The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm aware it's a week or so sooner than the monthly "Science vs Religion" yawnfest postfrenzy we have, but this article is worth a read.
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Page:
Always amusing to see the level of tolerance that followers of Christ display when confronted with something that doesn't slavishly obey their book of choice...
Did you even understand what the article was attacking Ant? Or were you too upset that someone had dared to comment unfavourably on something that you personally believe in (assuming you are a creationist)?
Did you even understand what the article was attacking Ant? Or were you too upset that someone had dared to comment unfavourably on something that you personally believe in (assuming you are a creationist)?
To be honest, Ant, they said that people should be exposed to both views and tried to keep a balanced perspective throughout the article, in terms of ID they were simply saying that this new "facelift" is a little hollow, not that Creation is tosh.
Well...in fairness to Ant, I'd disagree with you tnc. He IS saying that creationism is tosh. And rightly so; it's an allegorical fairy tale. People who take it as established fact are, without exception, contemptible mouth breathers.
Well, he's still remaining more on the borderline than most scientists' views of religious attitudes. Some of the article is more slating, I'd agree, but it doesn't say that only Science should be taught.
It stays far more amiable than I could ever be when talking about ID. It's not that I believe in Creation totally or disregard religion, I just think it's a little strange to have some 'Garden of Eden' where humans were evolving at the same time as Dinosaurs.
There are far too many gaos in the story of Adam & Eve and it really is contraband to FACT, such as the fact that Dinosaur skeletons can be traced back to times at about 65 million years ago whilst the maximum age for a human skeleton rests at around the 1 million mark.
It stays far more amiable than I could ever be when talking about ID. It's not that I believe in Creation totally or disregard religion, I just think it's a little strange to have some 'Garden of Eden' where humans were evolving at the same time as Dinosaurs.
There are far too many gaos in the story of Adam & Eve and it really is contraband to FACT, such as the fact that Dinosaur skeletons can be traced back to times at about 65 million years ago whilst the maximum age for a human skeleton rests at around the 1 million mark.
Light wrote:
> Well...in fairness to Ant, I'd disagree with you tnc. He IS saying
> that creationism is tosh. And rightly so; it's an allegorical fairy
> tale. People who take it as established fact are, without exception,
> contemptible mouth breathers.
Exactly my point. That's what the article is obviously saying, whilst also making the point of where it should and shouldn't be taught.
Anyway, it may not have happened as simply as the book of Genesis tells it, but my utterly unquestionable belief in the existence of God (mainly due to personal experiences) leads me to believe in Creationism. After all, you can't simply dismiss the first book of the Bible and then claim to believe the rest of it.
Thanks for the compliment Lightster, by the way.
EDIT - And I'm really not entirely sure whether you read my reply thorougly or simply angrily skimmed through it, bubbling at the mouth, already foretelling what my point of view what be. I actually CONCUR with the point the article tries to make - I don't personally see how Creationism can be taught properly in science lessons, although I feel it can be mentioned as a rival theory. The whole theory should be taught in Religious Studies.
So, how exactly would I prove my tolerance to such a piece of obviously unquestionable work? Would you prefer it if I bowed down to Mr Oxford Scientist and kissed his shiny, polished shoes?
I'm hardly going to do that when: A) He tells me my beliefs are wrong, and in a rather arrogant manner as well, and B) science lessons were always a load of tosh anyway.
> Well...in fairness to Ant, I'd disagree with you tnc. He IS saying
> that creationism is tosh. And rightly so; it's an allegorical fairy
> tale. People who take it as established fact are, without exception,
> contemptible mouth breathers.
Exactly my point. That's what the article is obviously saying, whilst also making the point of where it should and shouldn't be taught.
Anyway, it may not have happened as simply as the book of Genesis tells it, but my utterly unquestionable belief in the existence of God (mainly due to personal experiences) leads me to believe in Creationism. After all, you can't simply dismiss the first book of the Bible and then claim to believe the rest of it.
Thanks for the compliment Lightster, by the way.
EDIT - And I'm really not entirely sure whether you read my reply thorougly or simply angrily skimmed through it, bubbling at the mouth, already foretelling what my point of view what be. I actually CONCUR with the point the article tries to make - I don't personally see how Creationism can be taught properly in science lessons, although I feel it can be mentioned as a rival theory. The whole theory should be taught in Religious Studies.
So, how exactly would I prove my tolerance to such a piece of obviously unquestionable work? Would you prefer it if I bowed down to Mr Oxford Scientist and kissed his shiny, polished shoes?
I'm hardly going to do that when: A) He tells me my beliefs are wrong, and in a rather arrogant manner as well, and B) science lessons were always a load of tosh anyway.
I'd like to believe that there was a God and from various situations of serendipity I could tell you that perhaps there was a God. However, the need to believe in God doesn't drive me to believe every word in the Bible (not even some of the most devout Christians do)
I'm no expert on the Bible but it is supposed to be the word of God, slightly dilluted and changed by the Apostles, rather than being the direct word of God (as in the Qu'oran) meaning that some of it can be taken in different ways (like the predictions of Nostradamus)
I respect the fact that you have faith in God, which naturally leads you towards Christianity, however, just becuase you think the rest of the Bible is correct doesn't make the first part anymore accurate. I only say this because Creation is the one part I can never get my head round, even Jesus walking on water could be feasible (the 'Dead Sea' is full of salt, and is near Jerusalem)
There are times when Science is far more believable, you do have a point saying they fill in the gaps with the assumed, but now as they uncover evidence for creation (similarities between us and apes, Dinosaurs existing before humans) and Religion still has none, surely this persuades you a little that Creation isn't accurate?
EDIT - The pompous and callous way that 'Mr. Big' writes about Religion isn't to be condoned, but then again sometimes Scientists have to make the point just as clearly as religious believers. It is not fair to apply it to all followers of Christianity, but like Scientists, many are pig-headed and believe in God so absolutely that they refuse to open their eyes.
I'm no expert on the Bible but it is supposed to be the word of God, slightly dilluted and changed by the Apostles, rather than being the direct word of God (as in the Qu'oran) meaning that some of it can be taken in different ways (like the predictions of Nostradamus)
I respect the fact that you have faith in God, which naturally leads you towards Christianity, however, just becuase you think the rest of the Bible is correct doesn't make the first part anymore accurate. I only say this because Creation is the one part I can never get my head round, even Jesus walking on water could be feasible (the 'Dead Sea' is full of salt, and is near Jerusalem)
There are times when Science is far more believable, you do have a point saying they fill in the gaps with the assumed, but now as they uncover evidence for creation (similarities between us and apes, Dinosaurs existing before humans) and Religion still has none, surely this persuades you a little that Creation isn't accurate?
EDIT - The pompous and callous way that 'Mr. Big' writes about Religion isn't to be condoned, but then again sometimes Scientists have to make the point just as clearly as religious believers. It is not fair to apply it to all followers of Christianity, but like Scientists, many are pig-headed and believe in God so absolutely that they refuse to open their eyes.
Your point is a good one, and fact of the matter is whilst a number of people believe in a higher being of some sort, not many tend to think much of theories like Creationism, as well as other events written in the Bible such as Jesus walking on water. You provide a scientific explanation for Jesus walking on water, and as valid as that may be...I don't really think it needs it. Jesus was awesome, simple as that. :D
More seriously, he was God's son. There is, believe ot or not, a lot of scientific evidence out there that supports some of the Bible stories, such as the fossilised sulphur balls found where God supposedly burnt down two evil towns (I can't remember exactly what they were called now, they begun with an S and G though, heh.) However, even if there were no scientific evidence behind such events, I would still believe in what the Bible tells us simply because of the effects God has had on my life. I believe Jesus was God's son, and so, if he wanted to walk on water...he could walk on water.
But as I've said, the story of Creation is told rather quickly in the Bible, and doesn't go into much detail. I don't personally think it needed to go even that far, it could have said "God created the World and all that lived within it" and I would still believe it. So, coming back to your point, maybe some of the discoveries scientists have made can, in fact, help us to explain how Creation happened. We don't know exactly how He did it and we never will, not in this existence anyway, but in terms of personal faith I don't even think it matters that much.
Inevitably, scientists are going to win if it comes down to fact vs fact, as it is far tougher for Christians like myself to explain the personal relationship between ourselves and God, which as the Bible itself states, is by far the most important factor in belief.
So, I'm not really sure why I get myself into these debates, because I'm never going to win. But someone's gotta represent the side. {:)
More seriously, he was God's son. There is, believe ot or not, a lot of scientific evidence out there that supports some of the Bible stories, such as the fossilised sulphur balls found where God supposedly burnt down two evil towns (I can't remember exactly what they were called now, they begun with an S and G though, heh.) However, even if there were no scientific evidence behind such events, I would still believe in what the Bible tells us simply because of the effects God has had on my life. I believe Jesus was God's son, and so, if he wanted to walk on water...he could walk on water.
But as I've said, the story of Creation is told rather quickly in the Bible, and doesn't go into much detail. I don't personally think it needed to go even that far, it could have said "God created the World and all that lived within it" and I would still believe it. So, coming back to your point, maybe some of the discoveries scientists have made can, in fact, help us to explain how Creation happened. We don't know exactly how He did it and we never will, not in this existence anyway, but in terms of personal faith I don't even think it matters that much.
Inevitably, scientists are going to win if it comes down to fact vs fact, as it is far tougher for Christians like myself to explain the personal relationship between ourselves and God, which as the Bible itself states, is by far the most important factor in belief.
So, I'm not really sure why I get myself into these debates, because I'm never going to win. But someone's gotta represent the side. {:)
tnc wrote:
> EDIT - The pompous and callous way that 'Mr. Big' writes about
> Religion isn't to be condoned, but then again sometimes Scientists
> have to make the point just as clearly as religious believers. It is
> not fair to apply it to all followers of Christianity, but like
> Scientists, many are pig-headed and believe in God so absolutely that
> they refuse to open their eyes.
Oh yes, you're totally right. But I think it's slightly hypocritical that whilst everyone on this forum moans about and slaughters religious fundamentalists for being totally insistent that they are correct, that they then expect me to show "tolerance" to an article that, as you've pointed out, is so callous and pompous toward my own beliefs.
> EDIT - The pompous and callous way that 'Mr. Big' writes about
> Religion isn't to be condoned, but then again sometimes Scientists
> have to make the point just as clearly as religious believers. It is
> not fair to apply it to all followers of Christianity, but like
> Scientists, many are pig-headed and believe in God so absolutely that
> they refuse to open their eyes.
Oh yes, you're totally right. But I think it's slightly hypocritical that whilst everyone on this forum moans about and slaughters religious fundamentalists for being totally insistent that they are correct, that they then expect me to show "tolerance" to an article that, as you've pointed out, is so callous and pompous toward my own beliefs.
I'm prepared to accept that you believe in the story of Creation, but I'm not really sure about Scientific facts supporting it. For example, Christians argue that humans were brought into the world 'fully formed', however Science argues that humans have evolved naturally over time - the progression of apes.
People like Charles Darwin and his facts really do support the theory of evolution, seeing him write about birds with specially adapted beaks and then seeing something such as a 'Crossbill' or a Flamingo just shows how animals have adapted to their environment.
Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from single cells is possible. However, the question of 'why' God created us (if he did) is one that remains almost untouched. Why did a being apparently far greater than ourselves try and build a world for creatures to live in, in a week, with no known materials?
I'm not going to go into the "if there is a God why doesn't he help us?" arguement because I feel it's covered far too often as a reason to counter Christianity and ends up in a deadlock that goes down the same old path. But I will put this to you; why is it that he revealed himself to the Apostkes all those years ago and hasn't come back?
As for Scientific evidence supporting what God did, that's a reasonable point, but it can be countered with what you said earlier about "science filling in the gaps using assumptions", because, those scorch marks could have been from something like a Volcano, that the Apostles then claimed was Gods' visitation.
There was definitely a man named Jesus on this Earth, Science shows records of his existence and religion clearly agrees. However, the point of him as Gods' son is trepidational. I'll ask you this "why do you believe that?" (simply a question, not sarcasm) but I realise I'll have to answer why I think he wasn't. I just think that there are many holes in his story. I don't believe that Mary was a virgin, I think the Christian community covered it up because Jesus may have been born in wedlock. Although he did teach many people ideals this "healing" business isn't a miracle, just good science or exaggeration (curing the blind being curing the hard-of-sight)
Dan Browns' "The Da Vinci Code" also contains many references to Jesus and things such as him having a secret wife. It's worth a read just for the information he presents.
People like Charles Darwin and his facts really do support the theory of evolution, seeing him write about birds with specially adapted beaks and then seeing something such as a 'Crossbill' or a Flamingo just shows how animals have adapted to their environment.
Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from single cells is possible. However, the question of 'why' God created us (if he did) is one that remains almost untouched. Why did a being apparently far greater than ourselves try and build a world for creatures to live in, in a week, with no known materials?
I'm not going to go into the "if there is a God why doesn't he help us?" arguement because I feel it's covered far too often as a reason to counter Christianity and ends up in a deadlock that goes down the same old path. But I will put this to you; why is it that he revealed himself to the Apostkes all those years ago and hasn't come back?
As for Scientific evidence supporting what God did, that's a reasonable point, but it can be countered with what you said earlier about "science filling in the gaps using assumptions", because, those scorch marks could have been from something like a Volcano, that the Apostles then claimed was Gods' visitation.
There was definitely a man named Jesus on this Earth, Science shows records of his existence and religion clearly agrees. However, the point of him as Gods' son is trepidational. I'll ask you this "why do you believe that?" (simply a question, not sarcasm) but I realise I'll have to answer why I think he wasn't. I just think that there are many holes in his story. I don't believe that Mary was a virgin, I think the Christian community covered it up because Jesus may have been born in wedlock. Although he did teach many people ideals this "healing" business isn't a miracle, just good science or exaggeration (curing the blind being curing the hard-of-sight)
Dan Browns' "The Da Vinci Code" also contains many references to Jesus and things such as him having a secret wife. It's worth a read just for the information he presents.
Can't evolution be God's intelligent design?
Page: