Fats Schindee

I'm not sure to what event you are referring when you say "here are people who lived millions and millions years after the fact... can only narrow it down to the 10s of millions of years"... so it makes it kind of hard to understand what you are talking about (sorry, your posts are kind of rambling). I assume you mean the big bang and the creation of the universe? If so, than the following question applies (and if not, please clarify what you are referring to):

Do you honestly think we should be able to date something that happened about 13.7 BILLION years ago (which supposedly created everything we know to exist and have ever existed) to within the same accuracy range as something that happened about 2 THOUSAND years ago (which supposedly was a guy killed on a wooden cross)??? Which do you think would be easier to date? That's 6,850,000 times as many years ago! If you think scientists should be able to calculate the big bang with the same accuracy as something that happened 2000 years ago... than you, my friend, have much more faith in science than I!

__________________
"And if you say to me tomorrow,
Oh what fun it all would be,
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby,
But what is and what should never be."

-Led Zeppelin

Fats Schindee

Based on what you've written in many of these posts, I respectfully disagree.

You're right - If I am (or you are) waiting for it to happen, it won't. We'd die many times over before it ever did. I think what many people don't understand about macro-evolution is the immense scale of time it happens over. It's not like micro-evolution, which, you agree, we can see the changes from in a smaller time frame. Not so with most macro-evolution. For example, humans and chimpanzees are thought to have diverged from a common ancestor 4-8,000,000 (still debated, of course) years ago. But using either number, that's forever compared to the average human life span. And it is hard for our brains to unwrap themselves from our own temporal perspective.

Then again, if you think the earth is only 6000 years old (like many believers in a literal Bible), I can see why you wouldn't think macro-evolution has happened. That's not nearly enough time...

Why is the capability to change your beliefs a bad thing? I don't understand that rationale at all... Do you still believe everything you've ever believed in your life, from when you were born? If you don't (and I don't think you do), then - GASP! - you've actually changed your beliefs about something as you've grown older and learned different ways of looking at and learning about the same things?! OMG!!!

Really? There are numerous examples that show the Bible contradicting itself. In fact, I think that there was already a post, buried back in this thread somewhere, that listed many of them. If you want, I'll try to find a link for you.

And it will never change because it has already been written? Really? You do know that it wasn't written in English, right? And you do realize that every language does not have the exact same complement of equivalent words in it, right? Translators do the best they can to convey the same meanings, staying as true as possible to the original text (or the already-translated-from-another-language one that they are working with), but of course you must realize that some words, phrases, and meanings are changed or lost in the process, especially in a text of that size. So unless you happen to own the original Bible or texts it was compiled from, and also happen to speak ancient Hebrew (OT) or Greek (and ancient Koine Greek, at that; NT) or Aramaic (some texts, but debated), I think that the version you're reading has already changed. Sorry to disappoint you...

Here I don't know what's lacking - you're understanding of science or your understanding of English (I apologize if that sounds harsh, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at sometimes)...

I don't know what you mean by "go in to science". If you mean go into a scientific experiment with a preconceived notion, than I understand - but I disagree. You do want a preconceived notion (AKA hypothesis) to be able to, after testing and analyzing your data, confirm or deny whether there is any truth to that notion. If the results don't confirm your hypothesis (and they most often don't), then you change or discard the hypothesis, not the data. That may be what you are referring to above - if some one sets up an experiment to test their hypothesis, but then, after getting results that disagree with their predictions, changes the results to now agree with their predictions. If this is the case, then you are absolutely correct - that person would not be a very good scientist.

If, by "go in to science", you just mean to read about or learn about science or something more general like that: I would agree with you, depending on what you did with those preconceived notions. You would not be a very good scientist if you didn't change your preconceived notions, based on better evidence you've learned about. If you still held your preconceived notions based on outdated, unproven, or dis-proven facts or assumptions, in light of updated, tested, or proven facts or assumptions, then you would be a poor scientist indeed.

I don't think most of "us" are taking it wrong, just as I hope most of "you" aren't taking wrong the thoughts that we are offering here as well (obviously, there have been some inflammatory posts from both sides).

And I think we probably would get along... I'm not a baseball fan either!

__________________
"And if you say to me tomorrow,
Oh what fun it all would be,
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby,
But what is and what should never be."

-Led Zeppelin

Fats Schindee

Sorry my posts are so long, everyone. There's just so much to respond to that's been posted, even in the last couple days. I just looked at the clock and realized I've been replying to posts on this topic for the last 4.5 hours... Jeebus! Bedtime now... sleep good for tired brain.

__________________
"And if you say to me tomorrow,
Oh what fun it all would be,
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby,
But what is and what should never be."

-Led Zeppelin

NPmom

So, I take it many of you believers don't think there is a correlation between what we do and what are "fate" may be in the end? I wholeheartedly believe in the grace of Christ, the crucifixion, and that only through Christ are we saved. However, in reality, it is not that simple.

I think you have to practice and live what you believe. If you believe you need to "spread the gospel to the four corners of the earth", which is a noble cause, and something I have actually spent time in other countries doing, then I commend you. But, you can only teach the willing. You can't change someone's mind when they are dead set against their percieved logic of religion (or lack thereof). You only make more people convinced that they are right and there is no god. People like that are only going to change when they are forced to believe in god by circumstances in their life, which usually are illness, death of a loved one, extreme financial crisis, etc.

I do believe that by the grace of Christ we are saved, but we have to do our part by 1. Loving god, 2. Loving our neighbor as ourself (this includes not being obnoxious about the fact that they CHOOSE not to believe, and accepting them for the good people they most likely are), and by 3. Modeling our lives after Christ, and making choices that reflect what he might do in our situations. This is the hard part, and the problem I have with people who think they've accepted Christ and therefore are saved- not to take away from the divinity of that statement, but when it comes to us, we can't just be lazy SOBs and not incorporate any of Christ's teachings into our lives. My point about the atheist being a better person than the "christian" was that maybe that atheist, while not professing a belief in Christ, actually lives what could be considered a "christlike life" by being involved in charity, being kind to others all (most) the time, and doing things which are in accordance with a christian life, therefore believing by actions.

So, the kind of god I believe in is merciful and understands the limitations of each of our understandings. Therefore, if someone lives a good, christlike life, I believe they will have the chance to accept Christ sometime, either here or after death. A god who simply cuts people off because they intellectually can't grasp his existance, to me, is cruel and unfair. Didn't god say he was merciful AND just? And didn't he say he knows each of us like a shephard knows his flock?

I think when we LIVE what we believe, day to day, on a regular basis, and try our best to make choices that agree with christlike principles, we are good EXAMPLES to those around us who don't believe. When the time is right for them, they will come to us because they have seen the happiness our choices bring and then we can help them find Christ. This is what I practice, and I have seen it work in my own life with people close to me who didn't believe, but then came to believe after admiring the example of people who actually LIVE their beliefs.

So, in short, I believe in a merciful, just god, and I believe it is not up to us to decide who will be saved-that is so incredibly arrogant and presumtious that it goes against everything Christ taught. Just because we have accepted Christ doesn't give us power to say who will go to hell and who will be saved. That sort of arrogance just doesn't fit with the admonition to be "childlike" in our accepting of Christ and his teachings. This sort of back and forth distracts us from what we should be DOING in our daily lives.

Oh, and to the person that called me a dude, I'm not a he--check the avatar.

Skiy

Very well said; I mellow out now.

SAABoroowski

davinci

seriously here, without my usual flame bait, religion is truly for the weak minded. There are some people who have a craving or a need or a calling (whatever) that they associate with religion. some of us DO NOT!!! we have a whole mind which we fill with REAL things.

I believe that christianity is absolutely the most popular and successful cult in the world. look at all the fools forking over their money to the multi million dollar churches. I'd be so embarrassed and ashamed if i woke up one day to find myself giving my hard earned money to some scam artist so his daughter can drive a BMW and wear gucci.

religion is business.

Fats Schindee

Good post! Although I don't agree with a lot of the content (the existence of God, that non-believers will one day be "forced" to believe by life circumstances, etc.), I do wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment and message...

__________________
"And if you say to me tomorrow,
Oh what fun it all would be,
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby,
But what is and what should never be."

-Led Zeppelin

aussieflyboy

You, Mr "Illogical Thinker", win the award for MOST RETARDED POST OF 2008.

Everybody reading this, on both sides of the argument, is at least 10% more stupid for having read it.

Yariv

me too. very well thought out and written and a great message.

I do agree that many believers, especially born again types (or anyone who 'finds' faith later in life as opposed to belief since childhood) are "forced" to believe by life circumstances. Religion fills an emotional gap in people who aren't able to fill it themselves. so when things get hard, we take the load off ourselves by having god watch over us, calling it god's will, and trusting that there is a good reason this is happenning, even if the reason is beyond us, and this will turn out for the best in the end. never mind that this is wishful thinking and 'the end' can be after death. this process helps us cope with the possiblity we refuse to consider, which is that the terrible things happening to us do not have a reason and do not lead to a good outcome. it helps us convince ourselves that it's not our fault (whether it really is or is not) becuase it's god's will. it helps ease the wait for the result, because we tell ourselves we're in god's hands and he'll take care of us. sounds like children and parents. religion gives you the ability to remain a child in an adult world.

2%, I feel like I'm repeating myself. I feel like I'm repeating myself.
you agree with micro evolution but not macro? I hate to tell you but there is no difference. in fact science is not using those terms anymore since they are two variations of the same thing. you understand how micro evolution works, which is small improvements in a species in response to environmental pressures. that's like seeing a newborn turn in to a 1-month old, or a 6-month old turn into a 1-year old. given enough time (and we're talking about MILLIONS of years here) the newborn turns in to an 80 year old. there is no resemblence between the two on the surface, so you find it hard to believe a baby can instantly mutate into a senior. well it's not instant, it's a whole bunch of micro step becoming a macro. you claim that one species can't become another species. the fact is that all species are related, and the point where we arbitrarily decide to name one animal 'species A' and another 'B' is subjective based on how it looks. in my analogy, the baby and the senior would be two different species since they look nothing alike. you'll say they have two arms, two legs, two eyes, big brain, etc, so they are alike. I agree - all species are alike. look at any land animal - elephant, zebra, tiger, man, monkey, we all have the same skeletal structure. even whales! of course we're nothing like octupus or squid (which are alike) or shrimp or lobster (which are alike) but if you study enough fossils you'll see that all these branches on the tree come out of a common trunk. the first single cell organism. take a look HERE and HERE.

can we agree that as amazing (beyond belief for some) as evolution is, it makes more physical sense than a supernatural power about whom we know nothing simply created all this? that doesn't make sense.

as was said here earlier, you claim there is not enough evidence for evolution, yet your replacement theory is one without ANY* evidence? that doesn't make sense either.

* - or at best circumstancial evidence from people whose scientific knowledge was equal to today's 5 year olds.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake