[- - e r i k - -]

Wow. How you go from that article to "Mainstream science is coming closer and closer to refuting the tenets of its cherished belief system, evolutionism." is such a mental logical leap that I have problems figuring out how you are able to clothe yourself in the morning.

Your brain would make for a fascinating study in itself. Perhaps make us rethink how evolved some of us really are

[CharlesS]

I think the point he's trying to make is that science occasionally changes its mind about things, and thus is not Absolute Truth™ like creationism pretends to be.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I already highlighted the key parts - I can't help you to improve your reading comprehension skills

Frankly, it's your "thinking comprehension" that's at fault.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This discovery refutes a number of key, long-standing claims made by evolutionists concerning the origins of humanity. Habilis, which was thought by evolutionists to be the predecessor to erectus, actually co-existed with erectus; erectus is now seen as much closer to ape than human.

You really don't get it, do you?

The hypothesis that "habilis evolved into erectus, erectus evolved in man" is nowhere near the theory that man evolved from pre-man. Habilis and erectus are only hypothetical candidates for our ancestry. We might never know who our animal ancestors are. That doesn't mean we didn't evolve.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

OK. Here's why I don't get it. I said this:
Then you said this:
That seems to equate evolution with "God creating us." But then you say this:

My response was to your comment that

"Modern creationism is largely a Protestant American phenomenon."

Creationism as I pointed out usually means that God created us.

That is why I asked "So European Christians don't believe God created us?"

I was then told that I didn't understand what the word creationism meant. And I pointed out obviously it meant a lot of things to different people. And gave a valid definition that supported my statement.

Which is a rejection of the idea that evolution is "God creating us." That's why I can't parse your post: Are you saying evolution is "God creating us," as your first sentence seems to suggest, or that evolution is something different, as the rest of your post seems to suggest?

Evolution is just the study of man evolving over time. It really doesn't go against biblical teachings.

Evolution really didn't get the drama it got till certain insecure atheists started ranting "See this disproves that God exists!!!11"

Which did upset some fundis and made them think all of evolution = the devil.

Both sides are wrong IMHO.

My comment to you was, you claimed that

"Modern creationism" whatever "modern creationism" is.. creationism is creationism... is largely a Protestant American phenomenon."

I was just asking rhetorically actually, if Europeans didn't believe in creationism, AKA God creating us.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I can't help you to improve your reading comprehension skills; I don't feel like spelling it out right now. Read and think critically. Okay, since you're clearly suffering, here's a hint:

Big Mac, your posts are nice and very often well thought out. But this above isn't really needed. I know I am guilty of doing such a thing myself, but I am attempting to cut it out as well. I call it internet chest pounding. And it just ads hostility. I am going to make a new sig... maybe one that is more "honest" as besson would say. Anyhow.. sorry about my derail, ignore it.

This discovery refutes a number of key, long-standing claims made by evolutionists concerning the origins of humanity. Habilis, which was thought by evolutionists to be the predecessor to erectus, actually co-existed with erectus; erectus is now seen as much closer to ape than human.

Yes, science is an ever-changing, ever-growing ball of knowledge. What is scientific "fact" one day, is wrong the next. Now, this isn't me bashing Science. It's the latter. Unless we can put our egos away and admit we are wrong about something, we can't grow and move on. Science has checks and balances that make it hard NOT to admit such things. I love that about it. That and lasers. Lasers are cool.

Mainstream science is grudgingly coming closer and closer to refuting the tenets of its cherished belief system, evolutionism.

I don't think ANYONE would say that man has not evolved or changed in the years we have been around. I think that would be absurd.

I think we do know we have.

What we don't know is, why, or how.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

"Modern creationism" whatever "modern creationism" is.. creationism is creationism... is largely a Protestant American phenomenon."

No, creationism is not creationism. There is the belief that god created the world and men, and there is the belief that god created the world and men, but not via evolution. Those are distinctively different. The former is what most Europan Christians believe (including the pope apparently), the latter is mostly an American phenomenon.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

My response was to your comment that

"Modern creationism is largely a Protestant American phenomenon."

Creationism as I pointed out usually means that God created us.

That is why I asked "So European Christians don't believe God created us?"

I was then told that I didn't understand what the word creationism meant. And I pointed out obviously it meant a lot of things to different people. And gave a valid definition that supported my statement.

Evolution is just the study of man evolving over time. It really doesn't go against biblical teachings.

Evolution really didn't get the drama it got till certain insecure atheists started ranting "See this disproves that God exists!!!11"

Which did upset some fundis and made them think all of evolution = the devil.

Both sides are wrong IMHO.

My comment to you was, you claimed that

"Modern creationism" whatever "modern creationism" is.. creationism is creationism... is largely a Protestant American phenomenon."

I was just asking rhetorically actually, if Europeans didn't believe in creationism, AKA God creating us.

I think I understand now. But the common usage of the term 'creationism' is that it is a rejection of biological evolution. That's why I didn't get you.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

No, creationism is not creationism. There is the belief that god created the world and men, and there is the belief that god created the world and men, but not via evolution. Those are distinctively different. The former is what most Europan Christians believe (including the pope apparently), the latter is mostly an American phenomenon.

Yes, thank you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

No, creationism is not creationism.

What the?

There is the belief that god created the world and men, and there is the belief that god created the world and men, but not via evolution. Those are distinctively different.

The Bible says that man was created from the earth. It just doesn't put into importance as to how long it took, or such. As it's not relevant to the story. In every church I have been to in the US, it is taught that the "7 days" was a metaphor for our lives, and how we are to live them. "And the 7th day, he rested"

There is no time relation in the spiritual world IMHO. It ceases to exist.

And if this is what Europeans believe most American Christians believe, they are far off. (BTW most of our Christian beliefs weren't started here, but began in Europe. Nothing was changed or "Americanized" )

The former is what most Europan Christians believe (including the pope apparently), the latter is mostly an American phenomenon.

I am not so sure many people know what "America" thinks.

Most believe we don't have all the answers. That these things are just distractions from the msg.

Does it really matter in the long run how long it took man to evolve from dirt? No, not really. Is it fun to challenge ourselves to make a guess? Sure.

But in the end, it's pretty insignificant to what is actually being taught.

There is a small group of Christians that I have met from all around the world that were anti-evolution because they believe that evolutionists are out to disprove God (and some attempt to use it for such a tool... which pretty much makes them one themselves. ) And it's some evil plot to destroy religion. So they are against it just out of purpose.

Like someone not getting gas from a gas company owned by wal-mart cause one time they gave you the wrong change type of thing.

But that doesn't matter because understanding evolution wont save your soul.

I too believe we all came from the same source and evolved into what we are now. Just like a Painter's paintings all have the same "niche" about them that makes that painter distinct, so is our planet.

each species is different, but all share similar thumbprints because the same painter painted us.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think I understand now. But the common usage of the term 'creationism' is that it is a rejection of biological evolution. That's why I didn't get you.

Common to whom? Creationism is just the belief that someone created us. And it wasn't just a big cosmic accident. This is the first I've heard of creationism being used in such a way as you are describing it, and I've been to tons of churches. Creationism and evolution do not contradict each other. IMHO. One explains why, the other explains how.

But in all honesty, and with a tad bit of humbleness I would say we don't even know 1% of all there is to know about our beginnings.

Nothing wrong with looking for such answers. Just don't let it distract you from what is relevant.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Common to whom?

Common to everyone discussing creationism and evolution. For example, if someone made a Creation Museum, do you think they support or reject evolution?

[goMac]

I'm not sure you can put god into evolution. I mean, the basis of the theory of evolution explains why we evolve, and if you go look in nature, you can find a lot of species that are evolving right now in reaction to their natural surroundings.

I think if you want to argue that god was the "spark" of life, and set this whole series of evolutionary events into motion, you might have a case. But arguing that god is the force behind evolution seems like kind of a stop gap to me. God actually being behind evolution would go against the entire theory of evolution.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Common to everyone discussing creationism and evolution.

Well obviously I just disproved that. cause I be discussin it!

Most Christians I know believe it's irrelevant actually. You don't really find them discussing it much at all. It has no meaning in the big picture of things to us.

For example, if someone made a Creation Museum, do you think they support or reject evolution?

I looked at all the pages, and even looked at the video. They didn't say either way.

And it depends on what you mean by "evolution" Some people believe it means mans evolvement from dirt, which I don't see them negating.

While others believe it means "the big bang" where we were all a big cosmic happenstance without any reason in which we evolved over a period of time that no God had anything to do with... Which I doubt they believe. I've never met a Christian that believed the latter no. It would make no sense to be a Christian and believe that.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not sure you can put god into evolution. I mean, the basis of the theory of evolution explains why we evolve, and if you go look in nature, you can find a lot of species that are evolving right now in reaction to their natural surroundings.

How does that negate God's involvement? It simply does not. You simply cannot say "God isn't complicated enough to think of such things"

I think if you want to argue that god was the "spark" of life, and set this whole series of evolutionary events into motion, you might have a case.

And that is what I am saying. But in that process he CREATED evolution. I am a big fan of biogenesis.

But arguing that god is the force behind evolution seems like kind of a stop gap to me. God actually being behind evolution would go against the entire theory of evolution.

If God created the universe and started it, how would he not be responsible for evolution?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well obviously I just disproved that. cause I be discussin it!

You're the one I'm saying is using the term incorrectly. You can't use the fact that you use it that way as evidence that you're using it correctly. Come on Kevin, most people use the term "creationism" to mean "a rejection of evolution." That's the common way the term is used. This is not a controversial point, so why do you keep pursuing it?

Most Christians I know believe it's irrelevant actually. You don't really find them discussing it much at all. It has no meaning in the big picture of things to us.

It might be irrelevant to most people, but you've seen the surveys showing that about half of Americans reject biological evolution, presumably largely because they believe it's inconsistent with their religion. And I know that there are a whole lot of people for whom it's not irrelevant. They keep their kids out of the public schools and buy them home-schooling creationism science books, they make Creation Museums and creationism websites. We're talking about more than just a handful of people.

I looked at all the pages, and even looked at the video. They didn't say either way.

Oh, they reject evolution alright.

And it depends on what you mean by "evolution" Some people believe it means mans evolvement from dirt, which I don't see them negating.

While others believe it means "the big bang" where we were all a big cosmic happenstance without any reason in which we evolved over a period of time that no God had anything to do with... Which I doubt they believe. I've never met a Christian that believed the latter no. It would make no sense to be a Christian and believe that.

If there are people who say evolution means "big bang," they are just incorrect.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The Bible says that man was created from the earth. It just doesn't put into importance as to how long it took, or such. As it's not relevant to the story.

Perhaps not, but creationism does put great importance into that.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Common to whom? Creationism is just the belief that someone created us.

It is true that words can mean anything you want them to, but as commonly used in this context, "creationism" refers to the belief that God created the world basically as it is and thus there was neither any need nor time for things to evolve. I know people will just bitch and moan if I link to the Wikipedia article, so I'll instead refer to your Britannica's free two-paragraph article on the subject.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That's the common way the term is used. This is not a controversial point, so why do you keep pursuing it?

Because by playing naive he gets people wound up. Classic anal troll behaviour.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I really don't understand how this issue continues to rage on around here . If it were among nubies maybe I'd understand, but this debate is comprised of the same seasoned veterans who've been debating this stuff for years around here. Every now and then something new and interesting comes up regarding evolution and creates a new opportunity to learn something, but too often it ends up;

- debating what an ape is and whether or not we descended from one, evolved from one, or neither with both parties splitting hairs and talking past one another.
- "you don't know what you're talking about.", "No, you don't know what you're talking about."
- Evolution is about origins! No it's not! Here's an article from TalkOrigins...
- Conservatives = Creationism, Liberals = Atheists and Evolution
- "God did it, you are foolish for not seeing that."
- "God didn't do it, you are foolish for believing anything not empirically scientific."
- "God did it initially, then let it devolve."
- "God did it and continues to meddle in it."
- erik chimes in with his vast wealth of expertise like a punk kid behind his older brother; "YEAH what he sed!! Yer an iddyott!! lol"

It seems there is no shortage of experts when it comes to these debates. You'll see an abundance of internet biologists engaged in nothing more than a pissing match of philosophical mumble-jumble. At the end of the day faith is what it is which requires no scientific method. Science is what it is and employs an exhaustive study of the natural in building a method of inquisition and conclusion. Evolution science has the chimeras and piltdown men of its past and faith has some damning errors of falsehoods, ideological suppression, and manipulation in its past. Both will continue to have their fallacies because of the human nature involved in the disciplines.

However, science is a discipline of competing models. An ideal, an hypothesis, a prediction, an experiment, and a conclusion. We have a model of evolution and to date, there is no model that can compete with the theory of evolution. It's as simple as this really. Proponents of ID, Creationism, or simply those who philosophically oppose the TOE will point to "holes" in the theory to affirm their presuppositions, but this is not playing the "science game". To play the "science game", you must propose a competing hypothesis, form predictions, produce methodically-sound experimentation, and conclude on that data. Scientists don't need the help of Creationists or ID proponents to debate aspects of evolution as they sufficiently do so among themselves regardless of what you read in National Geographic. Likewise, pointing to "holes" in one theory does not constitute proof for another. The painful fact of the matter is that ID has enjoyed very little peer review, has very little experimentation behind it (other than a few inconclusive 'knock-out' experiments) and cannot produce an adequate competing model in spite of a wealth of funding and the fact that they've been at this "new" IC development for over a decade.

Big Mac; I admire your tenacity and of course you're welcome to return to this thread and provide your last thoughts on this issue, but understand that each and every point you make can and will be picked apart. There is no "zinger" that will magically close this issue. You cannot produce a competing model because to date, none exist. What exists are a host of websites designed for internet biologists with the sole purpose of debunking your points. When these "moist" sources are exhausted they will provide an array of valuable and credible articles, abstracts, and scientific consensus including affirmed predictions formed from the evolutionary model. Evolution is a complex theory involving many components and as such (just as any complex machinery) there are problems as you know. The fact is these problems are already identified by the scientific community and (whether you read about it in popular press or not) they are every day, actively involved in trying to solve these problems.

There are zealots from both camps and the purpose of one is to draw the other in to a fruitless debate of semantics, ad hom, and philosophical mumble-jumble when in reality there's probably less than 5% who truly know what they're talking about. Look hard for them and you will learn some things that could save you a whole lot of time in the future.

Very eloquent and astute.

I choose to participate in this topic year after year because it's enjoyable. As you know, there is an enormous amount of information one needs to be acquainted with in order to argue this topic, and yet one has to distill that tome into as few words as possible to hit the right chord to make one's point. It's the challange of doing that which attracts me. You might remember earlier on I was pretty bad at keeping things short and focused. Central to this challenge is tailoring your focus to your audience. As every evolution denyer has a different misunderstanding at the root of his objection, every new debate has a different challenge of discovering what that misunderstanding is, and then distilling an explanation to address it, all without succumbing to frustration-induced ad homs and name calling. Many denyers have simply only ever heard half the story, and just need to be introduced to the other half. And of course, there's always the possibility that's most intriguing of all: that they might have actually found something that disproves evolution, something every biologist has missed until now. Finally, don't underestimate the flip side of that; each thread is an exercise in revisiting the evidence which convinced me of the theory's validity in the first place. No matter how much objective empiricism we use to arrive at our various factual conclusions, if we don't periodically revisit the evidence for them, they're all just so much faith. We keep saying that scientific theories are falsifiable, and that more evidence regarding them is discovered all the time. What better opportunity to double-check our conclusions in light of the new evidence than under the scrutiny of someone who actually disbelieves them? To oversimplify, understanding your opponent helps you understand yourself better.

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution | Herald Sun

Well I guess it is a step in the right direction.

What is interesting is that Pope Benedict is an honest to God heavy-duty theologian. As a conservative theologian he has been tightening up the Roman Catholic Church's view on a number of things but as a heavy-duty theologian, he is doubtlessly aware of and may even hold the framework hypothesis position himself. Within the framework view, one reads Genesis 1 as a theological explanation of creation that is literally true but in a theological sense. As such, creation can be as little as one second old or billions of years old. In other words, the rejection of evolution was a reaction by conservative Christians because they felt the view was incompatible with their sources of authority. But now, because a view has been developed that doesn't needlessly set Holy Writ in a confrontation with the science of today, the science of today is once again being explored by conservative Christians.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

How does that negate God's involvement? It simply does not. You simply cannot say "God isn't complicated enough to think of such things"

Evolution is based on trial and error, not an infallible divine plan. Saying that evolution is planned disproves evolution.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And that is what I am saying. But in that process he CREATED evolution. I am a big fan of biogenesis.

If God created the universe and started it, how would he not be responsible for evolution?

Well, I don't actually disagree with you (if god does exist), but this goes into my theory of everything, and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Evolution is based on trial and error, not an infallible divine plan. Saying that evolution is planned disproves evolution.

I can think about which piece goes into which hole, or I could just try them all in random order with each whole. Just because I picked a random piece to try with any hole doesn't disprove that I didn't plan this strategy to solve the puzzle.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The two models fit together perfectly if you can accept that natural selection is actually just god smiting those individuals which displease him/her.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You're the one I'm saying is using the term incorrectly.

No, I said that isn't how the majority of American Christians view it. Thats all. Your definition may fit YOUR view of what you believe it means. I never attempted to negate that.

You can't use the fact that you use it that way as evidence that you're using it correctly. Come on Kevin, most people use the term "creationism" to mean "a rejection of evolution."

Most people do? Again not the ones I know. And this is the first time I've heard such a thing. I am not saying that were you are from that its believed that. But from where I am from, creationism just means the belief that a higher power created us. That we didn't just come from nothing. Matter of fact, my own dictionary tells me that. :/

That's the common way the term is used. This is not a controversial point, so why do you keep pursuing it?

No, you said such belief was only common in American Christianity. I negated that. Why do I keep pursuing it? Because I keep getting told I don't know what I am talking about. I Mean why would i.. being an American Christian and all..

What I am saying is, it's common way YOU use the term. It's not the norm where I come from (America)

It might be irrelevant to most people, but you've seen the surveys showing that about half of Americans reject biological evolution, presumably largely because they believe it's inconsistent with their religion.

And didn't I point that out? That those do believe so because of people that claim evolution negates creationism. Neither do either such a thing.

And lets look at that article

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

When they are speaking about the theory of evolution, they mean that God did not create us. Of course if you are a Christian you are going to not believe what you think tries to say God didn't do such a thing. Those that don't believe that man evolved didn't read their bible very well, and if it was explained to them, they would understand evolution does not negate creationism. As soon as we get evolutionists to stop acting like it does we will get Christians to see they do not negate each other. The Bible itself says man created man from the dirt. How can man NOT have evolved if he came from dirt? We'd still be dirt had we not evolved. So yes most Christians believe this above. Most Christians however doesn't believe that evolution negates creationism. Which is what most of these polls are about.

And I know that there are a whole lot of people for whom it's not irrelevant.

In the big picture, how we became or evolved isn't relevant IMHO.

They keep their kids out of the public schools and buy them home-schooling creationism science books, they make Creation Museums and creationism websites. We're talking about more than just a handful of people.

Well I am almost 35 years old, been around enough Christians all over the world in my life, and not one have I met.

Oh, they reject evolution alright.

They reject evolution as they way it's being taught as a huge cosmetic accident.

If there are people who say evolution means "big bang," they are just incorrect.

I agree. And there are people on both sides that do this. They correlate the two and therefore say this disproves religion.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It is true that words can mean anything you want them to, but as commonly used in this context, "creationism" refers to the belief that God created the world basically as it is and thus there was neither any need nor time for things to evolve.

Well that isn't really the true nature of the definition. As I believe in creationism and evolution. And your link you provided goes along with my definition BTW.

I know people will just bitch and moan if I link to the Wikipedia article, so I'll instead refer to your Britannica's free two-paragraph article on the subject.

Because Wikipedia constantly gets edited and people use it as self defense mechanisms to convince themselves. "If it's on Wikipedia, it has to be true!"

As far as your link you gave, it gave the definition


"The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing."


That is exactly what creationism means. This is exactly the way I and most Americans use it.

They go on to say

"Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct."

Most take the 6 day as a metaphor. As it even says to God time isn't relevant. You do NOT have to believe this to be called a creationist

But they saved themselves by saying this...

"though they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation."

So no, you don't have to hold the Genesis 7 day metaphor as literal to be a creationist.

So that proves what I said to be correct.

But this part is absurd

"Creationism became the object of renewed interest among conservative religious groups following the wide dissemination of the theory of biological evolution"

No no no. The was no renewed interested. (Well other than more interest than before because it was though to be irrelevant to the main point) It wasn't till people started using the theory of evolution in some bizarro way to disprove that God exists did the religious come against such a thing. It was those that demanded that evolution disproved God that started all this silliness. BLAME THEM for all this nonsense. Well them and Christians that didn't see through the scam and went on. But **** rolls downhill, and to get it to stop, you go to the source.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Evolution is based on trial and error, not an infallible divine plan. Saying that evolution is planned disproves evolution.

Someone could indeed devise such a plan that lets such species evolve in such a way esp if that person was all knowing could he or she not? Of course. I mean I look around me and can't help to think how could this all just be one big accident. That to me would take a lot of faith to believe in.

BTW where did sprinkles go to? He started this thread and ran off.

[Miasis Dragon]

Originally Posted by Miasis Dragon
How do you know that? Who told you? Where did you read it? How did that knowledge originate? Did God speak to you directly? Why you?
why hasn't he spoken to me?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Read Genesis.

Is that your answer, Kevin?
That's like saying, "The bible says so." Someone asks, "How do you know the bible is factual after all, human beings wrote it." and you reply, "The bible says it's so." You can't prove something is true just because it says it's true.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Miasis Dragon 

Is that your answer, Kevin?

Yes, you asked me how *I* knew that.

That's like saying, "The bible says so." Someone asks, "How do you know the bible is factual after all, human beings wrote it." and you reply, "The bible says it's so." You can't prove something is true just because it says it's true.

Oh you were trying to get me to prove something? You never asked that. You asked me how I knew something. I told you were I read it. that is all.

It's up to you to choose to believe it or not. As with anything you read.

You read it, choose not to believe it. That was your choice.

[Miasis Dragon]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yes, you asked me how *I* knew that.

Oh you were trying to get me to prove something? You never asked that. You asked me how I knew something. I told you were I read it. that is all.

It's up to you to choose to believe it or not. As with anything you read.

You read it, choose not to believe it. That was your choice.

You're right. I asked the wrong question. I guess I should have asked: "How do you (specifically, not generically) know the bible is correct? I'm trying to get to the origination of "faith". I took comparative religion in college. It created more questions than answers. What I learned is that no one really knows. Ergo, religion uses unsubtantiated facts to "prove" itself. This holds true for all religions. Everyone thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong. That's egotistical especially since noone can prove anything about religion. I'm not trying to pick an argument. I want to believe IF someone can show me some proof and I don't mean the bible, the koran, or the torah.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Miasis Dragon 

"How do you (specifically, not generically) know the bible is correct?

I don't KNOW as factual that it is corrupt. But I have an IDEA that it is from all my life experiences. (I wasn't always a Christian. I was a drug taking pagan for most of my life)

I'm trying to get to the origination of "faith". I took comparative religion in college. It created more questions than answers.

I wouldn't go to Church to learn say.. the theory of evolution. Just like I wouldn't go to college to learn anything about spiritual matters. Both more than likely giving out highly biased information.

What I learned is that no one really knows.

Correct. Not Atheists, Not Theists, Not Agnostics. No one knows.

Ergo, religion uses unsubtantiated facts to "prove" itself.

I am not sure what you mean by "religion" as religion has no physical properties to do these things. As far as religions based on faith, they aren't out to prove themselves. They say it's obvious from the beginning.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

This holds true for all religions.

Just like in the Bible the anti-Christ mimics the real deal. Now by saying that, I am not saying other religions don't hold the key to salvation. I don't know.

Everyone thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong. That's egotistical especially since noone can prove anything about religion.

I don't think I am right or wrong. I just have an IDEA. But I agree with you there.

I'm not trying to pick an argument. I want to believe IF someone can show me some proof and I don't mean the bible, the koran, or the torah.

Well there are those that have near death experiences you could talk to. Some beautiful experiences, some nightmarish.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I wouldn't go to Church to learn say.. the theory of evolution. Just like I wouldn't go to college to learn anything about spiritual matters. Both more than likely giving out highly biased information.

Indeed. Which are most likely to be biased in their information about religion though? A church or a college?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well there are those that have near death experiences you could talk to. Some beautiful experiences, some nightmarish.

I had a dream last night that I was riding a unicorn. That's proof enough for me they exist!

If we took hallucinations as proof for anything, we'd sure as hell believe a lot of weird ****. Damn hippies!

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I looked at all the pages, and even looked at the video. They didn't say either way.

Check out these photos of the museum. It's a cool place. (Yes, they reject evolution. Here's a photo of Eve with the friendly velociraptor. )

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Indeed. Which are most likely to be biased in their information about religion though? A church or a college?

Both. I've seen it first hand in both accounts. Esp professors out with agendas.

I had a dream last night that I was riding a unicorn. That's proof enough for me they exist!

If we took hallucinations as proof for anything, we'd sure as hell believe a lot of weird ****. Damn hippies!

Prove such thing was a dream or hallucination. Oh wait, you can't.
No one knows what causes such things. That is why they call them supernatural experiences. Taking LSD and you hallucinate. You can explain why. "Hey, I see pink bunnies.. because I took LSD"

Originally Posted by tie 

Check out these photos of the museum. It's a cool place. (Yes, they reject evolution. Here's a photo of Eve with the friendly velociraptor. )

They have their own take on evolution. They don't reject it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Both. I've seen it first hand in both accounts. Esp professors out with agendas.

Oh please.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Prove such thing was a dream or hallucination. Oh wait, you can't.
No one knows what causes such things. That is why they call them supernatural experiences. Taking LSD and you hallucinate. You can explain why. "Hey, I see pink bunnies.. because I took LSD"

Dr. Karl Jansen has reproduced NDEs with ketamine, a short-acting hallucinogenic, dissociative anaesthetic.

The anaesthesia is the result of the patient being so 'dissociated' and 'removed from their body' that it is possible to carry out surgical procedures. This is wholly different from the 'unconsciousness' produced by conventional anesthetics, although ketamine is also an excellent analgesic (pain killer) by a different route (i.e. not due to dissociation). Ketamine is related to phencyclidine (PCP). Both drugs are arylcyclohexylamines - they are not opioids and are not related to LSD. In contrast to PCP, ketamine is relatively safe, is much shorter acting, is an uncontrolled drug in most countries, and remains in use as an anaesthetic for children in industrialised countries and all ages in the third world as it is cheap and easy to use. Anaesthetists prevent patients from having NDE's ('emergence phenomena') by the co-administration of sedatives which produce 'true' unconsciousness rather than dissociation.*

According to Dr. Jansen, ketamine can reproduce all the main features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into the light, the feeling that one is dead, communing with God, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, strange noises, etc. This does not prove that the NDE is nothing but a set of physical responses, nor does it prove that there is no life after death. It does, however, prove that an NDE is not compelling evidence for belief in either the existence of a separate consciousness or of an afterlife.

How is it like to have a faith-based as opposed to evidence-based life-view? How do you pick and choose what to believe in? Just by what "feels good" to believe in?

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

The Popey also believes in invisible ghosts and endless pain and torture for sinners and non catholics but...GOD LOVES US!!!

Actually, no on the last two counts. I don't know what this Pope personally believes, but what is taught by some members of the Church (ie. priests) has nothing to do with fire, brimstone, etc. One theory of hell that was presented to me by a member of the clergy is that hell is existing in the total absence of god. So, when you die, you refuse to have any and all contact with him and this lack of connection is the ultimate (self-inflicted) punishment. Note that this punishment isn't inflicted upon one by god, but rather it's self inflicted by the individual through the complete, utter denial of love and compassion and a complete unwillingness to ask for forgiveness (or more like the complete unwillingness to change). Thus, the lack of belief in god does not get you to this state; and non-Catholics are not punished for not being Catholic.

There are additional lines of thinking in the Church that lead to this latter conclusion, but it's pretty universal at this point. The Church holds that all men and women are granted entry into heaven no matter what their belief system holds. This means that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, polytheists, athiests, etc. are all eligible for entrance into heaven. This is why blessings are offered to non-Catholics during the rite of communion in mass. God's love is open to all regardless of faith.

The big problem with the Church is that not everyone gets this info. It obviously causes people to question their faith, and that's going to lead come people away from the Church. Certain priests would rather just use shock and awe in order to keep their collection baskets filled. And sadly, sometimes cultural and political beliefs get tossed into the mix too. Priests are people, and thus they screw up too.

What people don't realize is there is dogma and doctrine. Dogma is what you must believe to be Catholic. Doctrine is merely the Church's official teaching on various subjects and belief or non-belief in said teachings neither qualifies or disqualifies you from being Catholic.

Dogma: Jesus is God
Doctrine: Condoms are tools of d' evil!!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh please.

What kind of non-response was that? Had no rebuttal so you just roll your eyes? I guess you sure showed me...

How is it like to have a faith-based as opposed to evidence-based life-view? How do you pick and choose what to believe in? Just by what "feels good" to believe in?

Oh I live an evidence based life as well. What may be evident to me, may not be to you.

And you didn't prove it was a hallucination. You gave someone's opinion as to what it was. Big whoop. That post didn't do what I asked from you, which is PROVE that it wasn't a afterlife experience.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What kind of non-response was that? Had no rebuttal so you just roll your eyes? I guess you sure showed me...

It was the only response that was appropriate for your anecdotal drivel.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Oh I live an evidence based life as well. What may be evident to me, may not be to you.

And you didn't prove it was a hallucination. You gave someone's opinion as to what it was. Big whoop. That post didn't do what I asked from you, which is PROVE that it wasn't a afterlife experience.

Again with the relativism? *sigh*

I'm growing tired arguing with you Kevin. You are nothing but a trolling, word-twisting relativist which is as far from rational thought as can be. You are really a very disappointing debater indeed.