Ben Stein's "Expelled"

[quote name='daroga']
Of course if it was defined as you stated, and thus if we stayed in the realm of the testable, observable stuff, that'd be awesome. You know, the scientific method. It's the speculation that runs rampant and is passed off as fact when it is, as you say, just guesses (and poorly contrived ones at that) that the problems come.

[/QUOTE]

Well that's the problem then. Many people running around trying to pick a fight with ID's and Creationists using all their evolutionary weapons, are actually using speculation. Educated speculation, yes. But it's still speculation.

You and I know that Evolution exists as far as it defines adaptation and a species ability to change. That's all we need to know. Anyone that tries to use Evolution to argue AGAINST creationism or ID, is being speculative too.
 
[quote name='trq']Okay, /threadjack, sorry.



Actually, I'm anything but relativistic. I'm really just a stickler for consistency; in this case, viewing every religion with the same critical eye. From your desire to exonerate Buddhism of any history of violence, while not extending the same leniency to, say, Abrahamic religions, it's clear you're not willing to do that.[/quote]

I'm not an absolutist. To say that people claiming to adhere to the Buddhist faith never committed acts of violence would be absurd. However it is my viewpoint that comparitively, between the mainstream religions, Buddhism has caused the least amount of violent religious strife (when measured on a per capita basis, no less)

[quote name='trq']None of the kung fu instructors I know would even consider the idea that kung fu is meant for combat to be negative. So what, exactly, is kung fu intended for, if not fighting? Because I'm pretty sure most people would consider eye gouges, throat punches, and knee breaks "violent."[/quote]

Kung Fu may be used in military training (and against HS bullies in movies like "Karate Kid") but it's effectiveness is quite limited when compared to modern warfare tactics, such as shooting a gun (like Bruce Lee said :D).

From a Buddhist standpoint it was simply meditative movement, and Buddhist groups like the Shaolin Monks only used it as a fighting style when they were forced to defend their sacred monestary from roving bandits. On the rare occasions that the monks were physically defending themselves they used weapons like the staff that was also used in chores such as carrying buckets of water from the nearby well.

[quote name='trq']Piffle. You don't need "evolution" for that. That's just some good, old-fashioned "begetting."

And besides, I think you mean:
[/quote]

Poor tiger. I linked that site because it was so "Most Awesome Page in the Universe" funny. Between the photoshopped liger and the kooky advice, it's pretty sad that it's a top ten link for Liger on the Google.

If you encounter a Liger the best way to survive the encounter is to bark like a dog, Ligers seem to detest the noise and more often than not they retreat.
Click to expand...

If you ask me, I think we need a little more "search page Darwinism" in the world.
 
Daroga (or creationists in general), I think your biggest hurdle concerning evolution is the fact that you take the life span of the world to be only 6000 years old. Ancient Egypt is older than that!

Earth probably took more than 6000 years to cool down from a molten ball of iron. If you figure the the planet is 4.5 BILLION (4,500,000,000) years old, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable for a genetic change every few hundred/thousand generations to bring about a new life form thats nothing like its great^10 grandfather.

Even if you maintain that Earth is only ~6000 years old, what about the rest of the universe? Is it just as young? What about the speed of light? How can we be seeing a galaxy 100,000 light years away if the universe isn't atleast 100,000 years old? Is science wrong about how far other galaxies are or are the wrong about how fast light moves?

If the rest of the universe actually is 13+ billion years old, why would God just leave everything sitting around for 12.999994 billion years collecting dust? Is God a really bad procrastinator? Was he just sitting on his couch in Heaven with his wife nagging at him for a few billion years?
"You know, when we first got together, you were so ambitious. You started creation and made a whole universe. Now you just sit on your ass drinking beer. What happened to the all knowing, all powerful deity I married? If you don't start making changes... I'm going to my mothers!"
"Yea, yea honey, I'll build the Sol System tomorrow"
"Jesus Christ, you've been saying that for 13 billion years!"
"Hey, don't use my future son's name in vain!"
 
Busy right now, so I don't have time to read all this stuff. Just wanna say for now...[quote name='Kayden']Daroga (or creationists in general), I think your biggest hurdle concerning evolution is the fact that you take the life span of the world to be only 6000 years old. Ancient Egypt is older than that![/quote]Daroga has stated before that he does not necessarily believe that the planet is ~6000 years old. I believe he said that anything above 10000 years was stretching it.

[quote name='Kayden']
Even if you maintain that Earth is only ~6000 years old, what about the rest of the universe? Is it just as young? What about the speed of light? How can we be seeing a galaxy 100,000 light years away if the universe isn't atleast 100,000 years old? Is science wrong about how far other galaxies are or are the wrong about how fast light moves?[/quote]God created the universe looking older than it really is. He's tricky like that.
 
Pretty much what Crotch said, though without the implicit sarcasm. ;)

Trees in the Garden of Eden would've had rings if you cut them down. Light would be traversing through the universe as if it had been for years. Adam and Eve were adults, the chicken came first which then laid eggs, etc. But it all came into being over the course of 6 days.

On the one hand you say "That stupid!" or tricky or whatever. On the other, it's amazing to see God creating a world with such detail. He set the light in motion so that Adam and Eve would've had a starry sky to look at that first night. Things humans wouldn't be able to see for millenia were set in place at the beginning.

A universe created with age dispels the vast majority of our questions about why things look or act the way they do.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']It seriously saddens me to see such things.[/quote]This is something I'd love to hear from everyone on. But, why is that? Is it simply the clinging to ignorance (from your perspective) that is upsetting? The stigma and concern about religious zealots that come along and start "holy wars" in the name of "God"? Just a general distaste for viewpoints different than your own?

Trying to put myself into one of your sets of shoes, I could see some frustration, but I don't see the point in even talking to someone like myself about it. Ultimately, if everything wrapped up in the Big Bang / Evolution is right, does it make any difference whatsoever is some people believe in a God who created it?

If someone is ignorant in math or reading/writing, they'll be a drain on society. But the dissenting opinion on the origins of the world doesn't seem to have much impact on anyone's day-to-day lives.

I'll stop speculating and let ya'll answer. :)
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']No, I'm just jealous of how easy it is for you. I wish things really were that simple.[/QUOTE]

Some things might be that simple. Who knows. Our addiction to proof through the five senses to others through repeatable processes before we believe it probably complicates many things much more than need be.
 
[quote name='daroga']If someone is ignorant in math or reading/writing, they'll be a drain on society. But the dissenting opinion on the origins of the world doesn't seem to have much impact on anyone's day-to-day lives.[/quote]

I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.
 
[quote name='camoor']I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.[/quote]Can I disagree with you there. I guess I can't speak for the rapture crowd, but I doubt as many of them voted for Bush thought, "Yeah, this guy will let us trash the world and it'll be awesome!"

As a Christian I have just as much of a concern about taking care of our environment as anyone else. The world we live in is a gift from God. We already messed it up pretty throughly with sin, but that doesn't mean that we just run roughshod over it. It is here for our use, but not our abuse. Never mind the fact that while we believe the end of the world could be as early as right now, we still operate under the assumption that generations will follow us. So not only is trashing the earth spitting it God's face, but it's also spitting in our children's faces.

But, good try at forcing politics into the question ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.[/QUOTE]



So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages?

That's quite a stretch.

I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that.
 
[quote name='daroga']This is something I'd love to hear from everyone on. But, why is that? Is it simply the clinging to ignorance (from your perspective) that is upsetting? The stigma and concern about religious zealots that come along and start "holy wars" in the name of "God"? Just a general distaste for viewpoints different than your own?

Trying to put myself into one of your sets of shoes, I could see some frustration, but I don't see the point in even talking to someone like myself about it. Ultimately, if everything wrapped up in the Big Bang / Evolution is right, does it make any difference whatsoever is some people believe in a God who created it?

If someone is ignorant in math or reading/writing, they'll be a drain on society. But the dissenting opinion on the origins of the world doesn't seem to have much impact on anyone's day-to-day lives.

I'll stop speculating and let ya'll answer. :)[/quote]I'll bite.

First off, we have to differentiate between things like... well, like this and beliefs that actively harm others - say, the Jehova's Witnesses' historic refusal of blood transfusions and the myriad problems with the Christian Scientists (not to be confused with Christian scientists - my ongoing war against improper capitalization must be won). There are some pretty obvious reasons to be upset about those things.

But as for something like this? Well, I think XKCD explains it pretty damn well: you guys vote. And yes, even with this, that can be important from time to time.

Oh, yes. That's right. I just linked conservative Christianity with the Soviet Union. This is, like, a double-reverse infini-Godwin.
 
[quote name='camoor']I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.[/QUOTE]

I'd add to that the idea that a scientifically illiterate populace isn't going to produce enough competent doctors, scientists, and inventors to have a healthy stream of innovations, inventions, and break-throughs (not to mention the economic benefits of the industries that depend on them). Why do we try to educate people in general? Because society as a whole benefits. The geochemist who will one day figure out a practical carbon sequestering method is going to need to know that the facts don't support a 6,000 year old Earth, and the doctor who successfully creates a cancer-eating retrovirus is going to need to understand evolution better than a "Maybe it's ID" curriculum allows. So I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pass up opportunities to make the world a better place just so some people can feel better about what they believe. They're still welcome to believe it, of course -- but not every belief has equal weight in every arena, and supernatural explanations to scientific inquiries aren't even a waste of time: they're downright regressive.

But hey, maybe that's the ultimate irony: the society that becomes ID-predominant doesn't produce enough medical breakthroughs to keep it healthy in the face of evolving diseases and lengthening lifespans among rivals who can and do keep up, and so slowly falls victim to its own dangerous meme. Survival of the fittest indeed.
 
[quote name='daroga']Can I disagree with you there. I guess I can't speak for the rapture crowd, but I doubt as many of them voted for Bush thought, "Yeah, this guy will let us trash the world and it'll be awesome!"

As a Christian I have just as much of a concern about taking care of our environment as anyone else. The world we live in is a gift from God. We already messed it up pretty throughly with sin, but that doesn't mean that we just run roughshod over it. It is here for our use, but not our abuse. Never mind the fact that while we believe the end of the world could be as early as right now, we still operate under the assumption that generations will follow us. So not only is trashing the earth spitting it God's face, but it's also spitting in our children's faces.

But, good try at forcing politics into the question ;)[/quote]

I'm glad to hear you say this, and that you support the green movement. However the facts are that many politicians given a 100% rating from Christian advocacy groups get a failing grade from environmental groups.

[quote name='thrustbucket']So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages?

That's quite a stretch.

I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that.[/quote]

No they are not "gaia's enemy". In my opinion they seem to care about adding people (through eliminating contraception and abortion) and keeping brain-dead human bodies in a technically "living" state more then they care about the myriad other forms of life on this planet. Culture of (human) life.
 
trq: keep in mind that Creation isn't anti-science. In fact, those who hold to a Creation belief can have a greater drive to understand what God has made and how it works and how to better use it than the evolutionist. A Christian can easily train to be a doctor, and a good one at that, because that's based around things we can work with, test, and observe. There's not a metric ton of speculation in medical science like there is with evolution. I have a good friend whose acing all of his biology courses as he's looking towards med school and loving every second of it. And yet, he holds to a 6 day Creation belief as well!

Your argument could be easily turned around: someone who holds to Creation (or perhaps to ID, but that's a far looser term that I'm not sure has a real definition) spends less time trying to figure out the origins of things in the past, and more time working with, experimenting, and testing his hypothesis to get the things in front of him to work properly. He or she just might be the one to crack that cancer case in the end.

A rejection of one thought-stream on the origins of things doesn't equate to an ignoring of those things that are in front of us to work with and make use of.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages?

That's quite a stretch.

I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that.[/QUOTE]

Oh, for fuck's ... haven't we established that there's a whole universe of stuff that Thrustbucket hasn't seen or heard, and yet might exist anyway? You keep using that line, and people keep providing the information you're blissfully unaware of, over and over again. Why persist? Are you just holding out for the one guy who finally says, "Oh, well, if Thrustbucket never came across it in his tenure as a Rhodes scholar, maybe I'm just making it up"?

So once more into the breach:

They're called "Wise Use" evangelicals. They believe humans are the rulers of the Earth; God put us in charge, so to speak, and he provides the resources He sees fit. Ergo, the rest of creation has no moral status, and cannot be sinned against, and is thus nothing more than resources to be used by us.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF3-98Ball.html

Need a specific example? Okay. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) quoted Romans' warning of those who worship "birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" in an anti-environment speech to the Values Voter Summit in 2006.

Anything else I can dig up that you've never come across because you've never looked?
 
[quote name='daroga']trq: keep in mind that Creation isn't anti-science.[/QUOTE]

Well, I may be misremembering, but haven't you said otherwise, in discussions about reconciling science and religion? If science says one thing, and a literal interpretation of the bible says another ... which one wins out, would you say? Assuming I'm guessing your answer correctly (and let's face it: I am ;) ), wouldn't that make being a scientist in those areas particularly difficult?

[quote name='daroga']tIn fact, those who hold to a Creation belief can have a greater drive to understand what God has made and how it works and how to better use it than the evolutionist. A Christian can easily train to be a doctor, and a good one at that, because that's based around things we can work with, test, and observe. There's not a metric ton of speculation in medical science like there is with evolution. I have a good friend whose acing all of his biology courses as he's looking towards med school and loving every second of it. And yet, he holds to a 6 day Creation belief as well![/QUOTE]

I don't deny that there are some very good, very religious scientists out there. In fact, I know one professionally (he's also a Lutheran minister). So I'm sure your friend will be an excellent doctor, but he's going to be precisely the kind of guy I want patching me up after a car accident or performing orthoscopic surgery on my knee, not the kind of guy who develops that retrovirus, because he's either going to have to find a creative way to reconcile evolution with his religious views, or he's going to have to choose to stay away from the branches of medicine that require a full and total working knowledge of it.

[quote name='daroga']Your argument could be easily turned around: someone who holds to Creation (or perhaps to ID, but that's a far looser term that I'm not sure has a real definition) spends less time trying to figure out the origins of things in the past, and more time working with, experimenting, and testing his hypothesis to get the things in front of him to work properly. He or she just might be the one to crack that cancer case in the end.

A rejection of one thought-stream on the origins of things doesn't equate to an ignoring of those things that are in front of us to work with and make use of.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is easily summed up with an Isaac Newton quote: "If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." The things in the past and the theories relating to them are vital to our understanding of those things right in front of us. You just can't discard evolution or all the data on the age of the universe and expect to be much of a geneticist or a astrophysicist.
 
No doubt, being a Christian and a scientist in a lot of ways is difficult. Difficult, but certainly not impossible. In a spot where science and religion seem to differ, the Christian scientist would look for another answer.

Simply because origin assumptions made by evolution-believing predecessors are wrong, doesn't mean that their observations on how things effect us right now and how they work is useless and thrown out. You can stand on the giant's shoulders without agreeing with everything he's done. When the observations are testable, you go with it, even if the assumed path to those observations is erroneous. One is seeking to understand evolution, one God's creation, but both come to the same end result: the data and environment in front of them.

It wouldn't be the most pleasant experience (largely due to the professional environment), but the differing world views and presuppositions wouldn't prohibit a Christian from making great strides in research.

But I'm content to agree to disagree on this. :)
 
I forgot about this thread. I've been trying to catch myself up and I have just a few comments.

I disagree that Creationism is compatible with any kind of science. Any creation story put forth by any religion can be refuted with obvious, repeatable observations in fields like geology and astrology. What the creationist is forced to do is ignore this evidence and play it off as part of the Grand design of god, which I'll admit I cannot prove it isn't. But I'll postulate that it's extremely counter-intuitive to deny seemingly overwhelming empirical data.

I'll admit that philosophy of religion isn't my forte. I'm much more interested in metaphysics honestly. That being said, I have a problem with the Christian creation story, so maybe you can explain it to me how it makes sense...

1) God is omnipotent. I don't think anybody who believes in God can deny that.

2) God creates the world/universe in 6-7 days. The time frame itself isn't important for this argument but it's important to realize that it happens in a given time.

3) Therefore, God is dictated by time because God creates the universe within a time frame, meaning that time either existed before God or coincides with God.

4) But God is omnipotent. How can time dictate god because god is all powerful?

To me, and I could be wrong because I don't know the story all that well, it seems contradictory to have an all powerful being dictated by time.

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me
 
[quote name='camoor']
No they are not "gaia's enemy". In my opinion they seem to care about adding people (through eliminating contraception and abortion) and keeping brain-dead human bodies in a technically "living" state more then they care about the myriad other forms of life on this planet. Culture of (human) life.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

But it could also be argued that the opposite extreme (and you are talking about an extreme) has started to measure human life in terms of carbon footprints. Which is equally as scary.

I think we can both agree that more middle of the road carefully studied action is desirable.

[quote name='trq']Oh, for fuck's ... haven't we established that there's a whole universe of stuff that Thrustbucket hasn't seen or heard, and yet might exist anyway? You keep using that line, and people keep providing the information you're blissfully unaware of, over and over again. Why persist? Are you just holding out for the one guy who finally says, "Oh, well, if Thrustbucket never came across it in his tenure as a Rhodes scholar, maybe I'm just making it up"? [/quote]

Wow. Nice attitude. I hope you at least got an orgasm from whatever is jammed up your nethers....

They're called "Wise Use" evangelicals. They believe humans are the rulers of the Earth; God put us in charge, so to speak, and he provides the resources He sees fit. Ergo, the rest of creation has no moral status, and cannot be sinned against, and is thus nothing more than resources to be used by us.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF3-98Ball.html

Need a specific example? Okay. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) quoted Romans' warning of those who worship "birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" in an anti-environment speech to the Values Voter Summit in 2006.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Ok.... Sooooooo...... You are arguing that what you just described is common or even prevalent? Do you really want to argue that these people are so numerous, rabid, and breeding out of control that they pose a danger to all you hold dear?

My point was to not tell you they must not exist. My point was to tell you that if they do exist, they aren't a major threat to your leftist agenda any more than al-queda is to your daily drive.

Anything else I can dig up that you've never come across because you've never looked?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Respectful non-arrogant discussion from the far-left on this forum would be a good start. Let me know when you dig some of that up.
 
Ugh. I apologize to Daroga, Spaz, Camoor, TRQ, etc. for this, and I really hope it doesn't cause some sort of derail.[quote name='thrustbucket']
Yes.
Respectful non-arrogant discussion from the far-left on this forum would be a good start. Let me know when you dig some of that up.[/quote]What the fuck? Considering that you're basically a right-wing, more verbose version of Msut, you sure have some thin damn skin. Like, monomolecular.

[/making things worse]
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Ugh. I apologize to Daroga, Spaz, Camoor, TRQ, etc. for this, and I really hope it doesn't cause some sort of derail.What the fuck? Considering that you're basically a right-wing, more verbose version of Msut, you sure have some thin damn skin. Like, monomolecular.

[/making things worse][/QUOTE]

I admit I have a low tolerance for idiots and I enjoy taking the piss but other than that am I really that bad? fuck give me a little credit.
Every single one of thrusts "arguments" are either based on who he may or may not know or insipid stoner style "how do we really like, know anything man".
 
[quote name='tokitoki50']
1) God is omnipotent. I don't think anybody who believes in God can deny that.

2) God creates the world/universe in 6-7 days. The time frame itself isn't important for this argument but it's important to realize that it happens in a given time.

3) Therefore, God is dictated by time because God creates the universe within a time frame, meaning that time either existed before God or coincides with God.

4) But God is omnipotent. How can time dictate god because god is all powerful?

To me, and I could be wrong because I don't know the story all that well, it seems contradictory to have an all powerful being dictated by time.

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me[/QUOTE]
The Bible had to be put into terms us mere mortals could understand. The easiest way for us to have even the smallest most childish understanding of creation according to the Bible, the story is put into human terms, aka. 7 units of time.

Also, 7 days could be 7 billion years etc.
--
DID I DO IT RIGHT!?!?!?
 
[quote name='daroga']In a spot where science and religion seem to differ, the Christian scientist would look for another answer.[/QUOTE]

That's all I was saying, really -- but that's enough to be problematic for science.

[quote name='daroga']But I'm content to agree to disagree on this. :)[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I didn't really expect to sway you with that one. :)

[quote name='thrustbucket']Hmmm. Ok.... Sooooooo...... You are arguing that what you just described is common or even prevalent? Do you really want to argue that these people are so numerous, rabid, and breeding out of control that they pose a danger to all you hold dear?

My point was to not tell you they must not exist. My point was to tell you that if they do exist, they aren't a major threat to your leftist agenda any more than al-queda is to your daily drive.[/QUOTE]

"So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages? That's quite a stretch. I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that." actually means "They're not a big deal"?

You know, moving the goal-posts only works when people can't go back and read what you've already written.

Anyway, I could also make a good case that Dominionism isn't especially prevalent either, but it doesn't have to be to be, when True Believers hold the highest offices in the land.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Respectful non-arrogant discussion from the far-left on this forum would be a good start. Let me know when you dig some of that up.[/QUOTE]

Considering the polygamy thread, The Crotch has a point about you of all people being sensitive ... but I *do* apologize for coming down a little hard. But seriously: the far-left? You need a major reality check if you think evolution is a far-left issue, or that Lefties even made it a political issue in the first place.
 
[quote name='tokitoki50']We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me[/quote]Time is certainly real (at least on a level of philosophy that I'm happy to talk about ;) ), but God governs time, not the other way around. On the first day, when God created light, there was evening and morning. The Bible bends over backwards to show that these are real days, not billions of years (sorry crystalklear). On the first day of Creation, God created time. Before that, God has existed in eternity and will continue to exist into eternity. He's the real definition of "eternal," without beginning or end. What we usually refer to as "eternal life" is probably better described as "everlasting life" because it had a beginning but will not have an end.

Peter says that for the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. God created time for us, to govern our world with light and darkness, seasons, etc. But he operates above and beyond that time. You get to some mind-bending stuff when you start trying to comprehend God's eternal nature.

I will agree that astrology and the Bible are not compatible, though. ;)

Anyone else have a rationale for their being upset about people holding to a Creation belief? (Crotch, I've not had a chance to read your link yet. I'm excited to see how Christianity and the USSR dance together on the playground at recess though! ;) )
 
[quote name='tokitoki50']To me, and I could be wrong because I don't know the story all that well, it seems contradictory to have an all powerful being dictated by time.

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me[/quote]

I think that's a pretty good point. To be honest, I don't know why Christians never took up the position that God setoff the "Big Bang" and ran with that. I suppose that's more of a Deist clockmaker God concept.

Now - I don't believe that either (I don't know what happened to kick off the Big Bang and what existed before - that's a real mystery to me and I wouldn't pretend to have the answer), but IMO it's a much more likely scenario then ID.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Hmmm. Ok.... Sooooooo...... You are arguing that what you just described is common or even prevalent? Do you really want to argue that these people are so numerous, rabid, and breeding out of control that they pose a danger to all you hold dear?
[/quote]

I didn't see him say anything about Islam. :oops:



Time doesn't exist. It's merely a human made metric to allow us to measure consciousness.
 
[quote name='daroga']Anyone else have a rationale for their being upset about people holding to a Creation belief?[/quote]

I don't think this thread is really about being upset about people being creationists (at least not most of it). I don't care if you're a creationist. The problems come when:

1. People say evolution isn't science or isn't backed by evidence.
2. People say ID is science or is backed by evidence.
3. People say that evolution shouldn't and/or ID should be taught in science classes.

And also for the special case of the expelled movie and similar people:

4. People say that if you accept evolution as a scientific theory you define morality by it and therefore it is the source of all evil in the world.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't think this thread is really about being upset about people being creationists (at least not most of it). I don't care if you're a creationist. The problems come when:

1. People say evolution isn't science or isn't backed by evidence.
2. People say ID is science or is backed by evidence.
3. People say that evolution shouldn't and/or ID should be taught in science classes.

And also for the special case of the expelled movie and similar people:

4. People say that if you accept evolution as a scientific theory you define morality by it and therefore it is the source of all evil in the world.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.
 
[quote name='SpazX']astronomy toki, astrology is....quite different :p.[/quote]

Good catch, needless to say it was kind of late.

Time certainly does exist Kayden, and I think any good philosopher would tell you the same. The only thing manmade about time are the units in which we measure time. That's like saying length doesn't exist because we measure it with inches and centimeters. Besides, it'd be impossible to "measure consciousness" by time.

Thank you for clearing up daroga that god does create time in the bible. But this does bring up some questions I have about the nature of god, specifically what it means to be "timeless." But I don't want to derail this thread.

I don't have problems with creationists generally. The only ones I have a problem with are those who believe in the rapture. It basically gives them a free pass to destroy nature and dominate the planet with reckless abandon because what's it matter? They'll all be teleported to heaven or whatever.
 
[quote name='tokitoki50']Good catch, needless to say it was kind of late.

Time certainly does exist Kayden, and I think any good philosopher would tell you the same. The only thing manmade about time are the units in which we measure time. That's like saying length doesn't exist because we measure it with inches and centimeters. Besides, it'd be impossible to "measure consciousness" by time. [/quote]

Any "good" philosopher? Tell that to Leibniz or Kant.

IMO time is really just a system of measurement derived from an empirical experience that all (or almost all ;) ) humans share.

I can't hold time in my hand, study it in a microscope, or manipulate it to study it's properties. At this point in our understanding of the universe it's really more of an intellectual concept that we use to order our lives or plug into physics equations then anything else.
 
I'm beginning to believe that we are just built to experience time in a very linear fashion in our current state.

A lot of the latest quantum science discoveries point to that. Time, much like gravity, is something we can experience the effects of, but know very little about.
 
[quote name='daroga'](Crotch, I've not had a chance to read your link yet. I'm excited to see how Christianity and the USSR dance together on the playground at recess though! ;) )[/quote]
They didn't, really.
 
[quote name='camoor']Any "good" philosopher? Tell that to Leibniz or Kant.

IMO time is really just a system of measurement derived from an empirical experience that all (or almost all ;) ) humans share.

I can't hold time in my hand, study it in a microscope, or manipulate it to study it's properties. At this point in our understanding of the universe it's really more of an intellectual concept that we use to order our lives or plug into physics equations then anything else.[/quote]

Leibniz was a supporter of monads, and while his principles on indenticals is for the most part widely accepted the philosophical world doesn't accept the ideas of monads, which states that not only time is unreal, but that all substance is an illusion. It's just stupid in my own opinion and counter-intuitive.

I don't like anything Kant really wrote either.

I said good philosophers not famous ones. :lol:

Personally I'm a big fan of A theories on time, primarily presentism. I only believe in the present. The past is as unreachable and as unreal as the future.
 
Ugh, Kant. Philosophy class and papers ruined him for me. Or, perhaps he ruined himself.

Presentism is kind of a wild concept. When I'm not learning how to become a violent person with video games or doing anything productive with my time, I like to think about things like, "Is the collection of memories that we have the primary agent in defining who we are?" If you gave a "blank slate" my collective set of memories, would they essentially be me? Is anything really happening or is it an ongoing revelation of these memories?

Of course, if you get too deep into that, you start writing another Matrix script, and we all know how well that worked.
 
[quote name='tokitoki50']Leibniz was a supporter of monads, and while his principles on indenticals is for the most part widely accepted the philosophical world doesn't accept the ideas of monads, which states that not only time is unreal, but that all substance is an illusion. It's just stupid in my own opinion and counter-intuitive.

I don't like anything Kant really wrote either.

I said good philosophers not famous ones. :lol:

Personally I'm a big fan of A theories on time, primarily presentism. I only believe in the present. The past is as unreachable and as unreal as the future.[/quote]

It's all very theoretically interesting.

I admit to not knowing the advanced physics but I do believe time travel into the future would be possible if you did something funky like fly away from earth at the speed of light (or fill up a Delorean with liquid Plutonium).
 
[quote name='camoor']I admit to not knowing the advanced physics but I do believe time travel into the future would be possible if you did something funky like fly away from earth at the speed of light (or fill up a Delorean with liquid Plutonium).[/quote]Come on, man. It ain't that hard. You've got Mr. Fusion on your side! Or you will in... 7 years.

We've got a lot of catching up to do by 2015.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's all very theoretically interesting.

I admit to not knowing the advanced physics but I do believe time travel into the future would be possible if you did something funky like fly away from earth at the speed of light (or fill up a Delorean with liquid Plutonium).[/QUOTE]

Just can't stop chiming in on this subject, as it interests me a lot...

I think time travel in the past is just as possible. Especially since there is more and more evidence that there are multiple timeliness... possibly unlimited. Meaning that the old adage of going back in time and killing yourself would make you instantly cease to exist and/or cause a "paradox" is probably false. Were you able to really do that, nothing would likely happen.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']And daroga, I liked the matrix script![/quote]I really liked the first one, too. But, man, those second and third movies? Yuck.
 
[quote name='daroga']I really liked the first one, too. But, man, those second and third movies? Yuck.[/quote]

Yeah you got me there, but the first was badass.
 
[quote name='daroga']I really liked the first one, too. But, man, those second and third movies? Yuck.[/quote]

I actually liked the second one. There was alot of computer theory in it, which I could see turning ppl off. I thought the homage to cheesy horror movies was pretty cool though. And that fight scene in the courtyard was totally whoa.

The problem I have with 1 and 2 is the whole sleeping beauty subplot - IE the deus ex machina (pardon the pun) moments where characters are magically brought back to life with a romantic kiss.

Matrix Three was total crap - I couldn't believe how phony that movie was. Everyone was just phoning it in - even the stunt coordinators.
 
My issue was that one was novel and made you think, whereas 2 and 3 were mostly just sci-fi based action flicks. I was looking for more wild philosophy ideas, but I guess they were fresh out.

2 was a bit better than 3, but since they hang together so much, 3 drags 2 down to the depths with it.
 
I totally agree that 1>2>3, with the gap between 2 and 3 being the largest.

Screw the courtyard scene, how about that chase sceen w/the 18 wheelers and motorcycles and shit. That was awesome. It was also pretty cool how Merovingian could make a total stranger orgasm with mind bullets. (This was 2 right?)
 
[quote name='daroga']My issue was that one was novel and made you think, whereas 2 and 3 were mostly just sci-fi based action flicks. I was looking for more wild philosophy ideas, but I guess they were fresh out.

2 was a bit better than 3, but since they hang together so much, 3 drags 2 down to the depths with it.[/quote]

Yeah but in terms of philosophy 2 was infinitely better then most big budget sci-fi flicks. Watching I, Robot makes Matrix 2 seem like 2001.

BTW Daroga - have you seen "2001: A Space Odyssey", or better yet read the book? I'm interested in whether you enjoyed the "aliens guided human evolution" mythology of the films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top