greener pastures. Theories are always open to test and reevalution based on new evidence or even new insight. People think evoution theory stopped at Darwin and the current work going on to come up with a more complete and detailed theory mean Darwin was wrong. Of course, most of these people want to distort this to insert their own religiously biased view into the mix. The most telling reason that ID is NOT science is that it is not open to refinement. In fact, if it was applied to all areas of science, no progress would ever have been made. At the first tough part of the problem, ID would be introduced and that would be that. We can't understand this, therefore (a) god (wink, nod) did it and end of story. The second thing different about science in my opinion is that scientists are comfortable saying what they don't know. They'll say what is observable and what is hypothesis. They will spend the time and effort to try to find answers. While the ID people like to say, it's just a theory, they minimize what a real scientific theory embodies. As far as teaching anything about ID in science classes, it might be valuable as a prime example of what crackpot ideas charlatans try to foist off as science for their own gain.
I agree with you that ID is not science, but...
Tim Craig wrote:
However, more importantly, theories are never just accepted as holy and everyone puts big check mark beside it and moves on to greener pastures.
In my education I've found that they often teach science just like that (the big check mark, taken holy and such). In the real world it may not be like that, but the issue is what is being taught in the schools. For example, in elementary school we were taught that the electron orbits the nucleus of an atom. In high school, my teacher walked in singing "lie lie lie", to let us know that we were lied to (and an electron can really be found anywhere in a certain area of the atom, etc.) The same is often done when teaching evolution.
Tim Craig wrote:
The second thing different about science in my opinion is that scientists are comfortable saying what they don't know.
Not as true as you'd like to believe. There are often times when scientists are scoffed at by other scientists because they are questioning fast-held beliefs.
Tim Craig wrote:
They'll say what is observable and what is hypothesis.
This isn't really how the science books teach evolution. It's more like, "This is what happened." At least in my experience. Maybe instead of introducing intelligent design, whether or not anyone thinks ID is true, the school systems should reexamine how evolution is actually being taught in each school.
Tim Craig wrote:
While the ID people like to say, it's just a theory, they minimize what a real scientific theory embodies.
Perhaps they do (minimize it), but my whole point of this post is that (the reason they minimize it is) evolution, though a theory, is being taught too much like fact. Even the theory of gravity, in schools, is taught that we can observe this to happen, and it appears a force pulls objects down, etc., etc. But with evolution, they say these are the steps that it happened. Too often too much faith is put in evolution. And when you look at simply the mathematical impossibility of evolution, it takes just as much faith to believei n evolution as it does to believe in ID. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Ha! :laugh: Your original post could very easily discount the teaching of evolution, too. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Ha! :laugh: Your original post could very easily discount the teaching of evolution, too. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
Ha! Your original post could very easily discount the teaching of evolution, too.
I know. I was meaning that we should teach netiher religion or evolution in school. I consider evolution a kind of religion, because it is not based on facts, only speculation.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year! The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
True, the flu mutates and spreads so that we still don't have a cure for it and it continues to make people sick, but is that evolution? First of all, most of the time viruses and bacteria exchange certain qualities with other virus and bacteria, so that nothing new is really created, it just combines, and such. Second, even with these mutations, has the flu virus ever become something other than a virus? Has anyone ever observed it sprouting legs or gills? Evolution is about speciation, one species evolving to become a new species. That's not happening with mutating viruses. The mutation of viruses is like the dogs. There are many different breeds of dogs. The different breeds can even mix and spread their certain traits, but they're still dogs! They don't become horses doing this! Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Yes, many parents don't teach their children proper respect for others, and school should reinforce that. Everyone needs that to function properly in society. However, most US public schools put students in an artificial mind numbingly boring environment. School should give students the skills they need to excel at life. This involves at a minimum: 1. Reading, writing, math, learning and reasoning skills. You can't do this by making 30+ students do endless worksheets day after day. 2. Behavior. Students should be taught by both teachers and other students, they should also teach other students and learn how to lead. 3. Practical experience. Students should have experience running a real business by the time they graduate. Not only is this the point of their education, it shows them why they need everyting they've learned.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Good points, but you miss the goal of our high school education system. It should be as you say, but the goal of high school is to prepare a student for attending college. This is why most of the classes are geared towards getting a student to pass entrance exams. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
bugDanny wrote:
Ha! Your original post could very easily discount the teaching of evolution, too.
I know. I was meaning that we should teach netiher religion or evolution in school. I consider evolution a kind of religion, because it is not based on facts, only speculation.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Oh, good, I consider evolution the same way. Just the mathematical impossibility of evolution requires more faith to believe in evolution than ID. But I don't think religion should be taught in the public schools either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
You dont really think that is the way it is here do you?
Well, every day I'd watch one of the news channels when I was in my hotel. And every day there would be a story about some guy shotting at a gas station, a convienence store, at someone withdrawing money at an ATM or some such thing. In Scotland that kind of stuff only happens maybe once in a blue moon. There are more stories on the news about car crashes in poor weather conditions than gun crime.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
And every day there would be a story about some guy shotting at a gas station, a convienence store, at someone withdrawing money at an ATM or some such thing. In Scotland that kind of stuff only happens maybe once in a blue moon.
Well, the problem here in america is not access to guns. In America, we have alot of Black and Hispanic gangs in our big cities, and they get their guns off the black market. And, common criminals also buy them illegally. Outlawing legal posession of guns would only disarm law abiding citizens. We have tried to outlaw drugs, but they are still easy to get. We tried outlawing alchohol in the early 20th century, but it did no good. Outlawing guns would do the same. Also, another thing to consider: America has 58.42 times the population of Scotland. That would mean that if America had the same crime rate of Scotland, that it would still have 58.42 times more crime. You should probably learn a little about a country before you think you can solve their crime problems.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
And every day there would be a story about some guy shotting at a gas station, a convienence store, at someone withdrawing money at an ATM or some such thing. In Scotland that kind of stuff only happens maybe once in a blue moon.
Well, the problem here in america is not access to guns. In America, we have alot of Black and Hispanic gangs in our big cities, and they get their guns off the black market. And, common criminals also buy them illegally. Outlawing legal posession of guns would only disarm law abiding citizens. We have tried to outlaw drugs, but they are still easy to get. We tried outlawing alchohol in the early 20th century, but it did no good. Outlawing guns would do the same. Also, another thing to consider: America has 58.42 times the population of Scotland. That would mean that if America had the same crime rate of Scotland, that it would still have 58.42 times more crime. You should probably learn a little about a country before you think you can solve their crime problems.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, we have alot of Black and Hispanic gangs in our big cities, and they get their guns off the black market
Your second ammendment give your the right to bear arms. Why would you have a black market in guns. Your constitution gives you the right, surely?
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
America has 58.42 times the population of Scotland. That would mean that if America had the same crime rate of Scotland, that it would still have 58.42 times more crime.
I should have made this clearer. I was talking just about the local news in Denver, Colorado. Colorado as a whole has a population of 3 million (last time I checked), while Scotland has a population of 5 million. By your reconning, Scotland should have more gun crime than Colorado - It doesn't. The last major incident was 9 years ago and, as I already said, minor incidents only happen once in a blue moon - Heck most of them turn out to be a fake gun that couldn't have fired a bullet if the criminal had tried.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
You should probably learn a little about a country before you think you can solve their crime problems.
I didn't say I could solve your crime problems. I just pointed them out. I also pointed out that in countries without guns (with the odd exception of Switzerland) the crime rates for violent crime were much lower. I think that is somewhat of an arrogant presumption on your part to think that I don't know much about the United States. I probably know much more about your country than you do about mine. When I was at school we had the opportunity to study 1960s race relations in the US; Policies of President Reagan; American war of independence; American civil war; American involvement in World War I & II; and Vietnam. While I didn't take all those courses, I concentrated on the sciences, they were available to high school students. What do you know of the Scottish Wars of Independence? The Union of the Crowns? The Union of the Parliaments? The Jacobite uprising. The Highland clearances? The Scottish Independence movement of the 1950s?
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, we have alot of Black and Hispanic gangs in our big cities, and they get their guns off the black market
Your second ammendment give your the right to bear arms. Why would you have a black market in guns. Your constitution gives you the right, surely?
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
America has 58.42 times the population of Scotland. That would mean that if America had the same crime rate of Scotland, that it would still have 58.42 times more crime.
I should have made this clearer. I was talking just about the local news in Denver, Colorado. Colorado as a whole has a population of 3 million (last time I checked), while Scotland has a population of 5 million. By your reconning, Scotland should have more gun crime than Colorado - It doesn't. The last major incident was 9 years ago and, as I already said, minor incidents only happen once in a blue moon - Heck most of them turn out to be a fake gun that couldn't have fired a bullet if the criminal had tried.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
You should probably learn a little about a country before you think you can solve their crime problems.
I didn't say I could solve your crime problems. I just pointed them out. I also pointed out that in countries without guns (with the odd exception of Switzerland) the crime rates for violent crime were much lower. I think that is somewhat of an arrogant presumption on your part to think that I don't know much about the United States. I probably know much more about your country than you do about mine. When I was at school we had the opportunity to study 1960s race relations in the US; Policies of President Reagan; American war of independence; American civil war; American involvement in World War I & II; and Vietnam. While I didn't take all those courses, I concentrated on the sciences, they were available to high school students. What do you know of the Scottish Wars of Independence? The Union of the Crowns? The Union of the Parliaments? The Jacobite uprising. The Highland clearances? The Scottish Independence movement of the 1950s?
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Your second ammendment give your the right to bear arms. Why would you have a black market in guns. Your constitution gives you the right, surely?
Criminals buy them off the black market or steal them, because legally bought guns can be traced back to their original owners. Also, if you have commited a felony, you cannot legally buy a firearm. If someone wanted to commit a murder here, and leave no evidence, they would most likely buy a stolen gun, use it once for the murder, and throw it into a river or sewer or some other place where it would be difficult to find. The police have labs where they can trace a gun based on the imprint of the rifling on the bullet, and the imprint of the firing and ejection pins on the shell casing, if they have both the gun, and the bullets out of the dead person, or the ejected shells. So, if they did trace the gun, and it had been reported stolen, they would not have any evidence as to who used it. If you legally bought a gun, then murdered someone with it, and they found the weapon, there would be absolute proof to convict you.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I didn't say I could solve your crime problems. I just pointed them out. I also pointed out that in countries without guns (with the odd exception of Switzerland) the crime rates for violent crime were much lower.
I am sorry, I misunderstood your intent. And, you are right, I don't know much about Scotland.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. From the linked page: The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. Evolution isn't random. It follows rules. Certainly, sometimes apparently random things happen, genetic mutation, but the rules ensure whether that mutation can be passed on or not. After reading the first page I came to the conculsion that it is a load of twaddle that is aimed at people who see themselves as athiests but want to find an explanation. I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. "Any technology that is sufficiently advanced would appear to us to be magic" - Arthur C. Clarke (I think) But if this was true there would be more evidence for it that we could detect. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
I find it harder to believe that all of the required 'parts' somehow randomly came together to form life. Single celled life, maybe; but complex life like the human body? Why aren't the monkeys still becoming human today? Er, I know some humans that might pass for monkeys, but that would be DE-evolution, and that's off topic, I believe. :)
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you.
I've been to the United States several times. One time I hired a car in Denver. When I asked how the four-way stop junctions worked (we don't have them here and I got a little confused the previous time) the answer was, in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america
I dunno. A lot of statistics I see says you have a higher than average crime rate. And because of all the guns, the crimes are much more violent and result in death (often of an innocent party) more frequently than elsewhere.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I dunno. A lot of statistics I see says you have a higher than average crime rate. And because of all the guns, the crimes are much more violent and result in death (often of an innocent party) more frequently than elsewhere.
This is due in large part to lawyers. In Arizona, it is legal to openly carry a weapon. Things get blurry in the use of deadly force. If I am awakened out of a sound sleep by an intruder in my home, and I shoot him dead; he'd better have been armed and threatening my life. If the lawyers get hold of it, I'll be going to jail for manslaughter.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
discovered what liberalism was really all about
It's funny, Stan, but the liberals you seem to have discovered are nothing at all like the liberals I know. Most liberals epitomize tolerance while many "Christians" practice intolerance. Just read some of the posts in this forum about "ragheads".
None of the liberals I know practice patience or tolerance. In fact, quite the opposite. Say the word 'Bush' to any one of them, and then stand back! They fly into a frenzy of rage, spouting off things so fast that they appear to be frothing at the mouth.
-
I find it harder to believe that all of the required 'parts' somehow randomly came together to form life. Single celled life, maybe; but complex life like the human body? Why aren't the monkeys still becoming human today? Er, I know some humans that might pass for monkeys, but that would be DE-evolution, and that's off topic, I believe. :)
xlr8td wrote:
I find it harder to believe that all of the required 'parts' somehow randomly came together to form life. Single celled life, maybe; but complex life like the human body?
They didn't "randomly" come together. The process is known as natural selection. Some forms of single cell life mutated and became multi-cell. Multi cell life survived and therefore replicated. Eventually, over hundreds of millions of years, live became increasingly complex.
xlr8td wrote:
Why aren't the monkeys still becoming human today?
First, if they were you wouldn't notice. Monkeys have too long a period between generations to ever see that. Second, I think part of what you are asking is why monkeys still exist and why didn't they evolve. They don't need to, they can survive as they are. You might like to read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for a good understanding of how evolution works. One of the points that he makes is that it can be difficult for people to understand, because humans evolved to think about things over a period of a lifespan. The average human probably only knows about 5 generations. From their grandparents to their grandchildren. So thinking outside that box can be difficult.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Jack Squirrel wrote:
We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up".
This could very very easily describe some scientific explanations.
Jack Squirrel wrote:
I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average".
Really? Wow! My science teachers must have only showed me all of science's mistakes, and very little of their true findings. Actually, you're right. Most of religion is based on lie after lie, but science is far from infallible. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
religion is based on lie after lie, but science is far from infallible.
I don't think any true scientist would disagree with that. Newton came along and said the universe works this way. Later Einstein came along and said, actually it works this other way, and although at the slow speeds humans are used to Newton's equations are sufficient, if you go really really fast it all falls apart. Science has a built in mechanism for uncovering the truth. It can take some time, but it exists. A wonderful self-correcting mechanism.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
I find it harder to believe that all of the required 'parts' somehow randomly came together to form life. Single celled life, maybe; but complex life like the human body? Why aren't the monkeys still becoming human today? Er, I know some humans that might pass for monkeys, but that would be DE-evolution, and that's off topic, I believe. :)
xlr8td wrote:
Why aren't the monkeys still becoming human today?
Largely because humans alread occupy that niche in the environment - there would be no biological advantage for them to compete with a species already so well adapted to it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."