Religion: Problem / Solution

[pirana 0]

  Quote

I think - and I may be wrong - the poster is complaining about the tie to other posts, although it's not specified whether it's the "Re:" part in the subject field or the "in reply to" in the title bar.

Regardless, removing the "Re:" part of the subject DOES remove the most apparent tie to other posts...

Yes, thank you, that's it. Sometimes I just want to spew out an opinion, and do not want to be misunderstood as to be replying to a specific post.

I've noticed some sites have a button at the end of the thread (as well as at the bottom of each page) that just says "Quick Reply" with a text box under it. You just type away in the box, then hit Quick Reply. The result is a post without reference to any other post.

I think that would be good here too.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

Quick Reply. The result is a post without reference to any other post.

I think that would be good here too.

\

there's a forum for Suggestions and Feedback

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,569]

  Quote

Yes, thank you, that's it. Sometimes I just want to spew out an opinion, and do not want to be misunderstood as to be replying to a specific post.

I've always understood a post with the Re: [name] section of the subject line removed to be just a general opinion on the topic, not connected to any other post or poster's opinion.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,569]

  Quote

I guess Darwin hasn't convinced me yet.

Thats your failing, not Darwin's.

Out of curiosity, since you say you're not a literalist, is your objection to evolution religiously based? If not, I would be grateful if you could show me what information from completely non religious sources led you to doubt evolution.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

  Quote

  Quote

I guess Darwin hasn't convinced me yet.

Thats your failing, not Darwin's.

Out of curiosity, since you say you're not a literalist, is your objection to evolution religiously based? If not, I would be grateful if you could show me what information from completely non religious sources led you to doubt evolution.

Did I ever say I doubted evolution in any of these threads?

steveOrino

[jakee 1,569]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

I guess Darwin hasn't convinced me yet.

Thats your failing, not Darwin's.

Out of curiosity, since you say you're not a literalist, is your objection to evolution religiously based? If not, I would be grateful if you could show me what information from completely non religious sources led you to doubt evolution.

Did I ever say I doubted evolution in any of these threads?

Oh, I thought thats what you meant by saying Darwin hadn't convinced you? If you do accept evolution then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

I was referring to this staement:

Just because something looks designed doesnt mena it is designed, Darwin showed that.

I see evidence of some evolution for sure, but it could be the means, not necessarily the creator. Perhaps I'm not scientific astute enough, but I don't see evolution acting between species and types.

steveOrino

[Butters 0]

  Quote

I was referring to this staement:

Just because something looks designed doesnt mena it is designed, Darwin showed that.

I see evidence of some evolution for sure, but it could be the means, not necessarily the creator. Perhaps I'm not scientific astute enough, but I don't see evolution acting between species and types.

I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between species and types. Anyone care to explain it?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,569]

  Quote

I was referring to this staement:

Just because something looks designed doesnt mena it is designed, Darwin showed that.

I see evidence of some evolution for sure, but it could be the means, not necessarily the creator. Perhaps I'm not scientific astute enough, but I don't see evolution acting between species and types.

Ok, twofold response then - 1) I agree, I don't see evolution as automatically disproving god. It disproves certain ideas people might hold about what that god would be like, but I don't get why so many (particularly in America) see evolution and god as utterly incompatible.

2) Do I understand correctly that you would limit evolution to the "variation within a kind" so often talked of by Pajarito? If so, then why do you disagree with the vast, overwhelming majority of biologists, is it for religious reasons?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,088]

>I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between
>species and types. Anyone care to explain it?

Explain what the term means, or explain how it can happen?

[steveorino 7]

  Quote

2) Do I understand correctly that you would limit evolution to the "variation within a kind" so often talked of by Pajarito? If so, then why do you disagree with the vast, overwhelming majority of biologists, is it for religious reasons?

Disagree is too harsh a word. Truth is I haven't read a lot about concrete evidence proving cross species evolution is a fact. It may be out there. I haven't read much science stuff since my sophomore year in college (1974) It doesn't interest me at all. I prefer to read about philosophy, pyschology, theology, history and other such writings.

steveOrino

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

  Quote

I was referring to this staement:

Just because something looks designed doesnt mena it is designed, Darwin showed that.

I see evidence of some evolution for sure, but it could be the means, not necessarily the creator. Perhaps I'm not scientific astute enough, but I don't see evolution acting between species and types.

I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between species and types. Anyone care to explain it?

A quick trip to the local library would save someone here a lot of typing.

I don't understand quantum chromodynamics, but I don't use that as an excuse for believing the theory to be false.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Butters 0]

  Quote

>I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between
>species and types. Anyone care to explain it?

Explain what the term means, or explain how it can happen?

Explain how it can happen. I understand the theory of evolution. I am simply not sold on the idea that all entities evolved from another entity. Is it not possible that there were many original entities that evolved into their current state instead of a few original entities that evolved into many other entities?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jakee 1,569]

  Quote

  Quote

>I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between
>species and types. Anyone care to explain it?

Explain what the term means, or explain how it can happen?

Explain how it can happen. I understand the theory of evolution. I am simply not sold on the idea that all entities evolved from another entity. Is it not possible that there were many original entities that evolved into their current state instead of a few original entities that evolved into many other entities?

If life had originated several times in different locations, all modern species would still be ultimately descended from bacteria.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Butters 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

>I also have a hard time with understanding evolution between
>species and types. Anyone care to explain it?

Explain what the term means, or explain how it can happen?

Explain how it can happen. I understand the theory of evolution. I am simply not sold on the idea that all entities evolved from another entity. Is it not possible that there were many original entities that evolved into their current state instead of a few original entities that evolved into many other entities?

If life had originated several times in different locations, all modern species would still be ultimately descended from bacteria.

After reading your comment I guess it does not matter if entities evolved from a few original entities or many original entities if all original entities were single cell organisms (the only difference would be a more linear evolutionary structure compared to the current tree structure).

Anyways, back to the original topic. What problems do people have with religion and how can we solve those problems (w/out getting rid of religion)?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[philh 0]

I don't see evolution acting between species and types.

Perhaps you dont see it, but fortunatley scientists do. Here is an example Ive posted before that might help you.

In the 1980's Christian creationists claimed that the whale was a prime example of the falsification of evolution. Where was the whale with legs? they asked. To quote creationist Alen Haywood"They (Darwinists) beleive that somehow a whale must have evolved from an ordinary land dwelling animal...a land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between 2 stools-it would not be fitted for life on land or sea, and would have no hope for survival."
evolution had predicted a transitional animal between a land animal and a whale. In the 1980's such a creture was unknown. But of course evolution made good on its scientific preidctions: the earliest known marine mammal dates back to 60 million years ago, whales appear in the fossial record 30 million years ago. So evolution predicted that any transtitional animal would appear in the fossil record between 55 and 35 million years ago. Sure enough in Egypt a complete skeleton of Basilorous a 35 million year old whale like creature was discovered . This skeleton included delicate vestigal hind legs. In 1994 in Pakistan Rhodocetus , a 46 million year old creature was discovered. Its very similar to Basilorous but its hind legs are more exagerted and its facial feaures, position of nose eyes etc are more like a land mammal. Also in 1994 Ambulocetus was discovered. Its 52 million years old.Here was an animal with similar body features to whales but with hind legs finally big enough to be able to walk. Why would the other species have legs when they cannot walk? Look at the animals and you will see the development of the fins , from something simialr to paws, that increase theyre similarity to fins graudally through the different species. You will also see the graudal movement of the nasal passages backward to allow a blow hole to form as in modern whales.
Here is one of many many clear exmaples of evolutionary predictions being exactly met by the evidence in clear contradiciton to what nieve creaationsists had predicted. You can chose to ignore them if you wish , but thankfully biological science doesnt make such errors. One of my salsa partners is an HIV researcher. Accordign to her the problem with finding a cure is that the HIV virus evolves so rapidly. An understanding of such evolution may help save millions of people around the world from a terrible fate , to ignore or deny it may condemm them to it. Hundreds of years ago in Europe Christianity dominated all feilds of thought. Their solution to the black plague? Get people into churches and prey. Result: perhaps a third of the population died. Thankfully we dont rely upon such Christian superstition anymore, the result: life expectancy has more than doubled. Lets not go back to the middle ages to a time of Christian dominance or ,as its more rightly known, the dark ages.

I know you say you havent read much on the subject but given its such a key feature of modern theological debate perhpas reading a bit about it might be illuminating. Please check out
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer
I have read many book son the subejct and this is easily the best and most readable. Just give it a try.

[JackC 0]

  Quote

Okay, not all, but so many atheists here interpret a parable or a metaphor as literal in defense of an argument that JC taught certain things he did not.

Fair point. For the most part JC seems to have been a cool bloke. But from my atheist POV, Biblical literalism is an easy option for criticising your POV. The problem is, which bits do you take as parable and which bits are literal? I take none of it literally and if we both shared that view, I'd have to get a new hobby.

[steveorino 7]

Parables are teaching stories by JC. Its not hard to distinguish them apart from historical fact unless you are looking for a straw man. The average 10 year old in Sunday School knows the difference.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Are you sure? Lots of people through the ages have taken the Bible literally and used it to justify slavery, killings and all manner of atrocities. Even now, there is still quite some disagreement on how literaly the Bible should be taken between denominations. I'm sure you don't need me to give you examples. Perhaps you should write the definative, parable identified Bible for all those poor cretins who have an IQ less than a 10 year old. There are plenty of them out there.

[philh 0]

Of course there are parables iin the bible, but I presume you would agree that some of it is literal. I have highlighted in this debate two ugly parts of the bible (and there are many others) 1 the death penalty for sabbath breakers and 2 jesus saying non believers should be burnt. Now what eveidence do you have that these are parables? I looked up wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus for a list of parables and neither of these appeared in their list so presumably I am not alone in my view that there is no grounds to believe these are to be taken metaphorically.

[steveorino 7]

Sabbath rules were laws, not parables. I never disagreed with that. Parables will mostly be found in the NT told by JC.

A Sunday School definition of a parable is an earthly story witha heavenly meaning.

The passge you guys keep referring to has always been identified as a parable about judgment. Did later Christians interpret it literally? I'm sure ignorant men did. Whne Christianity became a state religion it lost most of it contact with its intenet for over a 1000 years. Even then it has been progressively reforming itself back to Christ's intent.

steveOrino

[kallend 2,115]

  Quote

Parables are teaching stories by JC. Its not hard to distinguish them apart from historical fact unless you are looking for a straw man. The average 10 year old in Sunday School knows the difference.

Maybe the entire Bible is just a parable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Parables are teaching stories by JC. Its not hard to distinguish them apart from historical fact unless you are looking for a straw man. The average 10 year old in Sunday School knows the difference.

Maybe the entire Bible is just a parable.

of course it is...

All Stories are True. Even if they never happened.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Airman1270 0]

...Jon, one thing I have learned on these threads is the atheists are fundamental and can only interpret scriptute one way ... literally, just like fundamental Christians.

[jakee 1,569]

  Quote

Pesonally, I believe atheism is simply a crutch relied on by people who cannot accept the reality of God's eternal existence.

Religion is the crutch for those who cannot accept that we are a) mortal b) not that special on the grand scheme of things c) to all intents and purposes alone in the universe and (sometimes) d) dirty stinking apes.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?