Support NeoGAF

[Xdrive05]

Evolution is both scientific theory and fact.

Bacteria cause illness. This is both a scientific theory and fact.

The Earth revolves around the Sun. This is both a scientific theory and a fact.

See what I'm doing here?

You need to read up on what a scientific theory is.

It's a fact in the way that most people think of facts, but the scientific theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is a body of facts drawn together to form a well-supported conclusion.

See also: gravitational theory.

As it always goes with these things, the wording equivocates us hard in the balls.

 

[ManaByte]

Its interesting how you can actually investigate the creation of the Bible and you can see how people chose certain books to the exclusion of others. You can see how Christians had several favorite myths they circulated as essays inlduded to illustrate certain moral ideas. The Bible was just a handbook, but some people later forgot this. There are alternate tellings of the garden of eden left out of the final Bible (in one book Adam had an earlier wife than Eve!). There are stories about Jesus' early life that were left out because they didn't illustrate the correct morality that Christian fathers wanted to portray as belonging to god.

THEYRE JUST STORES. EARLY CHRISTIANS KNEW THIS. Religious scholars can tell you all about it. Catholic clergy can tell you all about it. Many protestants can tell you all about it (though the definition of a protestant is a Christian who decides things for himself without consensus, and that can include those who interpret it in fundamentalist ways)

Only the uneducated members of Christianity, who know its right but don't know why its right or what it is exactly, maintain fundamentalist beliefs in it. And it's a mistake. Its not religion. It's not Christianity. It's a superstition. It's objectively wrong... even if this religion is potentially correct.

The creation tale is just a story. Creationism is a corruption of incorrect belief in that story. Christianity properly understood says nothing about the possibility of evolution, for or otherwise.

2 Timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

 

[Evlar]

You praise this teacher for attempting to convince his students that evolution is true. The thing is, the students don't want to be convinced, and neither do their parents want their children to be convinced. I'm wondering how someone like you or JayDubya can possibly approve of this guy. Why shouldn't they be free to absent themselves for the few days that evolution is taught in class?

From the OP:

"Faith is not based on science," Campbell said. "And science is not based on faith. I don't expect you to 'believe' the scientific explanation of evolution that we're going to talk about over the next few weeks."

"But I do," he added, "expect you to understand it."

It would be nice if people read the OP before commenting on it.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

I'm sure if you polled high schoolers, they also wouldn't want to learn about history, math, other sciences or foreign languages.

But their parents want them to.

 

[theBishop]

Why shouldn't they be free to absent themselves for the few days that evolution is taught in class?

That's a fundamental question about the role of education.

Do we go to school to have our baseless assertions affirmed?

Do we go to school to have our eyes opened to the world as it is?

Do we go to school to learn the minimum skills required to pursue a career?

 

[TheExodu5]

Sorry chap, but the theory of evolution by way of natural selection is not only completely true, but it's the foundation for all of biology, including all advances in medical technology.

You have a problem with evolution, but I bet you don't have a problem taking advantage of all of the benefits that come directly through the broad (total) acceptance of evolution in the scientific community.

Any opposing theory can either show some evidence, thus elevating it from a "stupid hypothesis" to a "theory", or it can shut the hell up. You people are like the Flat Earth Society at this point.

Why don't you read the rest of my posts before you reply?

 

[Stoney Mason]

From the OP:
It would be nice if people read the OP before commenting on it.

You're missing the meta-argument that is taking place

 

[Tamanon]

But their parents want them to.

So then you're saying that if the parent doesn't want them to learn, let's say, Math, then they shouldn't be required to have it in order to get a diploma?

 

[theBishop]

2 Timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

That's a great argument for throwing out the bible entirely.

 

[ckohler]

Uh, Evolution is far from fact. I accept evolution, because there's not a better theory out there in terms of how life began, but stating that evolution is fact is just ignorant. Science is proving it's case with evolution everyday with more evidence, sure, but there's still some interesting problems with the theory which keeps it from being absolutely true, or "fact."

Two things:

Evolution by natural selection does not explain the origins of life. It is the natural process that explains the diversity of all life.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is FACT in the minds of scientists otherwise it wouldn't be accepted as being called the "theory of evolution". The United States National Academy of Sciences says:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

 

[Mango Positive]

Uh, Evolution is far from fact. I accept evolution, because there's not a better theory out there in terms of how life began, but stating that evolution is fact is just ignorant. Science is proving it's case with evolution everyday with more evidence, sure, but there's still some interesting problems with the theory which keeps it from being absolutely true, or "fact."

A theory can not exist without some observable phenomenon that the theory is attempting to explain. Also, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life began.

We have observed a shift in species while observing multiple generations of fruit flies. There is no dissent amongst scientists regarding the theory of evolution.

 

[besada]

2 Timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

So, I have to ask, do you believe the world is flat and six thousand years old?

 

[ManaByte]

So, I have to ask, do you believe the world is flat and six thousand years old?

The Bible doesn't teach that the world is flat.

 

[Desperado]

I don't hink you actually understand science. How things work is what science is concerned, *what to do with that knowledge* is completely irrelevant to science. It is relevant to HUMANS but it isn't relevant to *science*.

What do you think psychology is?

 

[Gaborn]

What do you think psychology is?

Ask Pavlov's dog.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

From the OP:

"Faith is not based on science," Campbell said. "And science is not based on faith. I don't expect you to 'believe' the scientific explanation of evolution that we're going to talk about over the next few weeks."

"But I do," he added, "expect you to understand it.

It would be nice if people read the OP before commenting on it.

I have read it. I was hoping that people would be smart enough to understand that that statement of Campbell is merely a trick used to make his students less aggressively opposed to his teaching of evolution. Alas, GAF disappoints once again.

Understanding a fact about the world, and understanding why it's a fact almost necessarily leads to belief. It's not a coincidence if even the few creationists who have a Ph.D would be hard pressed to correctly define evolution: they don't understand what evolution is. If they did, they would almost certainly believe it. It's also why the principal activity of creationist leaders is to spread misinformation about evolution. Propagating ignorance and promulgating the dogma that religious beliefs shouldn't be challenged are the two primary defenses of creationism.

 

[ronito]

The Bible doesn't teach that the world is flat.

what about the 6,000 year old part? It DOES teach that.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

I don't think you actually understand religion. Morality is kind of the point.
I don't hink you actually understand science. How things work is what science is concerned, *what to do with that knowledge* is completely irrelevant to science. It is relevant to HUMANS but it isn't relevant to *science*.

I don't think you understand his remark. While reading your comment I thought the same thing. Morality is indeed completely irrelevant in practising science but morality in itself can be explained by science. Same as that love can be explained by science. I doubt the point was made to get morality in the argument. Your way of explaining yourself begged for that kind of reply.

 

[Evlar]

I have read it. I was hoping that people would be smart enough to understand that that statement of Campbell is merely a trick used to make his students less aggressively opposed to his teaching of evolution. Alas, GAF disappoints once again.

Understanding a fact about the world, and understanding why it's a fact almost necessarily leads to belief. It's not a coincidence if even the few creationists who have a Ph.D would be hard pressed to correctly define evolution: they don't understand what evolution is. If they did, they would almost certainly believe it. It's also why the principal activity of creationist leaders is to spread misinformation about evolution. Propagating ignorance and promulgating the dogma that religious beliefs shouldn't be challenged are the two primary defenses of creationism.

I understand your view of knowledge and don't find it credible.

 

[speculawyer]

Just like atheists don't want Christians to push their beliefs on others, they should follow the same example and stop trying to push their atheist beliefs onto Christians.

Live and let live.

:lol

 

[deepbrown]

Eh? That depends on the Christian. I don't consider myself a Christian, but my mom is sure devout, and I assure you she doesn't pick and choose.

Also, your whole adultery thing is way off....Jesus is the one who stopped the stoning of the women by saying "let him without sin cast the first stone". Even if homosexuality is viewed as a sin, what Jesus said clearly demonstrated that Christians should not be the judge of sin, as Christians are sinners themselves. Those who condemn homosexuals are obviously misinterpretting their religion, and just using it as a moral highground to say they are better than others, which they have no right to say.

OK, I suggest you go through the bible with your mother and tell all the things she's meant to believe...and believe them devoutly. For a start she'll find it hard to find to beliefs the same, as the bible contradicts itself page after page, that it's very hard to get any messages. And "those who condemn homosexuals are obviously misinterpretting their religion"??? Have you read the bible. Why is that "Love thy neighbour" is a more important moral than homosexuality being an abomination, as said in Leviticus 18:22. Pck and choose, pick and choose.

But if your mother wants to believe them all, then so be it. Here's some questions she should be able to help me with:


1.When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2.I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3.I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4.Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5.I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6.A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7.Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8.Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

[Mango Positive]

Why don't you read the rest of my posts before you reply?

Just did... you still come off as the bad guy here, but only slightly better than a died-in-the-wool creationist. Not every "belief" is worthy of respect. Any belief contrary to observable reality (in this case, creationism / intelligent design) is worthy of unfettered scorn. This isn't even about religion. It's about society encouraged child abuse, and I do consider the teaching of known falsehoods to young children to be "child abuse".

 

[TheExodu5]

First sensible thing you've posted yet.

But none of this has anything to do with your implying that Intelligent Design is in any way on equal ground as evolution, or that biology students shouldn't be taught evolution.

Who gives a shit about the religious question with evolution? This is about the science. It shouldn't be used to push a religious agenda, for or against, in the science classroom.

Not saying it shouldn't be taught to people who want to take biology. However, when it comes to biology, what's studied is micro-evolution. When it comes to history, it becomes more of a sort of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution can be taught without offending anyone.

Never said Intelligent Design was on equal ground. Obviously one is rooted in science, and the other in faith.

Unlike some people in the thread, I oppose calling evolution, as it is taught, a fact. There's a difference in between believing bacteria evolve and thinking we all sprouted from amino acids. I've seen the mathematical odds of the latter happening, and while I still believe it, the odds are pretty damn low enough for me to realize it might not be true.
Darwin realized this and even said so...he knew it was not an infallible theory.

Wait....there are people that think creationism is an agnostic thing too?

Does it make sense that people who have the stated religious belief of "I don't know and really won't ever know" would posit that everything was created by an all-powerful being?

I guess I didn't use the proper term. I thought I was agnostic. Basically, I don't know if there is a God, but I think there might be?

 

[darscot]

Two things:

Evolution by natural selection does not explain the origins of life. It is the natural process that explains the diversity of all life.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is FACT in the minds of scientists otherwise it wouldn't be accepted as being called the "theory of evolution". The United States National Academy of Sciences says:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

Your missreading your quote. It in no way states a Theory is Fact, it states a theory is based on fact untill proven it remains a theory. I'm not religious in any way but you have to be blind to not see some fact in the theory you also have to be blind to not see it has flaws. Natural selection is FACT in my mind, it occurs we can see it we can cause it. It does not explain the massive changes that have occurred to life as we know it. Natural Selection alone is not enough.

 

[TheExodu5]

2 Timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

There ya go. I was pretty sure that the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally.

 

[jakershaker]

There is no dissent amongst scientists regarding the theory of evolution.

This can't be quoted enough and should really be an end to the "Evolution is just a theory" crowd. It's a theory yes, but everyone agrees it's the best one we got. The theory part means it's still so much to learn, not that the scientist suddenly will go in a totally different direction.

 

[speculawyer]

2 Timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

The Bible says it is true, so it most be true. :lol

Hey everyone . . . Pi is not an irrational number like we all thought . . . it is 3! The Bible says so, so it must be right.

And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Azih]

It's hardly the singular point. Many religions also make ridiculous, baseless claims about how the universe came to be, and what happens when you die.

which has nothing at all to do with religion and morality. A source of morality is one of religion's major functions. You might think it's an ass backwards stupid source of morality, but to say it isn't one at all is not valid in the slightest.

You are (purposely?) taking a small view of Science. Morality can be is studied according to the scientific method.

Studying morality and *replacing* it are two completely different things. And it is the replacing it which is what I am disagreeing you on. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is completely seperate from Science just like Metaphysics. This is the root of where my disagreement with you lies I think.

Philosophy and theology are not equivalent.

There is a huge amount of overlap and what is common to both is the consideration of questions that are *not falsifiable* and there is no evidence even possible. Which is what you derieded and dimissed in your post by saying

In absence of evidence, the existence of God is an irrelevant question

Absence of evidence does not make questions irrelevant at all.

An example from the wiki on falsfiability:
On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.

Not falsifiable means not of scientific interest. But it remains of *human* interest. And thus we have philosophy and thus we have religion.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

So then you're saying that if the parent doesn't want them to learn, let's say, Math, then they shouldn't be required to have it in order to get a diploma?

Of course not. I'm one of those people who believe that truth matters, and that children should be taught the truth regardless of what they want, and also regardless of what their parents want. More generally, I think that people should be told the truth even if they don't want to hear it, and even if it's offensive to them.

But that's not what people like JayDubya and Azih believe. So I'm wondering how people like them can reconcile their stance that evolution should be taught regardless of the children's and parents' religiously-motivated wishes, with their stance that 'pushing' beliefs on others is bad.

 

[TheExodu5]

what about the 6,000 year old part? It DOES teach that.

No it doesn't.

God some of you are damn ignorant of the religions you're condeming.

 

[HolyCheck]

Claiming to be a Christian and denying scripture does not compute.

wow,

It must be REALLY different in America to the situation here in Australia.

I attended and all guys catholic school, and a catholic primary school. Even in year 12 (the last year of high school) when you are to pick the 5 subjects to study, and guide you to univeristy / tafe or where ever you want to go, we still had to do religion.

But it was religion in a sense that makes more sense in todays world, yes we studied the bible. but not as fact, but as an idea of how to treat each other, how to look at a situation, ie don't kill, stealing is wrong, help some one if they're in trouble.

After that i;d wonder off to one of my many other classes, ie biology and physics. not once was an argument ever brought up about the religious texts, clashing with our scientific findings in class, or anything we learnt.

anyway, i guess my point is. and yes i probly come off like one of those "people who think the bible is fact are idiots" guys, but hey i probly am. Having been surrounded though by the bible, studying the bible, studying several different religions over the years, I like to think i have a fairly, modern view on the whole situation

and simply denying scientific FACT, (like mentioned before, scientific theory != theory) because they clash with a book, which might i had has no references, seems rather unusual to anyone who has studied any form of respectable anything...

(its 3am here, so excuse any grammatical errors, poor word placement and so on)

also, this thread has increased my ignore list by quite a bit.

Oh, also, If anyone asks, i call myself catholic. (or jedi in the census for a laugh)

 

[theBishop]

Your missreading your quote. It in no way states a Theory is Fact, it states a theory is based on fact untill proven it remains a theory. I'm not religious in any way but you have to be blind to not see some fact in the theory you also have to be blind to not see it has flaws. Natural selection is FACT in my mind, it occurs we can see it we can cause it. It does not explain the massive changes that have occurred to life as we know it. Natural Selection alone is not enough.

If a hypothesis has reached "theory" status, it is a fact in practice. There is no significant dissent on the subject and additional study is predicated on the voracity of the "theory" as a foundation.

 

[Gaborn]

No it doesn't.

God some of you are damn ignorant of the religions you're condeming.

Indirectly based on the length of the lives of the people mentioned... yes it does rather strongly imply life began around 6000 years ago.

 

[deepbrown]

You are completely dismissing an entire branch of philosophy (metaphysics). Thus I don't think you acutally understand philosophy.

Yes Metaphysics is about what best theory fits....what can explain everything? However, since there is no evidence (unlike Science) I don't think a Metaphysician can ever say their theory is the right theory, only that at that particular time, their theory is the best.

Then again my Metaphysics teacher said that if there was on ething he was ever certain about, it was that there was no God. And his arguments against the exitence of God were very strong, and usually we reject an idea if we can't argue for it and move on with our theory.

 

[Evlar]

No it doesn't.

God some of you are damn ignorant of the religions you're condeming.

It does teach the 900-year-old humans thing, and the flooding over all the mountaintops thing. If you take that portion literally, I mean.

 

[sca2511]

Someone who doesn't totally believe in everything that is Christianity(insert religion), but just most or some of it? Are they still called Christians(insert religion)?

 

[teruterubozu]

No it doesn't.

God some of you are damn ignorant of the religions you're condeming.

I'm theorizing that he was being sarcastic.

 

[Evlar]

Someone who doesn't totally believe in everything that is Christianity(insert religion), but just most or some of it? Are they still called Christians(insert religion)?

I'd say it's impossible to believe everything that is Christianity, since Christians (both individuals and major branches of Christianity with ancient traditions) believe conflicting things.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm theorizing that he was being sarcastic.

Or referring to the Ussher Chronology

 

[happyfunball]

If people wanted an example of someone using it as a weapon against religion, then here you go.

Absolutely, infact, don't stop at evolution. There's plenty of other rational explanations for reality that don't involve supernatural fairy tales.

This poster is so ignorant that he knows there is no higher being out there. What's more, he's saying it right now that this evolution class is going to discredit people's beliefs.

There is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, why should I even entertain the idea of it? I just hope that teaching the scientific method will help these kids shake off some old superstitions and think critically about the world.

If the chance of life evolving from amino acids is one in 10^verybignumber (what, something like 360 or so), then you should have enough respect for probability to realize there's a possibility of something greater than us out there).

Stop looking at religious progaganda videos for one thing. Second, statistics provide no evidence for the supernatural. Third, that number comes from a SEVERE ignorance of chemistry, physics, etc. Fourth, who said life started with amino acids?

 

[onipex]

Religion should never be brought up in a debate about science. Yet whenever evolution is brought up the creation story in the Bible comes up. It happens in every science book, TV show, lecture, etc. There is no reason for it. Maybe what schools need to do first it make sure students understand the difference between the two.

Next scientist need to stop thinking that they need to discredit the Bible as it is a book of faith and not science.



I was taught evolution in public and private schools. I’ve studied it outside of school and I don’t fully agree with it. My reasons for not seeing it as total fact have nothing to do with religion.

 

[teruterubozu]

Indirectly based on the length of the lives of the people mentioned... yes it does rather strongly imply life began around 6000 years ago.

According to the calculations of Archbishop Ussher, a dude from 1650.

 

[Mango Positive]

Not saying it shouldn't be taught to people who want to take biology. However, when it comes to biology, what's studied is micro-evolution. When it comes to history, it becomes more of a sort of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution can be taught without offending anyone.

I'm having a very hard time understanding why you (and others) can't seem to comprehend that millions of years of "slight changes" (micro-evolution) doesn't equal "one big change" (macro-evolution).

 

[TheExodu5]

OK, I suggest you go through the bible with your mother and tell all the things she's meant to believe...and believe them devoutly. For a start she'll find it hard to find to beliefs the same, as the bible contradicts itself page after page, that it's very hard to get any messages. And "those who condemn homosexuals are obviously misinterpretting their religion"??? Have you read the bible. Why is that "Love thy neighbour" is a more important moral than homosexuality being an abomination, as said in Leviticus 18:22. Pck and choose, pick and choose.

But if your mother wants to believe them all, then so be it. Here's some questions she should be able to help me with:


1.When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2.I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3.I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4.Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5.I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6.A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7.Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8.Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Holy shit. Do you even understand the point of Christianity? Quoting all your verses from the Old Testament is the same as arguing against Judaism.

Read the NEW Testament, which is the foundation for Christianity. It's about redemption. I don't pretend to understand why the Old and New Testaments are conflicting, but that's how it goes. The Old Testament teaches that an adulteress should be stoned, but Jesus prevents this from happening. If you're going to try to find religious verses to support your facts, you're going to need to grab them off the New Testament.

Stop looking at religious progaganda videos for one thing. Second, statistics provide no evidence for the supernatural. Third, that number comes from a SEVERE ignorance of chemistry, physics, etc. Fourth, who said life started with amino acids?

You support evolution, but don't even know where the basis of it is grounded? :lol

Amino acids evolved into protein strings, and thereforth life sprouted.

 

[besada]

The Bible doesn't teach that the world is flat.

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

God himself mentions the foundation and cornerstone of the Earth. As oblate spheroids don't have corners, one must either assume God was being metaphorical (ie: not literally true) or that the world is indeed flat. We'd need at least a pyramidal structure, or a flat plate for the world to have a corner stone.

So if there's metaphor in the bible, how do you tell which bits are metaphor and which bits are literal?

 

[Azih]

Morality is.... a claim.

I think we are working from radially different usages of the term morality.

Morality is a system of right and wrong, good and bad. That's it. Providing this system is one of the primary ways humans have used religion for *ever*. And the question of good and evil lies at the *heart* of every religion.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Belief in God and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[deepbrown]

wow,

It must be REALLY different in America to the situation here in Australia.

I attended and all guys catholic school, and a catholic primary school. Even in year 12 (the last year of high school) when you are to pick the 5 subjects to study, and guide you to univeristy / tafe or where ever you want to go, we still had to do religion.

But it was religion in a sense that makes more sense in todays world, yes we studied the bible. but not as fact, but as an idea of how to treat each other, how to look at a situation, ie don't kill, stealing is wrong, help some one if they're in trouble.

After that i;d wonder off to one of my many other classes, ie biology and physics. not once was an argument ever brought up about the religious texts, clashing with our scientific findings in class, or anything we learnt.

anyway, i guess my point is. and yes i probly come off like one of those "people who think the bible is fact are idiots" guys, but hey i probly am. Having been surrounded though by the bible, studying the bible, studying several different religions over the years, I like to think i have a fairly, modern view on the whole situation

and simply denying scientific FACT, (like mentioned before, scientific theory != theory) because they clash with a book, which might i had has no references, seems rather unusual to anyone who has studied any form of respectable anything...

(its 3am here, so excuse any grammatical errors, poor word placement and so on)

also, this thread has increased my ignore list by quite a bit.

Oh, also, If anyone asks, i call myself catholic. (or jedi in the census for a laugh)

OK...but aren't you just missing the point? Do you, as a Christian, think your morality comes from the Bible? Do you only know what is good because you are told by the word of God in the bible? If this is the case (which all CHristians should believe if they are indeed Christain), how is that you pick and choose your morals from the Bible. By what facts are you able to CHOOSE your morals and reject others, when only the bible can inform you of your morals?

 

[Count Dookkake]

No it doesn't.

God some of you are damn ignorant of the religions you're condeming.

Well, it gives us a lineage from Adam to Jesus.

Add approximately 2000 years and voila!

 

[CharlieDigital]

wow,

It must be REALLY different in America to the situation here in Australia.

A non-trivial number of people in the US actually believe that the Earth is less than 6000 years old.

:lol

I laugh on the outside, but I'm crying on the inside :'(