Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Religion
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: [QB] I'm not sure I want to get embroiled in a complete debate of this magnitude. However, I will gladly respond to a number of your key points. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Take the flat-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe bit. It's not ANYWHERE in scripture, stated or [i]implied[/i][/qb][...] (emphasis added) [/QUOTE] Daniel 4:11 -- [i]"The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."[/i] You can't see anything from all points on a sphere. Furthermore, a sphere doesn't have "ends." Isaiah 11:12 -- [i]"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."[/i] Only a flat Earth can have corners. This is also mentioned in Ezekiel 7:2 and Revelation 7:1. Isaiah 24:1 -- [i]"[...]the earth is turned upside down to scatter its inhabitants."[/i] Unless Earth is flat and has gravity extending in only one direction, turning it upside down wouldn't change things much. Matthew 4:5-8 -- [i]"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world[...]"[/i] Again, the devil taketh him to a place that can only exist on a flat Earth. Sounds like the Bible is [i]implying[/i] a flat Earth to me! And let's recall thhe geocentrism that the Church got pissed at Galileo for disputing... Psalm 104:5 -- [i]"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."[/i] Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 have nearly identical wording. And if we're just going for Biblical absurdity when it comes to science, let's not forget all of the four-legged insects and cud-chewing rabbits and bats that are birds instead of mammals in Leviticus. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Religion also plays a role in keeping kids from having sex before they're ready. Religion plays a role in keeping people from every kind of immorality.[/qb] [/QUOTE] No, religion plays a role in [i]dictating[/i] morality. And even then, it does a half-assed job. The ten commandments has four purely god-related commandments, and yet it says [i]nothing[/i] about rape! The only thing the Bible really does say about rape is in Deuteronomy: you should kill the victim if she doesn't scream loud enough... and if she's a virgin, you should [i]buy her[/i] from her father for fifty sheckles when you're done. Oh, and if she's married, both you [i]and[/i] the victim should be killed. But those are Old Testament rules, surely they don't apply now! [i]"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."[/i] -- Matthew 5:18-19. Oh, I guess they should. :rolleyes: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Religion plays a role in keeping some people SANE (like, say, me). Sure, the CONCEPT has lead to bad things occasionally, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to eliminate the concept all together. First you need further analysis to figure out if there's some aspect of the concept that's the problem.[/qb] [/QUOTE] There is: God. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Well, stem-cell research requires the termination of a living fetus, at least beyond what's been authorized already, so that's included under "abortion". As for abortion, it has nothing to do with a soul, any more than laws against murder do. It's the termination of a human being against their will, who threatens no one.[/qb] [/QUOTE] How, without a soul, does a six-week embryo even [i]have[/i] a will? The vast, vast number of abortions occur before brain activity has even begun in the brain. The argument against abortion has [i]everything[/i] to do with the idea that a non-thinking, non-feeling ball of cells has a soul. Without a soul, abortion is little different from any other surgical procedure. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Everyone agrees that such a thing is wrong, but they make an exception for abortion for some inscrutable reason.[/qb] [/QUOTE] That reason is quite simple: without an intangible soul, an embryo isn't anything more than a collection of cells until its brain starts functioning. It's only wrong to kill an actual person; even then, God seems to condone it for a large variety of circumstances. Remember the bears he sent to tear apart a couple dozen children because they made fun of Elijah's [i]baldness[/i]? Good thing God's a mystery and beyond human comprehension, or that would look really bad... :rolleyes: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Or maybe it's because there's no evidence [for evolution].[/qb] [/QUOTE] Oh boy. There is the fossil record, showing a clear progression through time. No "later" species is ever encountered lower than an "earlier" species. There are countless transitional fossils, showing intermediary forms between two distinct species. In fact, nearly every fossil is transitionary due to the rareness of fossilization and the never-ending pace of evolution itself. I think everyone is familiar with the archaeopteryx, but there are more relevant and clear progressions for other divergences, such as the rise of reptiles and mammals from amphibians. There is the genetic similarity of all forms of life. All mammals, for instance, share a certain portion of the DNA... the portion that is [i]left over[/i] from earlier stages of life. There is the presence of non-functional genetic material in humans that has been observed to be functional in earlier primate and mammal species. A good example is the production of vitamin C. Other mammals can do it themselves, and we can't, but the remnants of the genes are still found in our DNA. Along a similar vein, there are vestigal structures, remnants from previous stages of evolution that have now become useless. For example, our stumpy vestigal tail and our appendix. Embryos, while not to the extent once thought, show a near-duplicate of the evolutionary path that an organism took to achieve its current form. Places like Australia show clear isolation divergences of one population from the rest of the planet, resulting in marsupials taking the roles that placental mammals take elsewhere. Furthermore, the fossil record [i]shows[/i] this proccess. We have countless examples of species being imperfectly adapted to their roles, and using parts that originally served one function for a completely new function. The human spine, for instance, it [i]terribly[/i] suited to standing erect, because it was adapted from the quadrapedal spine of our ancestors. Why do you think so many people have back problems? We can observe, and [i]produce[/i], genetic changes in organisms that cause changes in form or behavior... and we have observed natural causes generating similar changes. Because these changes happen, it is impossible for evolution [i]not[/i] to occur once it all adds up. We see fossil animals from periods in which Earth had a differnt environment adapted to [i]that[/i] environment... and mysteriously not around today. Why? Because those that didn't adapt died. Perhaps teh most important evidence for evolution is the fact that we've seen it happen, in labs and in the wild. Countless plant species have been seen to evolve, mostly due to our own efforts at hybridization. Dogs were made to evolve through domestication as a descendant of wolves. Two new species of rat evolved during the middle ages. Furthermore, there have been hundreds of observed speciations of insects, not to mention rarer cases of birds, mammals, and other animals. See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html">here</a>. The preceding list is elaborated on, in [i]significant[/i] detail, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/">here</a>. For more "everyday biologist" discoveries that support evoltuion click <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html">here</a>. I also recommend <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html">this</a> site for more discussion. [QUOTE]Origianlly posted by Omega: [qb]No. It can't. You can create most amino acids, but you can't even create a single protein, much less anything that could possibly be considered to be alive.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Evolution has nothing to do with the initial development of life. You're talking about ambiogenesis, a completely seperate issue Science, when presented with a presently unexplained phenomenon, says, "We don't know." Religion, on the other hand, says "God did it." Historically, when religion says that, science finds the real answer a few centuries later... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3