What is Digg?226 Comments
- WoogyDude, on 10/12/2007, -9/+81Just goes to show that not all religious people are creationists.
- mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44I agree. The guy only said that God didn't create the world in a literal 6 days, not that he didn't do it. Many Christians hold to this. This is not really a controvercial article, it just sounds controvercial. This man seems to hold to the position that truth cannot disprove truth, and as we further understand the universe through science, that it will help us to understand who God is better. His observations in no way challenge the idea of God as a creator, just not God as a "whip up the universe in 6 days" creator. If anything, this man is challenging the beliefs of many other religious traditions whose creation stories are much less connected to science than Christianity. In fact, since science was largely founded within the Christian faith, Christians would be doing their own belief system a disservice to recognize the observations of science. I like what this man has to say because he is basically saying "science doesn't make me afraid, I am able to reconcile science and my belief in God." I highly doubt this man will be "removed" from his position for that.
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32ramsinks,
your glib potshot at a scientific method of which you know little is misdirected. The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. The dating method you're looking to discredit is potassium-argon dating, which gets more accurate, the older the sample is.
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html
While you're off working on discrediting that, you can also discredit relative dating. I'm not talking about what goes on in west virginia, but instead estimating the age of a rock or fossil based on geologic events. This can be done by looking at stratified bands of rock, or tree rings, or observed through continental drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
the movement of tectonic plates of the earth is an ongoing process, and can be tracked with existing technology. through extrapolation of movement, similarity in fossils, and similarity in geological formations, scientists have been able to show us what the globe looked like at different times in the past.
now continents move about the rate at which your fingernails grow. pangea is a bit older than 6000 years.
you'll have an even harder time proving that the universe is 6000 years old, but i won't go into that.
you can take this evidence three ways. you can employ your imagination to disbelieve it to your satisfaction, one can claim that such evidence disproves the existence of a creator, or you can embrace the idea that god still created the universe, only the first six days were quite long - dfsiii, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Both of you need to realize that Catholicism is more than a branch of Christianity, and isn't in the same group as like Christian Reformed followers or Baptists. The Vatican deals with Catholics.
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26A Catholic priest actually invented the big bang theory. And Franciscan Joseph Mendel is the father of inherited genetics.
- drougnor, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31igibson, that's got to be the worst generalization about religion I've ever heard. Granted that, unfortunately, it does hold true because of the rampant ignorance in most churches, it ISN'T the gold standard to hold up to EVERY follower of God or Christ.
I, for example, understand that a large portion of the bible is neither accurate, nor infallible. It's a mostly poorly translated document that has been warped and twisted by the Church as a whole to try to present the words of God and his son the way the CHURCH wants us to see them. I also understand that the universe is a wonderful piece of machinery created by God to exsist without his constant meddling. It had a beginning in the Big Bang, has exhisted for several billion years, and will, eventually, have an ending. What that ending is, I don't know. If God wants to recycle everything so his grand experiment with humanity can happen again, then it'll be another Big Bang. If not, it will die out with a wimper.
Most importantly, especially to me, my belief in the Creator and His divinity, His Son and their great acts have nothing to do with what another human being has told me or taught me. My faith has nothing to do with any book learning, but it often is suplimented and bolstered by such learning.
It sickens me to see the works of the Creator perverted by those who claim to do so in his name every day. It also sickens me to see people who think that just because they didn't fall for the Churches dogmatic crap that they are automatically superior and therefore must seek to prove the existance of the Creator false.
Both science and God can and DO coexist. My faith in Christ as the redeemer makes me no less of a scientific or rational man. It simply gives me the knowledge that I have a destination after this is all said and done. No more, no less.
So, remember that not ALL followers of Christ are that stupid, ignorant, spiteful or hateful. Not all of us hate 'queers' or 'thank God for every dead soldier'. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"oh sure, digg me down after i did all that bloody homework."
I have observed that many creationists believe that derision and ad-hominem are acceptable means of responding to valid science that they do not like. I have also observed that many creationists believe that willfully making false statements is an acceptable practice when discussing evolution. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"O ya, carbon. We "know" thats reliable huh.."
If you are suggesting that carbon dating is used to determine the age of the earth, then you are clearly mistaken. Such a mistake suggests that you are unaware of the actual means by which the earth is dated, which calls into question your credibility on the subject. - twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17QUOTE:
Actually the Catholic Church teaches in total OPPOSITION of Christs Teachings: http://jahtruth.net/darth.htm
You know what, I'm a Catholic, and I'll take the flamebait.
It's not like any two protestant (or protestant-esque for you Baptists out there) churches can come to the same conclusion on what exactly are Christ's teachings. You link to some webpage, but if you do a google search, you'll find as many protestant pages attacking the teachings of Catholicism as you will find protestant pages attacking other protestants. When you decided that there is no consensus about the faith, and everyone gets to interpret the bible however they want, you get just that a million different ideas.
Just to add on, most protestants believe that faith in Christ is both necessary and sufficient for entry into heaven, Yet, many still claim that Catholicism isn't really Christianity. But wait, faith in Jesus is still the Central doctrine in Catholicism. Seems to me that most protestants are more concerned with splitting hairs or converting folks to THEIR interpretation of the bible than they are with the actual fate of any one individual's soul (which they will tell you up and down that this is the reason they are so forceful with their religion).
It's almost like in America, Christianity is used as a means to make us feel justified for hating or at least berating those who are different from us rather than a means to get closer to God. - datarefuge, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Christianity isn't based on the Bible. The inverse is true. The Bible is based on Christianity.
Many people have the mistaken concept that all of the Christian faith is based strictly on the Bible. But the Bible itself never claims this and that particular idea is a new development in Christian history. The scriptures are historically just one part of the Christian faith. A major part to be sure, but not the only source of faith. - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14oh wait a minute. joecool raised a very valid point. not all creationists believe the earth was made in six days. if you believe god created the universe AND that we evolved from microbes, you're still a creationist.
its all very confusing. i think the bogeyman of this argument is the 'young earth' creationist, as in the earth is 5000 years old - jmknapp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12This is not a new position for the Catholic Church--way back in the 1960s official Cathlic doctrine was changed to say that evoution is consistent with the teachings of the church. Only because we have slipped into a dark ages of sorts is this a story--and a welcome one.
Not that their fallback position, the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin, was sound science--just better than the ideology prevailing now, where the president of the US is a creationist, and NASA is instructed to downplay references to the Big Bang and any other finding that offends creationists. - OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Uhh what? All protestant religions/sects are descended from Catholocism, which was, along with all of its sects, the first form of Christianity. Christian = someone who believes in Jesus as the Christ a/k/a the Savior.
- fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11As a Pagan, I resent the remarks the Vatican has made. In other words, I don't want to be compared to the likes of the Creationists. We have our own problems to deal with, we don't need these idiots too.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The rarely seen religion vs religion wars :)
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10As a Catholic I was brought up to believe that science exists because of Gods power not that it competes or contradicts with Gods power.
I don't understand these so called Christians that are trying make science and faith mutually exclusive. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This will be a giant 200+ comment flame war, so, if everybody just reads the article and goes to sleep it'll save everybody strife; i mean, we all know exactly what's gonna be said, it's the same arguments over and over, so why not just save yourself the trouble of having to keep coming back to see the rebuttle to your post every 5 minutes (darn curiosity), get some sleep; make love to your girlfriend; spend some time with stephen colbert's kids.
- Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."
No, you just need common sense for that, no Religion. As stated in one of my favorite quotes:
"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." - Steven Weinberg - mscf, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21That is an extremely dated view of what Christians believe. For one thing, a consideration of the context: Genesis 1 is poetry. Good poetry does not state things in the same way as we have come to expect from science texts.
Further, calling the Bible "the written word of god" without qualifying that statement by, at the very least, mentioning that the Bible is a transcription of the interactions of people with God written by those people is an omission that makes clear that what you are doing is merely comparing semi-literate Christian doctrine to your own, presumably more educated, worldview.
I could just as easily dismiss the "science" of alchemy in a similar way. If I were to do that and then use my conclusions to dismiss science, would that not make me a fool? - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14he's dugg down because he says that modern science disproves christianity, which is ridiculous. modern science disproves parts of the bible, if it is taken literally, so there's all sorts of nonliteral interpretations of christianity that are compatable with (or at least irrefutable by) science.
now sert is angry because christians don't like to hear people tell them their religion is wrong, and calls people ignorant for simply having faith. this is simple intolerance. - jacobnut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Exactly. I'm actually studying the Bible right now [I'm a student], and I've found that most critics have a lot of misconceptions about the Bible. Many scholars believe that the biblical term that is used for "day" in Genesis actually represents a period of time (rather than what we hold to be a 24-hour period). Indeed, the Bible can coexist with science - the two are compatible. Many people read passages from the Bible completely out of context, which, of course, conveys an altered meaning (as opposed to its true meaning). Feel free to ask me any questions.
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8for the religious who do not wish to ignore established research, there are two possible explanations of the creation story. either god created the earth in as much time as the research dictates, or he deliberately created every aspect of the earth, down the subatomic level, to fool scientists into thinking he took longer on it.
now, i'm not a mindreader, especially when it comes to god, but i'll take a shot in the dark and guess that he's not playing a practical joke on us
you want to play some headgames, picture a god who was wiley enough to plan the entire course of his creation before the big bang. he packed the whole universe up into a itty bitty sphere, pushed the button, and out of the chaos that resulted, his very deliberate creation of the sun, the earth, and man arose. the whole display a carefully choreographed chain of dominoes that stretches back about 20 eons. now that's godlike. - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14I agree as well. It is insulting to presume that you know exactly how your god created man, especially in such a simplistic way. I can look at the creation story and see an allegory for a wondefully complex process that we may never understand. While the catholics are in many ways in the stone age (what with their wanton spreading of aids through their views of contraception, their views on women priests, celibacy, papal infallability, and pope benedict himself), i feel that they are dead on in this respect, and times like this almost make me regret giving up catholicism for lent.
Both science and the church have begotten many wonderful things that have benefitted civilization throughout the ages. While both have claimed the occasional hundred thousand lives prematurely, i still respect both immensely and do not feel the need to attack either on this issue. science has no motive to fake this, they are not at war with religion. they can coexist in peace, because god made the rules anyway.
anyway, in the immortal words of marla singer "here comes another avalanche of *****" - axiomata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This guy (no pun intended) came to my university and gave a couple of talks. I was in class during his talk about religion but I was able to attend his talk on the density of asteroids. Smart guy. Besides the "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority" part I agree with him.
- montiff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Being an atheist makes things so much easier.
- Sabotage, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14-igibson
2 Peter 3:8 - "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
In recent times, some fundamentalist religions have put forward creationism as the answer to evolution. But in doing so, they make a claim that is both unscriptural and unbelievable. It is that the heavens, the earth, and everything on the earth were created by God in 6 days of 24 hours each - in just 144 literal hours! This teaching has caused many to ridicule the Bible. But is a "day" in the Bible always 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that God made earth and heaven." This one day includes all six of the creative 'days' of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a "day" is simply a measured period of time. A "day" with God can be a thousand years or several thousand years-as were the creative 'days.' On this point, therefore, the Bible account is reasonable and compatible with true science - OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The thing that I can't stand about religious people is that when someone makes a generalization about religion all of a sudden there are a million and one excuses and exceptions.
Religious people say or do anything in order to make their beliefs fit in with new facts. Either that or they will flat out deny the facts. Suddenly literal interpretation of the Bible gets converted into poetry appreciation. Suddenly everything is a metaphor. Suddenly everything becomes metaphysical and philosophical. Suddenly the world isn't the center of the universe. Suddenly passage A that was interpreted to mean X is now interpreted to mean Y. All of a sudden it's what the individual takes away from the experience and what they do with it that matters, instead of, "Here are the rules, here is the law. Follow it." Science and modern thought lead to relativism at large, and religion passively follows suit while still nervously and angrily banging its drum.
"We may have been wrong, but we're still right!" - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I myself am a creationist, i'm just arguing here that the earth is as old as it is.
that's the difference between old earth and young earth creationists. old earth creationism aint incompatable with evolution. boy, i can just taste that downvote. - jacobnut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I agree. Many people haven't actually researched their viewpoints on the Bible, let alone the Bible itself.
- jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Dude no
The Romans crucified Christ
From what I remember from rel class Christians were just a sect of Jews, I think there were referred to as the Way.
Catholics weren't called such until the Protestants started showing up, as there was no point. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yeah well, it's not like any of the other "Christian" groups particularly stand out as being particularly faithful to Christ's teachings either!
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5bmauter
sure, they promote abstinence, but they also spread FUD about contraceptives
observe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html - gahal, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Well *****. Just when I thought I could coast through science classes using "god did it".
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's entirely possible that they might have truly believed it and been wrong.
- jmknapp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is a made-up quote. Jefferson never said it. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson on this quote, and a number of other real ones where Jefferson actually did give Chrstianity the what for.
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Science: 8, Religion: 0
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I was just going to comment on that! Good thing I did a search of the page for that quote =)
Seriously, religion and morals are two completely different things. To say that you need religion to be a good person is ignorant. A conscience doesn't develop from reading the Bible, it develops from what you were taught about right VS wrong from your parents and via empathy gained through life experience. Sympathy--the most advanced kind of moral understanding--comes from education. Once you understand the plight of another, and the reasons/causes behind it (a function of scientific discovery and research) you can sympathize and make informed, moral decisions.
Don't get me wrong; an individual can gain ethical wisdom from reading a story in the Bible. However, there's a difference between taking a parable at face value and thinking the parable through and determining for yourself that the moral it teaches is, in fact, ethical and just. It is when people take the Bible literally and don't abstract their beliefs from the text that extreme prejudice and illogic are sewn.
It is not in the nature of most religions to encourage their believers to question its beliefs. This is the central problem with religions across the world. Instead of teaching people to be moral, they teach people to believe. This enslaves the minds of the faithful and hinders progress not just in science, but in society as well. True believers don't look at evolution and try to transform a passage of the Bible into a metaphor (from being literal in their mind), they simply dismiss it outright; if science disagrees with their religion, it is the science that must be wrong. It is people like this that try to force creationism on others. The same people who desperately try to justify Intelligent design. Religion has taken otherwise moral and logical people and twisted their minds into pushing nonsense and superstition onto the masses.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - philmunt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Born and raised a catcholic, I consider myself an athiest. Even so it pisses me off for non-christians to make statements on this topic and what they think about "christianity" when there are clearly more informed people on the subject.
People should reserve critisisms for things they know ***** about, if you wanna bag a religion bag your own or at least do you doctorate thesis on it, then feel free to bag it. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I'm more willing to believe the thousands year old Vatican, with their extensive library, than some offshoot seedling religion created for political reasons or mentally challenged, self-declared messiah
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Quote:
Sorry to get way off topic here, but I just feel that this is one of the biggest problems with a substantial number of people of Christians that I know (and more precisely, American Christians) - they tend to blow off everyone else in the world who doesn't fit into their narrow scope of reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amen, Brother fluoro.
For starters, Protestants/Fundamentalists are largely ignorant about the process by which they got their supposedly "Infallible Bible." The wikipedia article "Biblical Canon" is pretty accurate, considering how convoluted the subject really is for serious scholars trying to do serious research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_canon
I will summarize: it is perfectly clear that "The Bible" is a product of the Christian Church. NOT the other way around. Modern so-called "Christian Churches" claiming to be founded on the Bible have got things bass-ackwards!
@ erusan:
gandercore is OK. At least he knows what he's talking about when he comments.
FYI I did read the links you posted. This is not the place to refute Thad Hopkins in detail. Suffice to say that he's largely an ideological blowhard with little more than a copy of "Strong's Concordance" and a heavy set of "pride & prejudice."
Anybody who doesn't realize this from reading his feeble "Apologetics" needs to do a lot more real study and a lot more living.
The guy fits into the tradition of real Christian Apologetics the way Geo. W. Bush would fit into the Constitutional Convention of 1787. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5>That's almost as bad as Darwinists who believe we turned from ape to man in a 10,000 year timeslot.
this is why you don't belong here. the above statement is not darwinist. its is based on some preachers distortion of evolution-twisted to make a twisted point. saying that in a place where science types hang out is meant to provoke. - ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Good point mrhaines.
We Christians do believe every word of The Bible. We consider it Truth. However, arguing over if 6 days is really 6 days and how old the earth is, is irrelevant. If God did, then He did. If His days are different, then they are different. This makes no difference in my relationship with God.
We don't care about the minor details - we focus on what is really important - and that is Jesus.
Knowing what color of shoes Jesus had won't get you into Heaven. - rmspangler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9It's not a fight for religion.
Why did the apostles of the early church endure torture, stonings, and beatings if they were spreading the word of something they knew was fake? Surely one of them would have cracked during the time they were being murdered if those miracles truly didn't happen in front of their eyes. The truth is, they knew it was more important to live for something eternal, not the every day mundane life of making money and then dying.
Not to bash anyone mocking Christianity, I was there too, and something some preacher says to you probably isn't going to "change your life" and "make you see the light" but when it comes down to it you have to desire God, he's not our genie. Honestly just pray to him, even if you're telling him you think he's fake, I'm sure he can take it...It'll probably be easier to do now rather than after you die.
I think the important thing is that God loves you, and he doesn't condemn anyone to hell, we've done that for ourselves; and the sacrifice of Jesus is the hope that's there for us imperfect people. - pingveno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, that's what most of the Vatican thinks. The pope himself has condemned creationism. You see, some Christians have actually heard of this new idea. It's called science. It includes gathering evidence, which people who understand this new idea have been doing for evolution for well over a century. Evolution is not compatible with 6 day creationism. And, despite what attention whore Michael Behe says, it's not compatible with intelligent design.
The Vatican seems to understand this new idea, and has moved on from the days of religion trying to contradict reality. After all, saying that God didn't do what God actually did must be a little offensive to God. - enforcerpsu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think 98% of you have this taken completely out of context.
The point is that science and religion are NOT competing. Well...at least as far as the Catholic church is concerned. We must embrace science and study it to find the real answers. I think this article is saying: Yes, there is a God...but to say that he created it in 6 days is completely wrong and actually insults the incredible "existence" that is our universe. Why the universe is even here we must continue to study but believing in God and evolution is by no means competing and both can exist.
I don't understand why that is so hard for some of you to understand. - jeblis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I thought we saved the religious arguments for fark and apple threads
- fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You say the reason to not care what the Catholic Church says is because they're not Christian (by your definition of the term)? Sorry, but that's *****. If ever there was a reason to not care about the Catholic Church, that is not it.
Sorry to get way off topic here, but I just feel that this is one of the biggest problems with a substantial number of people of Christians that I know (and more precisely, American Christians) - they tend to blow off everyone else in the world who doesn't fit into their narrow scope of reality.
I don't mean to offend the rest of you here, because I have read a lot of comments here that seem very refreshing and well thought-out to me. My comment is sort of an over-generalization based upon about 85% of the Christians I meet (I live in Texas), and the comment I'm responding to seems to fit right into that. - riskable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4CornStarch, you wrote:
"If murder is wrong only because you say it is then what happens when you find a way to justify it to yourself?"
This is precisely what religion often does to justify murder. More wars and murder have been done in the name of religion than any other reason. Our entire human history is full of religious justifications for horrific immoral behavior. If you're taught to believe that murder is OK if it is done in the name of God, isn't that just a way to justify it for yourself? War is listed as a legitimate task in numerous places in the Bible. So is murder. Is it moral just because the Bible says so? Referencing the Bible or a religious belief as an excuse for an unethical behavior is one of the greatest illogical injustices of religion. It still continues to this day.
You wrote:
"Atheist don't deny the existence of God, they replace him with other things like Law, Order, and Ethics and then pay homage to those and follow every thing they say because they know that if left to their own reasoning they would be *****. That's just my little theory."
Your *hypothesis* (that is not a theory) is severely off the mark. Atheists don't deny anything. They accept that there is no god and anything else that they do from that point is entirely up to the individual. There is nothing else you can quantify with atheism as a group. Every atheist has their own reasons for believing and doing what they do. You can't describe them as a group in any other way.
Your comment that atheists replace God with law, order, and ethics doesn't make any sense. You can't replace a superstition with rules of behavior. With our without the superstition there still exists common cultural collectives of what is and isn't acceptable. Taking away the supernatural doesn't leave a vacuum. In fact, it is just the opposite. When you replace ethics with religion you open the masses up to all sorts of immoral actions. Religious beliefs aren't necessarily moral or ethical.
Religion is a path that only leads away from truth. Ethics and wisdom exist outside of it.
-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the thing that seperates creationists from others who believe in a creation story, is that creationists tend to take it litterally while everyone else doesn't. Also, in the Creationists mind, it's very close to an obsession or that's what I get when I read about or hear something from a Creationists standpoint.
It's ok to believe something strongly, but to take it fanatically is going way too far. - NicP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Rinnt
The sad thing is that once people have devoted their lives to a religion it becomes very difficult to admit its questionable, i guess its human nature to want to believe in something youve worked so hard at -
Show 51 - 100 of 225 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is