Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 32 of 56 | |
|
|---|
grayhaze
Reply #622 Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:09 PM
So can you conclusively state, with hard scientific proof, that before we had religion there were no morals? In my opinion that's just another example of religion breeding arrogance.
Morals, or the ability to differentiate right from wrong, are developed through experimentation of how far the boundaries can be pushed before something is offensive or unappealing to the majority. Certain morals are taught through the influence of others around us, but others are learnt through experimentation. They are based upon how certain actions make us feel, whether that be mentally or physically, and are at their most basic level part of our instinctive behaviour.
To claim that the root of all morals is religion and/or God is both highly unlikely and based on nothing but arrogant speculation.
[Message Edited]
Reply #622 Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:09 PM
| Without God, there is no religion, without religion, there are no morals. |
So can you conclusively state, with hard scientific proof, that before we had religion there were no morals? In my opinion that's just another example of religion breeding arrogance.
Morals, or the ability to differentiate right from wrong, are developed through experimentation of how far the boundaries can be pushed before something is offensive or unappealing to the majority. Certain morals are taught through the influence of others around us, but others are learnt through experimentation. They are based upon how certain actions make us feel, whether that be mentally or physically, and are at their most basic level part of our instinctive behaviour.
To claim that the root of all morals is religion and/or God is both highly unlikely and based on nothing but arrogant speculation.
[Message Edited]
IPlural
Reply #623 Sunday, October 19, 2003 7:59 PM
Reply #623 Sunday, October 19, 2003 7:59 PM
From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) :
morals
n : motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical
motive, ethics, morality]
Sorry, but Religion and God have nothing to do with my perspective of what is right or wrong in the least.
Bow or broil is a screwed system to base ones morals upon in my opinion...
Besides, to many people spend 6 days a week screwing over the next person in the way of what they want only to bow on Sunday and their seat in Heaven is secure for the following 6 days.
Also I heard and read claims that everyone finds religion or speaks to god facing death in the past. I find that rather presumptious, along with the claim that God is all mighty and no one can know God and yet people like to throw around what was really ment with the "Thou shalt not kill" really meaning Murder...
Hey, did everyone know that the Devil and Hell never specifically showed up in the scriptures until after many revisions....?
morals
n : motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical
motive, ethics, morality]
Sorry, but Religion and God have nothing to do with my perspective of what is right or wrong in the least.
Bow or broil is a screwed system to base ones morals upon in my opinion...
Besides, to many people spend 6 days a week screwing over the next person in the way of what they want only to bow on Sunday and their seat in Heaven is secure for the following 6 days.
Also I heard and read claims that everyone finds religion or speaks to god facing death in the past. I find that rather presumptious, along with the claim that God is all mighty and no one can know God and yet people like to throw around what was really ment with the "Thou shalt not kill" really meaning Murder...
Hey, did everyone know that the Devil and Hell never specifically showed up in the scriptures until after many revisions....?
IPlural
Reply #624 Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:01 PM
mmm, I've spent some time in chat with EventH and do not believe there is any arrogance in his make up. Though there is in the teaching that leads up to such a position...
Reply #624 Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:01 PM
| To claim that the root of all morals is religion and/or God is both highly unlikely and based on nothing but arrogant speculation |
mmm, I've spent some time in chat with EventH and do not believe there is any arrogance in his make up. Though there is in the teaching that leads up to such a position...
UBoB
Reply #625 Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:59 PM
Reply #625 Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:59 PM
"....Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality."
---Theodore Schick, Jr
---Theodore Schick, Jr
kona0197
Reply #627 Monday, October 20, 2003 12:02 AM
He is talking to Jesus, his son, and the holy spirit. they all three are the same person, but different entities, like a shamrock.
Reply #627 Monday, October 20, 2003 12:02 AM
| 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."...at this point the Tree of Life is quickly uprooted and hurried away from the bad humans.BTW, who is He talking to in this particular passage? |
He is talking to Jesus, his son, and the holy spirit. they all three are the same person, but different entities, like a shamrock.
The Rated PG
Reply #628 Monday, October 20, 2003 3:15 PM
Reply #628 Monday, October 20, 2003 3:15 PM
As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building, which houses the Supreme
Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers
and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten
Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the
Supreme Court judges sit a display of the Ten Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and
Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our
Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our
political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the
capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to
sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It
cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was
founded not by religionists but by Christians.not on religions but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher.whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.
Thomas Jefferson worried about that the Courts would overstep their authority
and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the
rule of few over many.
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should
select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 200
years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers
and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten
Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the
Supreme Court judges sit a display of the Ten Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and
Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our
Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our
political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the
capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to
sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It
cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was
founded not by religionists but by Christians.not on religions but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher.whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.
Thomas Jefferson worried about that the Courts would overstep their authority
and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the
rule of few over many.
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should
select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 200
years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
paxx
Reply #629 Monday, October 20, 2003 3:32 PM
Reply #629 Monday, October 20, 2003 3:32 PM
Rated PG: interesting. I didn't know that.
Well, given this new information, I think that the US should officially declare itself a Christian country and exile all the non-christians.
Well, given this new information, I think that the US should officially declare itself a Christian country and exile all the non-christians.
kona0197
Reply #630 Monday, October 20, 2003 3:35 PM
Reply #630 Monday, October 20, 2003 3:35 PM
Witout God, America will fall apart thanks to the non belivers and those who have no faith and say there is no God. To those souls I feel sorry for you.
Every knee will bow and every tounge confess that jesus is Lord when the time comes...
Maybe then we can put this evolution BS behind us...
Every knee will bow and every tounge confess that jesus is Lord when the time comes...
Maybe then we can put this evolution BS behind us...
IPlural
Reply #631 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:04 PM
that cracks me up, seriously, really really, Rated PG and Kona...
I needed it, thank you
BTW: who was it that said "Let him who without sin cast the first stone?" must have been some homeless person without any import, huh?
Reply #631 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:04 PM
that cracks me up, seriously, really really, Rated PG and Kona...I needed it, thank you
BTW: who was it that said "Let him who without sin cast the first stone?" must have been some homeless person without any import, huh?
grayhaze
Reply #632 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:20 PM
Reply #632 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:20 PM
Kona, how would it make you feel if everyone told you they felt sorry for you because of your beliefs? I'm guessing you wouldn't like it, so treat others in the same way you'd wish to be treated yourself.
Those of us who don't believe in God don't need your pity. We need your understanding and acceptance that everyone has the individual right to make their own choices about their lives and the world they live in.
To continue to say that you feel sorry for those of us who don't believe is just as offensive as us telling you that you believe in a false God. I don't begrudge you having your beliefs, so don't deny me mine.
Those of us who don't believe in God don't need your pity. We need your understanding and acceptance that everyone has the individual right to make their own choices about their lives and the world they live in.
To continue to say that you feel sorry for those of us who don't believe is just as offensive as us telling you that you believe in a false God. I don't begrudge you having your beliefs, so don't deny me mine.
kona0197
Reply #633 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:20 PM
Reply #633 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:20 PM
hey IP don't look at me, I am a sinner as well. no man is perfect. 
kona0197
Reply #634 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:25 PM
your right. You need prayer.
I just do not see how people can deny God. It does not make me mad, just puzzled.
but I will respect your beliefs and live and let live so to say.
Reply #634 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:25 PM
| Those of us who don't believe in God don't need your pity. |
your right. You need prayer.
I just do not see how people can deny God. It does not make me mad, just puzzled.
but I will respect your beliefs and live and let live so to say.
Aleatoric
Reply #635 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:37 PM
Here's a link to a rebuttal of the argument about any constitutional legal framework involving the artwork on and in the Supreme court building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm
As for the the clergy appointed to lead the prayer before each session, that appointment (and congressional approval thereof) occurred years before the ratification of the bill of rights (and therefore the first amendment), and Madison argued against it. Not that it isn't necessarily a valid appointment, but it has no bearing on the establishment of religion by the government.
It can be accurately argued that the United States is a primarily Christian nation by composition, but it is also quite clear (both in the Constitution and in the many subsequent rulings that support it), that there is *no* legal ground for any establishment of a national religion.
And yet, they pretty much *all* decided that establishing a national religion was a bad idea (most of them also left countries that did have established national religions). Additionally, although they were members of orthodox churches, they were not all the same orthodox church (or affiliation). Part of their decision process was that no particular religious viewpoint (even among those they were a member of) should take precedence over any of the others in the government.
Reply #635 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:37 PM
| Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731). -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, 1789) "As the Government of the United States of America 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, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- (Treaty of Tripoli) "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson (stating that the Common Law does not directly inherit from Christianity). "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Danbury Baptists) "We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society." -- John Adams ...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination -- Thomas Jefferson “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” -- James Madison |
Here's a link to a rebuttal of the argument about any constitutional legal framework involving the artwork on and in the Supreme court building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm
As for the the clergy appointed to lead the prayer before each session, that appointment (and congressional approval thereof) occurred years before the ratification of the bill of rights (and therefore the first amendment), and Madison argued against it. Not that it isn't necessarily a valid appointment, but it has no bearing on the establishment of religion by the government.
It can be accurately argued that the United States is a primarily Christian nation by composition, but it is also quite clear (both in the Constitution and in the many subsequent rulings that support it), that there is *no* legal ground for any establishment of a national religion.
| Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies. |
And yet, they pretty much *all* decided that establishing a national religion was a bad idea (most of them also left countries that did have established national religions). Additionally, although they were members of orthodox churches, they were not all the same orthodox church (or affiliation). Part of their decision process was that no particular religious viewpoint (even among those they were a member of) should take precedence over any of the others in the government.
UBoB
Reply #636 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:41 PM
That's strange, just the opposite has always puzzled me. How can anybody, who wishes to be thought of as sane, believe in ghosts and goblins and all other order of silly, spooky things like gods and devils. But, just because it puzzles me doesn't mean I don't have the capacity to tolerate such foolishness. As a species, I believe we are way past the need for such idiotic crutches to lean on like 'supreme beings'. We make our own lot in life. We live with it. We die with it. Then it's done. Nothing else.
The thing organized religions depend on is the gulibility of the majority to believe that if they bow and grovel to some 'higher power' then there will be something for them after they die. That's what gives these religions their power. Well get used to it people, there's nothing. When it's over, it's over. Period. Finito.
Reply #636 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:41 PM
| I just do not see how people can deny God. It does not make me mad, just puzzled. |
That's strange, just the opposite has always puzzled me. How can anybody, who wishes to be thought of as sane, believe in ghosts and goblins and all other order of silly, spooky things like gods and devils. But, just because it puzzles me doesn't mean I don't have the capacity to tolerate such foolishness. As a species, I believe we are way past the need for such idiotic crutches to lean on like 'supreme beings'. We make our own lot in life. We live with it. We die with it. Then it's done. Nothing else.
The thing organized religions depend on is the gulibility of the majority to believe that if they bow and grovel to some 'higher power' then there will be something for them after they die. That's what gives these religions their power. Well get used to it people, there's nothing. When it's over, it's over. Period. Finito.
kona0197
Reply #637 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:58 PM
Reply #637 Monday, October 20, 2003 4:58 PM
Motion: then explain to me why cancer completely heals itself WITHOUT doctors but with prayer?
I have seen things like that and more by the power of prayer. I will not deny that there is a God. To do so would undermine my whole life and beliefs.
I have seen things like that and more by the power of prayer. I will not deny that there is a God. To do so would undermine my whole life and beliefs.
UBoB
Reply #638 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:06 PM
Reply #638 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:06 PM
I'm a fatalist Kona. If the cancer healed itself then it was going to anyway. Nothing or no One interfered to make it heal itself, it did so because it did so. No other explanation needed.
kona0197
Reply #639 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:11 PM
Reply #639 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:11 PM
motion:
Explain These then:
Broken bones healing themselves after a serious fracture WITHOUT a cast or splint
Brain tumors shrinking and dissappearing WITHOUT doctors help
Smoking addictions stopped dead in their trcks just with prayer
Paralyzed people becoming whole again without doctors help
Blind people seeing again!
Explain These then:
Broken bones healing themselves after a serious fracture WITHOUT a cast or splint
Brain tumors shrinking and dissappearing WITHOUT doctors help
Smoking addictions stopped dead in their trcks just with prayer
Paralyzed people becoming whole again without doctors help
Blind people seeing again!
grayhaze
Reply #640 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:13 PM
Reply #640 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:13 PM
David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear!
Penn driving an articulated truck over Teller!
Roy getting bitten by a white tiger live on stage!
Oh wait... that last one actually happened...
Penn driving an articulated truck over Teller!
Roy getting bitten by a white tiger live on stage!
Oh wait... that last one actually happened...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 32 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #621 Sunday, October 19, 2003 3:46 PM
OK, so there are two trees. So far so good.
2:16-17 "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
....but don't eat from the Tree of Life or your dead. (Not just dead, but surely dead.) Remember this part.
3:4-5 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
But the snake says the knowledge tree will give knowledge! A little scientific method now........
3:6 "She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."
....so at this point we would expect her to die, right? I mean that's what God said ...
3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened"
Oops!!!! Looks to me like the serpent was right.
3:14 "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
And this is the model for the creation theory??? No really??
Turns out the tree doesn't really kill you, so let's just clarify what it does do.
3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."
...at this point the Tree of Life is quickly uprooted and hurried away from the bad humans.
BTW, who is He talking to in this particular passage?