Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Self serving use of "the word"
Thank you, will check it out!
posted by
b2008
on January 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply
b2008 - the obvious place to start to understand evolution is with an
objective outline of the scientific theory itself.
Wikipedia has a decent article on this subject. It is a long read and meanders into a lot of pretty boring stuff but it is not promoting an agenda as so many other articles on the subject are. If you do take the time to read it, one thing will become clear; the person that authored the website at the link you provided earlier has never read it.
posted by
gomedome
on January 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, well when I'm looking up...
...things on the web, I not only look at one point of view. I have read several on evolution and could not get a clear consensus one way or the other. I don't give you links to everything I've ever read and I'm sure you wouldn't want them. I'm just saying that it's so hard to believe anything as concerns evolution or other scientific theories. And I certainly don't know what you have read that you believe is proper proof. I'm just trying to show why I have such doubts and you kill my proof of my doubt like I shouldn't even have read that ...bullshit, as you say.
If you have authenticated proof of what you say, please let me know where I can read it myself. I ask questions from my own knowledge of things. I do not have the intellectual knowledge you have but that doesn't stop me from relating my beliefs and trying to figure out yours. To me, that is communication. To you, it might just be aggravation. That's why I ask everybody I can who will discuss these issues.
Thanks for a glimpse into who you are!
posted by
b2008
on January 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
| link to this | reply
b2008 - why stop with one example? There are countless inconsistencies
found in the scientific theory of evolution.
The chronology of our descendency as a species is incomplete to the point where it is full of gaping holes. There are also two missing links, the well known first erect ape and the not so well known first replicating carbon based cell. The unfortunate aspect of what you are attempting to say is that you, like so many others, have been conditioned to look at the inconsistencies and ignore that about evolution which is irrefutable. Science had better be at odds about some elements of evolution, the integrity of scientific methodology is upheld by this very process of disagreement.
This is the part of your comment that gets me: "I only try to show you that your version is questionable like everybody else's." . . . bullshit, I would not let the author of the website to which you left a link to carry my briefcase. His version is manufactured nonsense where I like to think that I have educated myself on my position without prejudice. Unlike the vast majority of detractors to the scientific theory of evolution, I am conversant with both the creationist viewpoint and evolution. There are precious few people in this world that can say that . . . but they argue in favor of one side of the debate anyways.
posted by
gomedome
on January 8, 2008 at 7:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, so what about the...
...discovery of a human skull years before the one they found which looked apelike? The skull they found before that was humanlike 100% and had no indication that it evolved from anything other than humans? Did you read that one?
My point is if one wants to have an opinion on such things, that is all it will be, an opinion, because science seems to be at total odds about evolution. And if they can't make up their minds, who am I to say which version is or is not true. What makes you so absolutely sure of your version?
The one I read about the human skull had no religious connotations whatsoever. It was purely scientific. If you wish to read it, I'll give you the link, only if you request it because I don't want to keep giving you stuff you feel is inconsequential. I only try to show you that your version is questionable like everybody else's.
posted by
b2008
on January 8, 2008 at 5:52 AM
| link to this | reply
b2008 - belief is proof of nothing
The fact that they or anyone believes such contrived bullshit to be true simply makes them stupid. The scientific theory of evolution is not a secret, anyone can educate themselves on what it entails and proposes. To argue against its validity from a position of ignorance, while inserting irrelevent aspects that are not part of the theory is simply fraudulent. It is condemnation by consensus and serves no purpose other than to advance a religous agenda while at the same time impeding scientific discovery.
posted by
gomedome
on January 7, 2008 at 5:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
But who's ignorance? Those men believe as much in what they say as you believe that much in what you say. They feel they can prove their analysis as much as you feel you can prove yours. And this can go on and on and on. That's just one of the sites I found discounting evolution totally. And every one of the sites have information from the scientific community where they feel evolution has
not been proven. So this is just something that is a
matter of opinion only in my view. And you know about opinions
.
posted by
b2008
on January 7, 2008 at 4:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, even a little...
ketchup can go a long way
, I'll take it!
But don't you think if we could accept "the word" as being as such that this would be a much better world. And no one would even have to mention the word God itself, just live in the way He wants us to live.
I definitely believe that "the word" has been translated to suit various groups of religious fanatics and that's why "one set of words" is not consistent throughout the world. Each group translated the word to benefit their fanaticism. I hate it, but it's got to be true. All I do, and what all normal people should do, is find the goodness in the words and erase everything else as being condenscending.
I liked the ketchup analogy though! You see, even though you don't believe in religion whatsoever, you are a wonderful person anyhow. And that's all good!
posted by
b2008
on January 7, 2008 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
b2008 Re: Do you believe in evolution, also?
Come on, this is pretty lame stuff, I know you meant no ill will by it but the site you link to is spreading dumb like peanut butter. The contents of the link proves to me that we have descended from apes because it seems than any monkey with a computer can construct a convincing website. It takes about 7 lines to come across the first glaring error, That is after having one's intelligence insulted a few times before reading that far. The scientific theory of evolution does not propose the beginning of life, it offers an incomplete construct of an indeniable mechanism of change amongst living beings. It is not a "belief", it is instead a legitimate scientific theory with some glaring deficiencies interspersed amongst some undeniable fact. Capitolizing on the deficiencies of the theory to construct an intelligence polluting, propaganda based diatribe of misinformed drivel, is counter-productive to say the least.
A person has to actually start with knowing a bit about that which they are refuting. Nothing intelligent can be said on any subject from a position of ignorance.
posted by
gomedome
on January 5, 2008 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply
b2008- All I can say to this comment is: "Yep, that must be what he wants"
"I think that God wants us to spread... ...the meaning of his words as being the truth to understanding, happiness, well being, respect, empathy, compassion, and love. And if mankind lived by the meaning of the words. he would be happy and satisfied."
Absolutely, this is what the concept of an all powerful benevolent being would want. The realities of human behaviour are much different however. These are universally benificial ideals that everyone should hold in some reverance. . . . but so many do not. No one of rational mind would ever find any problems with the intent of all such ideals, including the showng of respect for all other members of our species. The unfortunate truth is that these ideals, while worthy, have not come close to being applied universally. Religious folks tend to be selective about whom they will allow compassion and empathy. Love in most cases is out of the question, outside of immediate family and extensions of our nurturing environment, humans do not love one another. Respect is the best we can hope for.
So what I am saying is that in effect; I agree with you completely but not without sprinkling a good healthy wallop of reality amongst ideals that are how the world should be but do not represent how the world is. Think of it as sprinkling just the right amount of ketchup on your french fries, too much ruins your lunch, not enough ruins your lunch.
posted by
gomedome
on January 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM
| link to this | reply
i am passing down a saying that my Father passed down to me
and his uncle passed down to him, a rural Southwest Iowa native.
"You can prove anything by the Bible."
And, judging from the thousands of Christian perspectives, it must be true.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Do you believe in evolution, also?
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/preface2.htm
posted by
b2008
on January 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM
| link to this | reply
I think that God wants us to spread...
...the meaning of his words as being the truth to understanding, happiness, well being, respect, empathy, compassion, and love. And if mankind lived by the meaning of the words. he would be happy and satisfied.
But it's not God's words that people are spreading. It's more of a brainwashing technique to make everyone believe and fear in a supreme being that is capable of giving them everlasting happiness or eternal hell. And that, to me, is what the non-believers find so distasteful, I believe. Until I sought the meaning of God's words for myself, I was brainwashed also. The churches and everybody were saying the same things but it didn't mean anything to me until I realized that it is the meaning behind the words that are enlightening.
Even an atheist cannot say loving one another is wrong; or treating each other with respect is wrong; or showing love and compassion for one in pain is wrong. You must take the words into your heart, practice the meaning of the words in your life, and give the meaning of hope and love to one another, and forget about who said what. It's the meaning that counts, don't you think?
posted by
b2008
on January 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM
| link to this | reply
This piece instantly brought to mind a Roger Waters song....
"God wants goodness, God wants light, God wants mayhem, God wants a clean fight....God wants peace, God wants war, God wants famine, God wants chain stores....God wants sedition, God wants sex, God wants freedom, God wants semtex....God wants boarders, God wants crack, God wants rainfall, God wants wetbacks....God wants voodoo, God wants shrines, God wants law, God wants organized crime, God wants crusade, God wants jihad,
God wants good, God wants bad...What God wants God gets."
Saying that a person knows God because they read a Bible is like saying they know John Lennon because they read one of his biographies. Getting to know God by asking others who He is and what He's all about is like getting to know me by asking another blogger, rather than asking me directly.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on January 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM
| link to this | reply