• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

How do you feel about God.

They might. Horses evolve, or naturally select for, hooves which fit the terrain they live in...
 
So you can't even write original material anymore?

You just copy and paste without citation?

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSOdin&Ymir.html

All you do is regurgitate stuff from google. I don't understand how you expect people to take you seriously.

Carpe Serpentis said:
Evolution has been proven to be true for starters. True, potassium-argon dating is assumed to be true based on scientific observations for objects ranging from 4.3 billion years of age to approx. 100,000 years of age providing they have not been heated to the point of recrystallization at a later date. So, there is still much we do not know and we use multiple methods to figure out the age of something or to confirm the age. According to the bible however, the earth is only 6,000 years old. So, if we are going to believe the bible then we must discount every dating method that shows the earth is over 6,000 years old.
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/archaeology/dating/datingtech.html#Potassium-Argon

However, if we are going to accept that mountains of evidence for evolution exist and evolution has been proven to be true based on its reproducibility and mountains of evidence and at least some of these dating methods are somewhat accurate... based again on evidence and facts collected then we can begin to look at other creation stories... which incidentally do not agree with each other either.

In the beginning of time, there was nothing: neither sand, nor sea, nor cool waves. Neither the heaven nor earth existed. Instead, long before the earth was made, Niflheim was made, and in it a spring gave rise to twelve rivers. To the south was Muspell, a region of heat and brightness guarded by Surt, a giant who carried a flaming sword. To the north was frigid Ginnungagap, where the rivers froze and all was ice. Where the sparks and warm winds of Muspell reached the south side of frigid Ginnungagap, the ice thawed and dripped, and from the drips thickened and formed the shape of a man. His name was Ymir, the first of and ancestor of the frost-giants.

And while it may always be true that there will be unanswered questions as knew knowledge gives rise to new questions, I will side with that which has some proofs, evidence, facts, observable details... and leave the rest to those with the ability to believe in things without proofs, facts, or evidence. I personally will not simply believe that magic is the answer until magic is proven to exist. I personally will not believe in unicorns, dragons, santa, gods, goddesses, demons, or anything else that fits the bill of being called a myth or religion as I do not need myths or religions to complete me. I am whole and I am just fine without these things and I could not see a god who if he/she existed would need be to believe in him/her. I anthropomorphize god concepts enough, as many cultures have, to think him/her above such petty needs as needing us to believe in him/her for him/her to treat his children kindly regardless of their differing beliefs in him/her or even the absence of belief altogether. I do look at gods whether they be Zeus, Horus, Allah, Mythra, Inyan, Iktomi, Mythra, Odin, PachaMama, or any other cultures gods to be on equal footing with not only each other, but also unicorns, dragons, imps, demons, fairies, etc... as far as proof of existence goes and I fully realize that many do believe that each and every one of these beings does in fact exist. I fully realize that many people believe religious doctrines that go directly against another cultures religious belief and that most cultures thinks they have the correct doctrine... the correct beliefs... the correct relationship with their gods. Blind belief and feelings however does not prove one god or belief system to be any more valid anymore than a holy crusade, witch hunt, or any other event can confer real validity upon a belief system.
Click to expand...
 
BloodyBaroness said:
So you can't even write original material anymore?

You just copy and paste without citation?

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSOdin&Ymir.html

All you do is regurgitate stuff from google. I don't understand how you expect people to take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Is that all you have? You are right however, I missed a citation. Good thing this isn't a college term paper or I might have been worried. As for posting links to information, I generally do that as it is important for people to find that the information is not without support as anyone who has studied mythology in the least bit should know enough to know that there are many... many... did I say many? Creation stories out there and many of them do not agree. That is the point and the message that I was trying to get to you. If you missed the point while harping on the source, I suggest you find a good book on mythology or preferably several and read them for yourself as I have. I will assure you that you will find that many cultures do indeed have different myths, different creation stories, etc. and its not just something you can find on google. Although, you should not discount google as much can be found there as well.
 
Nope I got the point loud and clear, you copy and paste google results all the time without fully reading or comprehending most of the information in the study or article. You also snag images and bits of articles without citation and pass them off as your own.

If I had not pointed it out, would you have cited that it was not your words? Probably not.

At least most of the people are trying to have an original thought.
 
We don't KNOW very much at all, when it comes right down to it.

But that appears to be awkward for scientists to admit
Click to expand...

Every research proposal created by every scientist is a formal statement of ignorance. It says, "hey look, there is something we don't know. Now give me money because I'm the best person (or persons) suited to fill this gap in the knowledge and I think I know how to do it better than anybody else."


I think scientists are more than willing to admit they don't know much.

The more we learn about the world, the more we learn that we really know less and less.
 
Personally, I love mankind. I think we don't need so many different opposing religious views and it is good to know that many religions have different and opposing views. I think a good class on world religions, anthropology, mythology, etc. should be a staple of everyones education starting in elementary school. I think it is good to examine religions in detail and not just one religion. I think it helps to open us up to different cultural viewpoints and helps us to understand their viewpoint or where they are coming from. I do not like what I have seen mankind is capable of doing in the name of religion. I don't think we need so many different gods. But, I'm always open to the possibility that I could be wrong should evidence be presented to that fact. I think we are capable of loving, caring, showing compassion, and even knowing that murder is wrong without religion.
 
Rich Z said:
Pretty much.....

If a Pope cannot DISPLAY faith, how can he TEACH it? How can religion promote faith in their beliefs? Isn't faith the entire foundation of organized religion? Isn't faith the religious equivalence of verifiable facts that sustains them?

And yet no one, not even the Pope, has faith enough to believe that God would protect the Pope from harm?

If the Pope cannot have faith in God, then how can anyone? If it is God's will that the Pope should die, would an armored vehicle and body guards really help thwart that will? From another angle, if God does not care whether the Pope lives or dies, then what exactly DOES God care about concerning humanity?

But of course, logic will never win the battle over faith, regardless.

In any event, does anyone else wonder what REALLY happens when you die? A transition to something else, or just the switch being turned off? What happens to the center of the universe that is YOU looking out from your eyes?

Is faith necessary to keep the fear of final darkness at bay?
Click to expand...

Rich I think faith is bandage that holds back the fear of the great unknown after death.

No one really wants to admit that when we take that final breath, it's nothing but darkness and nothing. Faith, in something, can soothe the frightened mind.

Logic dictates we are probably nothing more than a carbon fart in bus station of time. We linger long enough for people to notice, but disappear quickly in the rush. But who really wants to admit that?
 
BloodyBaroness said:
Nope I got the point loud and clear, you copy and paste google results all the time without fully reading or comprehending most of the information in the study or article. You also snag images and bits of articles without citation and pass them off as your own.

If I had not pointed it out, would you have cited that it was not your words? Probably not.

At least most of the people are trying to have an original thought.
Click to expand...

Does it even matter that it was not my words? If so, tell me how so? My point that I was trying to make is that there are other creation stories. Was that point not made? You make many assumptions about others without even grasping the intent of the message, much less trying to dig deeper....
 
captainjack0000 said:
Every research proposal created by every scientist is a formal statement of ignorance. It says, "hey look, there is something we don't know. Now give me money because I'm the best person (or persons) suited to fill this gap in the knowledge and I think I know how to do it better than anybody else."


I think scientists are more than willing to admit they don't know much.

The more we learn about the world, the more we learn that we really know less and less.
Click to expand...

Very well said. That is another way I see religions as differing from science. Science says, we don't have all the answers, but were looking.
 
I think we don't need so many different opposing religious views
Click to expand...

This might be an over simplified dichotomoy I'm setting it, but it serves a purpose.

Which would be betetter? A bunch of opposing religious views, or if we all believed the same dang thing?

I think intellectual friction is a good thing.
 
captainjack0000 said:
This might be an over simplified dichotomoy I'm setting it, but it serves a purpose.

Which would be better? A bunch of opposing religious views, or if we all believed the same dang thing?

I think intellectual friction is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. What kind of a boring world would this be if everyone shared the same thoughts?

Sure there would probably be fewer wars or violence started under the banner of religion, but humans would just fight over other stuff instead. It's what we are best at.

People are individuals and not mindless automatons. I like it that way.
 
BloodyBaroness said:
How is that an assumption? It was pretty clear what you did.

But who cares, you are not worth bickering with.
Click to expand...

Yes it is very clear what you attempted to do and the assumptions you made about me as well were very clear. I made a valid point that you attempted to deflate for a missed citation. Either the point was made that there are indeed different cultural creation myths or it was not made. That was the point, but I do agree with you on one thing in part however or at least the spirit of it and that is that it is not worth bickering over. I just wanted to provide a little insight into what you were attempting to do. Attack the idea, not the person. There is of course another school of thought which says there are no original ideas.
 
Carpe Serpentis said:
Yes it is very clear what you attempted to do and the assumptions you made about me as well were very clear. I made a valid point that you attempted to deflate for a missed citation. Either the point was made that there are indeed different cultural creation myths or it was not made. That was the point, but I do agree with you on one thing in part however or at least the spirit of it and that is that it is not worth bickering over. I just wanted to provide a little insight into what you were attempting to do. Attack the idea, not the person. There is of course another school of thought which says there are no original ideas.
Click to expand...

But, is it even YOUR idea?
And if it is why can't you at least compose a thought allllllll by yourself?
 
Carpe Serpentis said:
Yes it is very clear what you attempted to do and the assumptions you made about me as well were very clear. I made a valid point that you attempted to deflate for a missed citation. Either the point was made that there are indeed different cultural creation myths or it was not made. That was the point, but I do agree with you on one thing in part however or at least the spirit of it and that is that it is not worth bickering over. I just wanted to provide a little insight into what you were attempting to do. Attack the idea, not the person. There is of course another school of thought which says there are no original ideas.
Click to expand...

I never assume. You always accuse me of that, but you are wrong. I only use the facts that you yourself lay out there. It's okay though, I know you are doing the best you can.

Next time try to pick a less well known creation concept piece to plagiarize, and it probably won't happen again.
 
captainjack0000 said:
Yeah, and even with religion we come up with some crazy stuff aimed at helping subjugate people and creating the subaltern.
Click to expand...

You got it. There will always be something that can be used to bend, or influence, the motions of the masses. Leave it to any government to find one. :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top