Bashing Religions?

Remove all ads!

Despite the claims of certain folks who have a vested interest in maintaining otherwise, evolution is testable and falsifiable.

"Intelligent Design" (or: God made everything) is not. The two are not equivalent. At all.

 

It's not often I'll say that something is a stupid comment, but...

That comment was certainly not well thought out. Big bang to BILLIONS of years -- how would you carry out that experiment? Any accusation using such logic is certainly unreasonable.

Evolution occurs all around us -- an example I gave earlier was the cheetah. The spots on the back of the cheetahare changing, stripes are forming which better conceal the cheetah in the grass. The cheetah IS an example of evolution in action. Once again, this takes generations -- difficult on a laboratory scale.

My suspicion is any scientist who would show evolution on a laboratory scale would simply be accused of genetic modification by the ultra religious.

As a Mormon, you believe God must obey laws of nature and physics (at least that's what the church teaches). Granted the whole law/theory issue makes thing fuzzy here. However, what is wrong with the idea that the big bang was used to create the heavens and the earth -- which would also explain the Mormon belief of many worlds that are inhabited by the children of God? Whay wouldn't God use evolution to obtain the end result, i.e., man -- upon perfection of the development the sould is allowed to inhabit the body and Adam is born....

 

But it's still a Cheetah, isn't it? When it becomes something other than a cheetah, then I'll swallow the whole theory. The concept of species changing from what they were originally (like man and apes evolving from a common ancestor) is the part that contradicts scripture. Dogs have always been dogs. Evolution to explain the different breeds is not a stretch. Claiming multiple species sprung forth from the same ancestors is different. This basically reduces humans to another breed of Primate.

The Big Bang may explain the "Matter Unorganized" that littered the solar system, and was gathered together and organized into Worlds, moons, stars, and much of that matter still floats around out there, leading to the suspicion that many more worlds may yet be created. I just have difficulty accepting that anything organized could occur by random chance.

That idea is directly contradictory to the account of Creation. Man was created on the Sixth day, in the image of God, not coming about as a random chance offspring of a long forgotten primate. Why hasn't the missing link been found? Because there never was one. People who refuse to accept God's roll in creation will spend their lives looking for something that doesn't exist.

 

(emphasis mine)

I'm trying not to laugh.

The "missing link"? So what? We've got nearly the whole chain, we're missing ONE link. Which ain't hard, considering how long it's been.

Frankly, if it became a BIRD you'd probably say something similar. You don't have to see continental drift to know it's there.

Deal. Just as soon as you replicate Creation.


Seriously though. Religion is a nice idea, but it shouldn't afect our decision-making. At a guess, religion has probably killed a billion people so far and if America becomes any more fundamentalist that number could be doubled in an instant. I don't care what you believe, UNLESS you affect my life.

EDIT:

And that's your problem with it, isn't it?

 

As I said I am a Christian, I do not hate the religion. I just hate the majority of it's fanclub.

But, I'm trying to change it. I am a leader in the local youth group and I am a campmentor once per year for a camp of 10-15 year olds.

 

Oh...my. Why did I happen to click on this topic.

I am in no position to defend the LDS church...but I see "Mormon bashing" on a daily basis. It's usually done by idiots on the street in downtown Salt Lake City, who don't know a thing about the church, how it works, or the members. All they know is a few of the church's "rules"...and those rules don't seem like the rules or the lifestyle they want to live by...so they bash it. I don’t agree with some of the rules of the LDS church, but you won’t see me bashing the church because of it.

I remember about 5 years ago, a large group of 'Southern Baptists' came up to Salt Lake City on a mission to, "Save the Mormons". Needless to say, it didn't work, and IIRC, many of them were converted to the LDS church while they were here.

In short, "Mormon bashing", or any religion's bashing for that matter, will never cease due to people's misconceptions on the religion.

 

If a mammal changed into a bird, then that would confuse the heck out of me. But spots changing to stripes is simply a change in the breed of cheetah from spotted cheetahs to striped cheetahs. Just like originally, there were two dogs on the ark with Noah (assume you grant me this point). Some how they grew to more than two breeds (poodle, chihuahua, pit bull...), the same would be happenning with cheetahs...

The point you're missing is that God Created the Heavens and the Earth. I am not God, therefore I can't replicate Creation. Argument rejected.

Three things:

1. If you claim to believe a doctrine, but refuse to live it's rules, then that would make you a hypocrite. Why would you spend up to most of a day on church (for me, it's an hour to get ready between shower, shaving, breakfast and getting my suit and tie on, up to an hour in travel time and being early for meetings, 3 hours of meetings or more some weeks, then up to a half hour getting out, then up to an hour getting home), so that's 7 am to almost 2 pm shot, more if I have extra meetings or my ride does. Why would I give up 7 hours on a Sunday if I'm not going to live up to those covenants during the week?

2. Is it Religion or just certain individuals that took the name of God to justify their vain goals. Shortly before 1100AD, the Pope at the time issued an edict that called for the Crusades. Was this God's will or simply a man that didn't like his authoprity challenged and felt that the traditional Holy Land shouldn't be controled by it's current rulers? And were the Kings that sent Crusades truly Pious or simply opportunistic? I would imagine the tactics of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Hunts were not entirely in Harmony with the Scriptures that contained the key beliefs that they were supposedly upholding. I refuse to believe anyincident which calls for the shedding of innocent blood is the Will of God, but rather the desires of those that claim to serve him disguised as Divine commands.

3. I don't think that America can ever become truly Fundementalist. A president with strong religious leanings is one thing, but I doubt that they can get enough support to totally become Fundementalist. There are enough people in Religions that would be neglected and those that simply don't believe, that an opponent would win an election.

Again, this boils down to the definition of Fan club. I am a believer, I do my best to serve, I seek to improve, and I share my beliefs openly. I try not to go overboard. My faith is not about Hellfire and Brimstone, but about living a good, moral life and reaping the rewards.

LMAO. These are people that truly believed in what they were doing, that came based off the misconceptions, Saw us for who we really are, and IKRC, realized that our faith was right for them...

The initial misunderstanding between Cesard and I was resolved with the point that there are people that try to keep these misconceptions alive and well. My initial question was about what, if anything can/should be done about this?

 

Excellent. You've got the idea. Evolution is a gradual process. It takes millions of years. You might have ONE small variation in 10 generations. And in the long term, where you draw the species line can be semantic. From spotted cheetahs to striped ones to larger striped ones- suddenly, you're looking at a tiger, but it happened slowly. Some cheetah didn't just wake up one morning and have a lion baby.

My precise point. If you can expect me, one insignificant part of the universe, to recreate it, I can expect you to do the same according to your logic. Of course, neither of these expectations are realistic from their respective viewpoints, which as I stated was the point of the comment.

Oh, you thought I meant fundamentalist Christianity in specifica. Maybe I put it badly. I meant that belief in a higher cause, deity, or in being part of a wider and more important system is a nice idea in that it provides a mental crutch for people who can't face their own limitation and mortality, which in the end is the reason for religion. A common thread in religion is a Heaven, rebirth, absolution or some other type of life-after-death, and those exceptions still make a person feel like they're part of something bigger or more important. It's got nice mental asthetics. As I said, nice idea, but...

Sorry. Must have misheard. I thought you people thought the Pope was the voice of God on Earth. Your comment about the Pope's motives assumes a God for the crusades to have been the will of in the first place. But this is useless. I think that you will agree (at least, you should) that in the examples given and others, those people probably acted as they though was right. Consider the Children's Crusade. Think that was opportunisim? Think that anyone sane thought they could win? I don't. In any case, whether or not those people were using religion as an excuse, without religion they couldn't have acted thus.

Thank you for your opinion, I note that you have not supplied any facts that a counter argument could be placed upon, thus depriving me of the opportunity to disprove your argument. Ah well. For now at least, we still mostly kinda have mostly free-speech(ish) , so you have the right to your opinion, as I have the right to disagree, which you can take it I do.

 

Ugh. This is why I shouldn't get involved in these arguements - circular logic. Why are these scientists deceived? Because they are speaking out against Scripture. What is the basis of the Scriptures? God. How do we know God is right? Because the Scriptures say God is right. Therefore God is right because God says he's right, and that's the end of the arguement. By corrolary, these scientists are wrong because God says they are wrong.

The problem with this line of reasoning is not that it is unsound, but the fact that it starts with the supposition of acceptance of faith. People who do not start with this presupposition of faith have a problem with this arguement not because of the conclusion you draw, but the fact that we doubt the truth of one of your initial premises. And that's something that no amount of discussion can resolve.

The thing that I find so troubling about this use of logic is that it closes one to the possibility of the scientist being correct. It is simply rejected out-of-hand, and no examination of what he is saying needs to be conducted. This appears to be a very narrow-minded way to view the world. There's something to be said for a feeling that helps you sleep at night, or gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling about yourself, but if such a view closes you off to fact of life changes in society, I'm not sure you're any richer as a result of it.

[ June 20, 2005, 17:37: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Of course, if there had actually been only two of each species on the ark, they'd all have died out ages ago. Inbreeding, y'know

 

Here's the point of disagreement: You say it will change to something other than a Cheetah, I say that it will still be a cheetah. By a Creationist view, there was no ancestor that the cheetah evolved from, it was created by God, and adapted to it's environment.

So Evolution, or the Big Bang theory are not replicatable. This then, removes them from the dominion of science to speculation. To those that reject the existance of God, then the two conflicting theories are on even par.

No, I got your meaning, I was refering to my beliefs and situation specifically. I would imagine that other religions have similar restrictions and sacrifices required. Why make those sacrifices if all you are going to do is pretend? If that's all I wanted, then I could find one with a more relaxed dress code, that's about 5 minutes from home and only about an hour to an hour and a half in sermons, and fewer behavioural restrictions, so I could go forth, drink, toke and screw all afternoon if I wanted to? Even then, why give up about 2 hours just to make an appearance? If I don't want to live up to the standards, then I might as well not go. Trying to be half a Christian is like trying to drive half a car...

That was someone taking the name of God to justify their own vain desires, or people that misunderstood what God wanted in the first place. Regardless of what you believe about God, Taking his name to justify what they want is reprehensible. Do you blame a gunsmith for anyone murdered with the guns he makes? No, you don't. Just like I ask you not to blame Religion for what some renegades do. As for the Children's Crusade, I wonder what the Noble that led the Children's crusade was drinking when he started that...

That last point was not to be presented as fact, only opinion. It was not to be taken as fact.

These theories have eroded faith in Religion over the years because they were presented as absolute fact. I have also questioned these thoeries. I still do not accept that there was a progenator species for the species we all know. Science has yet to prove that any such species ever existed. I do not agree with Evolution being taught as scientific truth beside Newtonian physics, which are replicatable within the confines of a science classroom, or Chemistry lessons, some of which are replicated in a classroom, others require a fancy lab.

The more you open up your mind, the more prone you are to get into trouble. At some point you have to close your mind to preserve what you believe, otherwise all you do is try to learn, and you never do. By closing off some of the things that contradict my faith, I am then free to act acording to the requirements of my faith.

That I have no answer for, and will not have such an answer until after I have an audience with God.

 

Did you read the text you quoted? I said "And in the long term, where you draw the species line can be semantic." You're using this and lumping what I consider to be different species into one whole. But following on from your argument:

Interesting comment. Consider the idea that, under your Creationist beliefs, your God created one animal- the amoeba- and it adapted to it's environments. Adaptions including, say, humans, whales, lions, dogs, etc... Adaption is what makes evolution happen.

What?! No. Just because we can't replicate something, doesn't mean we can't know it happened. Take a firework. Light it. Let it explode. Although you cannot do this again, you can see from the debris of the explosion that it happened. See? And I never said or indicated that evolution was not replicable. Consider bacteria. They mutate and evolve very rapidly. We can see them do so.

Well, if you're not replying to my comment, why'd you quote it?

Irrevelant. Whether or not those people believed themselves to be acting in the name of God, religion gives the opportunity to act in ways they couldn't otherwise.

Fair enough. I note when reading your post from this perspective that you prefaced it with "I think". Sorry.

As stated above, depends on your definition of species.

So your problem is with the complexity of the theory? Remember the men who said the Sun was the center of the solar system? We'll give you proof eventually.

Inbreeding is defects caused by the lack of diversity of an animal's parents, thus allowing parisites to find weaknesses with less difficulty. Said diversity (for the parasites, for predatrs, and for the environment) is the reason for sexual reproduction- and for evolution.

That....... scared me. I'm speechless. No wonder we're having this argument. I'd point out that closed-mindedness results in being wrong, and that if you were right, you wouldn't need to close your mind to preserve your phillosophies- but due to said closed-mindedness, you wouldn't listen.

In light of that comment, I'm out of here. No point in debating with someone who just prouldy said they weren't actually paying attention. Thank you and metaphorical good-night.

 

Mhm. Same is true for some insects. Sure, we can't observe whales evolving in a lab, but we can watch other stuff.

Really? As in, the Bible's infallible? I thought that wasn't a Christian belief, but...*shrug*

Is that view held by most Mormons, or just you and your local church, Gnarff?

 

Hmmm... Unlike Yirimyah, I do not find this point of view scary, but simply odd. While it does make arguing a point concerning some scientific theory even more futile than I had initially suspected, I am somewhat intrigued by this thought process. The reason for this is that it bypasses simple faith, and moves into the realm of blind faith. Unquestioning obedience even. I also find this point of view at odds with some of your previous statements. Such as:

Here's another:

How do you reconcile these previous statements with the one at the top of the post? They seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive. Finally, I doubt you could even be serious in your statement that it's good to close your mind to different points of view. I would think that I would look to my religion (if I rigorously followed one that is) to see what I could find in modern theories that was congruent with my beliefs, and not just close my mind to everything that I can't look up in the Scriptures.

For example, while I do not believe in the concept of "Intelligent Design", I do see this as an attempt by people who believe that God created the world to reconcile that view with the Mount Everest sized pile of evidence supporting evolution. I can't say that I agree with them, but I certainly have to give them credit for being open-minded.

Do you see the difference? If what you say is true, you look at the mountain and say it either doesn't exist, is being interpreted in an incorrect manner, or that it's all a pile of hooey. In the example of a proponent of Intelligent Design, he says, "Hmmm... Maybe there is something to all of this evolution stuff. However, the entire account cannot be true, because it is at odds with creation. Is it possible that certain parts of the evolution theory are true? Perhaps evolution and a God-created world are not mutually exclusive ideas. What if the two are actually happening simultaneously?" And so Intelligent Design was born.

To me, the people holding this theory are the ones that are really being true to their faith, while those that do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" are the ones who are not being true to their faith. This is because if you truly believe in the religious teachings, there should be no fear in examining the scientific evidence - your faith is unshakable anyway. The informed person would look to see how two seemingly opposed ideas can actually be congruent within certain contextual boundaries.

 

What would it take for you to believe it was something other than a cheetah? How about it not being able to breed with creatures that we recognise as Cheetahs? Would that be enough?

 

AMaster and Aldeth: I realized this was futile a while ago. As far as beliefs for Mormons -- there is no local church belief. The Mormon church is the second biggest bureaucracy in the world (just behind the US government), there are no local changes to Mormon belief. The doctrine all comes from Salt Lake City and is passed outward to individual groups with great efficiency. However, individuals do have different interpretations of the doctrine -- Gnarf has expressed a couple of things which contradict the teaching of the Mormon church.

I always found the whole idea of 'if you don't understand it, you need to pray more' to be a crock. To many in the Mormon church there is no desire to reconcile scientific evidence with scripture -- this is truly sad. The preponderance of evidence in archeological record against Mormonism (and christianity in general) is staggering. The Mormons hide behind statement like 'such evidence is false and must be the devil's work.' Yet, the Mormons also believe Satan cannot create physical objects, he only influence the mind. Assuming such things did not happen as Gnarf (and the Mormon church) is indicating, then if Satan could not create the bones found in the archeological record and a higher power must have (which could only have been God by Mormon beliefs). The implication of this was staggering to me, it meant that the God the Mormons believed in would willingly mislead his children, deceive them by creating false records just to test them. This was the dilemma I found myself in and everyone I talked to in the Mormon church said it just a test of faith -- basically either accept such inconsistencies or fall.

I could not accept that God was a deceiver, or that there is no way to reconcile solid scientific evidence with belief. I came to the conclusion that the stories in Genesis are metaphors (perhaps all the writings of Moses). And that the Book of Mormon is not accurate.

The arguements Gnarf presents are the same I hear from my family all the time (I should point out that I am the only scientist in my family).

 

Meaning absolutely no offense, but why not? Going by the old testament, He's certainly a mass murderer. If He can kill people--lots and lots of people, including children--why can't He lie to people?

 

Yes, I did, and I disagreed with that point. You inferred that there would be a point where it wasn’t a cheetah, and I disagreed.

That is a direct contradiction to the account of creation. All creatures were created during the same creative period.

But you can make another firecracker the same as the previous one and expect the same result. As for Bacteria, the changes that you see in bacteria would be similar to a development of a new strain of that bacteria, like a breed of dog. That doesn’t prove species change.

That was my reply. You don’t seem to like my replies, so why should this be any different…

Actually, it’s not irrelevant. You judge religion as a whole by a few renegades who abuse its power. If I were to judge all Americans by George W. Bush, I know I’d piss off the Democrats in the crowd…

I have already stated that species doesn’t change. It may be possible that people naming new species may be mistaking a different breed for a new species in their desire for fame in scientific circles…

But this was proven before it was widely taught. Until Evolution is either proven or corrected, then it shouldn’t be taught as hard fact.

As I said, I do not have such answers, because I wasn’t there when the flood happened. God has those answers. Some how such diversity came to pass. I don’t know how. I’m not God.

Actually, it’s scarier that you would expect me to renounce the account of Creation because you have a different theory, or that I should renounce my faith because some power mad individual abused it a thousand years ago. Open mindedness doesn’t guarantee that you will be right either. Further, closing my mind o certain things means that I won’t be renouncing my faith because someone thinks it’s . It’s more a protection than anything else.

And you didn’t automatically decide I was full of **** and listen only for what you could mock or ridicule?

The Bible is the word of God. If the account said that there was two of each creature, then that’s the way it was. How proper genetic diversity was maintained would be an answer that God has, not me. I’ll ask that you not be so inflammatory in your responses.

My Religion teaches that it is wrong to view Pornography because it leads to sexual temptation. Simply put I try to close out things that will lead me astray (like so called science that contradicts the word of God). I spent too many years wandering lost because I wasn’t solid in my faith, and have no desire to go through that again. It’s easier to rule that evolution is bullshit than to neglect my faith in God.

Even when I try to concede some of these points (like adaptation to meet an environment) while maintaining that God Created all the animals, and that the species that exist now are the same species that God Created I’m still told I’m wrong. I guess it’s easier to shrink back and call you blasphemers than to defend my beliefs, but that wouldn’t solve anything either.

Again, do we adopt that approach because we’re sick of being mocked when we try to come out of our shell? Likewise, do some of you who dislike religion judge us by the actions of a few renegades throughout history? If there is to be an understanding like Intelligent Design, then the Evolutionists have to allow us our starting point of Creation. Once that is done, then maybe we might venture out of our shell long enough to listen to what you have to say.

Just as I have rejected the notion that there was a species before it that couldn’t have been called a Cheetah, I do not believe that such a creature will ever be born that would not be a Cheetah. All creatures reproduce after their kind. That is a key point of Creation.

If there is something behind these theories, then that can’t be denies, but I’m not guzzling the whole pitcher of tainted Kool-Aid like some people would like me to. There has to be a way to reconcile what they see with scripture, but desire to do so wanes when people insist that you leave the scriptures at the door.

So you found a bunch of bones. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing. It is the interpretation of that evidence that is what I question. I’ve heard of a group called FARMS that has done some of their own Archaeological research and drawn conclusions that support the Book of Mormon. I’ve also heard of Archaeological research that supports the Bible. This just goes to show that Interpretations can be inconsistent. Just as you may question some interpretations that confirm Christianity or the Book of Mormon, I question some of the interpretations that claim to disprove it.

 

Gnarfflinger, with your kind of logic no court in the world could ever sentence anyone - because there could never be the kind of evidence you choose to regard as "solid fact". Your world is not working and nothing could ever be known in it. Even worse: knowledge is not a thing you strive for. If all people were like you we would still be cheetahs.

And the worst:

Truth does not matter to you, I can see that.

"It is easier to rule that the Nazis were right than to neglect the recognition of my people as the master race."

How can you live with that kind of thinking? Like Yirimyha I think that this is scaring. If all Mormons are like you, then they need to be stopped, no question. Bashing stupidity is always a good thing, right.

 

Please clarify what species you think a Mule is. In your example you use a Cheetah as a species, presumably this extends to all big cats. What species is a Tigon or a Liger?

This is a matter of semantics. "Species" is a human word and therefore a human definition.

Biological Definition of species:

A species is a group of individuals that are alike in many different ways. Individuals are in the same species if they are: 1. Are able to mate with those similar to themselves. 2. Produce young that are themselves able to reproduce.

While mammals are a bad example due to their long lifespans, there are numerous examples of insects with short lifespans taking diverging "evolutionary" paths such that, although they had a common ancester, they are no longer capable of inter-breeding. Therefore, by the very definition of how species are classed, they are no-longer the same species. (Although they might be in the same Genus.)

Different species in the same Genus MAY be able to breed together. For instance a donkey is equus asinus (Species = Asinus) while a horse is equus caballus (Species = Caballus) They can breed together to form either a mule or a hinny (Depending on which parent is which) Males are always sterile, females are usually sterile. Without fertile males, the offspring are incapable of reproducing, and therefore Horses and Donkeys have to be of different species.

So basically, you are either mis-understanding or mis-using the term "Species".