All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet?

[lo_res_man]

Ether actually is a very good example of how scientists can take just as long as anyone to change there mind.
Ether was noted to be a problem almost as soon as it was postulated. Even when electromagnetic waves were thought of, it took quite a while before they were accepted. Why because Newton, was untouchable. Anyone who disagreed with him was almost automatically considered wrong. They thought that the last puzzles of physics were clicking into place, and by the end of the 19th century, all would be understood. We know now they were dead wrong.

[HillBilly]

Ether actually is a very good example of how scientists can take just as long as anyone to change there mind.
Ether was noted to be a problem almost as soon as it was postulated. Even when electromagnetic waves were thought of, it took quite a while before they were accepted. Why because Newton, was untouchable. Anyone who disagreed with him was almost automatically considered wrong. They thought that the last puzzles of physics were clicking into place, and by the end of the 19th century, all would be understood. We know now they were dead wrong.

Well that's how science works. We figured it out in the end, didn't we?

It was the same thing with religion; Anyone who questioned God was wrong. And now, alot of creationists are adjusting Christianity to modern science, claiming that man and dinosaur lived hand in hand.

Which is wrong.

[lo_res_man]

then could someone explain to me  the Taylor trail on the Paluxy river bed, near glenn rose texes were there are Dino prints and homonid prints in the same place? some times even homonid prints within the dino prints.

[Becky]

then could someone explain to me  the Taylor trail on the Paluxy river bed, near glenn rose texes were there are Dino prints and homonid prints in the same place? some times even homonid prints within the dino prints.

Sure.  A visit to Google and Wikipedia finds this: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm, where the paleontologist draws the conclusion that:

"In September of 1984 Hastings and I extended the documentation of the Taylor Site, finding some new and startling evidence to confirm that the Taylor Site "man tracks" were in fact elongated dinosaur tracks."

That and the lack of any hominid fossils prior to 4 million years ago.  The dinosaurs were extinct around 65 million years ago.  In fact, you may want to take a look at this web page to get a grasp of the sheer time scale evolution takes place over.  One pixel is approximately 30,000 years.

[Fuzzpilz]

Well that's how science works. We figured it out in the end, didn't we?

A somewhat unfortunate way to phrase it (we certainly don't have the whole universe figured out just yet), but that's indeed the point to see here: ether was discarded because, as the situation developed, it simply couldn't at all stand up to the evidence, and it should be remembered that the modern scientific method is just that: modern. It only gradually developed and spread out to the various disciplines and subdisciplines of science.

Today, we're able to launch a probe into space so that it ends up in orbit around a different planet that's currently 120 million kilometers away. You can't eyeball that sort of aim. You need careful measurement and planning, and for that you need the predictive power of modern physics. This does involve rocket science, after all.

Here's an example of what this has to do with what certain annoying people like to call macroevolution: the discovery of Tiktaalik was more or less predicted:

The discovery caps a search that spans five field trips over six years aimed at filling this gap in the fossil records. The team knew the kind of rock formations they needed to search, pored over detailed geological maps, then settled on a set of sites to search.

That is: they decided, based on the evidence given by the prior fossil record and on the current views in geology (also a science that involves trying to find out what happened in the hilariously distant past!), where in time and space such a creature would have existed and been likely to end up fossilized, and where such places would have shifted to by now, and then they went there and found it. It still took years, of course, because science is almost always hard work and they didn't exactly have infinite manpower.

lo_res_man, anyone else this applies to: you could check the Talk.Origins FAQs for the scientific perspective on things - see, for example, this bit on the second law of thermodynamics. If you like, you can still decide they're all just educated stupid and evil, but at least this gives you the option of finding out, in some detail, precisely what variety of stupid and evil you're dealing with.

[HillBilly]

A somewhat unfortunate way to phrase it (we certainly don't have the whole universe figured out just yet)

I didn't claim that either, I was talking about ether.

I'm just saying that science works trough research, discovery, trial and error. I don't think we'll ever figure out the universe, but science has come a long way the last century.

[lo_res_man]

True and I would never disagree with that. I LOVE science by the way, One of my fondest hopes a little kiddle was going to the moon, I love poaring over facts and such.
Now I read the the bit on law of thermodynamics. but I disagree. yes life is a creates more life. but life doesn't "want" to exist.what I am asking is how life could originate. from utterly dead matter. Quite likley I am a foolish man trying to convince others of my own dogma, but I am still convinced. and no I don't think they are evil or stupid. i am not 
so foolish as that. can't think of anything else to say right now, except, What IS a universe? That is probebly the ultimite question.

[CaptainBinky]

what I am asking is how life could originate. from utterly dead matter.

It is an enigma. But at what point would you consider something to be alive? How complex does it have to be? At the end of the day, I think the argument all comes down to your personal belief on what it is to be human because if humans have souls then explaining the process of human evolution without some sort of creationist angle in there somewhere is extremely hard (possibly impossible). However, I don't believe in a soul, therefore explaining the phenomena for me is more simple - cumulative small change as I've said previously where the fundamental building block of life would be a replicating machine. The replicating machine in itself doesn't constitute "life" but it does become the basis of it's development.

In fact, there is evidence to show how life can be created from non-life (depending on how you look at it). And that's during development of embryos. A sperm cell and an egg cell are "manufactured" in the body from non-living components.

[TheYak]

Ignoring the semantic discussion of this thread, I ignorantly wander off into my own little tangent.  I distrust religion because its core tends to made of "I'm right - you're wrong".  Being dragged behind upon that thought's coat-tails is the concept that it is a right person's duty to correct people that are wrong. 

Science doesn't have all the answers, and - yes - some of the answers found are incorrect, but it grows stronger with one side versus the other discussion, and has taken far fewer lives in pursuit of making its theories universal. 

A Salmiditionist (made-up religious term) can certainly believe in the all-knowing bubble of membranous nose-substance and believe that scientists will be punished by not being allowed to join with the holy proteins after death.  The instant they determine that they need to divert my life's course in pursuit of spreading their non-material theory they can, frankly, go fuck themselves.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

I distrust religion because its core tends to made of "I'm right - you're wrong".Ã,  Being dragged behind upon that thought's coat-tails is the concept that it is a right person's duty to correct people that are wrong.

I would be more inclined to think that the "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint is not just limited to religion. In fact, I'd say it's a universally human concept.

[MrColossal]

You're wrong. No it isn't.

[lo_res_man]

If you ask this monkey, it is probably because, except when we get in to very esoteric subjects, one CAN be right or wrong. "Krug see rock" "No, Krug see bunny," "Rock!" "Bunny!!" "ROCK!!!" "Krug see rock, cuz' krug want Ã, sex with ma"
"err..KRUG SMASH FRAUD!!" see how silly it is?(Also why fraud would never have survived the Neolithic) One of the gifts of languages is that people can disagree. One person may have better eyesight., one may a better vantage point. things like that. with languages they can share information.
HOWEVER in MOST topics of the prehistoric world, ONE was right and the other wasn't. Agreeing with someone that a lion was a rabbit when you see a lion, got you killed more often then if you disagreed. you might be wrong, but the bunny is no danger, while a lion IS! which is why this innate human stubbornness could be in place.

[Rolf]

I believe beause that of angels they are softest and have pleasant dreams.  God is a man who has one beard and the gostos to agitate poles in dogs but it will only make this in the day of rest.  I find this very sad I make any one I agree? 

[Haddas]

Dude. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

You're wrong. No it isn't.

"No it isn't" as in no, I'm not wrong?

[MrColossal]

You're wrong in the fact that the "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint is a universally human concept. ba dum?

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

Oh yeah? Prove it.

[Grapefruitologist]

Hello,
I, too, have been having some problems with this. My friends on another forum are not Christians, and I am, and we got in some debates over this. But I'm not going to get into that right now...
I am a Christian. And I know that God is real, no doubt about that! I know from my own personal experiences that God is real.
Ok, first of all-my opinion is that, in a country, for everything to be completely fair, you should have the same punishments for the same crimes. For example... kill a dog, go to jail, kill an unborn baby, and you should get the same punishment. Or, kill a dog, be set free, and kill an unborn baby, and be set free. Same goes for murderers, though, that would be politically fair. But that's my opinion and really has nothing to do with the discussion anyway.
If we want a truely fair country with politics and religion seperated, we should probably stick to "hurt anybody else, go to jail" but as long as you don't do anything to hurt anybody else, then it should probably be your choice, because, that's freedom, and that the way we were made to be, with a free choice. But, I think it should be a choice, but not a right.
That would be politically correct, in my opinion.
But if we wanted a country that is biblically correct, we'd have to do something along the lines of kill a dog, be set free, kill a baby, go to jail, etc. Then again, same thing as above, we could have total freedom and basically be an anarchist country.
In the end, it's all religion vs. politics, and I think half the country wants it based on religion, and half on politics. That's what's caused this whole dispute, because anything in between wouldn't really be fair for either side-both want an extreme version of their ideal country.
That's why I'm going to buy a private island in the middle of the ocean and live as a hermit one of these days. Heh xD
As for your questions...
1. Ã, Do the Christians (a majority) stand a chance of getting Bible-based legislation passed?
Yes, but so do non-Christians...

2. Ã, Do you believe that Bible-based legislation SHOULD be passed?
Personally, yes. But if we want a free country, no, because I know nobody would be happy with that.

3. Ã, Do you feel that religion and politics intertwine naturally and that an American Theocracy in favor of the majority is inevitable?
Err... I didn't understand half of that, but yes. Religion and politics can intertwine. But they can be independent as well.

4. Ã, If a Christian juggernaut formed and began moving towards a Theocracy, what would you do? (Either to help it or stop it.)
Errrrrr... what?

As for the rest of the discussion... I know that there are people out there who say they are Christians. There can be frauds out there. Don't listen to them. I'm sorry, very sorry, that there are these kinds of people. We call them the "baptized in lemon juice" people where I live. I have noticed this lately, what a fraud the whole stereotypical "Christian" belief can actually be. But, yes, I am a Christian, I have no specific belief. Frankly, most beliefs (catholicsm, mormonism, etc.) are usually frauds... sometimes they aren't even technically called a Christian belief. Christianity shouldn't be a religion, it should be a friendship with God. That's the way it is with me. I would talk more about this, but I fear a long debate in caps ending in 50 exclamation points...

[Kinoko]

I believe beause that of angels they are softest and have pleasant dreams.Ã,  God is a man who has one beard and the gostos to agitate poles in dogs but it will only make this in the day of rest.Ã,  I find this very sad I make any one I agree?Ã, 

Rolf: Funniest post ever. Genius!