LOL, You're not wrong!<<< imagines Purple sitting back, grinning & looking at what he's started!
Creationism
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
M
madisona
Guest
I think that some of the religion bashing here is unfair, and I say that as a non-believer. I do think that the Catholic Church is moving more and more away from the teachings of scripture and more and more into reality and while this undermines the detail of their message I don’t think it undermines the spirituality at their core.
As for the “Evolution is a theory and so is flawed/ incomplete” line that is being bandied about here, so what? It is the best theory that we can come up with based on the facts that we have. Every now and then a scientist comes up with a “Whales evolved from Bears” theory and Creationists latch onto it as if it in some way validates their absurd beliefs by invalidating the framework of an accepted scientific theory. It’s like saying that the fossil record is incomplete and so therefore yellow arsed pixies created the universe. One does not equate to the other.
To be honest I expected more of “The moon would be too close to the Earth if it was more than 10’000 years old as it moves away a little each year”, “The earth’s magnetic fields should be dead if the world was that old”, or (my favourite) “ I accept micro-evolution, or special adaptation due to environment, but not evolution from one species to another” arguments from the creationists. To be honest this is too easy and so has gone off topic. It’s still fun, if it was a school report it would read “Good but could do better”.
As for the “Evolution is a theory and so is flawed/ incomplete” line that is being bandied about here, so what? It is the best theory that we can come up with based on the facts that we have. Every now and then a scientist comes up with a “Whales evolved from Bears” theory and Creationists latch onto it as if it in some way validates their absurd beliefs by invalidating the framework of an accepted scientific theory. It’s like saying that the fossil record is incomplete and so therefore yellow arsed pixies created the universe. One does not equate to the other.
To be honest I expected more of “The moon would be too close to the Earth if it was more than 10’000 years old as it moves away a little each year”, “The earth’s magnetic fields should be dead if the world was that old”, or (my favourite) “ I accept micro-evolution, or special adaptation due to environment, but not evolution from one species to another” arguments from the creationists. To be honest this is too easy and so has gone off topic. It’s still fun, if it was a school report it would read “Good but could do better”.
S
stir crazy
Guest
I sincerely dont think any of the religions deserve a free lunch or a 'dig out' from anyone. As a non believer I dont care where they are going or in fact where they are now. I know theres a hell of a lot wrong with where they are now. Imagine any organisation with tax free status discriminating against women holding equal office with men for example ? If the golf clubs cant get away with it then why should the catholic church or muslims ?
Purple - the latest is that whales evolved from tiny deer-like creatures.
In case you're wondering why whales don't have antlers - it's because their little deer ancestors didn't have any to begin with. I'm not making this up - here's the [broken link removed].
Here's a quote straight from the article.
Maybe something like this: [broken link removed] ancestor
Doesn't the sequence of the creation in Genesis conform roughly to the sequence of events put forward by the scientific community e.g. that life started in the sea etc?
Could Genesis be viewed as a parable for a very unsophisticated audience?
I haven't looked at a bible in donkey's years but that is how my history teacher at school put it to a class of 12 yr olds.
Could Genesis be viewed as a parable for a very unsophisticated audience?
I haven't looked at a bible in donkey's years but that is how my history teacher at school put it to a class of 12 yr olds.
S
stir crazy
Guest
And what did the sophisticated audience of the inner circles learn ? To order the burnings of witches ? My view is they didnt have a clue then as now. They dont have some other secret book with more sophisticated information inside. Its' amazing how the people who teach religion often dont understand any definition of what they teach and leave everything as a grey area. It doesnt compete with the exactness of science.
Any sophistication, progress and wonders we have in this day and age does not come from religion but comes from science. Religion if given too much power would have had us still living in the stone age.
And science given too much power?
I don't think that religion is tying to compete with science. A religious belief is a guidebook on how to live your life imho.
Science tries to describe the wonders of the world but it hasn't yet fully explained how they got here.
"Why something rather than nothing." Heidegger
S
stir crazy
Guest
The use to which science is put can be controlled by democratic processes in a transparent way.
However the major religions are organised as dictatorships and secretly see themselves as above the law of the land where it conflicts with their law of god whether it be Papal law or Sharia law. They are non transparent.
Its' typically an argument of religions to restrict progress and the advancement of science, to worry about the power of the scientific idea waking people up to reason and logic. Its' their track record.