QuoteNo but it means that the genesis creation myth isn't true which some religious types can't take.Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Aside from Wayne Rooney there is Luke Chadwick -and after Luke there is volumes upon volumes of well corroborated scientific evidence that we are indeed decended from some sort of a "monkey-like" primate AND from something closer to a vole, mole, stoat or rat prior to that again. If it was a murder case -there'd have been a hangin' ages ago. Frankly I don't get why so many religious types have such a big hang up about it when the fact of evolution does not automatically exclude the possibility of a "God"
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
No but it means that the genesis creation myth isn't true which some religious types can't take.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
fair enough -but surely only the most staunch bible worshippers put so much stock in the old testament? Is the "gospel" they swear by not the new?
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
It's called the Theory not the Fact of Evolution which sort of undermines its credibility. While there are similarities between man and primates a number of things are different. We like to think chimps are so clever but on a human scale they are little more intelligent than David Beckham. In fact why are humans so far advanced than any other animal? Secondly, while a donkey and a horse can produce a (sterile) hybrid, why can't humans and monkeys do the same (FFS, plenty of people have tried)? When did they become so far separated? Take your point about it not excuding God, but it also sounds ludicrous to me even if I was an atheist. A force of greatness we just don't know about or a brand of monkeys changing into humans (no hair, bigger noses, able to invent machines) over millions of years. They're both on the face of it laughable.
Never had the benefit of a religious education at school but one of the nuns at the Nymphomaniac College Conchita went to claimed it was a load of Jackson Pollocks.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
There's no such thing as scientific FACT (can't write that word except in capitals of late it seems!), all scientific 'knowledge' is theoretical. You can't prove any theory, the only way they have any credibiltity is if they explain current phenomena and can predict future observations. Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics shows life changing to suit changing conditions which fits in with evolution whereas it doesn't fit with the creationist theory if any sensible person really believes that.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
Watched a programme on BBC2 the other day about the death of Thomas A Beckett. Claimed he was 6ft in an era when the average age was 5'2''. Things change. So what. My point is why did some bacteria stay bacteria while other bacteria became humans. If you believed that we came originally from pond life, then good for you. Just let others, including myself, believe in our own fairy tales.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
are you saying you dont belive in darwins theory of evolution??
save the sheep shaggers bring back beheadings for waherford
Random chance I suppose, I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of DNA mutations.
I'm not stopping you, believe whatever you want. I just don't think creationism stands up to rational thought. If it works for you, fine.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
join me at church of satan
save the sheep shaggers bring back beheadings for waherford
Nah, that Satan looks a bit too camp.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
and just to clarify things we dont sacrifice kids or anything just goats and chickens
save the sheep shaggers bring back beheadings for waherford
No child sacrifices? Now I'm definitely out.
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
guilt or no guilt to say "god promised us this land" as an excuse to commit genocide against the palestinians is ludicrous.I find that pretty insulting
re. Israel taking Palestine as 'Gods own people' i think it's more down to the fact everyone felt guilty for not being able to stop the holocaust...correct me if i'm wrong
they have some cheek to claim theyve been oppressed/suffered for millenia then they go and visit this suffering upon the palestinians.
satan looks a bit gay.
though much of your beliefs make sense
i like this one:
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him
I don't mean to be rude Eanna, but I think that your anti-religious zeal is creating a very selective understanding of history.
Yes - religion was involved to some degree in a number of the above conflicts. But that is simply a reflection of the fact that religion has been a fundamental element to both individual human existence and society in general for thousands of years.
Just because 2 cultural/ethnic/national groups clash, and they happen to be from different religious backgrounds, doesn't necessarily mean that religion must be somewhere near the root of that conflict. Even by your own tally above, the majority of conflcts listed were not motivated by religion, and that's without questioning some of your assertions (again, the conflict in Northern Ireland is caused by 2 competing cultures both claiming legitimacy over the exclusive use of the same territory. The 2 groups just happen to be easily characterised along religious lines. If everyone in Norn Iron woke up Jewish tomorrow, there'd still be rows between those Jews who wanted to be British and those who wanted to be Irish).
Nationalism was a major, if not the leading and in many cases sole, cause of all but 1 of the above conflicts (Vietnam being the exception, - though it would be easy to argue that America's enforcement of it's own political ideology upon other countries was and still is in itself a form of US nationalism).
And whilst a minority of Jew's may claim they have a biblical right to the land that is Israel, it is certainly not all Jews. There are even a number of strict Jewish religious sects who are vehemently anti-Zionist and believe that returning to Israel is AGAINST the will of God, but I see you've chosen to ignore them. Regardless - the land the Israeli's now occupy wasn't "given to them", and scriptures were certainly not used as justification by the Allies at the time they were considering what to do with the region (post Holocaust guilt and the need to create a homeland where the Jews could feel secure was actually the key factor for Britain and the US at the time). To clarify - when the British ran the Plastine Mandate post WW2, they did their usual 'divide and conquer' by promising both the Jews and the Palestinians roughly the same thing. The Palestinian Jews, who were in a guerilla war with Britain at the time, saw an opportunity to strike before anything concrete was put in place regarding the creation of an Israeli and Palestinian state, and as the British army withdrew from the area they siezed their weapons and the land that eventually became Israel.
Regardless of any perceived biblical claim to the land of Israel by the Jews-
their claim to Israel is as much to do with the concept of traditional homeland as it is religion. They were exiled from their region of origin so long ago that the bible just happens to be the main 'proof' that it ever was their homeland.
If England had cleared all the Irish out of Ireland during the Plantation and replaced them with Scots and English (as indeed was their plan) would you now oppose the right of the exiled Irish to return to their traditional and historic homeland ? The only difference between the claim of the Irish to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland and the claim of the Jewish nation to a homeland in what is now Israel is chronology.
In summary - just because 2 distinct cultural/ethnic/national groups are in conflict, and they happen to be affiliate to different religions, does not necessarily mean that religion MUST be somewhere near the root of that conflict. Yes - in such circumstances differences in religion can often help to exacerbate the conflict, but usually no more so than many other differences between the groups (skin colour, language etc).
There's way more proof that we are descended from monkeys than some big guy with a beard living in the clouds that created this planet.Any scientific proof that we are related to monkeys (Wayne Rooney obvious exception)?
I'm not a Catholic.
If you believe in the proven subject that is science then it is very difficult to believe in theology.
I still think religion is good because it creates hope and a reason for people to live a moral life.
If people here are trying to look at things logically, then agonsticism is the only thing that makes sense: There might be God, there might not, and it's logically impossible to prove one way or the other. Atheism is as much a logical nightmare as belief, as you cannot prove there is no god in the same way you cannot prove there is.
But this what the word faith is all about, here. Something far more interesting than simple binary certainties some people seem to want in their lives. If God was a certainty, then we woudl not need words like 'belief' and 'faith'. We'd know God in the same way we're reasonably confident in gravity, electricity, biology, and so on.
Sorry to bring it down to a crass level, but it's a bit like when Indiana Jones steps out into nothing in Radiers of the Lost Ark III. There's nothing there, he's walking out into nothing, but he closes his eyes and believes, steps out in faith... and suddenly there's a path he'd never noticed before. It's not suddenly there, magically, because he closed his eyes and beleived and it appeared out of nowehere, rather it was there all the time in front of him but he just never noticed it before..
As a Chrsitian, the creation vs evolution debate has never bothered me - or interested me, that much. What the bible actually says (if you read it with a less literal mind), is that first there was nothing, then a big explosion, then matter formed stars, then planets, then water formed, then plant life grew up from nowehere, then life appearded in the sea, then on land, and then finally humans came along and messed it up for everything. I'm sorry, but where does this contradict Darwin
I think a lot of people get hung up on the timescales and outrageously large numbers in the Old testament, quite needlessly.
Tea. Corduroy. Space Travel.
And what proof is that? That we 'share' DNA with monkeys, yet a human can't have anybody's blood.
As GG says, the belief in evolution needs faith. I read an article in the London Evening Standard yesterday that a scientist last month (?) shocked the world by admitting that he believed 'God' (ie: a creating force) lives/lived. Something about multiple universes (all very technical and the article was a 'why did God let the tsunami kill so many?' type of article). I can't paste the article but this might prove interesting reading for those that believe Scientists are all atheists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...4872%2C00.html
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
you also have to understand that the Church created symbols and ideals of worship.
for example St. Patrick the idea od st. patrick is two people intertwined.-which was writen down 400 years after the real st. patrick was in ireland.
St. Augustus of Hippo(northern africa) was seen as White and written about much later on.
A D.F.B. by any chance?Catholics are Fenians(Allegedly );Prods.(some) are D.O.B's
C of I,which I'm nominally,is a 'halfway house'between the two.........
Still waiting to see that "Fenian prods on tour" flag you promised us, Dav.
Tea. Corduroy. Space Travel.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks