• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Creation, true, false, or unsure?

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
I think that many people who reject the scientific consensus on origins do so because they [mistakenly] perceive that this consensus is linked to a lot of negative cultural baggage. Contrary to what they seem to think, you do not need to be a tofu-munching Marxist who showers once a month to accept the scientific consensus on origins:



[emphasis mine]

http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit

David H. Koch is no lefty. People on the right should stop letting liberals pretend that science belongs to them.

Personally I would prefer if "science" was not claimed by right wing troglidites who exalt in despolation in their never ending quest for a few billion more either.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Personally I would prefer if "science" was not claimed by right wing troglidites who exalt in despolation in their never ending quest for a few billion more either.

Keep in mind that the people who spend so much time trying to control others thoughts are not on the right. That is a trait of a progressive liberal, if they are anti choice, they are anti liberty, and probably anti 2A. I have nothing against progressives, I just wish the ones who claim to be pro liberty would be honest and stop lying.
 
Last edited:

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
The text I happened to grab this morning has a short article in it on the biblical creation tales, penned by J.R. Porter 20 years ago, who was then professor of Theology emeritus at the University of Exeter, and probably hails from the episcopal faith.

He asserts that the first biblical account of creation comes from older near eastern traditions -- most directly from Canaanite mythology -- finally penned by an unknown sixth century BCE priestly writer, a story of God's victory of prime-evil chaos. The account of the creation of man that is part of this first story (Gen. 1:26-30), was added later to show that human beings are the crown of creation.

The Adam and Eve tale -- or second creation story -- is older, is a folktale, is in many ways more important for science because of what it says about man's place as part of the natural order: man is given unique status when God breathes life into dust to create him, his naming of the animals is in a sense a manner of appropriating them, while the command about the trees in the garden implies a responsibility to his maker and part of what is meant by humanity being created in the image of God.

It is mostly a parlor game to look to this material for a scientific account of the origin of the universe. Certain popular scholars spend much time and ink going through the exercise because they think it is useful in getting people to adhere to or share a particular faith tradition. I think the lessons there are deeper than that.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
But that's just the point. One can accept this type of paradox similar to one accepting an observed process in nature without understanding it. The paradox is a perception problem and not a logic problem.

The issue is that very few laman people truly COMPLETELY understand much of anything that has to do with complex scientific observations. However, science in general, has a reputable track record of relaying the best, most current facts related to a specific subject. Science often changes it's stance over time to allow for new information to be added. I see this as a good thing, because at any single point in time they are giving the absolute best explanation for any particular subject based on the facts that have been able to be gathered, and if at ANY time they receive data that conflicts with the accepted theory it is immediately changed, or discarded and the person who disproves the theory is REWARDED with proving everyone else wrong. Science thrives on proving other people wrong, I know that if I look at a current scientific theory it WILL be supported by evidence and data that is updated and current. It's not about coming up with an idea and that idea always being right, it's about having the best information possible at any particular time. Not to mention it seems highly hypocritical to partake in our technology driven society, which is only possible with the help of science, but to dismiss as ignorant the other things that science does that I can't completely understand.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Has science ever proven a Christian tenet to be false ?

What do you mean by tenet? If you mean a biblical story, then yes. For one, there was never a worldwide flood. Geologists would easily be able to prove/disprove a worldwide flood claim. Most of the theories (general use of the word) is either credited to story telling from earlier civilizations, and also there is another that attributes the story to the melting of large inland ice sheets that caused large flooding as the water moved towards oceans/seas/etc. I have NO doubt that most of the biblical stories are based in some sort of fact, just that most of the people living during that time were just idiots who didn't understand anything about the world. People who would easily attribute hurricanes and tsunamis as worldwide events that were caused by some sort of vengeful deity. I bet that the tsunamis that happened a few years ago would have seemed like a worldwide flood to coastal villages who had no clue of the earths size. Even worse if a large asteroid impacted an ocean which could easily cause flooding for hundreds of miles inland (we might see this happen in the next 20 years). When looking at these stories you have to take into account the level of ignorance these people had compared to what we know now, and how interesting stories can become once passed down by word of mouth over multiple generations (anyone who has tried telling stories, or even a sentence, and passing it around to 10 people you realize how different it can become very quickly).
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Because I want to! Why does what I do bother some so much? Why do you spend so much time worrying about the faith of others. Do you believe in the constitution?

Why do you spend so much time trying to sneak in "uber" insults to others.

By the same token, others discuss this topic because they want to. Is it only okay when people with whom you agree offer their take on this topic? You don't seem to have a problem when people of faith try to ram their views down the thoats of others, but when others refute their unsubstantiated claims and retarded strawman arguments, you get butthurt.

How hypocritical of you. This is no better than the "guns for me but not for thee" attitude of Feinstein and Bloomberg.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Personally I would prefer if "science" was not claimed by right wing troglidites who exalt in despolation in their never ending quest for a few billion more either.

I prefer that they stop making us all look bad with their pseudo-scientific nonsense that no doubt turns off many independent voters, thereby brjnging gun confiscation closer to reality. Educated conservatives and libertarians must do their part to counteract this extremely damaging stereotype. Fortunately, Ayn Rand, the Koch brothers, Penn and Teller, and others have helped in this endeavor.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
What do you mean by tenet? If you mean a biblical story, then yes. For one, there was never a worldwide flood. Geologists would easily be able to prove/disprove a worldwide flood claim. Most of the theories (general use of the word) is either credited to story telling from earlier civilizations, and also there is another that attributes the story to the melting of large inland ice sheets that caused large flooding as the water moved towards oceans/seas/etc. I have NO doubt that most of the biblical stories are based in some sort of fact, just that most of the people living during that time were just idiots who didn't understand anything about the world. People who would easily attribute hurricanes and tsunamis as worldwide events that were caused by some sort of vengeful deity. I bet that the tsunamis that happened a few years ago would have seemed like a worldwide flood to coastal villages who had no clue of the earths size. Even worse if a large asteroid impacted an ocean which could easily cause flooding for hundreds of miles inland (we might see this happen in the next 20 years). When looking at these stories you have to take into account the level of ignorance these people had compared to what we know now, and how interesting stories can become once passed down by word of mouth over multiple generations (anyone who has tried telling stories, or even a sentence, and passing it around to 10 people you realize how different it can become very quickly).
Could you offer a cite please. My atheistic geology professor in college would disagree with you and your statement. According to her, From a mere geological standpoint, a good portion of the earth has been covered by water. I know that is anecdotal, but your comment needs a little meat to be even possibly considered a possibility.

Thx for you help in advance.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Could you offer a cite please. My atheistic geology professor in college would disagree with you and your statement. According to her, From a mere geological standpoint, a good portion of the earth has been covered by water. I know that is anecdotal, but your comment needs a little meat to be even possibly considered a possibility.

Thx for you help in advance.

70% of the earth is currently covered by water. I would consider that a "good portion", I would be hard pressed to believe that your professor made any statements about evidence of a world wide flood that covered the highest mountains within the past 4-6 thousand years. Which would be the evidence needed to support the story of noahs flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
 
Last edited:

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Keep in mind that the people who spend so much time trying to control others thoughts are not on the right. That is a trait of a progressive liberal, if they are anti choice, they are anti liberty, and probably anti 2A. I have nothing against progressives, I just wish the ones who claim to be pro liberty would be honest and stop lying.

Once again, you fail to explain why it's "intolerance" when one side argues its case in a mutually consensual discussion, yet it's nothing of the sort when the other side argues its case.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
The issue is that very few laman people truly COMPLETELY understand much of anything that has to do with complex scientific observations. However, science in general, has a reputable track record of relaying the best, most current facts related to a specific subject. Science often changes it's stance over time to allow for new information to be added. I see this as a good thing, because at any single point in time they are giving the absolute best explanation for any particular subject based on the facts that have been able to be gathered, and if at ANY time they receive data that conflicts with the accepted theory it is immediately changed, or discarded and the person who disproves the theory is REWARDED with proving everyone else wrong. Science thrives on proving other people wrong, I know that if I look at a current scientific theory it WILL be supported by evidence and data that is updated and current. It's not about coming up with an idea and that idea always being right, it's about having the best information possible at any particular time. Not to mention it seems highly hypocritical to partake in our technology driven society, which is only possible with the help of science, but to dismiss as ignorant the other things that science does that I can't completely understand.

It is indeed very ironic that certain people who love such beautiful products of science, firearms, would be so anti-science.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
By the same token, others discuss this topic because they want to. Is it only okay when people with whom you agree offer their take on this topic? You don't seem to have a problem when people of faith try to ram their views down the thoats of others, but when others refute their unsubstantiated claims and retarded strawman arguments, you get butthurt.

How hypocritical of you. This is no better than the "guns for me but not for thee" attitude of Feinstein and Bloomberg.

NO how hypocritical and ignorant of you to believe you can call names, speak for others of different opinions and try to force your opinions on others. I always wonder about the link to control freaks and violent criminal acts, almost every violent crime is a crime of control, especially the worst. I often wonder who created these monsters, but then I have no control over others and want no control over others.

I would not in a million years try to figure out why or guess why you want to control others, but it is the very problem with antis like you. What is none of your business, is none of your business. While your opinion of your own thoughts is fine and acceptable insulting those who do not feel the same the way you do to attempt to control others thoughts is IMO what drives control freaks to commit the crimes that drives more controls from the progressives, such as you.

None of your hogwash can change what people do, even the former USSR could not prevent people having faith. I gotta wonder does people living in liberty bring about frustration to cause mass violence such as the recent bombings. Is that not what terrorism is about to bring fear to control others. Everyday many women are battered by men with control issues, and religion or evolution has little to do with it. Just some little man that wants to control others because he can't control himself.

I would imagine that if Feinstein or Bloomberg could they would try to control religeon and faith, just like you.

Merry Christmas!
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
NO how hypocritical and ignorant of you to believe you can call names, speak for others of different opinions and try to force your opinions on others.

For the umpteenth time, to you, it is only "forcing" one's opinion on others when the "opinion" [read: facts in this case] is one with which you disagree.

Explain why it isn't "forcing" when creationists argue their case.

I always wonder about the link to control freaks and violent criminal acts, almost every violent crime is a crime of control, especially the worst. I often wonder who created these monsters, but then I have no control over others and want no control over others.

I would not in a million years try to figure out why or guess why you want to control others, but it is the very problem with antis like you. What is none of your business, is none of your business. While your opinion of your own thoughts is fine and acceptable insulting those who do not feel the same the way you do to attempt to control others thoughts is IMO what drives control freaks to commit the crimes that drives more controls from the progressives, such as you.

None of your hogwash can change what people do, even the former USSR could not prevent people having faith. I gotta wonder does people living in liberty bring about frustration to cause mass violence such as the recent bombings. Is that not what terrorism is about to bring fear to control others. Everyday many women are battered by men with control issues, and religion or evolution has little to do with it. Just some little man that wants to control others because he can't control himself.

Argumentum ad hominem

I would imagine that if Feinstein or Bloomberg could they would try to control religeon and faith, just like you.

Yes or no: is it controlling when a Christian approaches me on the street and preaches to me and tries to get me to read one of his or her tracts?
 
Last edited:

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
WalkingWolf: People of faith have a right to initiate contact with other people and make all sorts of claims, but when those other people refute their claims, THOSE people are the controlling, intolerant ones (nevermind the fact that the people of faith are the ones who started the conversation). :rolleyes: ("I get to punch you first, but if you punch me back then you're a belligerent jerk and I'll cry like a three year old.")

B!tching about the nonreligious being intolerant and anti-liberty is particularly hilariously ironic, given the long history of various religions such as Islam and Christianity killing those not of their faith and coming up with thousands of petty rules (talk about liberty :rolleyes:).

Religion has been ANYTHING but pro-liberty and tolerant. :lol:
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
There is no conflict between religion and science, except among anti-religionists.

This is a particularly odd claim, given that millions of religious people claim that science is wrong, and given that religions make claims that are at odds with science. But whatever, state whatever feel-good nonsense comes to mind: I am sincerely for your right to say anything.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
This is a particularly odd claim, given that millions of religious people claim that science is wrong, and given that religions make claims that are at odds with science. But whatever, state whatever feel-good nonsense comes to mind: I am sincerely for your right to say anything.

What religion has millions of people claiming science is wrong ?

What claims are at odds with science ?
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
Certain sects of Christianity use the Bible to claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old.

Personally I dont believe that there are many Christians who believe the universe is no more than 10,000 years old.

I am going to assume you have never sat in on a Christian study group and certainly not one that has taught what you claim.

The truth is, Christians dont teach the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. The truth is Christians dont believe the universe is no more than 10,000 years old.

I know quite a few hard core evengelical Christians and they dont teach or believe that notion.
 
Top