Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to SORRY ARIALA, BUT CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE
kooka, there are many other young earth arguments that have no flaws
in logic, in my estimation...but anyway, thanks for checking it out.
posted by
Ariala
on February 16, 2005 at 3:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Sis
For some reason I am not making a mint here off of your clicks.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 3:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay this is for both Ariala and Gheeghee
I am going to have to look not to some of these really off ideas of a 'young Earth'. I read through it and I saw many flaws in the logic. For one thing, not once is there talk about just how chaotic the Earth and the solar system were. There really is no proof that much the patters they claim have had to happen since the beginning of time really had to happen at those rates from the start. Only the idea of the decay of radiation has any relevance really (And I am sure there is a logical, scientific explanation behind that), nothing else there could be considered an accurate measure of time.
Ideas such as we should be finding so many more remains is just pure idiotic. We do not know that all just how much of the population of prehistoric man got buried and there is no logic at all to the idea that we should be able to find remains for all them. We are not abel to find remains for all of man throughout recorded history for various reasons, so why would be bale to find all the remains from before that?
A then what proof is there that Stone age man was as intelligent as we are? Brian size? Well we already know that the size of the brain alone is not as important as other factors. Man does not have the largest brains on the planet, nor are our brains the ones with the most wrinkles (Which as been proven to be a more important a factor in determining intelligence, yet somehow the dolphins are not as advanced as we are although looking at their lifestyles I would not go against the idea that they are more intelligent than us). I highly doubt there is any proof that stone age man was as smart as we are.
there is a level of learning that would need to take place before man could develop those skills that are talked about there. It is kind of like assuming that a someone from medieval times could just go and learn how to build a car without being taught or having any of the previous technology created just because at some point man figured out how to build a car. We were just as intelligent then after all. Someone had to first learn every little aspect during the course of human history that led up the car being built in the first place and then one would be able to learn how to build it.
There are some serious gaps in logic to the 'young Earth' idea. I shall go and do some father research on it, but it really does a poor job proving anything. There are just way too many assumptions being made there that have no true scientific basis, but instead are being altered to fit the Biblical ideas. Most likely I shall write a post on it once I have done my research.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 3:54 PM
| link to this | reply
AR, my darling adoptive daughter
I don't discount the Bible -- I have said that I see that much of the O.T. is composed of stories built around a seed of possible actuality -- but they've been exaggerated.
I've posted before about the King James. At the risk of being argumentative, I will refer people to them.
My main emphasis is on religion arising from medieval perceptions.
I do discount people's perceptions.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 16, 2005 at 3:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Money? Don't my clicks count towards their college education? ;-)
posted by
Ariala
on February 16, 2005 at 3:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
I am not a closed minded evolutionist. I very much believe that we have not hit on the full idea. There is something more to it. But evolution happened, there is more than enough evidence of this. Was there a guiding hand? I am very much open to new ideas if they make sense and have more than circular reasoning behind them. All the idea of creation has is circular reasoning and nothing more.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 3:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Sis
I said money. Do I have to raise the price now?
We already have a Bible somewhere in the house anyway as a reference book. Also, I would be the one to read the Bible to them and you know i would have to explain all the faults as I read them.
Any who, I will admit I am not as up on this idea of a 'young Earth' and need to do some research on it.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 3:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
I have no clue as to where you are getting your facts from, but I can promise you that there has been a lot of scientific evidence to back up the idea of evolution. Go and read my post in 'The Workings of the Universe' to see some of this.
So for evolution and the science behind it, explains things much better than the circular reasoning of 'God created the world because the Bible says God create the world and the world had to be created by something and so it must be God because the Bible says God created the world.' Sorry, but that kind of thinking holds not one ounce of science in it.
Evolution very clearly is scientific, while creation is purely speculative. The two should never be taught side by side in a public school.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 16, 2005 at 3:05 PM
| link to this | reply
painter, he knows I'm not being mean...if anything, playful. Plus, he,
like you, doesn't even believe the Bible is anything more than a book of myth...so, even so, that would still be a good gift. (Personally, I believe the Word has power...and God would speak.)
posted by
Ariala
on February 16, 2005 at 2:31 PM
| link to this | reply
now you're being mean Ar.
but you have the best intentions.
kids need a broad based education -- to see all possible sides -- then be encouraged ot think for themselves.
liberal arts -- that's it.
click kooka a few extra times so he can cash in a little --
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 16, 2005 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, oh and one more thing...
You're right, I do owe my nephews more than stickers. How about a kid's King James version with a concordance and a set of Kid's Bible stories?
posted by
Ariala
on February 16, 2005 at 2:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, oops, I missed your response to me...
I would be happy with Intelligent Design being taught with Evolution, but still, it is only half the story. A young earth is shown over and over by new evidences they've found. Check out my post today.
posted by
Ariala
on February 16, 2005 at 2:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala --- I'm sorry
your adoptive brother is so mean to you.
well, I could be too.
I do have to admit that you present some interesting arguments for your point of view.
I have read and observed evidences supporting evolution. What I have assimilated convinces me.
But hey! -- them kids do need a college education -- some larnin behind their belts you know? -- stickers (unless you can sell them for a good $) -=- don't know about that.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 16, 2005 at 2:03 PM
| link to this | reply
People choose to look at only one side of the story...
posted by
Ariala
on February 16, 2005 at 2:02 PM
| link to this | reply
no no no gheeghee
genetics, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, comparative anatomy, paleontology, geology -- all give overwhelming evidence of evolution.
we do too -- contemporary humans -- check out my God as the Universe as an Organism -- my discourse on human society and culture and its similarities to our primate cousins.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 16, 2005 at 1:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, how do you refute the information presented
here, which offers sources of fact and data that indicate evolution has no scientific basis?
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 16, 2005 at 11:01 AM
| link to this | reply
Actually, most intelligent fundamentalists
and others who believe in Creation, understand that it is a theory, AS IS evolution. And I do agree with GG that a closed-minded dogmatic evolutionist is equally as problematic as a closed minded creationist.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on February 16, 2005 at 10:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Actually, creation and evolution SHOULD be tought side-by-side...in PHILOSOPHY CLASS, right after the students get out of Intelligent Design class. Evolution ALSO has very little scientific evidence to support it, despite Kooka's claims. A closed-minded evolutionist is as dangerous as a closed-minded creationist.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 16, 2005 at 8:02 AM
| link to this | reply
good logic son
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 16, 2005 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply
My dear sister
You do however talk about creation being taught long side evolution. Intelligent design does not have to be creation and really fits better with the idea of evolution. You could teach the possibility of intelligent design with-in evolution and justify it, but not as an equal separate idea, unless you have a scientific basis behind it. intelligent design through creation is not scientific.
At no point does the concept of intelligent design disproves evolution. The two can work together perfectly really.
I also was just pointing out that fundamentalist would really go off if creation was taught as anything but fact. I never said you were on their side on that.
And by now you better be ready with something better than a stupid sticker for my boys. You've missed Christmas and one of theirs birthdays. The other's birthday is just over a month away. You know what, just send me about $200 (A month of your blogit earnings after all, and here i ma after a year and a half just finally getting to that level) )in cash and I will make sure they get some good gifts.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 15, 2005 at 4:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, my ideas have nothing to do with religion, the fundamentalist
plot (which, frankly, I'm against) or anything like that.
Today, I wrote a post that clarifies Intelligent Design, and that really has nothing to do with myth or the Christian Bible...just simple, objective, fair scientific findings which prove a young earth and a potential for an intelligent design behind it. Presenting THESE evidences would only be fair, but instead, such information is often times buried and never discussed. Why? Because the evidence continues to disprove traditional evolution.
It doesn't matter what the Christians, the fundamentalists or anyone else thinks. Even if what is taught is not creationism, based on the Christian Bible, "Intelligent Design" would only be a fair thing to be taught. Science DOES support the possibility (via theory) for an Intelligent Design. To teach evolution is lopsided since it cannot be proved. It is not even a theory really, because it cannot be quantified. No one was there to see any of it happen. If you read the book I suggested, the evidence proves just the opposite: instant creation and young earth realities.
Evolution branches out of atheism...that, in a sense, is secular humanism...Intelligent Design is not a religious belief-- it would be the equivalent of supporting the potential of a universal force -- God -- or whatever -- behind everything. No one is talking about Christianity or worshipping that entity. It would be what evolution is to secular humanism...but in this sense it would allow for the potential of a creative force.
Perhaps some "Evolution is only a Theory" stickers for my nephews?
posted by
Ariala
on February 15, 2005 at 3:17 PM
| link to this | reply