Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?This question seems to mark a clear mis-understanding of the very theory you're trying to "mythify". There are no clear "steps" in evolution, like TK said, it's a continuous process that has spanned billions of years. It has never stopped occuring, and it doesn't move in steps.
What caused the first organic life to develop?
We really don't know, because we weren't there to observe it, though there are some theories that have been thrown around. However, just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean it has to be a mystical answer. It's entirely possible that in some amount of time we'll be able to answer that question.
What caused that first process to begin?
Who knows, maybe some strange atmospheric conditions that occured during the formation of the earth itself caused it. Like I said, science itself is a fairly young practice in the life of our species, and look at how much progress we've already made. We may someday answer that question.
Why are there no intermediate species?
I assume by "intermediate species" you mean, say, ancient man? Homo Erectus? Things like that? They aren't around anymore because they died out. They were replaced by their superior descendants, according to natural selection.
Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find?That's just a ridiculous question. In our own solar system there is currently only one planet that is capable of supporting biological life. Mars MIGHT be capable, but certainly not in it's current state. We've never VISITED a planet outside our solar system, so basically it only happened on Earth because it could only have happened on Earth. With the billions and billions of planets all older than our own out in the universe my guess is that there is life on other planets, and evolution likely occurs on them too. However, we can't get any real empirical evidence on that because we simply don't have the technology to do so.
Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either.
It proves that the literature of christian mythology was written by people with knowledge of contemporary and historical people and events. Mark Twain and Melville demonstrated as much in their literary works.
If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it.
Clearly there are individual things in the bible that have been sufficiently disproven. Global flood and stopping the sun/earth for a day for instance.
After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.
There is good evidence that suggest that the pharaohs had little choice in what to allow the Canaanites (the ancestors to the Jewish culture in Egypt during the time of the Exodus legend), whom the Egyptians referred to as the Hyksos. Lower Egypt has archaeological sites that are replete with Canaanite temples. The Canaanites had multiple gods and godesses, including the early versions of Yahweh and Asherah, his wife. There is no evidence of monotheism before the Egyptian monotheist Akhenaten. The earliest monotheistic artifacts date to periods after the Egyptian 18th Dynasty ca. 1350-1330 BCE. Monotheism is an Egyptian invention, borrowed by the much later Jewish descendents of the Canaanites.
I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.
Right. This would be the same argument that diviners and alternative health proponents could use. Teach kids that there are alternatives such as magnetic insoles, which are believed to provide some medical preventitive benefits. Never mind what science has shown us to date about magnetics, kids -left to their "own devices" should be able to sort out the poppycock, right?
Fortunately, most educators understand that giving any credibility to pseudoscientific claims serves only to legitimize them. If creationist nonsense is to be discussed, it should only be properly ridiculed. Since this would be considered crass, it should be left out of school altogether.
That statement skews the whole thing in favor of evolution by passing it off as "just another myth".
Of course, it *is* "just another myth." How very ethnocentric of you to consider that your own superstitions are valid over those of other cultures.
Well, let me tell you something: What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth?
It would make you look stupid. Creation myths lack evidence. Evolution is a fact that has a preponderance of evidence (though there are those ignorant of it both wittingly and unwittingly).
It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth,
No, that would be geology and astrophysics. Evolution provides the explanation for how changes have taken place over time. Hows, not whys.
But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.
Wrong. There is "heated debate" because the superstitious feel threatened by science. Scientists are in consensus over evolution. It is a fact. It really happened. It is proven far beyond a shadow of a doubt. That there are those ignorant or superstitious enough to reject the science that proves evolution is true, but it is proven nonetheless. The bible is capable only of providing a source of literature by which humans can pretend to draw explanations. I say pretend, because there is plenty in the bible that is simply rejected even by the most superstitious of christians. We don't stone to death adultresses or those that chose to work on Saturday as commanded in the bible.
Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought.
First, I'm not in the habit of consulting the theasarus nor do I own one. Proselytize is a word that holds a meaning more specific to religious cults than convert. The very act of proselytization seeks not only to "convert" but to get the "word" out, whether the listener "converts" or not. I'm sorry if you're not familiar with the term, but I'll not reduce my vernacular to elementary level in a forum with adult expectations. It's good, however, that you keep your thesaurus and dictionary handy to keep up.
Second, biology teachers seek to educate students with the currently understood explanations of biology. They rarely seek to "convert" anyone to a particular way of thinking. Students are free to agree or disagree with the information, but they must learn the knowledge and information as accepted by science. What they do with it is their choice. "Conversion" is a strictly religious term in this context. In biology or other sciences, it refers to the practice of changing matter into energy through ATP or perhaps changing a measurement into another format, such as Celsius to Farenheit. I very seriously doubt the biology teacher would suggest sucrose and fructose are "proselytized" into Adenosine triphosphate.
Since you attempted to damage the credibility of the Bible, I will do the same for the myth of evolution. Answer these questions:
Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
A strawman argument, obviously. Evolution is defined as change over long periods of time. The "next step" in the evolutionary process can only be speculated on when current conditions that a given organism faces. Future conditions, competitive releases, and evolutionary pressures can only be guessed at. Why would you expect to see a trace of something that hasn't happened? The answer is, you wouldn't. And, as a strawman device, the question fails miserably.
What caused the first organic life to develop?
Are you asking a question about evolution or abiogenesis? This reveals either witting or unwitting ignorance. If unwitting, allow me to educate you. Evolution is concerned with the gradual changes in speciation over time. Abiogenesis is concerned with "first organic life." If witting, the question is a deliberate distraction attempt, typically used by creation nutters (not referring to you) to create the appearance of a problem for evolution, but this particular strawman argument fails because evolution is a different subject altogether.
What caused that first process to begin?
See the answer to the strawman question above and apply it here as well.
Why are there no intermediate species?
There are abundant "intermediate species." I would suggest that you actually took a class that includes discussion of this. A course in physical anthropology would satisfy a core requirement in anthropology for most degrees as well as provide you with an education. Here are some intermediate species: Astralopithecus robustus; Notharctus; Zanycteris; Cantius; Proconsul and Aegyptopithecus. These are just primate forms and I mention them because its an area I've studied in some detail. There are, obviously, intermediate species of horse, canine, bovine, ovacaprids, camalids, angiosperms, conifers, wheat, corn, etc. Indeed, most of the species alive today will probably be intermediate to some successive species, assuming we (or some asteroid) don't destroy the planet first.
Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?
Obviously another strawman, since our sample size is only just now being expanded from 1 to others.
Surely an educated person can come up with better questions than these to question the validity of evolution! Only a couple of these actually applied to evolution. What about the irreducibility of the flagellum or anti-clotting of blood? Or some other such nonsense? At least these are thought out even if wrong. Your questions look as if they were simply lifted from an anti-science website
See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.
A lot of mythical religions answer these questions. Indeed, most, if not all do. Which further devalues the validity of any one religion. I still have yet to see a good reason why your cult is more valid than that of aboriginal Australians or the Navajo.
Every religion attempts to convert others, but the President shouldn't be doing this. So, when he gets out of office he's fine, but now is not a good time for that.
There's not a lot of Navajo standing at busy intersections looking for handouts for the Blessing Way. Indeed, show me where Buddhists seek to proselytize others. They may, but I've always assumed that to become a Buddhist, you had to seek them.
*Why do humans and other species have vestigial limbs that serve no function?
*Why is the human body so badly designed to walk upright? (back problems)
*Why, after god had created a pretty much perfect eye in squid did he then use such an inferior design for the human eye?
*Why did god forget to mention dinosaurs and so many other lifeforms/events in the bible? A few simple footnotes could have ended this debate once and for all before it got started. God is obviously a damn sloppy reporter.
*Why, when we can trace almost the entire timescale of most life over the last few million years, with every biological or genetic marker mapping onto a concurrent geographic shift do people still refuse to believe it?
*What are the odds that every scientific discovery made over the last few hundred years, even with each new technique or skill that becomes available to us, would all point towards one picture, but the truth would be something totally different, that has NO supportng evidence and even a fair amount of CONTRADICTING evidence?
I'd hate to be accused of murder with a creationist jury, as evidence, facts and proof seem to hold no weight at all.
Each of those questions have decent answers if you are willing to look. Answersingenesis.org is a good place to start. The mentioning of dinosaurs is common in the Bible, there have been leviathans and then the behemoth whos description in Job can only fit a sauropod. Also i'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I believe it could have happened with numerous supernatural interjections. My main gripe is with abiogenesis, I cannot possibly conceive of how something like that could have happened. Alas, I am out of this thread.
Answersingenesis.org is a good place to start.I don't think you'll find many people who would give credence to that site, I'm afraid. It has a...reputation, shall we say. :p
This crap about "teach both and let the students decide" is the sort of rubbish that creationists need to rely on... looks good on the surface, but take a microsecond to actually think about it and you realise its total rubbish.
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is constantly being revised and improved. That doesn't mean you should teach fantasies about the world being created by a giant spaghetti monster simply to "present both sides".
Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.Any decent scientific teaching of evolution would assume that automatically.
If we're going to the trouble of pointing THAT out then it is also necessary to point out that EVERY SINGLE scientific discovery, theory, or law is subject to potential falsification at some future date. That's one of the basic tenets of science, and if we have to explain that every single time we introduce anything in science, class is going to get pretty repetetive and slow down the entire process.
Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.
Well, since there's so many people wanting to deny the Holocaust these days, how about in history class we have the teachers show "both sides" and let students make up their own mind if the Holocaust really happened. Sounds good right? Let people decide what they want to believe?
We can present the side that most all educated people share, and then we can present the side of the loonies like Mr. Iran.
But of course that would be rubbish. All it would do is confuse matters by bringing in the "other point of view" that is invalid in the classroom, like that the Holocaust is a myth... or that a flying spaghetti monster created everything.
Of course...letting people decide what they want to believe is rubbish. Makes total sense.
It is when the "sides" aren't equal sides at all... otherwise every time we teach nything we will have to trot out every alternate theory held by anyone in the world and present it with equal weight to the students.
Eg: in 100 years time when teaching about the iraq war they would need to teach that the soldiers who died were killed by god because the US allowed homosexuality... as that is a view held by a few hundred baptist nutters. Surely they sould have to teach that with equal weight to any historical evidence they teach, and then let the students decide?
Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp. I must not be explaiing it very well. :(
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.
But the odds that the whole of evolution will be disproven at a stroke are reduced each and every time a coroberating discovery is found. Small parts of the theory are likely to be revised over time, but the whole thing has about as much chance of being disproved as gravity.
Creationism on the other hand can never be disproved, but it has been shown to be wrong in every test it has come up against.
Answersingenesis.org
If we are trading joke sites then i'll see your Answersingenesis.org and raise you a
http://www.venganza.org/)
Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven...
That's included and implicit within the definition of the word "theory," and to re-emphasize it would be merely redundant. I remember getting that explanation in one of my early classes, before I ever got to science or physics. Didn't think it needed to be brought up each time a new theory was introduced.
How many of the other theories that scientists use and work with every day get this same kind of scrutiny? The Theory of General Relativity hasn't been proven in full yet... yet I don't see too much effort in trying to discredit Einstein everyday. Most of Quantum physics is still largely theoretical, but that fact that you are reading this post is only possible with the technology that is possible using the ideas from that theory.
But we are talking about discussions in the context of a science class here: Shouldn't the science teachers teaching science to science students in a science classroom have the freedom to be able to teach them what is the universally accepted scientific theory of other professional scientists? Shouldn't that be the way it is? When you are in science class, you learn what scientists believe.
And when you are in theology class, you learn the (inspired?) writings of the ancients.
We don't try to interject political philosophy into our algebra lessons... Why the push for theology in science classes?
Eg: in 100 years time when teaching about the iraq war they would need to teach that the soldiers who died were killed by god because the US allowed homosexuality... as that is a view held by a few hundred baptist nutters. Surely they sould have to teach that with equal weight to any historical evidence they teach, and then let the students decide?
The problem with your example is that everyone that has heard of the Holocaust knows it happened because it's a FACT. Your theory of evolution is not proven yet as a FACT because it's still a THEORY. Why not call it a LAW if it's so damn accurate?
Any decent scientific teaching of evolution would assume that automatically.
Yet, I had a professor of Biology last quarter tell our class that evolution theory is pretty much factual - that even though evolution is technically classified as a theory, it's classification as such is like biologists' classification of gravity as a theory. Some on this very forum have made similar assertions.
Personally, I'm not in the crowd that wants Biblical creationism taught in schools. I just want some intellectual (and scientific) honesty - just an acknowledgement that there are other possibilities. Biology textbooks used to do just that, devoting an entire chapter to the subject (a friend of mine showed me his text from when he took college bio back in the '60s), but now people are filing lawsuits (
http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20050116-015611-6340r) over a sticker that merely states that evolution is a theory that should be critically considered!
According to this article, a sticker claiming that "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." promotes creationism. Anyone want to explain this one to me? I thought the whole purpose of science was to put forward a hypothesis, approach it with an open mind, consider it carefully and critically, and then test it.
Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.
According to this article, a sticker claiming that "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." promotes creationism. Anyone want to explain this one to me? I thought the whole purpose of science was to put forward a hypothesis, approach it with an open mind, consider it carefully and critically, and then test it.
But why is it just limited to evolution? I mean, have tectonic plates and seafloor spreading really been proven yet? How about global warming? I remember learning about that in middle school. Or even dinosaurs? Sure we have their fossils but how do we know for sure what they really were like? And how do we know exactly how hot the center of the earth is? Can our readings be truely accurate in such extreme temperatures?
All these things rely on a certain degree of speculation and estimation. As does evolution. So why is it only evolution that receives a disclaimer? Why not just put a disclaimer for the entire content of the textbook to be fair?
The answer? Because they have to do something to keep the creationists in Kansas from burning the textbooks like they do to Harry Potter books. This isn't about the fact that evolution is 'just' a theory. If it were then the entire textbook would have to have a disclaimer on it, not just for evolution. Face it: people don't like something that they see as a threat to their religion. It's been happening for centuries. Religion has always attempted to silence science. The church was going to execute Galileo for the crime of saying that the earth is round.
Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already.
I couldn't agree more...
The problem with your example is that everyone that has heard of the Holocaust knows it happened because it's a FACT. Your theory of evolution is not proven yet as a FACT because it's still a THEORY. Why not call it a LAW if it's so damn accurate?
You've GOT to be kidding us, right? You seriously think that the word "theory" refers to the colloquial sense? A "theory" in science is a set of tested hypotheses. Moreover, the idea that there is some hierarchy in science that follows from "theory" to "law" is a very under-educated position.
This argument from ignorance presented by creationists has been so beaten to death, I'll let another source respond:evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms (Gould 1981).
Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is as yet unproven, and while there is ample evidence for the theory, there are holes in the theory, and we could very well find out at some later date that it is totally false.
Yet another argument from ignorance. Guys, if you're going to criticize science, at least educate yourselves in it first. Evolution is as proven as any other theory in science. As proven as atomic theory. As proven as gravitational theory. As proven as electrical theory. Theory does not mean a speculation in science. One cannot have a scientific theory without one or more tested hypotheses. Evolution has hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of tested hypotheses. And not one alternative or null hypothesis to the idea of evolution has resulted in any verification. Evolution is proven to the extent that anything in science is proven.
There are no holes in the fact of evolution that have been presented and stand the test of science. If there are, I challenge you to list them. I'm perpetually amazed at the anti-science crowd. They have no problem getting a vaccination or taking a plane ride or filling their cars with petrol, but the deride the very methods that offer these technologies as invalid and "unproven." Freakin' amazing. Fascinating to no end.
There are, however, holes in the mythical nonsense that creationists cling to. Many of them. I dare anyone to ask me to list them.
Let's face it: intellectual honesty is dying in America, if it isn't dead already. Superstition and magical-thinking are killing it.
Reference:
Gould, Stephen J. (1981). Evolution as Fact and Theory. (
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)
Yet, I had a professor of Biology last quarter tell our class that evolution theory is pretty much factual - that even though evolution is technically classified as a theory, it's classification as such is like biologists' classification of gravity as a theory. Some on this very forum have made similar assertions.If it's a good model, use it. There's no reason why you shouldn't. Theory does not mean mathematical proof, and it doesn't take a genius to find out that people just guess sometimes. I'm just glad there aren't any books from Abeka in my college classes... my mom tried to make me use them when I was in grade school (homeschooled), but they just rubbed me the wrong way. I was never interested in what someone thought about it in my science studies, just what they knew. If I want metaphysics I can get it more efficiently elsewhere.
Personally, I'm not in the crowd that wants Biblical creationism taught in schools. I just want some intellectual (and scientific) honesty - just an acknowledgement that there are other possibilities.That's what's being assumed. Nothing is being excluded by science save things that can't be proven by science. It doesn't even exclude them as possibilities either, it just ignores them. It makes a strange sort of sense, in fact...
I'm afraid I won't be able to reply for a little while. I didn't know it was possible to contract so many viruses at once, but there you go. Started with the stomach flu, then a cold, now I got pink eye and an ear infection thrown in the mix... my point is that I'm going to be gone until at least some of this clears up. :(
I'm afraid I won't be able to reply for a little while. I didn't know it was possible to contract so many viruses at once, but there you go. Started with the stomach flu, then a cold, now I got pink eye and an ear infection thrown in the mix... my point is that I'm going to be gone until at least some of this clears up. :(
Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 :cool: ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.
Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 :cool: ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.
Be careful with that one, Skin...Theraflu contains acetaminophen (tylenol), which shouldn't really be mixed with alcohol...
Be careful with that one, Skin...Theraflu contains acetaminophen (tylenol), which shouldn't really be mixed with alcohol...
Skin likes to live on the side of danger. X)
Darn those viruses, we'd be able to create a cure if they didn't keep evolving so quickly!!!
*kidding*
OT: What is pink eye anyway, it seems to be a US only thing...
I just love Wikipedia...
Pinkeye (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkeye) (aka conjunctivitis)
I don't know if it's a US only thing...but I do know that it's really annoying. I got it a few years ago.
Get well soon! Theraflu mixed into some slightly warmed brandy or scotch does the trick for me! Though, I *am* assuming you're over 21 :cool: ... I keep one or the other around for medicinal purposes only, of course.
ROFL
From my profile...
Additional Information
Birthday: January 18, 1991
Location: The United States of America... and damn proud of it!
Interests: Star Wars, Civilization
Occupation: High School Student
Sorry, that's out. :( (Actually, state law says I'm allowed to drink in my own home. But I didn't want to eat or drink anything over the last couple of days)
Anyway, I'm doped up on medication, so I doubt my posts will be coherent. Because of this, I'm not back; just wanted to check in. But at least I feel what doped-up should be! :D
Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.
And certainly long before anyone was around to say it was round.
No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.
Political Correctness isn't the reason for Creationism being re-Christened into Intelligent Design. It's merely an attempt to make it sound less religious so that it can be included into Science class. It seems to me sometimes that the Creationists are getting desperate.
Actually, I couldn't care less if it gets integrated or not, but I wanted to see how bigoted this body would get. I am not impressed.
I must agree.
bigot A. n.
1. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion.
2. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed) 1989.
bigot: (
http://m-w.com/dictionary/bigot)
1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Well, you've got you're religious bigots & your anti-religious bigots...but that's nothing new around here.
bigot: (
http://m-w.com/dictionary/bigot)
1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
That may apply to some, but not to me. I'm completely willing to revise my position on religion should anyone religion demonstrate evidentially that its claims are correct and valid. To date, all religions have failed miserably to do so. It, therefore, cannot be called "bigotry" to reject unhealthy thinking but, rather, "reason."
Abiogenesis has done the same for me.
Another notion of people comparing atheism to a religion could be the limited view of someone on the sidelines listening to activists. The blathering of some atheist anti-religious nut might sound similar to somebody as the blathering of the anti-atheist religious nut. If one is trying his darndest to convert you to his "right" way of thinking and you don't want to, then this isn't an uncommon reaction to have.
Being an atheist doesn't mean a person is necessarily intolerant, it's simply a stereotype, much like the intolerant christian stereotype that gets bandied about. I guess when I think of it, it's not so much that one HAS an opinion or even that one expresses it, it's more in how chooses to express it and how one interacts with others in relation to it. So at least on a very basic level, we're all bigotted or intolerant in some way, unless we're mindless drones who have no thoughts about anything!
Oh and TK, the issue of a flat earth (a round earth theory comes as early as Aristotle I think) and the heliocentric/geocentric controversy are completely seperate issues.
The RCC has accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe for centuries, the apology was to Galileo's harsh treatment, including his illegal condemnation (he was not guilty of "heresy").
A quick rundown of some ways in which the Bible appears to indicate a flat earth (interpreted literally, one would come to conclude the ancient writers assumed this to be fact, as many other ancient cultures did) and/or geocentrism: here (
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm). Of course the vast majority of those who use the Bible today admit that the ancients simply didn't know what we know now and interpret it as poetry and metaphor. Reading literally, one can also come up with the Big Bang from the Bible (references to God "spreading out the heavens as a tarp" repeatedly), a global ("the whole world" "all flesh") or a local flood ("the ends of the earth" = continents). The reason "contradictions" arise is because you have different writings by different people from different time periods all put together and then being called "this and this are the words of God." But in rabbinical thought at least, such a thing is not seen as contradiction, it's merely different ways and voices coming at the ultimate questions and mysteries of life within a certain framework. It's definately not a scientific view (at least not the conclusion, anyway). Much of the cosmology in the Bible we know not to be literal (for example "stars" are not always stars, they are sometimes angels, as it was a common ancient astrological view that the luminaries in the sky were either spirit beings or inhabited worlds.. or else holes in a giant canopy through which divine light shone, not giant balls of burning gas bigger than the earth, like our sun that were just really far away).
And to those who say we don't use symbolic language anymore, one of the greatest modern examples is the phrases relating to a person's "heart" (when we really mean their "mind" or emotions). And people can have "gut reactions" and other absurdities, just because that's how people often talk. Anyway, I'm rambling now... the point is that some people run into difficulty because they have a doctrine of "the bible alone" which would logically prevent them using other materials to interpret the bible such as comparative history and literature to see just how things could be interpreted. But few people I think really adhere to even this doctrine, even if they don't admit it.
It's alright to be skeptical, but most wiki's are accurate.
As accurate as anything else on the internet written by non-experts! ;)
It's only as accurate as its edited to be... and it will never be complete, which doesn't mean its completely useless of course. ;)
big·ot P Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[which is the same wording used by my copy of The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed. 1997.
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
in·tol·er·ant P Pronunciation Key (n-tlr-nt)
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.
intolerant
adj 1: unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion [ant: tolerant] 2: narrow-minded about cherished opinions [syn: illiberal]
dictionary.com
The good thing about the OED, and the reason I refer to it over lesser sources, is that it cites the earliest known and intended uses of a word. You can't beat the OED for definition and origin. All others simply cater to colloquialism and mistaken usage.
Origin is very important, but common usage arguably defines a language (at least in the long term). After all, if you're speaking the english language in public and say the word "gay," unless you're quoting some old Christman carol, everybody assumes you mean "homosexual"* even though that's not the word's origin. It is part of the design philosophy of dictionaries of course whether go this way or that.
*though among certain young people and internet kiddies, it's commonly used as a synonym for "sucks" (ie: worthless). Online to avoid confusion with homosexuality, some have taken to altering the spelling to "ghey."
[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Of course I can see why holding to this might appeal to you, at least on a certain level. ;)
On a lighter note:
bigot
A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer,
language, operating system, editor, or other tool (see
religious issues). Usually found with a specifier; thus,
"Cray bigot", "ITS bigot", "APL bigot", "VMS bigot", "Berkeley
bigot". Real bigots can be distinguished from mere partisans
or zealots by the fact that they refuse to learn alternatives
even when the march of time and/or technology is threatening
to obsolete the favoured tool. It is truly said "You can tell
a bigot, but you can't tell him much." Compare weenie.
[Jargon File]
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2005 Denis Howe
"You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." - Jargon file, The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
Best. Quote. Ever.
Justice Scalia when a Herald reporter asked the conservative jurist his response to people who question his impartiality on matters of church and state. (
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=132932&format=&page=1) The gesture was made inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and was reported to have said, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” while making the gesture. That’s Italian for f*** you.
Gotta love the underground theocracy that seems more and more to exist in this nation.
Aye, I hate it when Christians behave contrary to how we're supposed to while still defending only the cultural part.
So then... following this line of reasoning too far... if marriage is a civil/governmental institution, and the US constitution bans religion from interfering with government...
..does that meant that hetero-only marriages are unconstitutional? ;)
Pardon me, but the US Constitution bans government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.
Pardon me, but the US Constitution bans government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.It prohibits the "mixing" of the two in general, the Pope can't manipulate things in Washington D.C, and the President can't manipulate things in the Vatican (or anyplace more local for that matter).
It prohibits the "mixing" of the two in general, the Pope can't manipulate things in Washington D.C, and the President can't manipulate things in the Vatican (or anyplace more local for that matter).
Care to quote the passage in the Constitution that says that?
Pardon me, but the US Constitution bans government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.
Separation of church and state...
Care to quote the passage in the Constitution that says that?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Separation of church and state...
Not in the Constitution. Comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut who were concerned that the government was going to regulate their free exercise of religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
You just proved my point. The First Ammendment, as you just quoted, is about the government getting involved in establishing a State Religion or preventing people from exercising their beliefs. It does not say that religious people can have no influence over the government.
Not in the Constitution. Comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut who were concerned that the government was going to regulate their free exercise of religion.
The concept behind freedom of religion IS separation of church and state. The two are essentially the same thing. You can't have freedom of religion without the separation. This all goes back to the Enlightenment when things came to be secular, like the Constitution, a godless document.
You just proved my point. The First Ammendment, as you just quoted, is about the government getting involved in establishing a State Religion or preventing people from exercising their beliefs. It does not say that religious people can have no influence over the government.
No, your point was that religion COULD get involved in government, which is not true. No law can respect a religious establishment... that's what it says. Some states in the South (the "Taliban" states that have it on the books that atheists cannot speak in court, etc.) have made efforts to make Christianity the official state religion. And it seems that our current President has tried to put as much religious doctrine in the law as possible... so much for the freedom of religion set forth by our Founding Fathers (who, for the most part, rejected religion), eh?
This all goes back to the Enlightenment when things came to be secular, like the Constitution, a godless document.
Actually, ancient Israel had it long before the (so-called) Enlightenment. The Judges and then the King were not allowed to be priests.
No, your point was that religion COULD get involved in government, which is not true.
And where does the First Ammendment say that? It is talking about what Congress can and cannot do, not what churches can and cannot do.
so much for the freedom of religion set forth by our Founding Fathers (who, for the most part, rejected religion), eh?
I suggest you take a closer look at the personal letters of the Founding Fathers. You will learn that, despite what the public school history textbooks say, most were men strongly grounded in the Christian faith.
And where does the First Ammendment say that? It is talking about what Congress can and cannot do, not what churches can and cannot do.
Churches cannot become involved in government... Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. How could churches become involved in government if Congress can't be involved with them, according to the Constitution?
I suggest you take a closer look at the personal letters of the Founding Fathers. You will learn that, despite what the public school history textbooks say, most were men strongly grounded in the Christian faith.
O rly. I challenge you to pull up some quotes showing so. Because all the quotes *I* have read prove the exact opposite.
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html)
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html)
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html)
Read all those quotes... and see if you still believe that the Founders were all good God-fearing Christians!
I suggest you take a closer look at the personal letters of the Founding Fathers. You will learn that, despite what the public school history textbooks say, most were men strongly grounded in the Christian faith.
SWEET ACTION! Appeal to tradition/history! Man I haven't had one of these fallacies in a long time.
Founding fathers were slaveowners.
And where does the First Ammendment say that? It is talking about what Congress can and cannot do, not what churches can and cannot do.
Semantics don't work here mate. First Amendment states what Congress can and cannot do yes, and it does not interfere with the operations of a church. However if a Church interferes with the operation of the government that is not Constitutional, thus Congress must uphold the First Amendment allowing equal religion for all. If one religion influences the government then religion is not equal for all.
Might I remind you that the word God is not found anywhere in the Constitution for this very reason?
By any chance Jimbo, is your name David R. Starr?
Webster’s dictionary defines religion as “a system of beliefs and conduct”. Why can atheists have a system of beliefs and conduct (religion), but Christians cannot? I would call this censorship. You want our religion out of government so you can have your own religion in government. But, you forget that this country was founded as “One Nation Under God”! God establishes nations and he established America.
Please read the first school textbooks used across our country for the first century of our nation that were published by Noah Webster. Please then decide if you believe that the framers of the Constitution (including Webster) wanted God out of our schools and government.
Found this while googling. :p
There's also the practical problem of just exactly WHO'S version of religion is to get incorporated into our government if we choose to go that route (or perhaps, depending on your point of view, have that path forced upon us...)
There are literally hundreds of types of Christianity in this country right now, and several different types of Judaism. And that's just the Judeo/ Christian faiths... I guess anybody not of those faiths is out of luck and will have to be officially disenfranchised and discriminated against by the ruling government for choosing the wrong path to salvation.
So... which particular strain of Christianity gets to choose what's best for all of us? Catholics? Baptists? Greek Orthodox? Mormons? Seventh-Day Adventists? Christian Scientists?
Seems to me all those groups have some fairly incompatible doctrines with each other, and if one manages to get prominence over the others that will effect how the others get to practice their faiths.
O rly. I challenge you to pull up some quotes showing so. Because all the quotes *I* have read prove the exact opposite.
Okay, here you go.
George Washington's personal prayer journal (
http://jagger.me.berkeley.edu/~lawton/gwprayer.html)
Numerous Founding Fathers (
http://mdccc.org/PAGES/Articles/American%20Christian%20Heritage%20Part%20Two%20-%20The%20Revolution%20and%20Beyond.htm)
John Adams' National Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer (
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=112)
Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Jay, et al (
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=140)
I think that pretty well shows the faith of many of our Founding Fathers.
Oh, and for good measure:
Supreme Court judgement declaring, "This is a Christian nation." (
http://www.cortland.edu/polsci/church.html)
I think that pretty well shows the faith of many of our Founding Fathers.
Don't forget that Deism was quite popular at this time.
Besides, so WHAT if the Founding Fathers were Christian? There is plenty of arguing amongst Christian denominations. Do you mean to imply that the Founding Father created this nation solely for Prodestants? The Founding Fathers came to the table hoping to construct a government that represented the People--NOT their god. They weren't interested in setting up a government that served their personal lives or their whims. They wanted a government that could serve the general necessities of all people.
Oh, and for good measure:
Supreme Court judgement declaring, "This is a Christian nation." (
http://www.cortland.edu/polsci/church.html)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm)
And not only that, but I don't really care what the hell some judge from 1890 thought. What if America woke up tomorrow and everyone was compelled to convert to Buddhism? Would America still be a Christian nation?
Times change.
It goes back and forth, so knowing the facts helps.
People claim all the Founding Fathers were Christians, then somebody else claims none of them were Christians, etc. The truth is some of them were and some of them weren't.
Today we can say America is a "Christian nation" in the only sense we can really agree on that is a majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian." Of course what exactly that means may vary greatly from person to person.
Okay, here you go.
George Washington's personal prayer journal (
http://jagger.me.berkeley.edu/~lawton/gwprayer.html)
Numerous Founding Fathers (
http://mdccc.org/PAGES/Articles/American%20Christian%20Heritage%20Part%20Two%20-%20The%20Revolution%20and%20Beyond.htm)
John Adams' National Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer (
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=112)
Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Jay, et al (
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=140)
I figured you would have your quotes as well... fair enough.
There was an interesting quiz posted by Skin a while ago... I suggest you take a look at it:
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php)
I think that pretty well shows the faith of many of our Founding Fathers.
According to that quiz: John Adams, John Q. Adams, Millard Fillmore and William H. Taft were Unitarians. Jefferson was a Deist/Freethinker. Harrison, Johnson, Grant and Hayes were not members of a church. Lincoln was a Deist.
Oh, and for good measure:
Supreme Court judgement declaring, "This is a Christian nation." (
http://www.cortland.edu/polsci/church.html)
Strange, because here's what the United States declared in a treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress and signed by President Adams:
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."