The Passion...

[J-Proof]

Yo T,

As offensive as people perceive my Church being (for taking a firm stance on a moral subject), it would say far less for the Church if they kept bending and changing positions on large issues.

As for your chart on how faith and science works, I fail to see how "contradictory evidence" pertains to faith. We just discussed how evolution and faith can fit together just fine. So can orbiting solar systems and faith.

The events of your example of the Mosaic seven days can even be described scientifically (rather neatly too). And to say spirituality is inadequate for helping you understand the universe is ignoring what faith is actually here for

You have to view your argument objectively, and differentiate between the literals and figuratives of faith, and avoid generalizations in order to add weight to your argument.

I would argue that progress is most definitely /not/ impending nuclear winters and arms races, but that a discovery of self and creation is progress.

The Church's moral position is not always so unlikeable to the masses -- You realize that the magisterium of the Catholic Church is also against the War in Iraq, right?

[torgosPizza]

I find entropic law to be a proof that someone /has/ to have caused it, not that "it" (or evolution) doesn't exist =)

Hope that answers your question. What I find hilarious is that we could technically just look over our shoulders and talk about this since we sit right next to each other all day long, but instead, we vent ourselves away on this forum =)

True, but I thought this debate was for everyone, and hoped that everybody could gain insight no matter who was doing the debating

So, I'm still not quite sure on where you stand. How does Entropy prove that anyone started the process? Again, the same type of situations are seen in nature (and arise spontaneously) all the time - things we can even observe. To me, that proves that laws of nature exist, and don't speak anything of any god.

[J-Proof]

So, I'm still not quite sure on where you stand. How does Entropy prove that anyone started the process? Again, the same type of situations are seen in nature (and arise spontaneously) all the time - things we can even observe. To me, that proves that laws of nature exist, and don't speak anything of any god.

Because evolution is seemingly not-so-cookie-cutter in regards to entropy, I see evolution as being caused by a higher being. That's all =)

And all the millions of instances we see around us where evolution occurs is due to someone who caused it to happen.

[Tarantulas]

Yo T,

As offensive as people perceive my Church being (for taking a firm stance on a moral subject), it would say far less for the Church if they kept bending and changing positions on large issues.

As for your chart on how faith and science works, I fail to see how "contradictory evidence" pertains to faith. We just discussed how evolution and faith can fit together just fine. So can orbiting solar systems and faith.

The events of your example of the Mosaic seven days can even be described scientifically (rather neatly too). And to say spirituality is inadequate for helping you understand the universe is ignoring what faith is actually here for

You have to view your argument objectively, and differentiate between the literals and figuratives of faith, and avoid generalizations in order to add weight to your argument.

I would argue that progress is most definitely /not/ impending nuclear winters and arms races, but that a discovery of self and creation is progress.

The Church's moral position is not always so unlikeable to the masses -- You realize that the magisterium of the Catholic Church is also against the War in Iraq, right?

The magisterium  is also against giving the people of Africa access to condoms to help block the spread of AIDS.

Most of the "morals" the church wants to protect are the ones in it's financial interest to uphold. 

"Of course we don't want birth control, we need more catholics to make more catholics."

The "7 days" argument doesn't hold water either.  It's yet another example of revisionist backpedaling.  Bananas anyone?  How many people watched that, and took it as fact?  A metric asston.

Faith is for the weak minded who can't accept this existence for what it is.  This life is all there is, make the most of it, and leave things better than you found them when you check out.

Emperor Popeatine needs to give up the funny hat and stop filling peoples heads with garbage.

[J-Proof]

The magisterium  is also against giving the people of Africa access to condoms to help block the spread of AIDS.

Most of the "morals" the church wants to protect are the ones in it's financial interest to uphold. 

"Of course we don't want birth control, we need more catholics to make more catholics."

The "7 days" argument doesn't hold water either.  It's yet another example of revisionist backpedaling.  Bananas anyone?  How many people watched that, and took it as fact?  A metric asston.

Faith is for the weak minded who can't accept this existence for what it is.  This life is all there is, make the most of it, and leave things better than you found them when you check out.

Emperor Popeatine needs to give up the funny hat and stop filling peoples heads with garbage.

You are free to believe as you wish of course

[Tarantulas]

The magisterium  is also against giving the people of Africa access to condoms to help block the spread of AIDS.

Most of the "morals" the church wants to protect are the ones in it's financial interest to uphold. 

"Of course we don't want birth control, we need more catholics to make more catholics."

The "7 days" argument doesn't hold water either.  It's yet another example of revisionist backpedaling.  Bananas anyone?  How many people watched that, and took it as fact?  A metric asston.

Faith is for the weak minded who can't accept this existence for what it is.  This life is all there is, make the most of it, and leave things better than you found them when you check out.

Emperor Popeatine needs to give up the funny hat and stop filling peoples heads with garbage.

You are free to believe as you wish of course

Indeed, but the healing can't begin until we all agree to leave our superstitions behind and truly evolve as a species.

[Moon Blast]

There are some very interesting discussions going on here.   

If anyone who is open-minded and wants to learn more about evolution vs creationism. I suggest you might want to look into this and isolate fact from fiction. This is for anyone who wishes to expand there minds as it were and look at the evidence before coming to a final conclusion. I leave anyone here to decide for themselves on what they believe and why they believe it.

http://www.equip.org/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2537845/site/apps/ka/ec/Product.asp?ProductID=431058

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Note that i am not forcing any one single ideology onto anyone, it is still up to the individual to make a choice on what they believe nor am i a religious fanatic and a far-right conservative wacko. I am neither endorsing anything here like any particular organization or individual as you do not not have to be christian to read these books   

Also note that to this day there is no evidence whatsoever of a transition in our fossil records from ape to man. I would like to see some evidence otherwise.

[torgosPizza]

Because evolution is seemingly not-so-cookie-cutter in regards to entropy

I don't understand what you mean - could you extrapolate? Sorry - I still haven't seen any reasoning yet besides that the idea isn't intellectually satisfying for you. To me, that's all the more reason to do more research, not to give up and say that god did it. Keep in mind, the idea of evolution that Darwin created, which is the basis for all biology, is not random chance. "Selection" is the direct opposite of "chance."

And all the millions of instances we see around us where evolution occurs is due to someone who caused it to happen.

Where is the proof of that? There are plenty of scientific papers with thorough research, including that of Darwin, that would disagree with your statement. Here's a link to some examples of hints of evolution taking place in New Zealand, and the research conducted to determine that evolution was happening: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/NZevidence.shtml

[torgosPizza]

Also note that to this day there is no evidence whatsoever of a transition in our fossil records from ape to man. I would like to see some evidence otherwise.

Actually if you are willing to be open-minded, and do some research, you'll find that we do have transitional records - but keep in mind that "transitional" does not always mean direct relationship between descendant and ancestor.

http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm#Transitionals

Click that link above, it's quite lengthy, but I think you'll find it interesting just how many transitionals have actually been found.

EDIT: That link with the "Evolution Fraud" you posted was hilarious. Nothing on that page seems relevant in today's discoveries about evolution and paleontology. On top of that, the book you linked to - which posits the notion that people who believe in evolution has some relationship to racism, sexism and abortion is simply ludicrous. That should completely rule out any idea of a level-headed, thoughtful debate.

[J-Proof]

I don't understand what you mean - could you extrapolate? Sorry - I still haven't seen any reasoning yet besides that the idea isn't intellectually satisfying for you. To me, that's all the more reason to do more research, not to give up and say that god did it. Keep in mind, the idea of evolution that Darwin created, which is the basis for all biology, is not random chance. "Selection" is the direct opposite of "chance."

----------

Where is the proof of that? There are plenty of scientific papers with thorough research, including that of Darwin, that would disagree with your statement. Here's a link to some examples of hints of evolution taking place in New Zealand, and the research conducted to determine that evolution was happening: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/NZevidence.shtml

I think you are reading into my reasoning too much. All I'm saying is that evolution's disorder-to-order idea goes against the universally scientific law of entropy. Therefore, I believe that evolution is caused. This is not only my idea, in fact, it has been repeatedly spoken by many scientists. All I'm saying is that evolution, in fact, happens -- and that it does not stand against faith. 'Tis all.

[Tyrant]

Yo T,

As offensive as people perceive my Church being (for taking a firm stance on a moral subject), it would say far less for the Church if they kept bending and changing positions on large issues.

As for your chart on how faith and science works, I fail to see how "contradictory evidence" pertains to faith. We just discussed how evolution and faith can fit together just fine. So can orbiting solar systems and faith.

The events of your example of the Mosaic seven days can even be described scientifically (rather neatly too). And to say spirituality is inadequate for helping you understand the universe is ignoring what faith is actually here for

You have to view your argument objectively, and differentiate between the literals and figuratives of faith, and avoid generalizations in order to add weight to your argument.

I would argue that progress is most definitely /not/ impending nuclear winters and arms races, but that a discovery of self and creation is progress.

The Church's moral position is not always so unlikeable to the masses -- You realize that the magisterium of the Catholic Church is also against the War in Iraq, right?

The magisterium  is also against giving the people of Africa access to condoms to help block the spread of AIDS.

Most of the "morals" the church wants to protect are the ones in it's financial interest to uphold. 

"Of course we don't want birth control, we need more catholics to make more catholics."

The "7 days" argument doesn't hold water either.  It's yet another example of revisionist backpedaling.  Bananas anyone?  How many people watched that, and took it as fact?  A metric asston.

Faith is for the weak minded who can't accept this existence for what it is.  This life is all there is, make the most of it, and leave things better than you found them when you check out.

Emperor Popeatine needs to give up the funny hat and stop filling peoples heads with garbage.

Sorry to chime back in, but I'm going to mention here that quite a bit of Genesis, and quite a lot of the Old Testament, is metaphor. The cultures that birthed the Bible were very much into that type of thing. That's why Jesus taught in parables. A lot of us don't take everything in the Bible -literally- (ie: woman being formed from a man's rib, ect). Seven days could have been seven billion years for all we know.

  And J Proof is right. Science isn't the opposition of faith or the other way around. It's only the Cause of this grand universal cycle we're in that we debate, not the cycle itself.

[msmpls]

Sorry to chime back in, but I'm going to mention here that quite a bit of Genesis, and quite a lot of the Old Testament, is metaphor.

q4t.

isn't that at the heart of all this religious intolerance nonsence? People just interpreting the same metaphors in different ways?

Don't apologize Tyrant, you're a welcome voice of reason 

[J-Proof]

isn't that at the heart of all this religious intolerance nonsence? People just interpreting the same metaphors in different ways?

pretty much.... sad no?

[torgosPizza]

Sorry to chime back in, but I'm going to mention here that quite a bit of Genesis, and quite a lot of the Old Testament, is metaphor. The cultures that birthed the Bible were very much into that type of thing. That's why Jesus taught in parables. A lot of us don't take everything in the Bible -literally- (ie: woman being formed from a man's rib, ect). Seven days could have been seven billion years for all we know.

Thanks for chiming back in Tyrant! No need to apologize here, just a friendly debate   What I don't understand is, why would only parts of the Bible be metaphor? And where do you make the distinction? How can Adam and Eve be metaphor, (or whatever parts of Genesis you like) - but the horrific deeds seen in Exodus and Deuteronomy are literal? Is there a guide or a footnote, that tells you, "This part is only metaphor, don't take it literally!"

I realize I'm being facetious, but bear with me. A lot of people believe that the Bible is infallible - do you agree? An astonishing number of people believe 100% of the Bible to be literal, as well. Even if you see parts of the book as being an anthology of metaphors, why can't the whole be taken that way? It seems to me that too many religious apologists want to have it both ways - they have their metaphorical tales of how everything was created, but then they have the literal parts where man cannot lay down with man as he would with a woman, and therefore homosexuality is a sin. Granted, not EVERYONE believes in this line of thinking, but I'm sure it's safe to say "most" of the religious (in the US especially) do.

To me the biggest challenge is the very idea that the Bible could be wrong. During the time it was written, science was nonexistent, and so the world-view perceived by its authors was extremely limited. They wrote about what they knew, of course; but as our understanding of the world has increased since that time, and we have found that much of what is in the bible doesn't jive (it is impossible to fit EVERY species of animal on one boat, for example), suddenly it seems many are changing the story to be "metaphor" in order to make it fit into both situations.

isn't that at the heart of all this religious intolerance nonsence? People just interpreting the same metaphors in different ways?

I don't believe so. It's true, all three modern religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) were derived from the same Abrahamic philosophy; but the Quran's message of intolerance and of militaristic conversion of others who don't share the same faith as you is quite different from the Christian (in general) idea of nonviolence and love. I think it's more than just a gross negligence or "misinterpretation" - to me it's a logical fallacy and an incredibly outdated mode of thinking. Not intentionally singling out Islam, but when your entire religion forces women to cover up everything but their hands and faces, but then rewards you for blowing up "Infidels" with 72 brown-eyed virgins in Heaven? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me.

[BBQ Platypus]

The magisterium  is also against giving the people of Africa access to condoms to help block the spread of AIDS.

Most of the "morals" the church wants to protect are the ones in it's financial interest to uphold. 

"Of course we don't want birth control, we need more catholics to make more catholics."

The "7 days" argument doesn't hold water either.  It's yet another example of revisionist backpedaling.  Bananas anyone?  How many people watched that, and took it as fact?  A metric asston.

Faith is for the weak minded who can't accept this existence for what it is.  This life is all there is, make the most of it, and leave things better than you found them when you check out.

Emperor Popeatine needs to give up the funny hat and stop filling peoples heads with garbage.

You are free to believe as you wish of course

Indeed, but the healing can't begin until we all agree to leave our superstitions behind and truly evolve as a species.

Of course, assuming that this life IS all there is, what the fuck do you care?  If you want to talk about the cold, harsh reality of the universe, I have one for you: RELIGION IS NOT GOING AWAY.  You can interpret that as being for better or for worse, but the fact is that the human mind is wired to want to think the world makes sense.  You can waste your life moaning about it if you want - go ahead.  You're essentially negating the one potential benefit of being an atheist: not having to worry or think about the whole "God" thing.

I'm sorry if this seems like ranting to you, but the only people who piss me off more than sanctimonious, condescending religious types are the sanctimonious, condescending atheist types.  And you ARE being sanctimonious and condescending.  Bullshit or not, it's their decision how they want to lead their lives, regardless of how stupid it may seem to you.

Assuming such beliefs DID die out, the fact of the matter is that people would just find something else to fight about.  The world still faces poverty, war, and famine, and it probably always will (at least until God / nuclear war / robots / the Republican National Committee show up to destroy the world).

And to refer to non-literalism as "revisionist backpedaling" is to completely ignore religious history.  Christian cosmogony has NEVER been set in stone - non-literalists go back as far as Herodotus and St. Augustine (that's the 5th Century AD, in case you're wondering).

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

Although I don't entirely agree with Augustine's form of cosmogony (which you are free to look up if you're curious), I think he makes a good point about the unimportance of the "how."