<p>okay. we have our own opinions so let be it</p>
<p>Yay for the Protestant Reformation, trancestorm! You know what, you're right about the RC Church. After asserting its dominance, the RC Church became The Man. But then this guy named Luther came along and stuck it to the Man with his 95 theses.</p>
<p>There are other people out there like the orthodox jews</p>
<p>I have had to many personal experiences not to believe in God. When I was little, I used to be deadly afraid of thunderstorms, but I prayed alot, and eventually it got to the point where the storms would stop. Then I showed off to my brother, and that was the last time it happened. If I'm waiting for an answer to a question and pray for a really obvious answer, It usually runs me over like a ton of bricks. Stuff like that</p>
<p>Trancestorm, you mention roman catholicism as the destruction of Europe. However, you are speaking of one particular denomination of Christianity. I DISAGREE with the Roman Catholics because of certain doctrines they teach. Do you know what brought Europe out of the dark ages. The Protestant Reformation of 1517. After this event, Europe made a 360 as far as religious concerns. Your accusations of Christianity are mostly directed to Roman Catholics with whom I am not affiliated.
During Bible times, Witches were tried and executed because of Jewish law. You may remember the bible story of King Saul and his request of prophecy from a witch. God mandates the destruction of dark things.
why do you think the pope condemned the Haarry Potter books. Tell me other supposed "superstition" of Christianity other than Roman Catholic doctrine.
Someways I believe Hinduism to be detrimental to India. For example, and please correct me if I am wrong that most animals can not be killed. An animal may have a human spirit from a past life, therfore murder of animal is murder to a human. This has caused terrible malnutrition and hunger throughout India. Cows often times receive more food than a human being. Cattle walk the streets of India, yet can not be slaughtered.</p>
<p>Hmmm...interesting. I don't really base my own faith on prayer confirmation. I don't really think we can alter the course of God's actions through prayer, but through prayer God can alter the course of our own actions and character. I don't usually pray for something to happen to me without, but for something within. That said, it is troubling when God does not seem to answer prayers, and about that, I really don't have any easy answer.</p>
<p>I'm agnostic.</p>
<p><em>shrugs</em></p>
<p>(This is coming from a former agnostic, and it will mainly be dealing with Christian supporters of ID, because they are the most prominent opposition to Darwinism as it exists today.)</p>
<p>Evolution certainly has come a long way. It has its merits and its mysteries, yet the goal of science is to always improve. That's where the problem is.</p>
<p>Darwinists always accuse IDers that IDers fail the important scientific test of falsifiability. It can't be proven wrong, so it's not a valid scientific theory. But Darwinists do the same thing! Darwinism can't be proven wrong either!!! If an IDer says, "The chance of life forming spontaneously is 1 in 10^20," the Darwinist can respond, "It's still possible." Thus, no matter how low the odds, something is possible.</p>
<p>Thus the falsifiability test is actually both-sided. Given a choice of believing a one in one-trillion (that's a VERY generous estimate) to something that is reasonable supported by some ancient texts, then what will most people choose?</p>
<p>If Darwinists oppose the above paragraph, they are stating that religion by default has a <em>ZERO</em> probability of being true, thus even a 1 in 10^20 (or some other giant exponent) is true. Look at quantum mechanics. It's strange. But it's real-there's no question about that. The modern global economy and technological progress are all dependent on such a strange theory-a theory that predicts multiverses, spontaneous creation, and all sorts of strange things-things normal sensible people wouldn't believe.</p>
<p>Therefore, to reject the possibility of any religion is from the beginning, stating that religion has an absolute zero chance of being true, and for it to be even considered, hard evidence must be shown. On the other hand, the Darwinist argument is often riddled with holes. However, my argument above supports both views-even if something is strange and seems like bogus, it might be true.</p>
<p>Another argument is that IDers use circular reasoning when they support the Bible. This is completely false. Look at some of the reasoning used to support the Bible (teleological being one). That's not circular reasoning.</p>
<p>Another argument is that things all add up. It logically makes sense, but why??? WHY should we have to believe that everything is here by an extremely low chance? Why is it wrong to believe that there is a plan? Even if microevolution slowly adds up to macro, why does it make sense to believe it with such a low probability? Of course, one could argue: if you throw a bunch of coins off a cliff and one landed on its side, we could be that coin on the side, so probablity doesn't matter if you were that one lucky creation. But chances are that it didn't happen... Argument can still go both ways here...</p>
<p>My opinion is that the question won't be answered for a long time, possibly never. But the arguments Darwinists use are actually not superior to the one s IDers use. They both have flaws. I can say with reasonable confidence that even some of the most prominent scientists have never bothered to analyze all of the facts evolution cannot account for and see the other side of the argument. They believe evolution is a fact. It may be, but that's not in the spirit of science. Facts explain everything with 100% confidence. If it was a fact, nobody would dispute it, except idiots. If evolution's a fact, 90% of the world are idiots. Perhaps, but I'd rather keep an open mind on things and believe.</p>
<p>It's not like there's no evidence for faith, either. Sure, the Bible could all be allegories/fables, but what's the chance that a bunch of people get together and make up a whole story about the world and its destiny if it's all b.s.? I mean, if I wanted to make a bogus book, I'd write about something a little less serious.</p>
<p>I'm a Christian. Faith and science must be united.</p>
<p>In response to post #608:
Darwinism could very well be proven wrong - if, say, a human skull was discovered dating back to the Jurrasic era, it would utterly fall apart. However, so far, it's stood the test.</p>
<p>There are many scientists who point out the holes in evolution; the problem is that every time another challenge is found, the IDers throw up their hands and claim it must be the work of a god - as thus, they're not well publicized, lest they be misquoted (I know Dawkins and Gould have both been subject to this numerous times and I imagine that they both are very ****ed off). The difference, however, is that evolutionists strive to find and clarify what we now deem to be truth, and allow an evolution of the theory itself.</p>
<p>And the chance that it's all bs is very high, due to the evolutionary benefits of religious beliefs (again, the link I posted on the previous page is useful in highlighting these).</p>
<p>I believe in "god" but not to the point where i shape my life around him/her. I use god as a force that i can look up to or to remind myself how little I am.</p>
<p>and for all of you guys that say "evolution is hard to believe" must be blind or stupid to say that "god is easier to believe" because the evidence that supports evolution FAR outweighs the evidence for an existence of god.</p>
<p>btw science and faith DONT mix because one is based on reason while the other is based on mysticism and/or idealism</p>
<p>Justinian: You mention "the Protestant Reformation of 1517" but i have to remind you that the Protestant Reformation was not a single event. Rather, it was a movement that took hundreds of years. The reasons that the protestant reformation took place were threefold. First off, there was a growing dissatisfaction of the corruption of the RC church. Second, there was a forming middle class that was more educated and took secular views on the world. Thirdly, the governments had long disputes with the church over backed taxes, payments, etc. THE REFORMATION DID NOT BRING EUROPE OUT OF THE DARK AGES! What brought Europe out of the Dark Ages was the Humanistic Renaissance movement that started in Florence and then spread through Europe. THen, the Enlightenment brought Europe even further towards prosperity. The two common things of both these eras was that they were brought about by a growth secular view. Even the protestants were detrimental to Europe for the conflict that they created with the RCs. Every war till the enlightenment era in europe had religios motives.<br>
For example, the thirty years war...you cannot say that this was not detrimental to europe..it left lots of it (especially Germany) in ruin. Purely a RC-protestant conflict.</p>
<p>The only time when Europe truly began to progress was when RC AND protestant ideas were set aside for secular ones. Till the "live and let live" doctrine of toleration was accepted in the enlightenment, Europe spiraled downwards. the reason the enlightenment came about was that people were tired of religious wars and sought to extricate religion from daily lives altogether. </p>
<p>I am not speaking of the RC church exclusively. Europe did not do a "360" after the reformation. The reformation only brought more conflict and death. Only till ALL religion was set aside in the enlightenment (and even questioned and refuted by philosophes such as Diderot) was progression made. </p>
<p>most animals can not be killed. An animal may have a human spirit from a past life, therfore murder of animal is murder to a human. This has caused terrible malnutrition and hunger throughout India.</p>
<p>Flat out wrong. </p>
<p>"Cows often times receive more food than a human being. Cattle walk the streets of India, yet can not be slaughtered."</p>
<p>Cows (that belong to farmers) walk the streets but nobody kills them because the cows are necessary for the farmer's survival. </p>
<p>Don't forget, in the US, our domesticated animals (dogs/cats) get better healthcare and food than some poor people IN AMERICA.</p>
<p>Also, dont forget that all meats eaten in the US are available in India (beef, pork, etc) and people in India eat meat.</p>
<p>Low chances must be embraced. WE cannot speak from the perspective of overlooking the entire trial. We can only speak as the product of its outcome; we are the 1 in 10 trillion or whatever, we cannot speak as if we are not. </p>
<p>The difference between the chance of religion and the chance of life is significant. </p>
<p>Ok i were to tell you to flip a coin, what are the chances of it landing on heads (you say 50%). Now, i flip the coin and it lands on heads. Now, the probability is irrelavant because it is related to the outcome. Saying the probability was 50%, and relating your outcome to the probability is ex post facto analysis; this is a statistical falacy.</p>
<p>A probability is only significant before the outcome happens. We are the 1 in 10^20, chances that we came about were rare, but now that we have, we can no longer regard the statistic as meaningful in relation to our life or the prediction of other events. </p>
<p>There is an aspect of Darwin's Chance idea that you are disregarding. Sure the chance is extremely low, but you fail to take in the number of trials this has undergone. Statistically speaking, if there are enough trials even the smallest chance becomes probable in at least one. </p>
<p>Say there is a one in 10^20, but there are 10^20 trials (this is not an unreasonable number when dealing in terms of microorganisms), statistics would say that averaging all trials, you will get one outcome per every 10^20 organisms.</p>
<p>The question is, how many 'trials' has this undergone, and what is the probabillity of life occuring? Do you have any resources about this?</p>
<p>Can the moderators please end this thread please.</p>
<p>Also, I have some statistics for you. Jesus Christ fulfilled 61 prophecies made in the Hebrew Old Testament. I admit that some of these are rather vague, but many were definite and clear cut. There were prophecies concerning Jesus's place of birth (micah 5:2), time of birth (Dan. 9:25; Gen. 49:10), Manner of birth (Is. 7:14), Betrayal (Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:12-13) Manner of death (Ps. 109:24, 25; Ps.22:16, Isaiah 53:12), people's reactions (Isaiah 50:6), piercing (Zechariah 12:10) and his burial (Isaiah 53:9). The probabillity that any man who might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled these eight prophecies is one in 10^17th power.
That would be: 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.</p>
<p>So say you take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars a stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one.</p>
<p>That is the chance that this could have happened by accident. I rest my case.</p>
<p>I, for one, vote NOT to have this thread ended. I respect jimbob's request, but would suggest that jimbob merely unsubscribe if it is offensive. </p>
<p>P.S. If you really want to see offensive, check out some of the threads on the Cornell board.</p>
<p>evolution...too many flaws in it - there has to be something more than just evolution - something had to create the beginning and everything in between. that being said, i believe in evolutionary creation...God created everything...allowed things to evolve though...kind of a test of faith, really.
those of you who say that religion has created sooooo much trouble for the world...what about the good that has come of it? how many people do you think refrained from killing others or themselves because of "divine" intervention or their religion? probly a lot more than we will ever know. i suppose you are also the people, that if you believe in God, you have no problem blaming God for everything bad that happens. you are constantly asking why bad things happen and why evil exists, since he's love after all. but i bet you rarely, if ever, thank him for the good things that happen. that A on the test you got...the 34 ACT score that you studied all year for??? those were all because of you - you did those things yourself....a human accomplished it. but if something bad happens, well why dont we blame something bigger for it...it wasnt human fault, it was God's fault...
religion doesnt create problems, humans do. its human nature...the crusades mightve started about God but they came down to wealth and territory. the iraqi's and afghani's right now...might've started as a religious war...but i doubt it....they're mad at america cause they see us as a bunch of selfish, greedy people who have more than we deserve. they dont like us...and can you really blame them?
no religion is the best religion. one isnt better or more holy than the other. to say that...now that would be closed minded. and to say that one religion as a whole is closed minded....well thats obviously the most hypocritical thing someone could say. i'm catholic. proud of it. probly not the strongest person in my faith you'll ever meet, but i have my beliefs and they wont change. went to germany for world youth day this summer to see the pope - best experience in my life. but im not ridiculously closed minded to tell everyone i meet that they're wrong. some catholics i've met disgust me. a former nun and the mom of a student at my catholic school went to hawaii a few years ago to, well, you know... and dont get me started on the whole priest molestation cases. but the catholic faith isnt the only one that has some wackos in it. look at some of the mormons who practice polygamy...i find that to be just gross. and then the religions that sacrifice live animals and people? gross, gross, gross... but you cant ever judge a person by their religion...just like you cant judge a religion by the people you meet or hear of in it. catholics dont molest altar boys....mormons dont have a million wives...not all those who practice wicca are involved in black magic...just stop judging people as a whole...maybe just stop judging all together - what a concept!</p>
<p>anyways...that was my two cents on that topic...</p>
<p>Consgrafelope: Awesome post! I totally get your point about the creation of the beginning--Evolution doesn't answer that. In fact, evolution doesn't even attempt to answer how everything began. So creationists and evolutionists should stop biting each other's heads off. If they're going to argue over something, they should at least make sure they're arguing about the same thing! And evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of life. The scientist's guess is as good as the priest's! What the scientist attempts to prove is completely different...how life has changed, not how life started. So that's why I decided not to ignore this thread anymore...all the animosity I see on here is simply misunderstanding of the other side.
As consgrafelope (ack hard username to spell!) said, let's not criticize each other (OMG Christianity is the reason everything sucks!!!! OMG Atheists are evil!!!)...just because some people on either side make mistakes doesn't mean we should go at it on a CC forum :)</p>
<p>i found an awesome quote by Albert Einstein:</p>
<p>'Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'</p>