Evolution vs. Creation Myths/other scientific theories

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Well I see this is still goiong on even though I have been away from this forum for who know how long.

 

Personally, I like this topic... it helps me re-enforce my educational pursuits.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Something I have found for all you Neo-Darwinist (People who believe that Evolution came about by mutations)

 

Well, mutations are but one, very small, aspect of the theory of evolution, but it is a basic tenet if you consider its role in natural selection. It's also important to note, that, while many of Darwins theories and ideas have been revised or even abandoned by science, the basic tenents he suggested are still valid.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Have any of you heard of the 1980 Evolution Conference held in Chicago? That is when 150 of the top evolutionist from all over the world got together to hear about the evidence against evolution.

 

Interesting.... I just searched the peer reviewed literature of at least 20 of the "top 150" scientists who are currently researching aspects of evolution. I noticed no counter-evolutionary claims. I did, however, note several revisions in various theories. But if anything, these continue to support the idea of evolution more than ever.

 

Perhaps you could post a few of their names? Newsweek apparently doesn't have this article archived, nor does Lexis-Nexis, or Ebsco.

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

So while it does not disprove Evolution completely it does say that the popular view of evolution is not upheld by the P.H.D. guys.

 

I'm always fascinated by claims from creationist / religious zealots that "scientists are more and more siding against evolution." The evidence doesn't support this. In fact, in my quick search for that Newsweek article, I noticed that no counter-evolution articles appeared in the peer reviewed lists (I searched here for peer-reviewed articles that might have cited the Newsweek article or "chicago conference"). It appears that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed (that's research papers by those "leading scientists" for those that do not know) articles each year on the subject of evolution.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I got a site for you guys to check out. It isn't the best, but it does have some useful info.

 

Admittidly, I didn't spend more than 30 minutes on this site, but I found nothing useful. In fact, I noted time and again the misuse of scientific theories, laws, and out-right lies. Nearly every single point that was made on that site is either completely false or otherwise invalid based on the "science" that it's trying to use against the idea of evolution. It definately demonstrates the ignorance and/or partial education of its webmaster.

[Jubatus]

It's now 4:55am here and I'm tired, but I've read about 90% of what's been written in this thread. If I picked things out here and there from the whole thread I don't think there will be anything left for me to add, and that is not really the reason I'm writing this.

 

The reason is this: I want, in my grumpy state of being, utter what many here must surely be thinking, but dare not say.

 

Lukeskywalker1.....Watching you flaunt your naive and most likely indoctrinated narrowmindedness (could also be the result of a reaction to some kinda trauma you've experienced) actually hurts physically at times. Your ignorance is astounding and more so your lacking to realize that it would be immensily wiser to just keep your thoughts to yourself instead of disclosing your foggy little wondrous lala-land point of view to the public.

 

Deep down a defiance stirs within me, a defiance that demands you're actually right, that God actually does exist. And this defiance demands that come Judgement Day I will be flung into the bowels of fiery Hell and you will ascend to angelhood. This defiance is sooo demanding that you will look down upon me from up high and pity my unfortune, and then you'll see my defiance in the form of a single finger to you and your God.

 

Emotion and logic are one another's greatest adversaries, but should Christianity be right, I will be on Satan's side, defiant and hating with all my being. I can't deny that all this science against the Bible isn't some elaborate scheme construed by the Devil (as part of his brilliant act of making us believe he doesn't exist). I do not believe in guilt, as I do not believe in free will, not even in God, so I won't blame him, I won't hate him, but I will hate existence for being what it is should there actually be something after death, and then I will let emotion rage, for eternity, in any state of being - Hell or Heaven can offer but 2 roads; total enlightenment or insanity. My sole purpose in eternity will be the annihilation of All, and I hope Satan is with me on this one - if not then he's as loathsome as God.

 

All this is besides (not entirely) the point of this thread, and I can only pardon myself with me being tired. But let no man say I can't offer to the topic of a thread!: I am a fan of evolution - it might take one hell of a time, but eventually we will either fade away or reach total enlightenment...Either way, go us!

[TheWhiteRaider]

Admittidly, I didn't spend more than 30 minutes on this site, but I found nothing useful. In fact, I noted time and again the misuse of scientific theories, laws, and out-right lies. Nearly every single point that was made on that site is either completely false or otherwise invalid based on the "science" that it's trying to use against the idea of evolution. It definately demonstrates the ignorance and/or partial education of its webmaster. [/b]

 

First Few chapters I could realy care less. This isn't my choice of info anyways.

 

The book Tornado in a Junkyard is one of the best. It is Writen by James Perloff who was once a evolutionist.

 

 

Interesting.... I just searched the peer reviewed literature of at least 20 of the "top 150" scientists who are currently researching aspects of evolution. I noticed no counter-evolutionary claims. I did, however, note several revisions in various theories. But if anything, these continue to support the idea of evolution more than ever.

 

Did I say they don't believe evolution is true? No I said they don't prefer neo-Darwinist views. I notice though that some of the older scientist are moving from neo-Darwinism. I know Steven J. Gould(Spelling?) has alreay dumped it.

 

A note as well is that I have found 4 different sources that quote the same part from NewsWeek. So now I am curious. I will look for this copy of NewsWeek as well. I think the CDA library has every copy of NewsWeek so I will make a point of going there. If I should find it I will give it to you. I do have a scanner so all I would need is an e-mail address.

 

Here is a quote. The man is an evolutionist at the meeting btw.

 

"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,' "

 

Personally, I like this topic... it helps me re-enforce my educational pursuits

 

I do like the topic. Just wish I had a little more info to give.

 

I'm always fascinated by claims from creationist / religious zealots that "scientists are more and more siding against evolution." The evidence doesn't support this. In fact, in my quick search for that Newsweek article, I noticed that no counter-evolution articles appeared in the peer reviewed lists (I searched here for peer-reviewed articles that might have cited the Newsweek article or "Chicago conference"). It appears that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed (that's research papers by those "leading scientists" for those that do not know) articles each year on the subject of evolution.

 

You assume that they would come out and tell you. I know someone who over heard their biology professor talking in his office and I quote him "All that stuff I said out there was complete crap. I know it wasn't true. I only teach it because that is what they want to hear." For legal reasons I can say his name here. Some people care more about their reputation than the truth I noticed anyone who tries to look from some other answer besides evolution is often discredited and bashed upon. You forget that they are human and they can lie. I mean who knew President Clinton was in bed with another woman. Almost no one! So did that mean it wasn't true? My point is don't take everything at face value there may be more under the surface.

 

I think someone was planning on running the monkey on the type writer experiment using a supercomputer. I remember seeing it somewhere I will have to look for it. *sigh* So much to look for so little time.

 

Here's a link to a story about three 160,000 year-old skulls found that support the Out-of-Africa theory of human evolution.

 

"The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.”

 

Also unearthed were bone fragments of other, similar, hominids, over 600 stone tools, and hippopotamus bones with tool marks: all from the same geologic strata, which clearly indicates that they're from the same era.

 

One of the scientists involved stated that the Out of Africa hypothesis is now tested, proving that we did not evolve from Neandertals, which merely went extinct. This also provides a more intermediate find between pre-humans and modern humans. Pre-human species have been located that dated back to 300, 000 years and the oldest modern human find was, until now, 100,000 years.

 

Clearly, the Earth is a bit older than 8, 000 to 10, 000 years.

 

I read it and not once did they tell you how they dated it. Only that it has been dated at 160,000 years old. So how did they do it? Not even as much as listing a RA dating method. Even in the original news report. Just pointing that out.

 

 

Here is one question I want answered. How could amino acids form in an oxygen rich atmosphere? Oxygen destroys lone amino acids. Only when it is in protein form is it safe. By the way this has been known since 1950's so don't go off on how I know that. I can pull up some literature on it later, but now it is 11:00 PM and I can't keep my eyes open so I am off to bed.

 

I am also sorry for any spelling errors. I know there are most likely some in there, but my brain isn't working and I can't fix them as of now.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I know Steven J. Gould(Spelling?) has alreay dumped it.

 

The late Steven Gould (1941 - 2002) only revised his theories about some of the nuances in "evolution." Until the day he died, he still accepted the basic tenents of Darwin's theories, only in a modified format. Space/time limitations (it's really late ) preclude me from going into more details at this time.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Here is a quote. The man is an evolutionist at the meeting btw.

 

"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,' "

 

That doesn't sound like it in any way supports creationism! You have to understand how science works: we constantly revise, update, and (at times) toss out hypotheses and theories that don't work. Scientists debate each other endlessly over many of the nuances within theories and disciplines.

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

You assume that they would come out and tell you.

 

It appears that it may not be a moot point after all. I suspect that the "controversy" 20 years ago in Chicago was typical scientist competition and debate. This is hard for creationists to understand, since the idea of their basic doctrine undergoing revision as new data comes in is heresy.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I know someone who over heard their biology professor talking in his office and I quote him "All that stuff I said out there was complete crap. I know it wasn't true. I only teach it because that is what they want to hear."

 

"I know someone who over heard" someone? Come on, man, you know me better than that! That kind of annecdotal account means very little. If you make a claim about "x number of people" you should be able to support that with some sort of evidence... a statistical source, a signed petition, etc. Otherwise, what's the point? I could easily (perhaps rightfully) claim that many former creationists have now accepted the common sense of evolution.

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I think someone was planning on running the monkey on the type writer experiment using a supercomputer.

 

The formula for that kind of probability isn't that complicated to need a supercomputer.... anyway, typewriting monkies have little to do with anything, right?

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I read it and not once did they tell you how they dated it. Only that it has been dated at 160,000 years old. So how did they do it? Not even as much as listing a RA dating method. Even in the original news report. Just pointing that out.

 

I would suggest that you read this LINK . This is the original paper submitted by Tim White, the lead researcher. It points out that two primary methods were used to date the find: stratigraphy and radioisotopy. Specifically, the remains were found in the Upper Herto Member of the Bouri Formation of geologic strata. The radioisotopic dating method was 40^Ar/39^Ar and both methods placed the remains at between 160, 000 to 154, 000 years ago. Methods of this sort are usually not included in secondary and tertiary literature (such as newspaper and magazines).

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Here is one question I want answered. How could amino acids form in an oxygen rich atmosphere?

 

I'll have to get back to you on that... sleep is calling me.

[lukeskywalker1]

sorry i havnt been checking this latley...

and by the way, i completly forgot to do that bible thing... ill just ake your word on it, doesnt matter much to me, maybe ill research it more later on.

 

Lukeskywalker1.....Watching you flaunt your naive and most likely indoctrinated narrowmindedness (could also be the result of a reaction to some kinda trauma you've experienced) actually hurts physically at times. Your ignorance is astounding and more so your lacking to realize that it would be immensily wiser to just keep your thoughts to yourself instead of disclosing your foggy little wondrous lala-land point of view to the public.

 

 

 

?

 

heh, in the end, it all depends on your point of veiw. my thoughts? half of this i got from other websites, and rewrote it, or cut and pasted it.... cause i thought it true, or most of it..... well, anyways, thanks for the tip! it means nothing to me....

 

 

Deep down a defiance stirs within me, a defiance that demands you're actually right, that God actually does exist. And this defiance demands that come Judgement Day I will be flung into the bowels of fiery Hell and you will ascend to angelhood. This defiance is sooo demanding that you will look down upon me from up high and pity my unfortune, and then you'll see my defiance in the form of a single finger to you and your God.

 

hmmm, many people say thats God tugging on your heart. heh, the only way to find out is too try it and c.... your choice. And ive said be4, it doesnt matter if your right, and im wrong, we all die, big deal right? but if im right, well... you know. Is it worth the chance?

 

 

You assume that they would come out and tell you. I know someone who over heard their biology professor talking in his office and I quote him "All that stuff I said out there was complete crap. I know it wasn't true. I only teach it because that is what they want to hear." For legal reasons I can say his name here. Some people care more about their reputation than the truth I noticed anyone who tries to look from some other answer besides evolution is often discredited and bashed upon. You forget that they are human and they can lie. I mean who knew President Clinton was in bed with another woman. Almost no one! So did that mean it wasn't true? My point is don't take everything at face value there may be more under the surface.

 

i agree with this.... i said something like it be4, but you seem to have said it better....

 

****

 

Either way, with dating methods, there are millions of possibilities, i mean, erosion, earthquakes, and even humans (not knowing it) could effect whatever dates they think theve found. They dont know everything... and werent around back then to really know, its a "best guess" based on what they think they know.

 

-lukeskywalker1

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Either way, with dating methods, there are millions of possibilities, i mean, erosion, earthquakes, and even humans (not knowing it) could effect whatever dates they think theve found.

 

How? I'm not saying you are completely wrong in this instance, but I'm wondering if you know how. The 'how' part is important, because these are all considerations made when dating anything. Erosion doesn't really have a huge effect, since the geologic strata is only exposed by erosion in most cases, rather than washed away. It is true that objects found in alluvial deposits, varves and beneath landslide deposits are changed in their original stratigraphic location, but this is often easy to figure out by comparisson of rock samples with the intact strata.

 

Earthquakes do little to change geologic strata beyond the occasional landslide (the law of original horizontality). When this happens it is very apparent. Faults are also easily identified and the original strata can be traced beyond faults. In fact, earthquakes are often helpful when dating strata by creating the fault and exposing strata.

 

Humans certainly affect the surroundings that they come into contact with. Had the Hurto site remained exposed longer than it did, eventually people would have disturbed the evidence. It is much like a crime scene with regard to forensics. However, they came upon this site after a recent rainy season had exposed the Hurto member in that locality. Little to no sign of human presence was detected. Both dating methods relatively concurred.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

They dont know everything... and werent around back then to really know, its a "best guess" based on what they think they know.

 

True, but it is a very educated best guess. I would trust his guesses before I trusted a lot of peoples' facts. Tim White's hypotheses are also supported by evidence.

 

But then, one can also say the same (not being around back then) about creation mythology. Note that I did not say religious beliefs in general, but rather the mythos of creation. Even the vatican recognizes evolution as the most probable explanation of life on our planet.

[Jubatus]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

?

 

....thanks for the tip! it means nothing to me....

 

This does not surprise me, I'm sorry to say.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

hmmm, many people say thats God tugging on your heart. heh, the only way to find out is too try it and c.... your choice. And ive said be4, it doesnt matter if your right, and im wrong, we all die, big deal right? but if im right, well... you know. Is it worth the chance?

 

Worth the chance (or risk rather)? Here's where my defiance comes in, because I refuse to automatically tug tail in the face of the revelation of God's truth, I'm not gonna go "Oh, it's all true!? I'd better save my sorry self, cower down before God in fear lest he smites me and casts me out!". No! As I said, if it is true and I thus have an eternal soul that can only know different states of being and no annihilation, then my eternity will be spent, first in frustration and hatred then insanity for all eternity...Really something to look forward to, yes?

[lukeskywalker1]

Worth the chance (or risk rather)? Here's where my defiance comes in, because I refuse to automatically tug tail in the face of the revelation of God's truth, I'm not gonna go "Oh, it's all true!? I'd better save my sorry self, cower down before God in fear lest he smites me and casts me out!". No! As I said, if it is true and I thus have an eternal soul that can only know different states of being and no annihilation, then my eternity will be spent, first in frustration and hatred then insanity for all eternity...Really something to look forward to, yes?

 

i can understand it... i was the same way... but i changed...

 

 

Earthquakes do little to change geologic strata beyond the occasional landslide (the law of original horizontality). When this happens it is very apparent. Faults are also easily identified and the original strata can be traced beyond faults. In fact, earthquakes are often helpful when dating strata by creating the fault and exposing strata.

 

 

sounds familar....

 

But then, one can also say the same (not being around back then) about creation mythology. Note that I did not say religious beliefs in general, but rather the mythos of creation. Even the vatican recognizes evolution as the most probable explanation of life on our planet.

 

 

true... the vatican... its late at night, and i just got through some stuff sort of unpleasent, im not really thinking straight. im talking about christians, and if thats a certain denomination of christianity, cathlic im thinking... but im really tired.. they are not really "christians"

 

actually, i got a little pamphlet today in church about it, and im reading it now.... but from reading the 1st pages... it doesnt sound like "true born again" christianity, in fact its far from what the bible teaches, and heh, this was kind of amazing, but they worship false gods, sort of uknowingly, only the high up guys know of it... like baal, and things like that... right from birth they are sort of exposed to demonic powers... i wont gety into it..lol

[SkinWalker]

Going into the ritual practices of any of the religious organizations (I'm inclined to type 'cult,' since this is the literal definition, however I realize that it offends some people's sensibilities) is really getting of base of the topic "Evolution vs. Creation Myths / Other Scientific Theories."

 

From an anthropological view, catholism is the 'base' cult of all christianity that is considered contemporary. Even the baptist faith is a descendent. One thing that I find interesting is that most fundamentalist cults (Hare Krishna, Jehova's Witness, Amway, Heaven's Gate, Potter's House, etc.) tend to create negative stories about their competition. For instance, pamphlets printed & distributed, faith studies, class lectures, etc. This information is usually degrading and will typically demonstrate how "evil" or wrong the other cults are. The idea is to create a visual picture in the follower's head and "sell" them on the wrongness of other cults.

 

Very much the same thing occurs in the debates that go on about science and fundamentalist christian/islamic views (but primarily christian). Fundamentalists seem to consider science/evolution as a cult, so it very often gets treated the same way as other cults in the disinformation campaigns. In both cases, outright lies and certainly out-of-context information is used to create false information.

 

Next, I suggest considering the way people learn to believe. There is considerable evidence that points to cognitive development as the root of religious thought. People generally find it easy to believe. Many beliefs would vanish if people would apply commonsense principles of mental management like the following:

 

• Only allow clear and precise thoughts to enter your mind.
  
• Only allow consistent thoughts.
  
• Consider the evidence for a claim before accepting it.
  
• Only consider refutable claims.
  

 

People believe,because they fail to (or forget to, have no time to, are unwilling to, or just cannot) censure ill-formed or poorly justified thoughts.

[lukeskywalker1]

i get what you say pretty much...

 

in fact i was reading more about catholics, ok, really fast, cause in shool they just say christian, and when they say that, it could mean catholic, or true christian...

 

well, the settlers who came over werent they roman catholic? i was reading i found that they burned people, for religious beliefs stuff like that, and they committed the crimes in the name of 'god' that c'jais was talking about in earlier dscussions... so were they?

 

if so, then that clears christianity, they dont even worship the same god! yeah, but after doing research they dont, in fact it all comes from babylon, and even the egyptians got there 'gods' from babylon, im sure youve heard of baal, hes mentioned a lot in the bible.... ok, so this was off topic, but somewhere you guys were talking about something and christians burning people, well, it wasnt true christians, it was people who think they are christians. You see, the higher up guys know about all of this, but the ordinary people dont... they think they are worshiping God, but really they are going against the bible, just something to think about.

 

 

People believe,because they fail to (or forget to, have no time to, are unwilling to, or just cannot) censure ill-formed or poorly justified thoughts.

 

 

it depends, im pretty much an A, B sometimes C student, i pass even though i dont believe or i disagree with what they say... i dont listen sometimes, and im amazed i pass... the reason i dont know half of this stuff, is cause ive jsut finished 9th grade abotu a week ago... (dont know if you knew) heh, one time i was talking about this, and someone found out my age... well, it was pretty funny, lol.

 

everything changes when you become a christian... yes i know, many religious teachers lie... but there are some that teach it right... (yes ive been studying the catholic church) and ive found, just about all of there stuff is a lie... a bad lie.. ok... so if a catholic comes along ill have to explain this. And ive been studying islam, and ive learned a thing or 2 about that, and it also turns out to be lies.... (of coarse, you believe that all religion is a lie)

 

if you really research this stuff, christianity "TRUE christianity" is the only religion that doesnt have any flaws... (like, being able to trace God to any other religions) or just contradictions, when you find one, its not a contradiction, cause it all works out...

 

yeah ok, the old and new testaments may collide, but thats cause everything changed... it was better. And new rules were set up, think of the old testament, as a book of wisdom, and a history of isreal, and the new the current 'law' or way to live, i hope that makes sence...

 

 

-lukeskywalker1

[El Sitherino]

you ever hear of vlad the impaler? he was a priest and a king. you may know him better as count dracula. his stories of killing people and staking them weren't just for blood lust but because he and many other priests believed those that were not pure should be killed and cast to hell. sure he eventually went against the church but that was much later after he stopped killing in name of Romania.

[SkinWalker]

Guys! This is an "Evolution / Creation" thread, not a nit-pick religion thread. If you can't show a correlation with evolution, leave it out...

 

I'd like to answer, or attempt to answer, more creationists issues with the idea of religion. Or perhaps attempt to convince some that evolution and christianity can co-exist without invoking creation mythology. The fact remains, the Pope and the Vatican have publically supported evolution (though they regard it as god's tool). The fact is, whether you choose to accept it or not, that catholism is a type of christianity. To millions of catholics it is THE sect of christianity. They worship one god, believe in the trinity, that jesus/god died for our sins, yada, yada, yada....

 

Many, even non-catholics, consider the Vatican to be an authority on christianity. This is important for evolutionists because it defines most of catholism as non-fundamentalist in the sense that most of the creation mythology is rejected or at least regarded with skeptism. I think that the first denomination of christianity to embrace skeptism and scientific method as "tools of god" for man, will begin to show progress and a willingness to keep up with man's evolution as a species and the evolution of intellect.

 

The fundamentalist religions that reject change, progress and evolution (of ideas as well as life) will slowly fall by the wayside. Even now, their survival depends upon evangelicalism and revivalism... two very misunderstood by fundamentalists and secularists alike.

 

Evolution...

 

Not: Christians are evil because.....

 

I'm not trying to point anyone out, but if your name starts with Insane and ends with Sith, it might apply

[C'jais]

Well said, Skin. One must not forget that Catholocism is one of the largest, if not THE largest, sect of Christianity. What the pope has said about evolution is a grand attempt of staying up-to-date. I really do applaud him for this (though his fouls with condoms is starting to make up for it).

 

It's really funny how much space and attention extremist Christians and their ultraconservative, flaky phantom theories get. Maybe you're not going to believe it, but where I live, the creationist theory is regarded as comical relief from diehard fanatics who don't know any better, and definately shouldn't get a say in politics. People who believe in that stuff really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously at all, and in fact, very few people know of this - except when Teenage magazines decides to make an article about it to ridicule it.

 

Then, a leading science magazine such as Scientific American publishes an article to assist in "defending" evolutionary facts, and I start to wonder.

 

I wonder why USA, the most technologically advanced nation and one of the founders of modern democracy, is "allowing" weird religious mythos in schools and their zealous inventors in public media and politics. Strange, bizarre - perhaps a harsh reaction to modern times?

[lukeskywalker1]

hmmm... so your saying why do they allow religion in schools c'jais? well, they dont... you can talk about it, but you cant teach it, thats illegal, ever hear of seperation of church and state...

 

Catholics are not christians! simple, they may appear to be, but htye dont worship God, nor follow the bible, sure they have it open durin church service, but they arent following it... in fact, they are directly disobeying it... thats why, i could care less what the pope says, cause, hes not a christian... he just appears to be a christian. They really follow Baal. All along, i thought they just did a few things different then normal christians... but they do everything different, so much different that they disobey the bible.... like 4 example, the 7 sacrements, if you can acheive those, then youll go to heaven, wrong, the bible never says, you have to acheive 7 sacrements (is acheive the right word?) it says, the only way to the Father is through the Son, so it means, follow christ, and youll get to heaven (of coarse theres more to it than that but.. you get what i mean) Look, the catholic church is a cult! they dont worship God, so if they say evolution is correct, no christian should care, cause they arent christians, they are considered christians. All the people who go there dont know this, its the part thats never talked about till you get high up. Right from birth the people aree exposed to demonic influence. They dont know it, but if they would look in the bible, they would c that everything in the church is wrong... i didnt know it was this bad till i started reading on it... i read a little pamphlet called ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS CHRISTIANS, and the answere is no.

 

And yes, this is still on the topic, cause im just saying, the pope doesnt matter to any christians when he says evolution was used by God or whatever, cause he doesnt worship God. Man, the some of the past popes claim to be God! Do i need to go further to prove catholism isnt christianity? ITS ALL A LIE!!! Man, they worship symbols, such as the monstrance, which was made by the egyptains, who called it Osiris... be4 popes called it Jesus

 

Sorry that waas long but... had to get my point accross...

 

you ever hear of vlad the impaler? he was a priest and a king. you may know him better as count dracula. his stories of killing people and staking them weren't just for blood lust but because he and many other priests believed those that were not pure should be killed and cast to hell. sure he eventually went against the church but that was much later after he stopped killing in name of Romania.

 

interesting, but just cause there a preist doesnt mean there a christian.... in fact, catholics put people on stakes and burned them.. you see, you know the last supper... be4 christ was crucified, well, christians do something the same way, but its in remembrance of him (like the bible says) you know that thing where he says this is my body, this is my blood (and it was symbolic, it wasnt really his blood and his body) well, the catholics do some thing and then do this and that, then all of a sudden christ 'becomes' that little peice of bread, or whatever they use, and a long time ago, if anyone said it wasnt really God, then they would put them on a stake and burn them, and do other ways of tourture... just cause they said it was a symbol... you understand... another way, that catholics arent christians, and another reason why, i dont need to listen to what the pope says. He knows this is true, as do the preists

 

-lukeskywalker1

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Catholics are not christians!

 

I can only say that you are absolutely wrong in this case. As an anthropology student, I've made some careful study of various religions of the world and I can tell you that the assumptions that you make in that post are without meritt. Each is invalid.

 

I've attended catholic mass (among other gatherings of other religions) and I can tell you first hand that what is discussed is VERY much like a baptist church service or any of the other protestant sects. There are some very obvious differences, particularly in ritual, but the content is roughly the same. Latin is occasionally used, but then English wasn't the bible's original language either. The priest spoke of Jesus, god and the trinity and of being baptised and belief in christ, god and the trinity, etc.

 

The only real difference in protestant and catholic religion is being "saved."

 

You also have to understand the history of protestantism... it came about when the King of England wanted to divorce his wife. The church (a.k.a. Rome) wouldn't allow it, so the King (being of divine province) created his own religion and called it the Church of England. That began the many splits and separations that christianity experienced over several hundred years and thus we have a gizillion denominations of 'christianity.'

 

So you see, this is all a bunch of hogwash (or, more accurately, brainwash) that you are getting from your own cult group about another. From a secular or even atheist point of view, catholism is the more valid form of christianity.

 

Personally, I could give a crap. My concern is the 'dumbing' of my country, which I cover in the next post... hopefully, this ends the "my version of christianity is the right version and all others are devil worship" argument....

 

If posts from here on out are related to evolution -v- creation, heavy editing/deletion might be needed....

 

Darn... I might actually have to moderate!

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by C'jais

I wonder why USA, the most technologically advanced nation and one of the founders of modern democracy, is "allowing" weird religious mythos in schools and their zealous inventors in public media and politics. Strange, bizarre - perhaps a harsh reaction to modern times?

 

This is one of the reasons why I persist in debates about creation -v- evolution.

 

The root of the problem is actually in the successes of my nation. As a country, we have made wonderful technological advancements and progressed in ways that most nations of the world are now struggling to achieve. Part of this success was due to the opportunity that awaited those who immigrated in the 18th and 19th centuries and were able to rise above their 'station in life.'

 

One did not have to be born of an aristocracy in order to achieve success, one needed only to have the desire to succeed and a motivation plus an idea.... innovation was the driving force. Innovations in industry, manufacturing, consumerism, etc. were fed by new inventions and progress in transportation and communication.

 

The computer was the final innovation, in my opinion. We have reached a point that we are used to our 'station in life.' Kids are born with everything they need... vcrs, televisions, playstations, stereos, cars when they're 16, the newest and most expensive clothes, sneakers endorsed by Michael Jordan, and generally just the 'good life.'

 

Why learn the difficult subjects in school? Science won't buy that new car... in fact, the fast track is business and sports. No science is needed. No calculus (basic arithmetic is best for accounting and keeping the books and none needed for executing a play on the football field), no chemistry, no physics. Why get bad grades for nothing....

 

Truancy in the United States is at an all time high. Juvenile crime is skyrocketing.....

 

Our nation now has to import our scientists, engineers and physicians. Universities can't fill their rolls with American students, so student visas to Asian, Near Eastern, and Middle Eastern countries is on the rise.

 

Consequently, fundementalist religions are gaining a foothold with Americans again through revivalization movements. The idea of prayer in school has gained momentum and arguments against teaching evolution (which is one of the most contrary ideas to the tenents of fudamentalist religions which cling to creation mythology) are cropping up more and more. Just two years ago, there was a big stink over it in Kansas, a state where there is a huge population of fundamental christians.

 

Our country is becoming 'dumb.' In the 50's and 60's, every kid wanted to learn about science, since this is what was sending us to the Moon and that's what Kennedy promised. It was prevalent in nearly every aspect of contemporary culture of the time and it's remnants can be seen by driving across the country and looking at old signs and markers for things like the Satellite Inn (a motel), the Star Cinema (movie theater/cinema) whose marquee was shaped like a rocketship, and a multitude of other commercial establishments that survived the era.

 

People should be free to pursue their own belief systems, but they should also be free to question authority. Especially if that authority is cautioning against knowledge, understanding, and ideas that are contrary to their own. That applies to government or religious authority.

 

Certainly science has "authority," but it is important to note that it is primarily an egalitarian one. Religion and politics rarely are. This means that one is free to question the doctrines of science. In fact, one is encouraged to question, scrutinize, debate, or rebuke any aspect of science that they can prove othewise. Polititians find this difficult to accept and religious leaders consider it heresy/blasphemy.

[Homuncul]

I woship this post

 

And I'm crying because I'm happy, at least there are people in this world who understand these things

 

But then I... Z-z-z-Z-z-z

[lukeskywalker1]

There are some very obvious differences, particularly in ritual, but the content is roughly the same. Latin is occasionally used, but then English wasn't the bible's original language either. The priest spoke of Jesus, god and the trinity and of being baptised and belief in christ, god and the trinity, etc.

 

ill just say this, there not the same god christ or trinity... its completly different... id go into it, but its really long, i tried to make it short, and i guess i messed it up... who cares what its considered... it is what it is.

 

So you see, this is all a bunch of hogwash (or, more accurately, brainwash) that you are getting from your own cult group about another.

 

k, so one more thing on that subject... my group, or cult as you call it, didnt tell me any of this, ive been researching it, i believed all of this b4 i started going to church... and still do.

 

The computer was the final innovation, in my opinion. We have reached a point that we are used to our 'station in life.' Kids are born with everything they need... vcrs, televisions, playstations, stereos, cars when they're 16, the newest and most expensive clothes, sneakers endorsed by Michael Jordan, and generally just the 'good life.'

 

heh, most of that is made overseas, like japan places like that. Well, some is made by americans overseas because of cheaper prices....

[SkinWalker]

Here's a Native American creation myth from the Iroquis Nation.... I thought it interesting, since we've only presented two views: Scientific and Christian.

 

Iroquois Creation Myth

 

Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.

 

Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America.

 

Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.

The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations.

 

Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans. He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do all the work himself there would be no suffering.

 

Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his brother drove beneath the Earth.

 

Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten. Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on Big Turtle's back. Occasionally his anger is felt in the form of a volcano.

 

The Iroquois people hold a great respect for all animals. This is mirrored in their creation myth by the role the animals play. Without the animals' help the Sky Woman may have sunk to the bottom of the sea and earth may not have been created.