|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 12, 2007 20:43:20 GMT 10
I dont think this thread has had anything to do with religion. The creationist etc are scientific theories, however dodgy. They may be backed by some religions, but just because a science is backed by a religion doesnt make it a religious topic.
The churches involved with creationalist theories have not been identified.
Granted this thread could have been moved to "other stuff", but it is a scientific topic, not religious.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~Floss~ on Mar 12, 2007 21:36:31 GMT 10
Could potentially become quite a protracted topic...... so i'll just have to avoid the temptation to get further involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Mar 12, 2007 22:03:02 GMT 10
Have to disagree with you there mate. Creationism is is in fact based solely on faith, follows the same party line since the world was ruled by the church through fear & superstition, pushing the circular argument of faith based belief with zero scientific research in support. Creationism is what I was taught as factual in religion class at school 35/40 year ago, castigated when this "magic" was questioned by my curious young mind, & is still taught today to my 15 year old daughter in her religion classes. I'm thankfull she has the temerity to display the curiosity & independent mind she seems to have inherited from her old man. So, in a nutshell, this thread does have religious content, so I'd better stop adding to it huh.  |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Mar 12, 2007 22:06:53 GMT 10
er... creationism isn't science. it's religion. it's based on no evidence other than a religious text. so in that sense, it is about religion.
that said, i've got no issue with what people believe, i just don't think it should be labelled as 'science' when it's not.
|
|
kevrenor
Moderator 
Keeping the 'surrounding regions' yellow since 2004 ... Be Mariners, be Yellow, be a Marinator!
Posts: 2,130
|
Post by kevrenor on Mar 12, 2007 22:12:55 GMT 10
er... creationism isn't science. it's religion. it's based on no evidence other than a religious text. so in that sense, it is about religion. that said, i've got no issue with what people believe, i just don't think it should be labelled as 'science' when it's not. I'm a created evolutionist myself, which combines faith and science. That concept pisses everyone off, which suits me!  So was Tony Vidmar created Adelaide coach or was it evolution? ;D How did this thread get here? Now that is a quandry! |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Mar 12, 2007 22:18:08 GMT 10
er... creationism isn't science. it's religion. it's based on no evidence other than a religious text. so in that sense, it is about religion. that said, i've got no issue with what people believe, i just don't think it should be labelled as 'science' when it's not. I'm a created evolutionist myself, which combines faith and science. That concept pisses everyone off, which suits me! that works fine - it's not a conclusion that is falsifiable, so neither drawing the conclusion nor attempting to disprove it are actually scientific - it's a matter of faith. So was Tony Vidmar created Adelaide coach or was it evolution? ;D How did this thread get here? Now that is a quandry! no, tony is still with us. and the thread got there over progressive mutations. some smaller, some bigger, until at last it bore absolutely no resemblance to its first post. |
|
|
|
Post by MrCelery on Mar 12, 2007 22:52:00 GMT 10
I'm a created evolutionist myself, which combines faith and science. That concept pisses everyone off, which suits me! Bugger! All along I thought you were Cornish!  I like your practical approach to religion however: "I'll take 4 creationist beliefs and 4 evolutionist beliefs please. What's that? The creationists are 2 for a dollar? We'll give me another half dozen of those please!" So, if football is religion, was it created? Or did it evolve? I think I'm getting a headache.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 12, 2007 23:41:38 GMT 10
er... creationism isn't science. it's religion. it's based on no evidence other than a religious text. so in that sense, it is about religion. that said, i've got no issue with what people believe, i just don't think it should be labelled as 'science' when it's not. I'm a created evolutionist myself, which combines faith and science. That concept pisses everyone off, which suits me! So was Tony Vidmar created Adelaide coach or was it evolution? ;D How did this thread get here? Now that is a quandry! Religious texts are evidence. And hence count as science/history. What % of science articles in major science journals were found to have had poor statistical basis? I think it was 85% they worked out. That means all that "science" had yet to be proved by a factual sample. Yet it is not called religion. If ones idea of creation of the world is religion, because it involves a "creator", then ones idea that a "creator" did not create the world must be classed as religious to the same extent. It swings both ways in science. Evolution doesnt disprove a creator, yet many say it does, Evolution therefor is seen as a relgious argument. Yet i would class it as science. To suggest one way or the other is religious argument. All religions are not based on a God, or an institution like a church or mosque. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 12, 2007 23:42:59 GMT 10
Yes Football is a religion too  and Tony Vidmar is its God. Now this whole thread finally makes sense |
|
|
|
Post by bakery5 on Mar 12, 2007 23:48:34 GMT 10
Yes Football is a religion too and Tony Vidmar is its God. Now this whole thread finally makes sense Tony Vidmar is your dad? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 13, 2007 1:42:58 GMT 10
no, tony is still with us. and the thread got there over progressive mutations. some smaller, some bigger, until at last it bore absolutely no resemblance to its first post. And this "creation" was achieved in SIX (6) days dammit, so do what everyone knows is the right thing and observe a 'sabbath' on the seventh day and give it a break!  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by curious on Mar 13, 2007 8:10:26 GMT 10
Under Howards new laws the sabbath is just another work day.....politics & religion in one thread? .....We now need a post on sex to make it a clean sweep.  |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Mar 13, 2007 8:32:16 GMT 10
Under Howards new laws the sabbath is just another work day.....politics & religion in one thread? .....We now need a post on sex to make it a clean sweep. i like sex. there, done! |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 13, 2007 10:55:32 GMT 10
*now takes offence to whole thread*
|
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Mar 13, 2007 11:05:26 GMT 10
I'm a created evolutionist myself, which combines faith and science. That concept pisses everyone off, which suits me! So was Tony Vidmar created Adelaide coach or was it evolution? ;D How did this thread get here? Now that is a quandry! Religious texts are evidence. And hence count as science/history. Religious texts such as the bible are neither scientific or historical. The bible (new testament) was written by a large number of authors many years after the supposed death of Jesus. If you write something many decades laters from first through to tenth hand accounts no doubt the stories will be far from accurate. This was culled to four authors and compiled by the Roman Emporer Constantine into the basis of what is today's bible. This culling process was subjective and no doubt altered to support the politics of the day. Over hundreds of years the bible has gone through numerous edits to be both relevant and politically correct for the day. Under this enormous amount of change there is no doubt that the stories in the bible cannot in any way be viewed as factual let alone scientifically factual. The bible should not be read literally but should be viewed as a book that has important moral and spiritual messages for which we can absorb to both enrich and stimulate our lives. |
|
|
|
Post by alicia on Mar 13, 2007 12:24:12 GMT 10
Don't forget most historic texts were written by men so only the view of the man is represented.
For most of history, anonymous was a woman - Virginia Woolf
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Mar 13, 2007 13:39:10 GMT 10
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. - Sir Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Mar 13, 2007 19:08:54 GMT 10
Yeah, like when the dutch and took on the spanish with the english, and the english hardly mention the mighty dutch fleet. I believe the spanish were stopped purely by one man named drake, according to the english...
|
|
|
|
Post by MrCelery on Mar 13, 2007 19:15:41 GMT 10
Religious texts such as the bible are neither scientific or historical. The bible (new testament) was written by a large number of authors many years after the supposed death of Jesus. If you write something many decades laters from first through to tenth hand accounts no doubt the stories will be far from accurate. This was culled to four authors and compiled by the Roman Emporer Constantine into the basis of what is today's bible. This culling process was subjective and no doubt altered to support the politics of the day. Over hundreds of years the bible has gone through numerous edits to be both relevant and politically correct for the day. snip Speaking of Bible versions, and apologies in advance to religious people without a sense of humour, but I found this page extremely funny. Read the Comments section for some very witty and inoffensive (to me at least) Bible revisions. And to declare my position on this topic, I hover between atheism and agnost, agnot...not sure. The only time I'll agree there was a true God was on 16 Nov 05, and I'm sure it was JW looking down. blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/09/21/abridged_too_far.html |
|
;D
