Losing my religion.
Thanks to REM for the unoriginal title.
Most of you know that I lost my sister some months back to a very small cyst at the base of her brain. This event, for some bizarre reason, strengthened my belief in a higher power, specifically, God.
But now that I've had time to think about it...
I think juju said it best when he said "religion is a bunch of fucking bunk". I might have gotten the words wrong, but its close enough. I am sick of being told that my sister's death was part of God's plan, and I'm appalled when I get accused of "presuming to question God" when I want to know where exactly it fits in with his little "plan".
In the past, when I engaged in debate over religion, I found myself defending the people. I could not understand the venom felt toward christians in general. I tried not to be an asshole about my beliefs. Surely most other christians behave the same way.
Boy was I wrong.
When I found myself questioning my beliefs, rather than the nurturing and support I might hope for from fellow christians, I found judgement and scorn. Since when do christians get to preach the teachings of the bible but not follow it? "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone", anyone?
But I guess that's neither here nor there at this point. Whit challenged my beliefs once, and I did a terrible job explaining them, because they were not well fleshed out. I think I have got it figured out now.
There is no God. God has no "Plan".
Christians are a bunch of people who excuse their poor behaviour and attitudes by claiming divine forgiveness documented in a book which tells them to behave exactly the opposite of the way they do.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course. There are christians out there who truly are humble, and model their lives after the Jesus', as depicted in the new testament. But they are not nearly as common as I once believed. But I still think they are wrong.
It was really hard to admit this all to myself, and it was even harder to write (type) it and post it for the world to see. But I am glad I did. I feel better now.
~James
No argument here.
Plenty below.
I can identify, except that there was no triggering moment in my life which brought me to my conclusions.. mine were born of simple logic and observation applied over many years. I was raised in Mormon central, so I was rarely exposed o the possibility that God is merely a creation of man, but by the time I was about 15, I had severe doubts, and by 20 I had concluded that "God" is a pretty name for what amounts to little more than a mental crutch.
Of course, I respect others' rights to their own conclusions on the existence of $diety, whether they conflict with mine or not, as long as they don't try to ram them down my throat.
Be careful, Perth. Your risking whiplash or at least ping pong syndrome.
Like any large group of people, except maybe Libertarians, there are all kinds. Some good, some bad, some ugly and shouldn't be painted with a broad brush. Being a Christian is a personal choice of faith and I think your mistake was thinking that all Christians proscribe to a certain lifestyle.
Certainly many of the southern slave owners considered themselves good Christians. So did the abolitionists.:)
Thats why I say there are exceptions to the rule. There are, and I have met some of them. But I am coming to the realisation that the vast majority of christians i know (that is an important distinction, and I should have made it in the first place) are assholes. And they think its okay to be an asshole, because, like the bumper sticker says, "Chritians aren't perfect, just forgiven" (my blood boils any time I see that sticker).
I would not be of this opinion if people the fundies would realise that when Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", he was talking to them. Thats the problem. Religion is a crutch and a shield to too many people. And I cannot defend that attitude any more.
Yes, there are wonderful people that believe in God. Its too bad they don't have more influence.
~James
Pastrami's post reminded me of
this, posted on metafilter today.
I think this is much the same as seeing the Virgin Mary on a fencepost, but its an interesting idea, nonetheless.
~James
Originally posted by perth
Thats why I say there are exceptions to the rule. There are, and I have met some of them. But I am coming to the realisation that the vast majority of christians i know (that is an important distinction, and I should have made it in the first place) are assholes. And they think its okay to be an asshole, because, like the bumper sticker says, "Chritians aren't perfect, just forgiven" (my blood boils any time I see that sticker).
I would not be of this opinion if people the fundies would realise that when Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", he was talking to them. Thats the problem. Religion is a crutch and a shield to too many people. And I cannot defend that attitude any more.
Yes, there are wonderful people that believe in God. Its too bad they don't have more influence.
~James
Perth - I'm with ya. I don't believe in God and the Bible anymore either. Mine was not one defining moment. I was raised Baptist but my parents taught me to question everything. They told me that until I was 18 I needed to attend Church, but that after that - and during Church - I should question everything and decide what is right for me. I just saw while growing up so many hypocrites and really disgusting non-christian like attitudes in the church that organized religion in general leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (I also just had someone from work say "Well George W. Bush believes in God - so he's who I'm gonna vote for.") WTF?
I am an extreme believer in Karma - what you do to others will come back to you. (And if its bad - it will bite you in your ass.) I don't see it is a sad thing loosing my religion. I see it as an awakening.
First of all, where the fuck have you been? I even asked where you were in my user title a few weeks back.
I personally am sorry to hear about this. But, no one can be right when it comes to "Does God exist?", so if you are at peace, then it's all good.
I firmly believe in God, though I am not a Christian. I think of Christianity in the same way that I do Communism: nice in theory, bad in practice.
I've also been wondering what's been up with you, buddy. Long time no see your pixels. Welcome back!
As far as the thread topic goes ... I've been thinking about this and don't want to come off sounding preachy. It's not what you need to find your way through your life events.
Short answer is don't close any doors. Try being spiritual instead of religious for a while, see how it goes for you.
There are many paths to spirit. Some follow conventional beliefs, others esoteric. Some find spiritual fulfillment in the laugh of a child, or the fall of rain, or the light of the new moon, or in silence.
Blessings.
Exactly...for example, I worship Cadbury, as they make the greatest beverage known to man--Dr. Pepper.
Let me make something perfectly clear.
My original role was that of controlling you retards through guilt embarrassment and the kings' whims. Not having a real gov't and endless agencies to spy on, tax and arrest you fools makes it pretty tough to grow a society. What was I supposed to do, send a ufo to look over you? No, some genius came up with the bible.
I was on vacation when the bible was sent up for review and approval. My underlings signed off on it. There's a lot of great stories in the bible but after you all invented TV, I knew it was all but finished.
There is a god and he has a plan. Just not the plan most folks think of or can understand.
I needed some time away from the cellar. :) Sorry, and its nice to be missed. Just needed to clear my head. I have been thinking about this post for a while, and I need to go away so I could make sure I was clear on my feelings.
Wolf, I appreciate distinction betwen spirituality and christian faith. I guess I still believe that while Jesus may not have been holy, he was a wise and humble man. People could do worse than following his teachings. But I do mena follow. Not "I believe in Jesus, so I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell. Nyah nyah".
I believe there is room for spirituality in every life. How you choose to fulfill that, or not to, is up to you. Myself? I don't want to be told anymore. I do have some bitterness toward christians, and much of that is likely misplaced. I will work on that, because I do not want to be bitter. But I will never allow myself to be told what to believe again.
And yeah, Dr. Pepper is the greatest beverage known to man. Unless you count beer. Especially if that beer is a nice red colour.
Perth! It's good to see you back, you've been missed.
I'd like to take something Syc said a step farther, in a different direction and offer a counterpoint everyone else.
From Syc:
no one can be right when it comes to "Does God exist?"
Here's the rub on that. If you choose to believe there is no god then you are basing your opinion off faith every bit as much as any christian. The same is true of all religions. Whether you choose to believe it's true or choose to believe it's false. I'm sure you remember my thoughts on faith? Actually, I guess I never went into it that much.
The problem with faith is that you are choosing to treat an opinion as a fact. We don't know who, if anyone, has got it right. You can choose to follow a path provided or form a hybrid of several to make your own. Whatever path you choose it's a choice based on what you want to believe, not what you know. It still comes back to faith.
Consider this though, you don't have to have an opinion. You can admit ignorance of the hereafter and the grand scheme of things outright. You can drop the idea of any form of cosmic balance or universal justice at will. The really amazing part? It won't change a damn thing.
You can apply your experiences directly to decide if something is good or bad, with no old book to advise you. No need to reference anything beyond your own point of view and the point of view of people you consider intelligent and/or insightful.
Look to your own road for guidance. Instead of walking in the moral path of a man you consider great, seek out where he was going. Look for the wisdom in the words of others, but value the wisdom as it applies to you.
You say you "lost" your religion. See the gain, you are more free now than you have ever been. Breathe the air for a bit before you start believing something else you can't prove. Like "There is no God." Try instead, "If there's a god, why should I care?"
"You gotta work out your own salvation"--The The
I'd recommend reading the series Conversations With God by Neale Donald Walsch. Some good thoughts in there and more in line with what I believe.
[COLOR=indigo]I'm in agreement with Whit on this one.
Believing in any God is faith.
NOT believing in any God is faith.
Believing in creation a la Genesis is faith.
Believing in the Big Bang is faith.
Adam and Eve/Noah and his sons. Faith.
The whole Theory of Evolution is faith.
No one can prove any of it happened, so you have to choose what seems like the best option.
It's good that you won't let any one tell you what you should believe. But, like Bruce said, shifting to the other extreme probably isn't going to put you closer to where you want to be.[/COLOR]
Actually, evolution is pretty much considered a fact by scientists nowadays.
Originally posted by juju
Actually, evolution is pretty much considered a fact by scientists nowadays.
But that doesn't make it true, only the best bet with the knowledge they have. Tomorrow may change that.:)
Uhhhhh, no. Not believing in God is not faith. It's not as if both sides have no scientific support and therefore believing or following either is an act of faith. Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?). I would argue that it's not "Faith" in the Christian sense if one has actually turned on their brain to think about/question it, like so many Christians do not.
That's a puzzling statement. Sure, tommorrow may see gravity reverse itself, but my best bet is that it won't.
There's some good info
here and
here on the subject.
Yeah, it seems that OnyxCougar broadened Whit's definition beyond what he meant to say. Not believing in something is the opposite of faith.
But, you know, there are these atheists that run around saying they're "100% positive" there is no God. That's also bologna, and they should be slapped in the face for saying that. They've gone from one extreme to the other! I believe that's what Whit was getting at.
Nah, I think I've been drifting this direction for quite some time. Its not like this a sudden shift. I spent a great deal of time questioning why I believed in God, and in the end, the answers weren't good enough.
What it boiled down to was this:
I believed in God because I had always believed in him.
Not the rock-solid foundation one might hope for. So I asked myself why I had always believed in him. That answer made just about as much sense.
Because I wanted to believe. It gave an order to things I couldn't otherwise explain.
Let that one sink in. I believed in comething I couldn't explain to explain things I couldn't explain. So theres my foundation. And lets not assume that I took those answers, accepted them, and bolted out to announce my newly-acquired atheism. You don't rush to conclusions when your soul is on the line. :)
Conclusion: I don't believe in God. Am I right? Fuck, I don't know. Neither does anyone else, despite their protestations. But at least I am happy with my choice. And make no mistake, I am happy with it. There is a certain amount of freedom of thought that until now I have denied myself. I kind of like the freedom.
I suppose faith in God can be freeing as well, depending on your attitude and situation. But now that I see it from this side, I find religion to generally be limiting, constrictive and somewhat opppressive. But thats just my experience.
Obviously you've got to find your own way, anything else is a copout.
The attitude, seen in some christians, that you are describing, I can do whatever I want because I've been saved so all my actions are justified, is considered, I'm gonna use a bad word here, heresy in Orthodox Christian circles. Faith vs works was a big ongoing argument in the early Church and continues to challenge the individual. Early philosophers spent a lot of paper talking about righteous pagans etc... because of the great intellectual debt owed to non-Christian Greeks. Ideally, we have some combination of those attributes, but for the Catholic Christian especially in protestant America its sometimes easier to blend in than to make the necessary distinction. Anyway, good luck figuring out your path. g
Originally posted by wolf
Short answer is don't close any doors. Try being spiritual instead of religious for a while, see how it goes for you.
There are many paths to spirit. Some follow conventional beliefs, others esoteric. Some find spiritual fulfillment in the laugh of a child, or the fall of rain, or the light of the new moon, or in silence.
Blessings.
Boy, you can sure tell the Pagan and mostly Pagan around these parts, can't you? :)
Wolf has hit the proverbial nail on its metaphoric little head, Perth. Do not confuse religion with spirituality. You can experience spirituality through participation in a religion, but it is scarcely a requirement that you do so.
Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.
The last step is using those feelings to search for meaning about you, your life, your universe. Somewhere along that path of discovery, you realize that you are participating in spiritual experiences.
It really doesn't matter what the source of spirit and, by association, spiritual experience, is. The only thing that matters is that you have them, own them and work to understand them. Otherwise, you're just drifting around, waiting for the end to come. Where's the fun in that?
Thanks for clarifying that for me Juju.
I believe I touched on this in the thread Perth referenced before but since there's a lot of people here that weren't around back then...
From me, way back:
I'd like to draw a line in the difference between expectation and faith. The difference being faith accepts that something is true and expectation accepts that it is likely. I'm moving on with this if you disagree then I'll have to go back.
It's kinda like Dave said in the Arnie thread, (I'm not going to quote it exact, just ballpark it) unless you're clairvoyant you don't know the future. Still, I think we can reasonably expect gravity to continue and the sun to rise. I just don't think that's faith.
In the case of the Theory of Evolution, I expect it did occur. I do not, however, know for sure it did. Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same. Perhaps the problem is that the Theory of Evolution should be more properly called the Theory of Human Evolution. Of course if living creatures evolve, and humans are living creatures...
From Ep:
Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.
Isn't it interesting that the first three steps can be done chemically? In a bar for example? Granted the very important last step didn't get quoted here. But I wanted to point out that pure hedonism can seem spiritual. I think maybe this is why. Of course, without the last step it's all empty spiritual calories, but hey the last parts the hard one. We are, after all, largely a culture of momentary gratification. Makes barflys and druggies make a little more sense, eh?
Are you suggesting I find myself in a bar? Because if so, thats the best idea I've heard in weeks.
"Hey honey! I'm headed to the bar. For spiritual growth!"
I can't wait. :)
I think we need to define our terms here, because you're starting to confuse me a little.
<u>Evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas.
<u>Theory of Evolution</u>: The mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, founder effect, gene flow, etc.
<u>Common Descent</u>: The theory that all life arose from one common ancestor (some believe that this, too, is a fact).
These ideas are all seperate, but linked.
The idea that humans, apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor is born of the above concepts. But finding yet another predecessor of man is unlikely to prove the mechanism by which evolution occurs.
There isn't really a "missing link" anymore, as far as I know. I've looked at the fossils of the transitional species, and it seems to be a pretty clear gradual transformation to me.
Originally posted by dave
Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?).
[color=indigo]
Prove it.
You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.
[/color]
Originally posted by Whit
Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same.
[color=indigo]
Evolutionary Theory is a great theory, and one day we may have enough evidence to PROVE it is correct. Until that time, scientists have to qualify remarks with words like "suggests" and "may have been" and "could be caused by".
Now. If we can agree that Evolution is NOT fact, merely a good theory, why is it that most scientists take it as fact, and teach it in our schools?
My thing is this: Until it is proven as fact, I have to take that explanation on scientific guesswork. I have to take it on faith. Doesn't that make The theory of Evolution a religion?
You're asking me to believe events of billions and trillions of years ago happened in just the right way, and we were created by chance...an infinitesmally small percentage...considered to be nil by most people, evolving out of a primordial soup of nutrients. An event that we cannot recreate with all of our technology, even if we mix the right chemicals together and apply energy.
That's faith.
Therefore, Evolutionary Theory is a religion that we are teaching every child, starting from Elementary school. It is not taught as "this is what we think". It is taught as fact. This is what happened. 80 years ago, it was illegal to teach Evolutionary Theory in schools, now it's considered fact. Unprovable, unobservable fact.
And the taxpayers are paying for it. But try to teach religion (specifically Christianity or other religious creation myths), even as a different "theory" and people get all up in arms about religion in schools.
Just think about it. I'm not saying I am a Creationist. I'm also not saying I'm an evolutionist. I'm saying that until we have PROOF either way, we should not be teaching it as fact to our children.[/color]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I'm in agreement with Whit on this one.
Believing in any God is faith.
NOT believing in any God is faith.
[/COLOR]
I suppose you mean "Believing fervently there is no God", rather than "NOT believing in any God". If you switch it around, what terminology would you use if you have no faith either way? I would say "not believing in any god" is the no faith position.
[COLOR=indigo]Believing in creation a la Genesis is faith.
Believing in the Big Bang is faith.
Adam and Eve/Noah and his sons. Faith.
The whole Theory of Evolution is faith.[/COLOR]
No, Evolution is fact. The theory of natural selection is theory. The word theory implies a lack of faith and an invitation to challenge.
[COLOR=indigo]No one can prove any of it happened, so you have to choose what seems like the best option.[/COLOR]
Natural selection is supported by available evidence, and could be disproved, but myths require blind faith. There is a considerable qualitative difference.
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Natural selection is supported by available evidence, and could be disproved, but myths require blind faith. There is a considerable qualitative difference.
[COLOR=indigo]Let me rephrase.
The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.
THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.[/COLOR]
Be careful about confusing the noun(faith) with the transitive verb(faith). That leads to all kinds of misunderstanding.:)
[COLOR=indigo]Not believing in any god is faith.
faith
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.
I stand by the statement.
[/COLOR]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Let me rephrase.
The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.
THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.[/COLOR]
When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?
Originally posted by Whit
Isn't it interesting that the first three steps can be done chemically? In a bar for example? Granted the very important last step didn't get quoted here. But I wanted to point out that pure hedonism can seem spiritual.
The tricky part of that is not letting the tools become the experience. Shamen and other seekers and practitioners have used substances to obtain insight for millenia. However, if you start making the substance the thing rather than what you learn while using the substance, you are going to miss the goal.
As a recovering drunkard, I think I can speak of this with some certainty. It was only after I stopped drinking that I truly was able to absorb the lessons I learned while being loaded, because when I was a drunk, there was no persepective.
Strangely, not everything I learned from being drunk was bad, believe it or not.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?
[color=indigo]
Must have. Every textbook I've seen, as a child, and now in my children's books (if you have kids, you should read their textbooks at least once to see what's in them) present the information as fact. Not one of them said, "This is our best guess."
That should be evident here with the people who are saying it is a fact. It's NOT a fact. It's a good idea. It's a great theory. But it is UNPROVABLE. Therefore it has to be believed without evidence. That's religion.
[/color]
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Let me rephrase.[/COLOR]
That isn't rephrasing, that's redefining. That's using a definition that no scientist would recognise, let alone accept. But if we use that shorthand, then of course all of that isn't fact, as I stated before.
Evolution, the change of species over time, is an observed fact, verified experimentally.
Natural selection, or "[COLOR=indigo]bacterial and other microorganisms ... evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it[/COLOR]" is a theory explaining an evolutionary process, not a fact, but is a theory based on available evidence.
Abiogenesis, or "creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured"[COLOR=indigo]creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured[/COLOR] is likewise a theory. Experiments verify the aminos and enzymes, but no life has been experimentally created.
The big bang theory is also a theory. New data is always coming in, which causes the theory to be adjusted.
[COLOR=indigo]THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.[/COLOR]
Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.
[COLOR=indigo]Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.[/COLOR]
There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.
Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY
You speak of 2, b, 1 ? That makes it faith not religion.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY
You speak of 2, b, 1 ?
[color=indigo]
2b1 and 2b2 and 3.
[/color]
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.
[color=indigo]
Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.
[/color]
Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.
[color=indigo]
Exactly. So if it's not a fact, why present it that way, TO THE EXCLUSION of every other possibility? Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?
[/color]
Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?
Separation of church and state.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[color=indigo]
2b1 and 2b2 and 3.
[/color]
3 is different than 2b1 and 2b2 that's why it's not 2c1.
BTW, I have faith in Webster's but I don't worship it. It's not a religion.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Separation of church and state.
[color=indigo]
Evolutionary Theory et al. is a religion.
Therefore shouldn't be taught in public school.
[/color]
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
BTW, I have faith in Webster's but I don't worship it. It's not a religion.
[color=indigo]
I don't mean to say "anything you have faith in or believe in is a religion".
If that is how all of this is coming off, then I need to rethink how to express my thoughts.
What I am saying is that The Theory (as discussed as being the amalgamation of unprovable ideas leading from Big Bang to my species evolving from whatever) is not a fact.
To present it to our children, specifically, AS FACT, is wrong.
There is no more proof for The Theory than there is for Jehovah-God creating the whole thing in 7 days. My argument is not which one is correct. My argument is that we (as educators and parents and scientists) need to think about what we are presenting and HOW we are presenting it.
Because it is not provable, because it is conjecture, because it is merely an idea that millions of people BELIEVE in and have FAITH in, with NO PROOF.... that makes it a religion. And either shouldn't be taught in school, or given equal time with other creation theories.
I don't know how much clearer I can be or how to rephrase (or redefine, HM) what I'm trying to get across.[/color]
[COLOR=indigo]Must have. Every textbook I've seen, as a child, and now in my children's books (if you have kids, you should read their textbooks at least once to see what's in them) present the information as fact. Not one of them said, "This is our best guess." [/COLOR]
The state of textbooks is indeed deplorable. See Richard Feynman's autobiographies for his experiences in the approval process. But putting inaccuracies aside:
The "best guess" sentence applies to ALL of science, not just natural selection. A general science book ought to describe the scientific method, and state that all scientific statements can be divided into two piles: data and theories. Data comes from experiments. Theories provide a framework that ties together data from past experiments, in an attempt to predict the results of future experiments. No explanation is fact. there's nothing special about natural selection in this area.
Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?
Because it's a science class, not a comparative religions class. Creationism was not arrived at by the scientific method. It is not supported by any experimental data. It is, in fact, impervious to experiment. All contrary evidence is ignored as God trying to test people's faith.
It is impossible to rule out a magical being who fakes the evidence, but it is also scientifically meaningless, and therefore worthless as science. If belief in it helps you spiritually, then I have no problems with that. But it is not science.
Evolutionary Theory et al. is a religion.
No more or less than any other scientific theory. Are you advocating the removal of science classes from public schools, based on the fact that science honestly admits that it is not 100% proven? Or are you only worried about science that doesn't agree with current interpretation of your religion?
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[color=indigo]Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.[/color]
OK, I've pointed out the difference twice, so I'll ask instead. How would YOU phrase a position that requires no faith? Or do you deny that people without religious faith exist?
[COLOR=indigo]Again, my beliefs in which is right or wrong are not involved in this. I don't know which is right. I wasn't there. No one was. For either set of events.
I believe in science. I believe that gravity and chemistry and most of the laws of Physics and Quantum Mechanics and those other things are valid, observable theories, and as such, I will even accept them as fact. It's how we put men on the moon and satellites on asteroids. I have NO problem with science.
But just because The Theory contains elements of science, and many other theories of science (geology to name a good example) are based on The Theory, that does not make The Theory itself science. The Theory was not observed to happen, nor do we see it happen now. We see elements of The Theory in other places. One can SPECULATE that The Theory is PROBABLY correct, BASED on evidence we see. But the fact is, we simply don't know. And I have a big problem with presenting a theory that is not proven to be irrefuteably true as Science. It is not science. It is a theory within science, using science as a basis for comparison.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by Happy Monkey
OK, I've pointed out the difference twice, so I'll ask instead. How would YOU phrase a position that requires no faith? Or do you deny that people without religious faith exist?
[color=indigo]
I believe that every person has a religious faith of some kind. That can even be a faith that there is no god at all.
So would I say an Atheist has faith? Yes I would.
Do I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes I do.
The only position that requires no faith is a fact.
I believe science can show us observable, repeated experiments, and the result of them, over and over, same result, repeated every time, is a fact.
The Theory is not fact but it is presented that way. That's what I have the problem with.
[/color]
[color=indigo]
faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a
person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with
one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as
secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's
will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
That would be 1, 2, and 6
[/color]
I think you've got it backwards. The Theory does not contain the science, the science contains the Theory which grew out of the discoveries of science. The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. That's what science is all about, certainly not faith or religion. And science is what should be taught in schools. not faith or religion.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I think you've got it backwards. The Theory does not contain the science, the science contains the Theory which grew out of the discoveries of science. The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. That's what science is all about, certainly not faith or religion. And science is what should be taught in schools. not faith or religion.
[color=indigo]
OK, I'll bite on that.
"The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. "
Speculation is not fact.
"The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. "
Exactly. It's not fact, so the idea, The Theory is not fact.
So why present it as such?
[/color]
Websters again:
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Is this a religion?
Originally posted by OnyxCougar [color=indigo]
I believe that every person has a religious faith of some kind. That can even be a faith that there is no god at all.[/color]
Indeed. One can have faith that there is no god. But what if one doesn't have faith that there is or isn't a god? I can guess that a throw of a die will be more than two, but I have no faith. Likewise, I don't belive in any gods, but I have no faith.
Unless we start using some pretty broad (bordering on meaningless) definitions of faith.
[color=indigo]The Theory is not fact but it is presented that way. That's what I have the problem with.
[/color]
That is just as true (or false) of all theories in science. But natural selection is one of the few that religious people try to claim is just a guess, and separate it from other theories.
Onyx, please, for the love of God, stop talking. Everything you've said since my last post is completely wrong. You have so many things wrong it's crazy. Let me go back and we can break it down into little pieces. Then we can evaluate the truth value of each piece individually.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[color=indigo]
OK, I'll bite on that.
"The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. "
Speculation is not fact.
"The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. "
Exactly. It's not fact, so the idea, The Theory is not fact.
So why present it as such?
[/color]
Well like I said before, to me it was. Of course some of the "dots" I was taught have since been disproven, which is the nature of science. But, I was taught that too.
I think much of that has more to do with the teacher(s) rather than the textbook.
Before I reply to everything else, could you tell me which parts of my "definitions" post you agree and disagree with? Can we at least define our terms?
I'd like to add a few more definitions:
<u>theory</u>: an empirically verifiable proposition that seeks to explain some portion of reality. It must be expressed in a way that can be tested. In other words, the theory must be falsifiable using data obtained during some form of observation.
This is obviously completely separate from a "guess". To 'guess' means to assume without sufficient information. If you've empirically verified something numerous times, then obviously you're basing your proposition on some information.
<u>scientific fact</u>: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
A misconception that OnyxCougar seems to be under is that children should only be taught proven facts in a science class. That is not true. Children should be taught science in a science class. Natural selection is science, creationism is not.
In many science books, the evolution of atomic theory is described in detail. Several different models are provided, in order, showing how the new models supplant, refute, or provide alternatives to other models. But they are all scientific models. If a supportable alternate theory of the evolutionary process were to gain currency, then it should be put alongside natural selection in the textbooks. But "it was magic and you can't prove it wasn't" is not a scientific theory.
Originally posted by dave
Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?).
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Prove it.
You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.
This is blatantly wrong on it's face. Please peruse talkorigins.org for overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs. Also, I suspect that you might be using a definition of 'evolution' other than the one I stated.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Evolutionary Theory is a great theory, and one day we may have enough evidence to PROVE it is correct. Until that time, scientists have to qualify remarks with words like "suggests" and "may have been" and "could be caused by".
There is evidence aplenty. I shouldn't even have to link to it. All you need to do is look.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Now. If we can agree that Evolution is NOT fact, merely a good theory, why is it that most scientists take it as fact, and teach it in our schools?
My thing is this: Until it is proven as fact, I have to take that explanation on scientific guesswork. I have to take it on faith. Doesn't that make The theory of Evolution a religion?
We don't agree. In fact, nearly all scientists view evolution as a fact. That you think they think this way merely because of guesswork shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of how science works. In science, propositions must be empirically verifiable and falsifiable.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
You're asking me to believe events of billions and trillions of years ago happened in just the right way, and we were created by chance...an infinitesmally small percentage...considered to be nil by most people, evolving out of a primordial soup of nutrients. An event that we cannot recreate with all of our technology, even if we mix the right chemicals together and apply energy.
That's faith.
I will post this link again, because you obviously didn't read it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Your answer is under the sub-heading "<i>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.</i>"
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
The theory of evolution being and inclusive of, the Big Bang theory, the theory of star creation, and the creation of our solar system, and of this planet, creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured, then evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it, on this planet.
THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.
Oooo, 'Period'! I guess that clinches it then, doesn't it?
What are you talking about? The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. It isn't in the definition I stated at all. It seems that you either didn't see my proposed definitions, or you completly ignored them. I'll state it again:<blockquote><u>evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas. </blockquote>That, and <i>nothing more</i> is evolution.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Not believing in any god is faith.
faith
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Therefore, if you BELIEVE there is NO god, (which not believing in any god is) then you have faith there is no God.
I stand by the statement.
I'm stunned. How can you say that "Not believing" is "Believing"?
Look at what you wrote. "Not believing" [...] "1. Confident belief". Do you see the contradiction?
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Prove it.
You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.
Okay. I haven't finished the rest of the thread, but I'm going to respond to this real quick.
I can't prove what? That I suspect that Creation is bullshit? Why yes, I can, by saying just that. So, I don't want to be mean, but why don't you read what I fucking write next time, mmmmmmkay? I didn't say it most certainly was; I said tht perhaps it is.
Do you really think I would make such an assertion if I couldn't back it up? After reading how I tear into retards like LUVBUGZ over that very same thing? My posts come under an extra amount of scrutiny because I am an asshole, and everyone loves to be an asshole to an asshole. Do you really think I don't know this, and double-check what I write? You won't ever nail me that easily. Try again.
Juju, I think she's saying that Faith, defined as "confident belief in the truth of an idea", applies if you believe in God or not.
The confusion is between faith and religon, which are not the same. Having faith is not the same as having a faith.
Damn English.:)
That's not at all how she is writing it though, Bruce. She has even said that evolution is a religion. How much more ridiculous can you get?
Originally posted by juju
I'm stunned. How can you say that "Not believing" is "Believing"?
juju, let me put this in words that you can understand:
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." :)
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Evolutionary Theory et al. is a religion.
Therefore shouldn't be taught in public school.
<tt>
#!/usr/bin/perl
########################
# onyx-responses.pl
#
# prints bullshit response after
# bullshit response.
#
########################
@courses=("Cooking","Reading","English","Spanish","Math","Literature");
foreach $course (@courses) {
print("$course is a religion.\n\nTherefore shouldn't be taught in public school.");
}
</tt>
All right, I wrote a long and thoughtful response to this thread and then promptly lost it when I tried to post. So, I'm doing it again and not as well 'cause now I'm tired. Screw it.
First off, what I read from OC is that she has a problem with evolution being taught as fact. Not a problem with if it occurred or not. Also, I think what she was calling evolution was specifically the origin of the human race through evolution. Not evolution in general.
So, I'm running with that idea. My text books always said "theory" right in the title. This meant the following section was the theory being presented. It would be distracting and annoying to have continuously reiterate that it's a theory. So it's stated in simpler terms. My six year old might not know that the word "theory" in the title means it's a theory, not a fact, but my ten year old definitely would. In other words, if a kid isn't smart enough to know what the word "theory" means, then the rest of it won't make any sense anyway.
Now for the part I actually had an issue with.
From OC:
I believe that every person has a religious faith of some kind. That can even be a faith that there is no god at all.
Since I'm a person you are telling me I have "a religious faith of some kind." I like you OC so I'm not going to take that as an insult. Instead I'm asking you to back it up. How do I have religious faith?
Let me restate my position on god and the afterlife. I don't give a rat's ass. It's a fun topic for fireside chats, but I consider it meaningless to me personally. If I was to assign a specific emotion to it, I'd choose to describe my feeling as indifference.
How is that faith?
Originally posted by dave
<tt>
#!/usr/bin/perl
########################
# onyx-responses.pl
#
# prints bullshit response after
# bullshit response.
#
########################
@courses=("Cooking","Reading","English","Spanish","Math","Literature");
foreach $course (@courses) {
print("$course is a religion.\n\nTherefore shouldn't be taught in public school.");
}
</tt>
[color=indigo]
How wonderful a response from you, Dave. Was it suppose to mean something I could understand?
[/color]
Originally posted by Whit
First off, what I read from OC is that she has a problem with evolution being taught as fact. Not a problem with if it occurred or not. Also, I think what she was calling evolution was specifically the origin of the human race through evolution. Not evolution in general.
[color=indigo]
Well, I don't have a problem with any of it in principle. I don't know if that's how it happened or not. I specifically am not putting my personal belief here because it's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make (which doesn't seem to be coming across.)
[/color]
So, I'm running with that idea. My text books always said "theory" right in the title. This meant the following section was the theory being presented. It would be distracting and annoying to have continuously reiterate that it's a theory. So it's stated in simpler terms. My six year old might not know that the word "theory" in the title means it's a theory, not a fact, but my ten year old definitely would. In other words, if a kid isn't smart enough to know what the word "theory" means, then the rest of it won't make any sense anyway.
[color=indigo]
Well, the textbooks say theory one time and then act like it's the law of gravity, irrefutable.
I'm not saying I want all of you to throw the Theory out the window as bullshit, or even that I want you to "consider God." I don't. I'm NOT one of those "pushy christians." All I'm trying to get across is that if you're going to teach one non provable theory of creation, you need to teach all of them. [/color]
Since I'm a person you are telling me I have "a religious faith of some kind." I like you OC so I'm not going to take that as an insult. Instead I'm asking you to back it up. How do I have religious faith?
[color=indigo]
I like you too, Whit, we generally see eye to eye on most issues. I wasn't trying to insult anyone. That's not my style.
But, like Dave posted, not making a choice is, in fact, making a choice. Your stance on religion, whether it's important in your life or not, (although not relevant to this discussion) is your belief system. You have a belief system. EVERYONE does. What that belief system is could be anything. But it is there. And faith is a form of belief. See all the semantics posts Bruce and I engaged in.
What you believe in doesn't matter. They are teaching nonobservable ideas as FACT and it's wrong. I keep repeating the same "bullshit" (:p @ Dave) because everyone (generally) seems to be thinking I'm against Evolution. I'm not. It's a great idea. But (for the millionth time) is not a FACT or a LAW of science. It's an IDEA presented as fact. And that is my only problem with it. Get it out of science class. Can you teach gravity? Yup. Physics? yup. Chemistry? Definetly. It doesn't hurt science to take Evolution out, does it? Biology is still the same. Nothing changes if you don't mention primordial soup, does it? That's because those subjects ARE science, backed by observable, duplicatable facts. Is anyone seeing the fundamental difference here?
[/color]
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Separation of church and state.
[COLOR=indigo]By the way...show me the law that says that.
[size=1] Post 400![/size][/COLOR]
[COLOR=indigo]I've been to alot of evolution vs creationism sites (like talk origins) and I'm not satisfied with their answers, because the creationists keep coming up with more ways to shoot those down, and then the evolutionists counter. It's a back and forth argument that is circular in nature.
My hope was to, just once, get you to look outside of what you've been indoctrinated to believe your whole life as a student in the science classroom and consider the idea that maybe they (good intentions and personal belief and all) misled all of us. Or...maybe they didn't and we're all here by wonderfully random chance. (And we cannot duplicate spontaneous life from homegrown primordial soup. Not yet.)
But we don't know. And we may never know in our lifetime. And that's ok. What's wrong with saying, "We don't know for sure how we got here?"
And for the record, I never tried to nail anybody. Let alone Dave. Alot of great argument was presented. (Finally! A post that elicited a response! I'd been waiting so long!!)
[/COLOR]
I would like to just add my 2 cents to this. I think that Onyxcougar has a very valid arguement. I have spent a small amount of time looking into this arguement. Neither side creation or evolution has a single shred of proof, both are based on ideas. Just because one is taught in a church and one is taught in a science classroom doesn't give either more credibility than the other. If you argue that point on either side, I say you're brainwashed, plain and simple. The only real difference is that one is tax funded and I think it's a crock. Understand first of all it's not a matter of what you choose to believe, it's the fact that you try to make someone pay for what you believe. Many brave people have fought and died in wars to protect our freedoms. One of them is the freedom of choice. When you trick a child into believing that he evolved from a monkey and that there is no god and drill it in their head for years, you effectivly remove the freedom of choice. The only real proof that they have for this theory is that it hasn't been proven wrong. Hmmm. For over 100 years they have been trying to prove it right and thats the best they can come up with? On the other hand, for that same amount of time, they have been trying to prove god wrong and can't. Hmmm. Sounds to me like god won that one if not being able to prove it wrong if is your best evidence. Now don't get me wrong, I could care less about either one, but I really hate lies and bullshit, especially when it threatens children and my freedom.
By the way it really is interesting when you look at all the arguments and realize that neither one has any proof whatsoever. I don't know why it's so hard for scientists to just admit that at this point we just don't know. I call it arrogance myself.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Well, the textbooks say theory one time and then act like it's the law of gravity, irrefutable.
I'm not saying I want all of you to throw the Theory out the window as bullshit, or even that I want you to "consider God." I don't. I'm NOT one of those "pushy christians." All I'm trying to get across is that if you're going to teach one non provable theory of creation, you need to teach all of them.
A theory IS provable. It's included in the definition. Theories are treated as if they had been proven over and over and over because they HAVE been proven over and over and over. Scientists don't call something a theory unless they have a great deal of empirical evidence. This is the definition of theory: Something that has been shown to be true over and over and over.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
What you believe in doesn't matter. They are teaching nonobservable ideas as FACT and it's wrong.
Originally posted by arimoose
Neither side creation or evolution has a single shred of proof, both are based on ideas.
What about the fossil finds of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus boisei, Australopithecus robustus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis?
From OC:
You have a belief system. EVERYONE does. What that belief system is could be anything. But it is there. And faith is a form of belief. See all the semantics posts Bruce and I engaged in.
Not to nitpic, but you specified religious faith. You've dropped the religion here.
Also, while I agree that faith is a form of belief, not all belief is faith. I believe the earth is round for example. I believe it because not only do I have it on good authority, I've seen it demonstrated.
Anyway, you say it's not important to this discussion. If I were to casually throw out the idea that everyone here has purple hair would it not divert the discussion a bit? You said we all have religious faith. Your response when here was about beliefs with no religion mentioned. So, again, back up your statement. How do I have religious faith?
As far as evolution is school goes, I repeat, "theory" is in the title. If a kid thinks that means that it is a fact then that child is stupid. Blame the parents. The school gave the child a word and defined it. It's the parents job to inspire the child to translate that to understanding.
Evolution does not encompass the whole "big bang"/"primordial soup" deal. Evolution is just that - an evolution of a species. Big bang is a whole different theory. Primordial soup is a whole different theory. And they are taught as such.
I think the point that she is trying to make about it being a religion is that they have a theory about our origin that is not provable. It's not about the earth being round it's about where we came from and where we are going I would personally call it a religion. Do some research with an open mind. Fossils are not evidence for evolution when you find a bone in the ground you don't know what it's parents look like, or if it had children, all you know is that it died. Also look up the difference between micro and macro evolution, one is provable and demonstratable, it is science. The other is not provable, nor demonstratable, and has never been observed. You have to take it on faith that it happened, and for some reason stopped happening.
It hasn't stopped happening.
And what you describe isn't religion.
"There sure are a lot of one-day-old duck turds in this field."
"That means there were a lot of ducks in this field yesterday."
"I didn't observe it, so if I now believe that there were ducks here, it is faith."
No! It is
inductive reasoning. The turds are *proof* of the ducks without you ever seeing the ducks.
Juju, I know you made a reference to this earlier in the thread, but remember...there is no proof in science.
A friend of mine who was pre-med for 3 years has reverted to creationistic tendencies. He was telling me how a lot of what the creationists say makes sense. Of course, he didn't tell me what these creationists are saying, and quite frankly, I think he's somewhat nuts, but...
I've looked at both sides of the coin. While there are some issues with evolution, as a whole, there's strong scientific support for it. I think part of the problem that some folks have with evolution is that they don't want to believe that they might have come from monkeys.
I always did like Oparin's Theory...that used to fascinate the shit out of me...still does.
So elaborate on Oparin's Theory. Don't make us lazy-assed bastards google it ...
Originally posted by Undertoad
"There sure are a lot of one-day-old duck turds in this field."
"That means there were a lot of ducks in this field yesterday."
That's _deductive_ reasoning, though the principles involved are unstated.
Here ya go Wolf. From this site:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2955/origin.htm
Oparin considered that the origin of life was a natural step in the constant transformations of matter.
The base of Oparin's theory is that the conditions in the primitive Earth were different from the ones we know now.
The atmosphere on primitive Earth would be rich in Hydrogen and very poor in Oxygen, that's another way to say there wasn't an ozone layer. Because of that, there would have been an intense bombardment of U.V. radiation on the surface.
Most of that primitive atmosphere would be gases from volcanos, like water, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc.
The water originated the oceans we have now, "washing" the atmosphere of the dangerous excess of carbon dioxide that would have caused a heatting effect simmilar to the one we see now on Venus.
These molecules, all together in a "primitive soup" on the ocean, and by the action of the U.V. radiation and radioactivity of the cooling Earth, would have formed the first organic molecules, the basis of life.
Those would form a kind of primitive cell, named by Oparin a "coacervate", that can "grow" and "divide" in a water solution.
Thanks, Sycamore. :) I'm going on about 3 hours sleep now, so I was a little out of it when I wrote that.
It should also be clarified that <i>no</i> scientist believes humans evolved from monkeys or apes. They instead believe that we had a common ancestor.
Originally posted by juju
It should also be clarified that <i>no</i> scientist believes humans evolved from monkeys or apes. They instead believe that we had a common ancestor.
geraldo?
Originally posted by russotto
That's _deductive_ reasoning, though the principles involved are unstated.
Inductive reasoning would tell us that this is the type of field ducks like to frequent.
Originally posted by Griff
but for the Catholic Christian especially in protestant America its sometimes easier to blend in
That is so true, it's not funny. It's actually quite lamentable. Pittsburgh, where I've spent most of my time, is the most Protestant city north of the Mason-Dixon line, and the mentality of the Catholic churches, mostly that of the parishoners, reflect this - especially in the suburbs. The church I attended for quite awhile was like amateur Catholicism. The people in the crowd just treated the faith like a quirky offshoot of the other churches around, so much so that it made me sick. I would watch movies and read accounts of what the Catholic church was like in Europe, go to my church on Sunday, and sit there staring at the patterns in the carpet asking myself "What the hell happened?"
My stance is as follows - there IS a God, He does have some kind of blueprint for this Marx Brothers meets Three Stooges extravaganza we call existence, but it
does not hurt to question it. If you're sitting there having trouble seeing how the pieces fit, ask Him to show you the front of the box, see how it's supposed to work. People that fall into the "You can't dare question the Almighty" column are people too insecure in THEIR faith, so much so that they don't want to know if they can sustain the boat getting tossed around a little. They know what's expected of them, they play their role in the community, and that's that, end of discussion. Forget them. Christians that go off at the mouth about how they're the elect, they're the saved, they can do no wrong are as representative of the faith as are people who drive a bomb into a building in the name of Allah, they just do their damage with words. Loud, frequent, obnoxious words.
Look, man, I'm no prophet or missionary. I didn't feel called here to "save you" or anything like that. I saw an interesting thread and just wanted to throw my spare change into the pool. Should you change your mind from where you were at the beginning of this thread, okay. And if not, okay too. Essentially, before this became creationism vs. evolution, I saw a lot of good folk like myself being painted with the same brush as people like Falwell and Robertson, and felt I needed to step up. Don't debunk the whole faith because of a few fried-chicken-chompin' nitwits.
~Mike
PS: I'd chime in on the evolution thing, but what I believe pisses both sides off equally, so I'll just stay in the stands. Fight on, all.