The Faith & Religion mega Thread

"narrow standards"

Originally Posted by OregonJim "I once was lost, but now I'm found." I've already earned the "title", as you say, and now see it as an empty crown. You are, of course, free to hold (and to voice) your own opinion. Incidentally, I never said I believed in the 10,000 year theory, much less a "less than 10,000" theory. You seem to be making more assumptions about me. Young earth, yes - meaning thousands versus billions. The important point is that LIFE started (roughly) 10,000 years ago. That does not necessarily need to equal the age of the earth. And, my major objection is not so much with the numbers anyway, but with the fact that they were constructed arbitrarily to fit the darwinian model by extrapolation, and everything else in evolution revolves around those presuppositions. In any case, science-minded people are usually a bit more precise when quoting other people.

There are those that say 6000 and those up to 10,000. The lack of precision is in the scope of "young earthers" and since you state Life started ~10,000 tears ago, I see no problem with my precision, since I nailed the important aspect of your belief rather exactly and additionally assert it was Billions, not Thousands. That conclusion is backed by several different means of dating unlike the fantasy that life began a mere 10,000 years ago. The idea that dating primordial life was constructed after Darwin simply to support his (then unpopular) Theory is preposterous. Perhaps you learned Ancient History and Biology from The Flintstones?

Young Earthers commonly point to radioactive dating (only one means that happens to correlate) as "not that accurate" and at a certain scale that is true. The date for example that the Dinosaurs were all but wiped out isn't stated as 64,542,434 years ago or 65,077,898 but roughly 65,000,000.... still a VERY long way from 10,000. Can anyone actually imagine any professional employing any sort of measuring device THAT inaccurate? They'd be a laughing stock and nobody would ever trust anything they ever said. See? Preposterous! There were biblical 'scholars" who claimed they'd calculated certain ancient events to "a Friday afternoon in January" by contrast.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Hmmm... the website is owned and edited by an elder in the Mormon church (comments withheld here) who deals with "experimental math". Hardly an objective exposition for EITHER side of the argument given the LDS view of the universe (which is rather...unique). This is not exactly characteristic of your usual narrow standards. Or were you more interested in the DATA rather than the SOURCE, as I have been 'preaching'? Do we see a double standard emerging? Did I not predict this several pages ago?

I suppose you've not heard of "Reductio ad Absurdum" or "Lowest Common Denominator"? I have already posted links to truly scholarly papers on this subject and that link was an attempt to show that even among some groups as far out there (Magic Underwear anyone?) as Mormons, "Intelligent Design"/"Creation Science" is even too far out for them. If that was taking "reductio ad absurdum" too far for you, then how about a Republican Judge appointed by G.W. Bush and his advisers?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia-Kitzmiller_vs/_Dover The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy, by the Seventh Amendment, right to a jury trial did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005, to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush.[7] On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID

Lately such organizations as The Discovery Institute labor away as if that ruling never took place and attempt to create Creationist-based "journals" in order to spin-doctor the definition of "peer review" and fool individuals that look no further once they find support for a pet "theory". I'll drop the "lowest common denominator" method and link another more respected review

Peer Reviewed Intelligent Design Debunked but don't rely on mine. Just search for ANY support in such publications as "Nature" or "arxiv.org"... shoot! even "Scientific American"!

Young Earth, Evolution Denial by Intelligent Design, and Genetic Entropy are concepts only held by nutters with a biblical axe to grind. Check. and Mate.... not because I, or any few books, say so but because a few thousand years of actual objective evidence gathering, pruned by skeptical falsification, have led here. Welcome to the 21st Century, those of you who have bothered to keep up past The Scopes Trial.

Pointless. Noone can claim God does or does not exist(YEA BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON BOTH SIDES because God is exception to everyday ruling) until some event comes and gives the final proof. Until then for all we know - Evolution can be true, Religion can be true, Aliens can be true, ALL of those combined or some other explanation can be true. None of us can sign paper yet that we swear to our and ones we care about lives our specific belief is true. Cause we might be wrong afterall..too much risk but at same time proof there is something hidden.

To me, the "young Earthers" are just taking the mystery out of it. They want to know it all. And, they want a God (and a "creation") that can be conclusively known ... and that fits, specifically, their interpretation of The Bible. But, "the reality, that we can plainly see, is just not like that."

Genesis 1 ... which by-the-way is not the only "creation myth" in the Holy Bible ... is a poem. ("And the evening and the morning were the XXX day" is the refrain.) Even if you don't understand the language, it's beautiful to hear it being recited in Hebrew.

People also want to know about the end. Specifically, some people like to hear that God's going to point his heavenly transporter-beam at them, and send them to the celestial grandstands where they can watch "the people who are not like them" get their Just Desserts.

"God, the Universe, and Everything," at least according to them. Tied-up with a pretty bow, both at the beginning and at the end of time. Geological realities need not apply . . .

. . . and where is the Mystery in that?

I believe in the stupidities of ALL our parents and ourselves, NOT just religions or all their aspects! (I also <3 each and everyone!)

We don't legally educate even 1/3 (8.46ish mm, +/- statistics ) of billions (with b unlike cash someone's priority should see if they can eat it) children,,, until over 5?!

When they learn best at 2?!!!

Here on this smarter than most (except medon't even think there was K5 around my ghetto a#! $chool$ evolving for 40 years now ) forum (like it or not) where likely many computer doctorates and\or candidates evolve alongside freedoms? I submit earth as an environment knows what it is doing and with 7 billion genii it still needs "y"our armageddons!?. As another wave, to wash the bowls so that some may get to shore with better sense... HOPE not but if you BELIEVE hard enough Tinkerbell yada, yada...

Don't it feel crazy 100's or 1000's of years from now when they all have pasta hats? The search for hiding veagan-meat-balls and once-extinct-garlic-bread for the kiddies, who then WILL grow up hardcore believers in a spaghetti monsters! OTHERWISE explain in depth every religion ever, and what you do or don't believe in them each, and why? While you say: well you didn't! You don't really need to but understand the simple concept others BELIEVE they are right enough for bombs too! (Again not just religion but rage as well tho?!)

Most anything else I cover my ears and LALALALALA but unlike religion I don't really have to just want!

• facts
• opinions

"Oooh! Someone just discovered fonts!"

They (punnishly) amuse me.

Add: perhaps to varying degrees: backward time travel or other theories just like séances or eternal life are equally at blame... or, should it just be entertainment in general?

Originally Posted by enorbet That conclusion is backed by several different means of dating unlike the fantasy that life began a mere 10,000 years ago.

Empty words. Provide me a SINGLE dating method that does not make ANY presumptions, and is accurate to even just one million years.

Originally Posted by enorbet Can anyone actually imagine any professional employing any sort of measuring device THAT inaccurate? They'd be a laughing stock and nobody would ever trust anything they ever said. See? Preposterous!

This is an argument ?!? IMAGINING something and concluding truth based on your IMAGINATION? Oh, I forgot - that's exactly what macro evolution does.

Originally Posted by enorbet how about a Republican Judge appointed by G.W. Bush and his advisers?

Non sequitur. As I've stated several times already, you switch your arguments from objective to subjective on a whim. And this time to an entirely unrelated subject. It seems to be an effort to sidestep my original assertion that you did exactly the thing that you accused me of doing (using 'unacceptable' sources). Reductio ad absurdum does not even apply here, as you tried to assert. It would be more honest to simply admit you made a 'boo boo'.

Originally Posted by enorbet Check. and Mate.... not because I, or any few books, say so but because a few thousand years of actual objective evidence gathering, pruned by skeptical falsification, have led here. Welcome to the 21st Century, those of you who have bothered to keep up past The Scopes Trial.

Check and mate? Hardly. The game has barely begun. A "few thousand years of actual objective evidence gathering" - I'd like to see you back up THAT statement with some actual fact. I'll even grant you the widest possible array of source material!

An educated guess or whatever they say! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys-basic-001.php

Hey if you melt salt and sugar in water you can evolve some crystals, just through in some frogs, viruses, bugs, birds, cancer, education, ∞.∞.∞.

Add: or, LALALALA!

Being clever* doesn't disprove gods, demands, heavens and hells; all of us being clever* dose...

Originally Posted by Arcane Pointless. Noone can claim God does or does not exist(YEA BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON BOTH SIDES because God is exception to everyday ruling) until some event comes and gives the final proof. Until then for all we know - Evolution can be true, Religion can be true, Aliens can be true, ALL of those combined or some other explanation can be true. None of us can sign paper yet that we swear to our and ones we care about lives our specific belief is true. Cause we might be wrong afterall..too much risk but at same time proof there is something hidden.

I'd say it differently, and thus probably poorly, but I concur. You can't prove one way versus another except perhaps just long term theory/law application such as dating items and artifacts, but then that just proves the existence of certain types of life in certain time frames of history. Does not prove the ephemeral stuff.

I'm less concerned about knowing an absolute a'la faith. You die, you die. If there's existence beyond then, I'll find out at that time. I have a problem that someone entirely unknown to certain faiths is condemned by those rules, merely because they are not of this faith. The examples I draw from are things like aborigines in Australia or tribes living in other remote locations, not just present, but past. Is it their fault that they were not nearby during these biblical events and thus have zero knowledge about things? The (sorry) bad muslims appear to say that since others know nothing of Allah, then they may be condemned, or at least that's the impression I've been given. Well, ,also the same for the born again christians who try to "save" us, door to door. And who are they to say, because once again the origins of that faith are very far from where I've grown and learned. And I grew up where organized religion was available to me.

So what I get out of it are that the general guidelines of a religion are positive life guidelines, a.k.a don't kill anyone, don't steal, don't cheat, and so forth. OK, good ideas to promote. Meanwhile I'm not judgy at the people who have zero exposure to any religion deciding their own morals which end up being positively directed morals and for myself choose also to follow a good moral path.

As far as what comes beyond, if I'm to be condemned in the eyes of a superior, supernatural overseer for living a good life, but just not happening to follow EXACTLY the path they approve of ... well, they're a jerk for being too limited and shame on them for not making it crystal clear so that any idiot can know for certain what the rules are.

Also very sure that may set off a number of pious folks who'll explain that one is supposed to "seek" the true path, etc, etc, yah-dah-yah-dah. But if you have nearly a whole society, in some remote location, is it their fault that there aren't billboards informing them to even "seek"? I mean the Native Americans, Aztecs, other native tribes, many of them worshiped what they saw, the Sun, Moon, the Mountains and Stars. Were they all condemned because they didn't canvas from tent to tent to "save" their fellow tribesmen? Is it their fault that "scriptures" written by man are miles and miles away and entirely unknown to them?

"Man creates God in his own image." - hence why we have these "interpretations" as written by men, past and present.

Methinks that if women were on top of the development of most societies, then it might be "Woman created God in her own image." To that I'd say "Great!", "I hope she'd be a redhead", and I'd find it largely more believable because Women are essential to creating new life. Men are 50% at the start of it, but all the rest of the production to make those cells into a newly born human are entirely done within the woman.

Originally Posted by rtmistler The examples I draw from are things like aborigines in Australia or tribes living in other remote locations, not just present, but past. Is it their fault that they were not nearby during these biblical events and thus have zero knowledge about things?

Christianity teaches that those aborigines will certainly go to Heaven - if they've never broken God's law, which is 'written on the hearts of ALL men'. The same goes for any person on the planet, past, present or future - even if they've never heard of Jesus, the Bible, or anything else.

Tell me - is there anyone on the planet who has never done anything wrong? Anywhere? You judge 'badness' by comparing it to things other men do. Try comparing it to God.

God says that the wages of sin is death. We are ALL destined for Hell, the first time we do something wrong. Nothing we do can erase a wrong. If you tell one lie, then live like Mother Teresa the rest of your life - you are STILL a liar. No religion is needed to KNOW that. Living a "good life" (by your OWN standards, not God's) doesn't cut it. Heaven is a place of perfection, like God. His perfect justice can't allow it to be tainted, by His very nature. But because of His great love for us, He offers a plan of redemption. He took upon Himself the punishment for our wrongs, in the body of Jesus, and in exchange, offers us the perfection of His very nature if we simply trust that He did that for us. His justice becomes satisfied. He begins purifying us for Heaven the moment we recognize that we need redemption and trust that He provides it, then He completes the work when we die. None of that is done by us - it's all done by Him.

The problem is not that some people may never hear about Jesus. The awesome thing is that some WILL! It's not an issue of fairness, as we all deserve death. We have ALREADY been judged fairly. It's a demonstration of great mercy, in that SOME will be saved even though they don't 'deserve' it, and is the driving force behind those who find it to SHARE that great mercy with OTHERS! We are told to spread the message to the ends of the earth so that as many people as possible will hear it. No other so-called religion offers that. Only God does, through Jesus.

The tragic thing is when someone is OFFERED this free gift and they reject it. They were condemned, offered a pardon, and said 'no thanks' - I'd rather be condemned. That is a fearful and grave position to be in. It's one thing to spend eternity in Hell contemplating your own sins that got you there. It' quite another to spend an eternity in Hell contemplating your own rejection of the way out - your own rejection of the God you COULD have been spending eternity with.

See, you start with the wrong premise. You assume that everyone is able to make themselves 'good enough' to get into Heaven, if only they can find the right 'formula'. Therefore, it's not 'fair' if some are not given that 'formula'. But God says that nobody is good enough, or ever will be. All have been judged equally and fairly ALREADY. But He chooses, in an act of mercy, to save SOME, according to His own purposes.

This relatively modern idea of 'fairness' is not a virtue. It is not something 'good'. It is a form of ENVY. Something 'bad'. We see a man freely passing out thousand dollar bills in the park. We go up to him for our "fair share" and he refuses. That's not fair!, we say. Why not? Isn't it HIS money to give away to whomever he chooses? Where do you get off claiming any rights? That's envy. The man is perfectly fair and just. It is his posession, and he is the only one who has a say. If he gives you anything, it is out of MERCY, not FAIRNESS. The virtues are justice and mercy. The vices are fairness (as defined today) and envy. When we say "All men are created equal", it means that all men should be equally capable of pursuing their desired path in life, NOT that all men are to be given equal portions or equal opportunities.

If my words make no sense to you, here are a few people who may be more understandable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V8h_ZS2zCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXs5wOSVk4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6zpySZDBo0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJipDSGt78

Originally Posted by OregonJim Empty words. Provide me a SINGLE dating method that does not make ANY presumptions, and is accurate to even just one million years.

No I'm not going to provide a SINGLE method since it is important that ALL of them correlate - verify each other. Raddiometric dating was first proposed shortly after 1900 but didn't "get legs" until Carbon 14 dating, first proposed shortly after WWII, was checked against known dates, easily done since it's half life is roughly 5500 years. (See attached Graph) The number of labs has grown exponentially because it works. C14 has been complemented by other radioactive elements to expand on the useful time frames. AFAIK none have a fixed accuracy rate of one million years. It is expressed as a percentage.

Once again you confuse axiomatic with "pulling out if your arse" presumption. An example of an axiom

Originally Posted by Wikipedia-Axiom When an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results

Please, by all means, refute that. This is simply one example of the the solid underpinnings of Math and Science, in modern times including the concept of falsification which you don't seem to grasp. You prefer a "playing field" where all assumptions are equal and nothing can be objectively known beyond what's in the Bible.

Originally Posted by OregonJim This is an argument ?!? IMAGINING something and concluding truth based on your IMAGINATION? Oh, I forgot - that's exactly what macro evolution does.

The actual argument was and is based on the body of evidence that exists, including massive attempts at falsification, that supports the validity of how we date things from antiquity. The addition of "imagining any professional relying on a tool SO INACCURATE as you claim, is indeed reductio ad absurdum since nobody would hire a construction crew to build their home by using, say, each workers individual finger lengths as a means of measurement... yet this would be orders of magnitude more accurate than that you claim for radiometric dating, which the massive body of evidence soundly refutes. Your "argument" for the inimaginably gross inaccuracy of radiometric dating is absurd.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Non sequitur. As I've stated several times already, you switch your arguments from objective to subjective on a whim. And this time to an entirely unrelated subject. It seems to be an effort to sidestep my original assertion that you did exactly the thing that you accused me of doing (using 'unacceptable' sources). Reductio ad absurdum does not even apply here, as you tried to assert. It would be more honest to simply admit you made a 'boo boo'.

Once again it appears you have not done your homework. If you bothered to actually click on the link you would have seen that the judge, and one associated with a very conservative affiliation, did do his homework and produced 139 pages of supporting data from reputable sources and concluded that "Intelligent Design" BY ANY NAME is still absolute bunk. The "reduction" part was that I didn't choose, say, Richard Dawkins (though a reputable man of Science) who could be construed as having an agenda, given his aggressive stance on superstition. Surely you must actually be aware that for every source you consider reputable, I can choose from 100, since my views are consistent with The Standard Model supported by a massive amount of time, effort, and the best minds humanity has produced and from a very wide variety of disciplines. Creationists, by contrast, rely entirely on a very few nutjobs with zero credibility outside their own sphere and with good reason as you have demonstrated since the only arbiter for truth you accept is The Bible... any other evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

I can't prove, nor care to, that God doesn't exist anymore than anyone can prove He/She/It does exist. However, it is indeed possible to prove that The Bible, including Evolution Denial, Genetic Entropy, Young Earth and the Parent of it All, "Intelligent Design" is pure Myth at best, with superstitious hogwash and political maneuvering at the core to mesmerize and control the masses.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Check and mate? Hardly. The game has barely begun. A "few thousand years of actual objective evidence gathering" - I'd like to see you back up THAT statement with some actual fact. I'll even grant you the widest possible array of source material!

Barely begun? The beginning of the end, at least in the US, was shortly after the 1925 Scopes Trial. I've already noted the nature and evolution of The Standard Model.... you know, the means we landed probes on planets, comets and asteroids moving at unimaginable speeds in complex orbits, discover the Higgs Boson, Gravity Waves, and the computers by which even you can disseminate your pet beliefs to a potentially global audience just to name a few? Please do illustrate any practical advances made possible by so-called Intelligent Design and Young Earth.


Graph of Known Dates Checked Against C14

Originally Posted by c14dating.com Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949). The first acid test of the new method was based upon radiocarbon dating of known age samples primarily from Egypt (the dates are shown in the diagram by the red lines, each with a �1 standard deviation included). The Egyptian King's name is given next to the date obtained. The theoretical curve was constructed using the half-life of 5568 years. The activity ratio relates to the carbon 14 activity ratio between the ancient samples and the modern activity. Each result was within the statistical range of the true historic date of each sample.