America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

CigarPrimate, good point. I most certainly wouldn't want my children to be taught that philosophy. Interesting though...they attended Catholic school through K-6. I just asked them how old the Earth is and they said "billions of years". (My eight year old said "as old as Grandma" but I discount her theory as easily as the 10,000 year theory). I guess the Catholic schools have a good foundation in reality as well.

Well Country, everyone should check their sources, Google being no exception. As far as the validity of evidence, there are differing levels of reliability. You got your primary source evidence, as in when you are there personally and see it with your own eyes. Then there is secondary sources, such as journalist's account of Lincoln's Gettysberg address. We cannot have been there, but nonetheless Lincoln gave it, according to secondary, objectively verifiable sources. Asserting we can't know whether or not he gave the address is a weak argument, since a little research will confirm Lincoln in fact gave the Gettysberg address. Third party sources are less reliable, and so on with forensic evidentiary sources. Nearby events in history are easier to verify, like the Gettysberg address, whereas whether or not Moses spoke to god on Mt. Sinai is less certain. Long ago events become more problematic due to the vagueries of time. Most of the bible is third party source material, i.e., written after the fact and in allegorical form. It's myth, like so many other mythical explanations of life's beginnings from differe2nt cultures. There's no shame or stupidity in this, its just the story of how our kind came to be. Alternatively, the geological record offers direct evidence of actual physical events from far back in time, and is therefore a reliable source of the same genesis the bible speaks of, but in greater detail and resolution. The bible is a wonderful book of ancient myth and Hebrew history, however, just as science has replaced the story of Zeuss throwing thunderbolts down from the heavens as an explanation for lightening, or that evil spirits are the causal agents of tissue infections, so has geology replaced the genesis myth as an explanation for the origins of the world and life. The facts in the case really aren't that hard to access, and their veracity not as hard to confirm, as you seem to be suggesting. Mysticism has its place in psychology and sociology I suppose, and can bring about very real and significant results, but it is a strange bedfellow for geology. I suppose we're all free to draw our own conclusions in any case; which is distinct from whether or not our conclusions match up with reality, be it epistemological or ontological in nature.

CigarPrimate...as well one can believe in G-d and hold beliefs in evolution. One must hold the bible in context with the time it was written and the fact that many of the stories of the bible were passed down through word of mouth.

Many storytellers lived in a time of mass illiteracy. The stories are wonderful and compelling. They finally reached literate people who were able to transcribe those stories so they would never be lost.

Unfortunately science runs into a quandry when it tries to explain human spirit. There are many people who can see ahead. There are psychic phenomina which cannot be explained. People have experienced them for thousands of years. This, again, keeps people believing that even though there is scientific evidence to base our evolution upon...there is something in control of our spirits and souls. That would be what many call G-d.

There are plenty of scientists who maintain their religious beliefs without discounting a higher hand in the creation of things beyond the physical manifestations of our being.

Well I would call it the inter-relations of the pituitary gland, the temporal lobes, various peptide hormones, etc. not god or spirits. People feel (or have psychic phenmena as you say) for clearly defined, internal reasons; remove the 'feeling' centers and feelings no longer occur. The sciences of biopsychology, endocrinology, the neurocognitive sciences, and medicine and physiology in general, like geology, have made rapid headway since the turn of the century ; even those disciplines having to do with life itself. All this doesn't negate the significance of religious worship, if indeed it plays a role in a person's life. But feelings are caused by biochemicals (synonymous with really, 'cause' ads an unecessary intermediate), not magic powers like in Lord of the Rings. Why do you think we smoke cigars? drink booze (spirits)? have orgasms? socialize? or even get out of bed in the morning? What is occuring when we experience all these events? It's all biochemistry and physics my friend, no matter which name you call it by.

Ah...but just as some Christians are blinded by their faith...you are blinded by your inability to have anything unexplained by scientific fact. I have never believed in ghosts...ever. I never believed any of it. all crap.....until I saw one. Sorry...but science just lost that round. I could not find anyone, any book, any google that could explain away what i saw, felt and experienced. Okay...maybe we'll give it a name..protoplams. It doesn't explain why. I'm sure you (being of superior scientific knowledge to the rest of us) can explain it all away. (or google it).

You are obviously an atheist...which is okay as well. We all get to find out what happens when we all die. You can say we cease to exist and everything goes black...but you have no idea. that is one thing you can't cover with scientific data. There seems to be a rather large scientific community which can support with evidence and scientific data that there are some creatures which exist as entities and not physical beings.

You are absolutely right. Every one of our senses has a scientific reason to back it up as to what we are feeling. You have a wonderful explanation of "how" but not "why".

Well, I believe in 'ghosts' alright, if you want to call them that, but embodied in our primate bodies. This is an old argument that goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Plato believed in disembodied forms (Plato is really where a majority of the angels and spirits biblical lingo derives from). But Aristotle says, you know, there are forms (abstractions like 'dog,' 'tree,' in the plural form) but they have no real meaning or existence outside of some particular; as in how the generality 'dog' has no meaning unless actual particular dogs exist. That's where we differ. We both believe in the human 'spirit,' but I contend it needs a body to, no, that it is synonymous with a body as such; whereas you are a Platonist and think the spirit lives before and after the body's existence. BTW, modern medicine, especially neuropathology, has shown fairly conclusively that if the body ceases functioning, so too does the spirit. So a long life and good health to you all, just don't get greedy, you can't beat the system.

ooh! oooh! i just love this kinda stuff. so many directions to go so many toys being thrown into the pool to play with...
(sidebar question, perfesser... how come origins discussions seem to attempt to discredit judeo-christian beliefs/doctrine/writings? i am aware that we here in the u.s. live in a post-christian system, and therefore one could assume it's our reference point. why not use the Hindu origins model, an African animist model, or the late carl sagan's model?)
"religous fundamentalists have killed more..."
patently false.
It is sadly true that religious belief systems have been used to kill/eradicate/sterilize victims - the bible as an example, specifically the old testament, gives pretty good examples of wars and 'ethnic cleansings' of towns and cities, whether you're taking orders from G-d or the spiced goat you had last night for supper. (btw, it's nice to see this method used for talking about G-d - haven't seen it in a while)
there are several sources for body counts from population/political exterminations including the current african continent debacle(if i can find the sites again, i'll post em).
Yet Darwin's own racism (read him yourself) and its spawn of the 'superman' concept in europe with Hitler, Stalin,Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot,etc. and to a much lesser extent the British in Austrailia (just ask the Aboriginals),and on down the line, have killed or caused to be killed hundreds of millions of people. Papa Joe Stalin and his thugs killed, er 'purged', i recall the conservative estimate was 110 million of russians - hence his quote (f not him, then Lenin) "the death of one man makes a martyr, the death of millions a statistic".These die-hard evolutionists and their kissing-cousins (again read their own journals/letters) have been far more successful at human slaughter than even the best jihadist idiot.
(sidebar 2: i am not accusing evolutionists/non-religionists of harboring this kind of thinking anymore).
besmirching current christian belief systems with this type of behavior doesn't fly - have you heard the pope or billy graham issue a jihad to kill non-believers to attain paradise? Even the current spate of fundamentalist muslim killers can purportedly be connected back to Hilter and his ilk (haven't further checked/read up on this).
yes, what about the ol' spanish inquistion - sorry pal. who did the ruling government, in the guise of the official goverment church, kill first? 'Fundamentalist christians' because they were fiercely opposed to the Inquisitors' grab for power and control under the name of Christ and the Church. Next was the muslims and jews, and then anybody else who was in their way. (read also the French revolution, but not with the church as the costume for killing). This was tragic, indeed, but the numbers of deaths doesn't even come close to Hitler's 1st 3 years in power. (This applies to the U.S.'s salem witch trials, western expansion/subjugation of the aboriginial americans, and early imperialism lovingly foisted off as a christian thing)
Hitler's first victims also were religous fundamentalists who attempted to show him for what he was, not for what his image-spinners wanted the german people to see. the jews lost at(least) 6 million; gypsies, poles, russians, disabled, etc. add the conservative number to over 12 million exterminated - not including the war casualties.
No, we do a fine job of killing each other without any aid of or blaming a religous system. in fact, i'd hypothesize that religous systems are safer to live under than a 'godless' one - of course as long as you belong to the flavor of the day :)
"carbon dating has proved"...
Sorry again.
1st, you begin with at least one assumtion. that the supposed rate of decay is constant, and has been constant. next assumption: the tested article is or has been in a closed system, without outside interference.
Of the six or so standard methods used, none - repeat none - have produced the same time-frame scenarios across the board - hence the uses of the different tests to get the answers you want. read the science blogs for a snooze fest on this one - the best part to my little dark mind is the "nya nya my test is better" between the competing groups.
"most scientists believe"...
ouch. I read a bit, and I am astounded at the narrow- minded, bigoted and childish behaviour of some in the 'established' science community. Science is no more monolithic than the christian churches in its belief systems. Just one example is how the Leakey's (sp) were treated amongst anthropologists, and the continuing brou-ha-ha over lucy and her cousins. Somebody's being made a monkey of...
Same goes for competing origins theories. Asteroids? Pan-spermia? Hopeful monsters? Proto-ezymes in primordial ooze? Big-bang? all of these have HUGE problems with the scientific data. Just attend one conference on Origins and watch the fun! It makes a 3 stooges movie tame and cultured. (the black and white ones- not the cartoons, you young turks!)
btw, the lightning/ooze thing did not work - what is not told is the 'simple' items produced did not survive, did not conform to the necessary handed-ness required to couple together, among other absolute requirements to be even on the road to living/life - and sadly, the experiment/s still required outside intelligence to put the stuff together.
now, I'll be up all night looking for "Kerkut's 7 Evolution Absolutes"...
and (I forget who noted Jim Croce) I am an old dog.

Liked that one Rcpilot.

You know, if it were possible to choose the time and place of your birth or passage by just wishing for what you want in the moment, a lot of things in this world would be very different. I didn't choose when to be born, nor will I probably choose when to go; but born I was and go I will: no one really sought my opinion on the whole affair. No one asked me if I wanted this beard I have to shave every morning. We're biological machines and we wear out, like cars or dishwashers. Wish or not, I sit here ageing day after day, and most of the time that's fine, sometimes I don't like it, but it's not really an event subject to my wishes or opinions, it's just the way it is; doesn't mean I can't enjoy a good cigar now and then though.

countryboy83

may i take one point.

"How do you know the Christian Bible is just a book of myths and Hebrew History?"

may i suggest there was no one there in the beginning so the story of creation in genesis, actually two stories, and when people began to wonder, it had to be resolved and the myth was started.

rick, evolution is an accepted scientific fact?

"I understood that science involved evidence, not bald assertion. Why must this be accepted? Is this your example of ‘scientific’ reasoning? (stating) ‘evolution is fact’ over and over doesn’t make it so."

"So, what is your source of truth? If we are really rearranged pond scum as you believe, then your brain and mine are just the products of random mutations and natural selection. So how can you be sure that what you think are true thoughts are really true? How do you know that they aren’t really just certain types of molecular movements that merely once conferred a survival advantage on your alleged ape-like ancestor?..."

"We can observe the roundness of the earth (of which the Bible informs us in Isaiah 40:22). But who observed, say, a dinosaur turning into a bird 100 million years ago?"...

"..Is it better to teach (children) that they are just rearranged pond scum, the results of an unplanned process? Such wonderful results: escalation in suicide rates, kids wearing T-shirts with the words ‘Natural Selection’ shooting other kids (see 'How to build a bomb' in the public school system )..."

from a reply to a letter on this same subject by Dr Jonathan Sarfati,PhD Australia


boy, our schools sure got better when prayer was removed...

QUOTABLE QUOTE:
The Origin of the Universe

‘What is a big deal — the biggest deal of all — is how you get something out of nothing.
Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either — despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning,” they will say, “there was
nothing — no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fuctuation from which . . .” Whoa! Stop right there.
You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away
and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.’

David Darling, 1996. On creating something from
nothing. New Scientist, 151(2047):49.

Threadjack continued:

JonR, why wonder about the numbers. Maybe it's 5,350,000 maybe it's 7,000,000. Whatever the number is, there is no point to questioning it.

The numbers came from the Nazi "inventories". They were absolutely scrupulous at keeping records. Hence the tattoos.

Maybe you should visit the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. They can provide documentation and proof (as well as the names) of the victims.

Additionally, the families provided names of those missing from the time of the purge.

If you doubt it...then name your number, your source and your point.

Hitler was half Jewish as well. His followers question the numbers as well. Their point is to try and make people believe it never happened.

Is that your angle Jon?

countryboy83

did you miss my point. creationism is a religious belief founded on faith period...

evolution is a scientific fact based on the idea of scientific principles, ie trial and observation repeated to insure accurate facts.

please don't try to make the two equal.

hopefully we have all exchanged our ideas and we do not degenerate into "i believe" "i don't believe your beliefs"

there are some answers that work for some of us and we will hopefully leave this herf and get together again on a different subject.

i got to get home, see you guys.

rick -
"evolution is a scientific fact based on the idea of scientific principles, ie trial and observation repeated to insure accurate facts."

sorry, friend.
even the most ardent, die-hard evolutionists don't even use this line anymore - at least not successfully in the ongoing debates - or even when they're debating amongst themselves.

if i may offer a solution - evolution-believers and special-creation believers are looking at the same set of scientific evidence - fossil records, biology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, etc. it's how the data is being interpreted and applied.
Who has performed spontaneous generation of even the most rudimentary form of life from non-living material? Wasn't it Von Leewonhook(exuse poor spelling, please) that took care of this notion over 500 years ago?

(Kerkut's Evolutionary Law No. 1 - it happended only once.)

Do not be bamboozled by the myth that macro-evolution (fom goo to you) as defined by the non-creationists is a scientific fact, proven by repeatable controlled experimentation and observation. (man, i gotta find Kerkut's work on this for you to peruse). in 20 years of reading, listening, attending lectures (on both sides of the issue), i have heard of no major, degreed scientist in either camp make this claim. I do not purport to be all-knowing, all-seeing; but even brilliant minds like Hawkings, Oppenheimer, Krick, Whitehead, the afore-mentioned Kerkut (all of which are/were ardent fire-breathing evolutionists to my knowledge) knew better than to state this. They all will defend/have defended their positions from the same observable information we have, using their biases to filter that info - like we do.

now, i have violated my own personal rule by degenerating down a rabbit warren of threads. i humbly suggest we get back to a more narrow track and foster up, say five debate points on the age of our planet?

[point of note: i read up last night on the 'thickness of moon dust' arguement, and at least one major creationist group no longer thinks this is a valid arguement, based upon more accurate measuring methods for dust accumulation - not like under my bed, which would mean that my house is millions of years old.. :) - will do more reading tonight on this]