SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Catfish · 12-08-05, 06:44 AM

Hello,
since english is not my mother tongue i probably write things a bit different from what i mean, so please bear with me.
Ok, so according to the Avon Lady the bible and Torah is used to explain what science found out, to justify the old testament is nevertheless right, and literally. You can certainly claim that even the bible has been written by man, but they will tell you it was dictated by god.
But this is the Judaism's way to explain (is it really?), probably not the creationist.

I just saw a film on that very theme, and the creationists were mentioned in claiming god created man and all animals at a time, including nowadays extinct species (as a paleontologist and geologist i have some doubts).
All "evidence" we find is put up as a test by god whether you believe in him or not - despite research and science. There are certainly different opinions among the creationist factions. In the film there were proud country singers telling the crowd why Darwin and evolution is wrong and intelligent "instant-design" from a higher will is right (i must say i doubt intelligent design when i look at most of my neighbours, even if i look at me - but then it is not so far developed either lol).

"For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old." (comment: some 6000 years)

I once saw a film from the 50ies, i guess Spencer Tracy was a lawyer that had to defend a teacher talking about evolution to his scholars. The poor teacher had to face serious punishment in case of a condemnation. Please tell me that's not true today (?).
I knew that the pilgrims left England because of religious (puritan) beliefs, but is this view really widespread in the US today?? I mean the USA is Nr. 1 in Science and technology (generally spoken), you are extracting oil that began to form up in the Jurassic times - you use all kinds of stuff to determine age and evolution for developing all kinds of technology and weapons ... i'm speechless. One third, really.

For me there is no doubt that earth and universe is indeed much older than 10.000 years, and that evolution happens.
If it contradicts the bible, well one thing i say is you cannot take the bible literally. Maybe some people cannot understand ethical behaviour without the bible, ok.
I cannot prove the non-existence of god, and i cannot prove the existence or non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters. But i can try to accept the evidence of what natural science (or better natural philosophy) found out from the 17th century until today. Maybe you have to believe in something, even if it is science.

From one of A. lady's links relating to rationality against randomness:
"Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Really. I begin to doubt the MIT's reputation.

That we are actually here may also be an illusion - at least the universe as we see it may look much different than others see it (like Flying spaghetti monsters lol, i guess i'll become a member there.
But honestly, if creationism is allowed to be tought in school and in universities (against all evidence) the FSM theory also must be allowed (there's no evidence either), in so far
http://www.venganza.org/
is right

Greetings,
Catfish

12-08-05, 06:44 AM	#13
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,806 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Hello, since english is not my mother tongue i probably write things a bit different from what i mean, so please bear with me. Ok, so according to the Avon Lady the bible and Torah is used to explain what science found out, to justify the old testament is nevertheless right, and literally. You can certainly claim that even the bible has been written by man, but they will tell you it was dictated by god. But this is the Judaism's way to explain (is it really?), probably not the creationist. I just saw a film on that very theme, and the creationists were mentioned in claiming god created man and all animals at a time, including nowadays extinct species (as a paleontologist and geologist i have some doubts). All "evidence" we find is put up as a test by god whether you believe in him or not - despite research and science. There are certainly different opinions among the creationist factions. In the film there were proud country singers telling the crowd why Darwin and evolution is wrong and intelligent "instant-design" from a higher will is right (i must say i doubt intelligent design when i look at most of my neighbours, even if i look at me - but then it is not so far developed either lol). "For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old." (comment: some 6000 years) I once saw a film from the 50ies, i guess Spencer Tracy was a lawyer that had to defend a teacher talking about evolution to his scholars. The poor teacher had to face serious punishment in case of a condemnation. Please tell me that's not true today (?). I knew that the pilgrims left England because of religious (puritan) beliefs, but is this view really widespread in the US today?? I mean the USA is Nr. 1 in Science and technology (generally spoken), you are extracting oil that began to form up in the Jurassic times - you use all kinds of stuff to determine age and evolution for developing all kinds of technology and weapons ... i'm speechless. One third, really. For me there is no doubt that earth and universe is indeed much older than 10.000 years, and that evolution happens. If it contradicts the bible, well one thing i say is you cannot take the bible literally. Maybe some people cannot understand ethical behaviour without the bible, ok. I cannot prove the non-existence of god, and i cannot prove the existence or non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters. But i can try to accept the evidence of what natural science (or better natural philosophy) found out from the 17th century until today. Maybe you have to believe in something, even if it is science. From one of A. lady's links relating to rationality against randomness: "Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Really. I begin to doubt the MIT's reputation. That we are actually here may also be an illusion - at least the universe as we see it may look much different than others see it (like Flying spaghetti monsters lol, i guess i'll become a member there. But honestly, if creationism is allowed to be tought in school and in universities (against all evidence) the FSM theory also must be allowed (there's no evidence either), in so far http://www.venganza.org/ is right Greetings, Catfish