Religious fascism or just common sense?

Why does anybody care?

Nothing better to do at the moment?

What is the point you would not understand the answer?

Shirina wrote:

Why does anybody care?

Nothing better to do at the moment?

Catch you later. There's some paint I have to watch drying.

Catch you later. There's some paint I have to watch drying.

I highly recommend watching grass grow. I think that is slightly more entertaining than drying paint.

It's the watching slugs and worms crawling through the grass, or watching flys genuflect to their Maggot God on the newly painted door!!

Why do they always do that?

Shirina wrote:

Catch you later. There's some paint I have to watch drying.

I highly recommend watching grass grow. I think that is slightly more entertaining than drying paint.

Not likely. The more the grass grows, the more the lawnmower calls, the more my conscience pricks looking at next doors neat lawn. Ah well, what is the old saying. 'Keeping up with the Jones's'. Still their name isn't Jones, so what the 'eck.

astra wrote:It's the watching slugs and worms crawling through the grass, or watching flys genuflect to their Maggot God on the newly painted door!!

Why do they always do that?

It's not reasonable to expect flies to read the "WET PAINT" notice.

AH!


Yeah!

Why is it that when you put those WET PAINT signs up, there are always volunteers who touch the paint?.

They ARE ALWAYS the ones who bitterly and vocifferously complain that they have "Paint on their fingers" as well!

OK. I will explain exactly what science is.

Science involves nothing more than what some people think may be the answer to a problem that is presently unsolved.

They use many means to attempt to prove their theories but they are just that theories.

On any one subject you may have directly opposite opinions with each person involved adding to or subtracting from their first thoughts.


Many theories have in the past proved correct but far more have proved to be incorrect and many of those we have used in many ways and have had to change them.

I can give you many examples of evolution having been discredited on many grounds and if you wish for a list then I will willingly give you one.

As I have said previously Iam only interested in the truth but can assure you I have debated many things with many people from all walks of life and have learned how to put down anyone who feels obliged to come up with silly remarks and I have never lost yet.

To the lists!!

Let the joust commence!

I...have learned how to put down anyone who feels obliged to come up with silly remarks and I have never lost yet.

polyglide. Having read these threads quite extensively, I must conclude that that is indeed your opinion, and yours alone.


(By the way, I sent you a PM some considerable time ago concerning a possible avatar. Would you at least open it and read it, please?)

Many theories have in the past proved correct but far more have proved to be incorrect and many of those we have used in many ways and have had to change them.

Unlike religion, science doesn't deal in absolute truths. This is what gives science the ability to change as new facts are found and new discoveries are made. Even then, science can be inflexible, as well. Often new facts are not brought to light until the proponents of the old facts are long in their graves. Yes, some theories are wrong, some theories are right. But ... you, yourself, mentioned all of the technological marvels that have been invented in just the past 150 years. Going from the rickety Wright Brothers plane to putting a man on the moon in only 67 years is pretty astounding.

Yet none of those marvels - from the first telephone all the way to the internet - could not not have taken place if science was so unreliable. Our scientific knowledge is always improving and increasing - it is always a work in progress. Creationists' views are hinged upon the idea that no new discoveries will be made and no knew knowledge will be learned. Without that paradigm, their whole argument falls apart. Here's an example:

When Thomas Edison was working on inventing the first sustainable electric light bulb, he tried over 10,000 different filament materials before he stumbled upon the one that worked. If a Creationist burst into Edison's laboratory while he was testing filament #2,702, it would have failed, and the Creationist would say, "See? I told you an electric light bulb was absolutely impossible!" Of course we know now that an electric light bulb is far from impossible, but if one were to base success or failure upon one snapshot of history, we would still be living in caves.

In the same way, Creationists base their whole argument upon a snapshot of present history while completely disregarding future discoveries. If evolution and the Big Bang can't be irrefutably proven right now, right this very minute, then it will NEVER be proven and so we should all revert to mythology and superstition to explain it all. That is the same logic as bursting into Edison's laboratory while he is testing filament #2,702 and demanding that the bulb he is working on right that minute light up ... and if it doesn't, then we should all just forget about the electric light bulb. Let's all go back to living in the darkness! Never mind the reality that it will take several thousand more tests before Edison hits upon the right answer.

As I have said many times, your arguments are based on what we don't know rather than on what we do, a classic "God of the Gaps" argument.

I can give you many examples of evolution having been discredited on many grounds and if you wish for a list then I will willingly give you one

Evolution is not a perfect theory, but again, it's because we don't know everything. Claiming it's been discredited based on that same previously mentioned historical snapshot is just reverting back to the "God of the Gaps" again. Some time ago I gave you a list of things about the human body that only evolution can explain. For instance, people being born with extra bones that would be useful only if we walked on all fours, or men having nipples. Why would God create such things? Or is this another example of Satan mucking about - like when he buried all of those dinosaur fossils (LOL!)

and have learned how to put down anyone who feels obliged to come up with silly remarks

Yeah, I've noticed that any remark that doesn't go along with your version of religion is considered "silly."

and I have never lost yet.

Unless you are a member of a formal debating team with judges and rules, you can't possibly know if you've won or lost.

".... you can't possibly know if you've won or lost."

Though you can abandon an unproductive argument and move on to something different, as we have seen.

Though you can abandon an unproductive argument and move on to something different, as we have seen.

True ... but being only one of two (three?) Americans on this board, the topics for me are rather limited. Sometimes we just have to find productivity where we can.

Seems to me an imposition therefore to feel obliged to rise to the bait every time it is offered.

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
Proverbs 15;1

Hi Ivan, I have just read your message, sorry for not doing so sooner but the box said no new message.

A white dove would be nice.

regards.

I have a deep desire to attempt to have people look at matters that they appear directly opposed to and view them based on what is actually known and not on speculation or theories etc;

We know the universe is here, we are aware of some of what it contains [but this may be only a very small part of the actual] we also know what we can see and have learned about our little planet.

What we are not certain about is, how and why.

We do know for certain that something cannot come from nothing, unless anti matter can be established, so there must be a creation of some kind or another, I can see no objection to that statement.

I have said how I think matter came about and also how everything was created and you may dispute this but there is no logical reason why this is not a possibility.

If anything is created there must therefore be a creator, there is so much proof of the interdependancy of many things towards another that any random means of their existance can be ruled out on logical grounds.

Now you may not believe in GOd, that is your perogative, however, surely it may be worth considering matters in a purely open minded way.

I can assure you I would be willing to consider any other alternative that has any credibility based on all the known facts.

What I am not interested in is remarks like paint drying.

Those making such remarks would fall asleep before the paint dried and would not wake up to reality before it needed a new coat.

regards Ivan.

polyglide wrote:I have a deep desire to attempt to have people look at matters that they appear directly opposed to ....

Indeed, whilst there are others with a deep desire to avoid being told what to think, polly.

'twas ever thus.

Those making such remarks would fall asleep before the paint dried and would not wake up to reality before it needed a new coat.

What "reality" would that be?

My favorite "hymn" Quite a bit of lively debate on the comments section too!

See you do not even know what reality is

See you do not even know what reality is

I want to know what YOU think reality is.

Just off the cuff, reality is accepting that which is known including ones limitations.

Just off the cuff, reality is accepting that which is known including ones limitations.

But religion is not known. It is a belief. That is why they call it faith.

I like the word faithless better...for me it's a lovely positive word!

I was using the word in general terms and it had nothing to do with religion.

I find it hard to understand how you seem unable to keep things confined to the point in quesion and bring in totally irrelevant matters.

I find it hard to understand how you seem unable to keep things confined to the point in quesion and bring in totally irrelevant matters.

Hello! Look at the title of this thread!

Some of us are trying to keep it on topic.

On the other thread I have given that which was asked for on this one and I will give it on this one.

Put Darwin's Theory Discredited on your computer and you will have ample proof that evolution is not ctredible.

So lets start with considering the alternatives.

Put Darwin's Theory Discredited on your computer and you will have ample proof that evolution is not ctredible.

Sure, polyglide, and 99% of those searches will direct me to biased Christian websites that have a vested interest in ensuring that it's discredited.

So lets start with considering the alternatives.

In the US, evolution IS the alternative.

When I tackled a Church of England vicar on Twitter recently, and asked him if he was for creation or evolution, he replied (in typical C of E fashion) "both". In his mind at least, he has squared the circle by saying that God created the world and then allowed it to evolve!!

For nearly five hundred years, the C of E has been as much a political institution as a religious one, and it shows!

Attributed to Archbishop Temple (of Canterbury). 'I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and I regret it does not exist.'

When I tackled a Church of England vicar on Twitter recently, and asked him if he was for creation or evolution, he replied (in typical C of E fashion) "both". In his mind at least, he has squared the circle by saying that God created the world and then allowed it to evolve!!

At least that's a more rational belief than a silly Adam and Eve story.

I think that's what a lot of priests and vicars would say. I never heard anyone dismiss evolution in my religious upbringing.

It was inevitable that Darwin's publication would have upset the God-fearing Victorians, who built more Churches than any other generation before or since.

For various reasons, Christianity has taken hold of large numbers in 21st. Century America who want something firmly to believe in. Such beliefs are strengthened by having something to oppose, such as the concept of evolution.

Then if evolution is the alternative, PROVE IT.

polyglide wrote:Then if evolution is the alternative, PROVE IT.

The alternative to what? To this....?

Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz
Genesis 1.1

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Genesis 1.2

To prove that might be an excellent place to begin.

Someone wants "proof" of a belief and someone else asks for an explanation. I'll leave you people to convince each other.

Anyone who does not believe in evolution is sadly lacking.

I believe in both.

An acorn will evolve into an oak tree, all the seeds for the plants will evolve into plantsetc;

The point is where did the acorn come from and the seeds etc;

Re: Religious fascism or just common sense?
by polyglide Today at 11:23 am


Re: Evidence for the existence of God
by polyglide Today at 10:55 am

Could you explain your differing views on the above.
On one you discredit evolution. On the other you believe in it. Or am I reading it wrongly?