More brilliant scientists admitting they really have no clue

Message

BackInTex · #76 Post by **BackInTex** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:42 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:Why would the Divine Being want to trick us into believing the earth was older than it was?

He hasn't, any more than Law & Order Criminal Intent intends to make us believe their stories are real. They have a disclaimer either at the beginning or end that all characters and whatever are fictional and any similarities to actual people and events is coincidental.

God gave us the Bible that explains the age of the Earth. I find no trickery.

Oh, and Willy Wonka wasn't real, either. Looked real though, except for the exploding kid.

silvercamaro · #77 Post by **silvercamaro** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:50 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
The question I have is, which god (or gods)? Under the First Amendment, government shalt not choose among religions.

The prevaling view of Americans, dating back to before the founding of this nation, is that there is a Higher Power. To incorporate recognition and respect for that Power does not promote or require any specific religion.

So any time someone wonders whether a reference to a god may be appropriate, remember that next time, the group asking for recognition of their deity may be a coven of practicing Satanists.

Even Satanists must recognize a higher power -- God, if you will. Without Him, Lucifer's rebellion against the powers of light has no meaning.

It's no answer to rely on majority rule. All that does is give a preferential position to the majority religion, and I trust we can all agree that that's a bad idea.

Majority rule has nothing to do with it. Nobody has argued that we should "elect" a state religion.

The effort to be absolutely and completely inclusive of all possible viewpoints on an infinite spectrum of religious thought will result, if not already accomplished, in the exclusion of all opportunites to offer a public celebration of the faith of any.

ToLiveIsToFly · #78 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:13 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote: Go ahead wb, mock what you don't understand.

Seems to me this thread was CREATED for the purpose of doing exactly that.

In a thread that starts

BiT wrote:More brilliant scientists admitting they really have no clue

about where we are, where we came from, or why we are here. Yet they insist they do while admitting they have no clue. Brilliant!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152248.htm

I'll bet they believe in the big bang and evolution, too! Surprised

And even though they continue to redefine what they 'know' because they learned what they previously 'knew' was wrong, many who have no clue what they are talking about will believe them without question.

You kind of have to expect that people are going to mock right back.

Well you probably would have to expect that on any other message board.

Clearly we don't mock on this one.

ToLiveIsToFly · #79 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:17 pm

silvercamaro wrote:The effort to be absolutely and completely inclusive of all possible viewpoints on an infinite spectrum of religious thought will result, if not already accomplished, in the exclusion of all opportunites to offer a public celebration of the faith of any.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

silvercamaro · #80 Post by **silvercamaro** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:24 pm

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
silvercamaro wrote:The effort to be absolutely and completely inclusive of all possible viewpoints on an infinite spectrum of religious thought will result, if not already accomplished, in the exclusion of all opportunites to offer a public celebration of the faith of any.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

I did not intend "public celebration" to mean a government-sponsored celebration. I meant an individual "celebration" or demonstration of faith in public, as opposed to behind closed doors in the presence of family members only.

You may still believe that's a bad thing. I would respect that belief, too, so long as the First Amendment permits an individual to express faith at the same time as someone else is expressing derision.

ToLiveIsToFly · #81 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:30 pm

silvercamaro wrote:
ToLiveIsToFly wrote:
silvercamaro wrote:The effort to be absolutely and completely inclusive of all possible viewpoints on an infinite spectrum of religious thought will result, if not already accomplished, in the exclusion of all opportunites to offer a public celebration of the faith of any.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I did not intend "public celebration" to mean a government-sponsored celebration. I meant an individual "celebration" or demonstration of faith in public, as opposed to behind closed doors in the presence of family members only.

You may still believe that's a bad thing. I would respect that belief, too, so long as the First Amendment permits an individual to express faith at the same time as someone else is expressing derision.

Naw, I'm fine with that. I just would love to see the government out of the religion business entirely.

wintergreen48 · #82 Post by **wintergreen48** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:31 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:I acknowledge that a Divine Being capable of creating the universe either 6000 years ago or five billion years ago is capable of making it appear as if the earth is a lot older than it is. Such a Being could even make it appear that the universe exists in such form if, in fact, all we have are the few planets we have tangible proof of.

The question I have is Why? Why would the Divine Being want to trick us into believing the earth was older than it was?

The ancient Greeks and Romans anthropomorphized their gods, ascribing human characteristics like greed, lust, and anger to them in order to explain their actions, but I find it hard to believe that a Divine Being capable of doing something as amazing and intricate as creating the earth would engage in a series of petty mind games that took thousands of years to develop (carbon dating and other techniques of measuring age would have been pretty useless before we developed the technology to measure them).

Oh. My. Lord. A post from SSS with which I agree 100%, as to content, tone, argument, everything. I feel the vapors coming on me...

wintergreen48 · #83 Post by **wintergreen48** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:35 pm

BackInTex wrote:
wintergreen48 wrote:Lot's of clever stuff you won't find anywhere but here, especially the clever comments about evolution. Lot's of "why"s.
You are questioning God. I can not answer for him as to why. But some of your questions are easily answered if you really are looking for one.

I would never presume to question God; I question the people who claim that God acts irrationally and that he deliberately deceives people. My God does not do that, and so, I would never question Him (well, if I thought that He would tell me what number will come up in tonight's Mega Millions lottery, then I might question Him about that, but I think he has more important things in mind).

The Lord Jehovah · #84 Post by **The Lord Jehovah** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:38 pm

wintergreen48 wrote: I would never presume to question God; I question the people who claim that God acts irrationally and that he deliberately deceives people. My God does not do that, and so, I would never question Him (well, if I thought that He would tell me what number will come up in tonight's Mega Millions lottery, then I might question Him about that, but I think he has more important things in mind).

Me damn it, I sure do have more important things to do than bother with petty stuff like this. But if it will make you happy, I'll tell you the winning number: ask Me at 11:05 pm.

#85 Post by **Bob78164** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:57 pm

silvercamaro wrote:I did not intend "public celebration" to mean a government-sponsored celebration. I meant an individual "celebration" or demonstration of faith in public, as opposed to behind closed doors in the presence of family members only.

Our positions may be closer than I'd realized -- I don't have any problem with that. But when the forum is sponsored by the government, and particularly when the speakers are selected by the government, the line between "government-sponsored" and private can be fairly difficult to draw. --Bob

ToLiveIsToFly · #86 Post by **ToLiveIsToFly** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:58 pm

wintergreen48 wrote:well, if I thought that He would tell me what number will come up in tonight's Mega Millions lottery, then I might question Him about that

I just read somewhere that people who win the big prizes are usually bankrupt within a few years anyway. So maybe the winning number is not playing.

#87 Post by **Bob78164** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:02 pm

silvercamaro wrote:The prevaling view of Americans, dating back to before the founding of this nation, is that there is a Higher Power. To incorporate recognition and respect for that Power does not promote or require any specific religion.

But that's the thing -- one person's demonstration of recognition and respect can be another person's fighting words. That's why it's so important for government to stay out of this realm.

As for the historical assertion, I haven't had time to dig into it myself, but I have seen people whose opinions I respect (not that I disrespect yours) take issue with similar claims. --Bob

wbtravis007 · #88 Post by **wbtravis007** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:12 pm

BackInTex wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote:If you can show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is not flat, then I might believe that it's not. If you can't, then I'm just gonna continue to assume that it's flat, and that God has just made it seem like it's not, through optical and other illusions.

It's my faith, so I know it to be true. If y'all can't see this, and want to treat me like an idiot, then I pity you (for being such an idiot).
Does the Bible say the earth is flat?

I don't know. I just know that it doesn't say that it's not. It wouldn't matter anyway, even if it did.

I know, in the deepest part of my soul, with absolute certainty, that God put a lot of stuff in the Bible that's wrong, just to goof around with us. I know, as a matter of faith, that God is a world-class practical joker. That's one reason I would never suggest that Cal's wrong about Him just making everything look old and what not.

I love practical jokers! Hell, who doesn't? That's one of the reasons a lot of us love Him so much.

Jesus and them were kind of pulling our legs a little on a fair bit of stuff, too, you know.

Knowing all this, in my very essence -- as a result of my faith -- is why I'm so serene and peaceful and what not.

I'm really sorry for those of you who don't know or understand that feeling.

gotribego26 · #89 Post by **gotribego26** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:52 pm

BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:Why would the Divine Being want to trick us into believing the earth was older than it was?
He hasn't, any more than Law & Order Criminal Intent intends to make us believe their stories are real. They have a disclaimer either at the beginning or end that all characters and whatever are fictional and any similarities to actual people and events is coincidental.

God gave us the Bible that explains the age of the Earth. I find no trickery.

Oh, and Willy Wonka wasn't real, either. Looked real though, except for the exploding kid.

I must be getting really stupid or really tired - you're trying to show that God gave us the truth in the Bible by making an analogy to fictional works?

Appa23 · #90 Post by **Appa23** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:31 pm

Bob78164 wrote:Under the First Amendment, government shalt not choose among religions. --Bob

Not to wade too far into this discussion, but this statement is not entirely true. It is just one general interpretation of the First Amendment and what is meant by "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

earendel · #91 Post by **earendel** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:26 am

silvercamaro wrote:The prevaling view of Americans, dating back to before the founding of this nation, is that there is a Higher Power. To incorporate recognition and respect for that Power does not promote or require any specific religion.

Perhaps, but we also enacted an amendment that, in effect, said that "the prevailing view" isn't what counts.

silvercamaro wrote:The effort to be absolutely and completely inclusive of all possible viewpoints on an infinite spectrum of religious thought will result, if not already accomplished, in the exclusion of all opportunites to offer a public celebration of the faith of any.

And that is precisely why teaching creationism in schools won't work - because in order to "be absolutely and completely inclusive" would require discussion of all of the various creation myths, and there just isn't enough time in the school year.

BackInTex · #92 Post by **BackInTex** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:37 am

gotribego26 wrote: I must be getting really stupid or really tired - you're trying to show that God gave us the truth in the Bible by making an analogy to fictional works?

I'm not sure which of those two choices are in play, but the analogy must take into account SSSs assertion that God is trying to trick us because he made the earth appear old.

I merely pointed out the fact than God had given us the truth in the Bible just as L&O disclaims what appears as truth (Earth seems old) is not. Therefore there is no trickery.

And the Willie Wonka reference was to the movie, not the fictional book. The comparison there is that there are lots of things that appear to be something they are not, yet, they are not trickery because we know they are not real.

#93 Post by **littlebeast13** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:39 am

I sure do miss the old Bored for threads like this, because I would soooooo like to tweak what's in the subject line....

lb13

BackInTex · #94 Post by **BackInTex** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:45 am

earendel wrote: And that is precisely why teaching creationism in schools won't work - because in order to "be absolutely and completely inclusive" would require discussion of all of the various creation myths, and there just isn't enough time in the school year.

I don't have a problem with schools not teaching creationism, or even mentioning is as an alternative to the big bang and evolution.

I have a problem with the big bang and evolution being taught as fact.

The big bang theory and evolution theory should be taught as theories based on scientific evidence and as conclusions based on the evidence, similar to how so many peopel here discuss Dumbledore or Harry Potyer's unknown relationships based on certain pieces of evidence provided in the written words of the fictional books. But there should always be the caveat, clearly stated, that these are theories and are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right because we really don't know.

I realize at the HS or college level the students can differentiate theory from fact, but at the elementary level, the kids are being told this is how it happened, not this is how some people think it happened and why they think that and perhaps they could be slightly or completely wrong. That the 10-20 pieces we have of the million piece puzzle fit each other well.

minimetoo26 · #95 Post by **minimetoo26** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:51 am

I've always had them presented as the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution, presented with the facts that support the theories. They have never been presented as absolute facts. At least in my school experience.

Bored Sweeper · #96 Post by **Bored Sweeper** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:59 am

Personally, I believe in anti-creationism. As in, I'm sweeping this huge mess you guys created into the cosmic dustbin!

And if I see another post in this thread, my broom will be glad to teach you about the Big Bang Theory...

<SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP> <SWEEP>

minimetoo26 · #97 Post by **minimetoo26** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:00 am

Bored Sweeper wrote:Personally, I believe in anti-creationism. As in, I'm sweeping this huge mess you guys created into the cosmic dustbin!

And if I see another post in this thread, my broom will be glad to teach you about the Big Bang Theory...

BackInTex · #98 Post by **BackInTex** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:00 am

Bored Sweeper wrote:Personally, I believe in anti-creationism. As in, I'm sweeping this huge mess you guys created into the cosmic dustbin!

And if I see another post in this thread, my broom will be glad to teach you about the Big Bang Theory...

Bite me Baldy!

mrkelley23 · #99 Post by **mrkelley23** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:02 am

Oh, we're GOING to get 100 posts in this thread.

I'm sure, in fact, we might be able to set a record for this Bored, if we only keep repeating the same cherished beliefs often enough.....

earendel · #100 Post by **earendel** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:02 am

BackInTex wrote:I have a problem with the big bang and evolution being taught as fact.

The big bang theory and evolution theory should be taught as theories based on scientific evidence and as conclusions based on the evidence, similar to how so many peopel here discuss Dumbledore or Harry Potyer's unknown relationships based on certain pieces of evidence provided in the written words of the fictional books. But there should always be the caveat, clearly stated, that these are theories and are just as likely to be wrong as they are to be right because we really don't know.

Should gravity be taught as theory, since it's "based on scientific evidence"?

As far as evolution and the big bang go, the question isn't "did they happen" but the mechanism(s) by which they occurred. While scientists might come up with another explanation that fits the data, it's highly unlikely that there will be anything to challenge the overall concepts.

BackInTex wrote:I realize at the HS or college level the students can differentiate theory from fact, but at the elementary level, the kids are being told this is how it happened, not this is how some people think it happened and why they think that and perhaps they could be slightly or completely wrong. That the 10-20 pieces we have of the million piece puzzle fit each other well.

Last time I checked - and admittedly it's been quite a while since my children were in grade school - elementary schools didn't deal with things like evolution and the big bang. Those were reserved for high school courses.

And I believe there are more than just "10-20 pieces" to the puzzle. As mrkelley and others have pointed out, the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence points to an old earth and the macro-evolution of species. Does that challenge my faith? No, because I believe in a God who creates, who establishes the natural order and works within that order except when necessary to do otherwise (miracles). I also believe in a God who inspires writers to tell stories like those in Genesis not as scientific treatises but as mythic tales to point to the glory of the Creator.