Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Creationism Vs Evolution


LucidElement

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

And so you have your why, then. 

 We could, but the US has long abandoned the idea of peace. Rather than some idealistic Athens we have gone to Sparta for inspiration. 

This is a revisionist view.

Athens was a highly militarized state that conquered most of the Greek peninsula, they were no better than Sparta.

They were crushed by Sparta, in fact.

Sparta's allies called for the enslavement of the Athenians, but Sparta refrained.

8 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

 The results of this can be seen today, Athens is atill a wonder to be visited and treasured. Sparta is remembered through a few stories. 

Well, that and the fact that it's still there, in about the same condition as Athens.

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's never been a generation of Americans that didn't know war. If there wasn't one readily at hand to join in, we would invent a reason to start one. This is a mere observation, not a criticism. As a country born out of conflict, we have always prided ourselves on our ability to wage war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harte said:

This is a revisionist view.

Athens was a highly militarized state that conquered most of the Greek peninsula, they were no better than Sparta.

They were crushed by Sparta, in fact.

Sparta's allies called for the enslavement of the Athenians, but Sparta refrained.

Well, that and the fact that it's still there, in about the same condition as Athens.

Harte

You're  right. That's a half baked comparison that's been stewing in my head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There's never been a generation of Americans that didn't know war. If there wasn't one readily at hand to join in, we would invent a reason to start one. This is a mere observation, not a criticism. As a country born out of conflict, we have always prided ourselves on our ability to wage war.

"Know war?"

Well, only if you count skirmishes as war.

Many of the battles between the Natives and the Cavalry are designated as "wars." Without them, there's been several generations that didn't "know" war.

Most people didn't know those so-called "wars" at the time they were ongoing.

There was one "war" involving Mexican cattle rustlers -

Quote

The Las Cuevas War[1] was a brief armed conflict fought mainly between a force of Texas Rangers, commanded by Captain Leander McNelly, and an irregular force of Mexican militia. It took place in November 1875, in and around Las Cuevas, Tamaulipas. The Texans crossed the Rio Grande into Mexican territory with the purpose of returning stolen cattle to the American side of the river but they were drawn into a battle with local militia forces. When the fighting was over the Mexicans returned the cattle to the Texans.[2]

It lasted only a couple of days.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harte said:

"Know war?"

Well, only if you count skirmishes as war.

Many of the battles between the Natives and the Cavalry are designated as "wars." Without them, there's been several generations that didn't "know" war.

Most people didn't know those so-called "wars" at the time they were ongoing.

There was one "war" involving Mexican cattle rustlers -

It lasted only a couple of days.

Harte

The War of Independence, The War of 1812, two Wars with Mexico, the first of which was a proxy war, The Civil War, The Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, The Second Gulf War The War with ISIS and various and sundry  minor armed suppressions of insurrections from the Philippines to Central America and the West Indies and Caribbean, Cold War One and Obama's Cold War Two. Not to mention our not so cordial relations with indigenous tribes called the Indian Wars. Did I miss anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you missed the Las Cuevas War I mentioned, among others.

There was 33 years between the end of the Civil war and the start of the Spanish American war. That's a generation easy.

Again, if you don't count the "Wars" with Native Americans.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harte said:

Well, you missed the Las Cuevas War I mentioned, among others.

There was 33 years between the end of the Civil war and the start of the Spanish American war. That's a generation easy.

Again, if you don't count the "Wars" with Native Americans.

Harte

Armed conflict with another people where there are casualties on both sides is indeed war and was thought so at the time. The War in Vietnam was technically a police action since war was not declared. We weren't technically soldiers we were military advisors. Problem is--a military advisor dead two days in the sun smells just like a corpse in a real war. So believe me, the people involved certainly thought they were in a war. The men who died at The Little Bighorn, weren't considered casualties of peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Las Cuevas War occurred between Texas Rangers acting on their own in direct defiance to the U.S. Government at the time - which ordered them back across the border.

They ignored those orders.

Two days later, they returned with all the rustled cattle, plus a great many more. LOL

They fought the Mexican Militia, not the Mexican Army.

Still called a "war" though.

Hardly on par with Vietnam, which the U.S. entered through treaty agreements (SEATO) and picked up where the French left off, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, if you use the term "know war," what country has ever had a generation that didn't "know war?"

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harte said:

The Las Cuevas War occurred between Texas Rangers acting on their own in direct defiance to the U.S. Government at the time - which ordered them back across the border.

They ignored those orders.

Two days later, they returned with all the rustled cattle, plus a great many more. LOL

They fought the Mexican Militia, not the Mexican Army.

Still called a "war" though.

Hardly on par with Vietnam, which the U.S. entered through treaty agreements (SEATO) and picked up where the French left off, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, if you use the term "know war," what country has ever had a generation that didn't "know war?"

Harte

You left out General Pershing's 12,000 man expeditionary force sent south of the border in 1916 in pursuit of Poncho Villa  You were the one parsing words about war--I just showed you how far that goes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2017 at 11:00 AM, Frank Merton said:

Are you absolutely certain your mother loves you.  You distorted (deliberately and dishonestly?) what I posted.  Actually I have no evidence my mother loved me because she died at American hands before I was old enough, so perhaps I resent your tactic more than most would.

Having evidence, if the evidence is persuasive, is sufficient to form an opinion, but not a belief.

There is no structural difference between an opinion and a belief. Eg  I am of the opinon god exists is exactly the same as I believe god exists.

"I am of the opinion Trump will be reconised as one of America's greatest presidents,  "is the same as saying, "I believe he will........." :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2017 at 0:49 PM, Frank Merton said:

Well that is a different definition, and reduces belief to nothing but your opinion, worth whatever its worth.  To me belief is psychologically different -- something you do not doubt -- something that is fundamental to your world.

(That is a problem with English -- it doesn't make the distinction as well as some other languages).

Why assume people doubt their opinions any more than their beliefs?

I dont construct many religious beliefs, but I do construct a lot of beliefs/ opinions about  politics, economics, social standards, etc.

I dont construct either without very good reasons, and as such I hold them all with equal certainty. If you aren't certain  about something,  then don't construct a belief or opinion. Keep an open mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You left out General Pershing's 12,000 man expeditionary force sent south of the border in 1916 in pursuit of Poncho Villa  You were the one parsing words about war--I just showed you how far that goes.

At least he was a General, and regular army.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:13 PM, XenoFish said:

Isn't that kind of a problem with Christianity? This multiple versions of it. It's almost like the whole meanings become meaningless as each adaption of the source material has people finger prints all over it. From Jehovah's Witness, to Baptist, Evangelicals, or whatever obscure version there is. Look at Islam and the versions of it, they always fight because only one of them is "right". which to me show that religions are purely man-made constructs. People are not fighting over god's word, but the word of man. Man's will became god's. God was is a memetic entity, an egregore of whatever religion, sort of a collective of ideas. This idea is anchored in imagery and scriptures. It grows in the individual and they spread it like the common cold. While some memes are beneficial (okay I'll be honest I'd choose Christianity any day over other religions) others are toxic to the individual, collective, and the world. 

Yeah, I've been researching memes and meme magick lately.:lol:

I agree there all kinds of faiths, but to me the one that stands out is of Jesus`s ministry  of love and forgiveness, that will  always make this place better some day

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

I agree there all kinds of faiths, but to me the one that stands out is of Jesus`s ministry  of love and forgiveness, that will  always make this place better some day

Place or person? If it makes a person better, a better person can make think better. Making something better through force is doing anyone good. So the way I see it, what you do and how you live is between you and your god, unless what you do brings harm to others. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Harte said:

At least he was a General, and regular army.

Harte

George Patton was one his officers on that little safari.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice bit of trivia.:tu:

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Place or person? If it makes a person better, a better person can make think better. Making something better through force is doing anyone good. So the way I see it, what you do and how you live is between you and your god, unless what you do brings harm to others. 

I imagine you meant to say "something better through force ins't doing anyone good." Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, which is of course possible. I'm just home from surgery so am maybe a bit loopy. But then again, it's tricky to interpret angry squirrels.

I agree with this, in any case. Where religion does abject harm is when it's forced on other people. I see a good example in the forms of Christianity that were forced on countless Native American children in the nineteenth and twentieth century. It was overt brain washing: children taken from their homes, forced to learn English, relinquish their cultures, toe the line. Nothing wrong with teaching these children English, but not to the abandonment of their own native tongues. Children in these schools were beaten if they spoke their own language. It's much more progressive today. I occasionally donate to a Catholic school in South Dakota where Lakota children are taught in a way that fosters Christian ideals but at the same time celebrates and honors the Lakota language and heritage.

We see this with some of Islam today, of course. In this case it is violently forced through groups like ISIS. And those who don't toe the line aren't beaten—they're gruesomely murdered. This is religion perverted.

Religion can be a powerful force for good—for personal growth and moral direction. But when religion is used as a blunt weapon, it fails.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Place or person? If it makes a person better, a better person can make think better. Making something better through force is doing anyone good. So the way I see it, what you do and how you live is between you and your god, unless what you do brings harm to others. 

My wording was a tad off when I wrote that for some reason. It was supposed to be more like this.

Place or person? If it makes a person better, a better person can make things better. Making something better through force is doing no one good. So the way I see it, what you do and how you live is between you and your god, unless what you do brings harm to others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Religion can be a powerful force for good—for personal growth and moral direction. But when religion is used as a blunt weapon, it fails.

I am not sure about moral direction. It can reinforce or justify moral beliefs, certainly. 

 But, for example, Catholics aren't to friendly to divorced women. 

 My mother was in an abusive relationship, eventually getting divorced. She married my father, and to this day is not allowed to receive communion. Its a big deal to her. 

 More, my father became an atheist. She consulted her priest who told her the moral thing was to either bring him back to Christianity or leave him. 

 Which, at least from growing up, matches what I was taught on Catholicism. 

 The teaching on divorce is straight from the Bible. 

 

That said, while I'm  critical I actually have an appreciation for religious believers who pursue science as a way knowing their God's creation. Seems more respectful to their belief, to me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

I am not sure about moral direction. It can reinforce or justify moral beliefs, certainly. 

 But, for example, Catholics aren't to friendly to divorced women. 

 My mother was in an abusive relationship, eventually getting divorced. She married my father, and to this day is not allowed to receive communion. Its a big deal to her. 

 More, my father became an atheist. She consulted her priest who told her the moral thing was to either bring him back to Christianity or leave him. 

 Which, at least from growing up, matches what I was taught on Catholicism. 

 The teaching on divorce is straight from the Bible. 

 

That said, while I'm  critical I actually have an appreciation for religious believers who pursue science as a way knowing their God's creation. Seems more respectful to their belief, to me. 

 

Those are good example of how religion is actually self-defeating. It's part of the reason (among many) that organized faiths are experiencing such a decline but are trying desperately to adapt. One new example is how the Catholic Church is exploring the option of allowing married men to become priests. Existing priests who aren't married must remain single, however. It's a reflection of the severe shortage of priests these days.

I honestly believe that eventually divorce will not be such a big deal in the Church, although I'm sincerely sorry about what your mom has had to go through. Her divorce was necessary. The Church will have to learn that divorce is a reality and that its members who wish to remain in the Church might end up divorced. I also believe that at some point, women will be allowed to become priests. Personally I see no reason not to allow it right now.

All organized faiths will have to adapt. It's simple reality. I know some leaders in organized faiths aren't too good at assessing reality, but the fact is, if they don't adapt, organized faiths will become extinct.

I've often wondered about the parents of one of my closest friends. His mom his a devout Mormon and his dad is an atheist. Now, how does that work? Somehow it does, and has worked for many. many years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Those are good example of how religion is actually self-defeating. It's part of the reason (among many) that organized faiths are experiencing such a decline but are trying desperately to adapt. One new example is how the Catholic Church is exploring the option of allowing married men to become priests. Existing priests who aren't married must remain single, however. It's a reflection of the severe shortage of priests these days.

I honestly believe that eventually divorce will not be such a big deal in the Church, although I'm sincerely sorry about what your mom has had to go through. Her divorce was necessary. The Church will have to learn that divorce is a reality and that its members who wish to remain in the Church might end up divorced. I also believe that at some point, women will be allowed to become priests. Personally I see no reason not to allow it right now.

All organized faiths will have to adapt. It's simple reality. I know some leaders in organized faiths aren't too good at assessing reality, but the fact is, if they don't adapt, organized faiths will become extinct.

I've often wondered about the parents of one of my closest friends. His mom his a devout Mormon and his dad is an atheist. Now, how does that work? Somehow it does, and has worked for many. many years.

She'll baptize him by proxy, someday.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Religion can be a powerful force for good—for personal growth and moral direction. But when religion is used as a blunt weapon, it fails.

Something religions need to preach to those of their own kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 9:38 PM, Lilly said:

It's really quite simple (don't know why people make it so complicated).

1) A science book.

2) A Bible.

3) A science book and a Bible are not one in the same.

See, it's really easy.

I dunno, there is plenty in science books based on the myths and imagination of very creative scientists and mathematicians. Todays science is not science, it more like a dogmatic set of beliefs in theoretical models largely based on false or artificial axioms, conventions and constants. Most if not all the models cannot be verified by the very scientific method they hold up the highest as the absolute standard of knowledge, ironic really, most of you that believe in science have a blind faith in the models and those of the scientific clergy that propose them. The bible and the science books are not much different, both consist of fantastical myths and assertions about our reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Khanivore said:

...Todays science is not science, it more like a dogmatic set of beliefs in theoretical models largely based on false or artificial axioms, conventions and constants. Most if not all the models cannot be verified by the very scientific method they hold up the highest as the absolute standard of knowledge, ironic really, most of you that believe in science have a blind faith in the models and those of the scientific clergy that propose them.

No, none of that is the scientific method.  Actual science requires observation, measurement, and experimentation and the formation of hypotheses...then testing and modification of the hypotheses. Science does not follow dogma, science follows the evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 4:09 PM, LucidElement said:

What points on each side are seen as a debate? For example, if you are a religious person, there is no stopping someone from believing that God created everything in the universe. Furthermore, if someone said to you, dinosaurs did exsist because God put them there, how would an evolutionist argue that? People will say Adam and Eve were the first people and I read somewhere that they would have existed around 3,000 BC.. but weren't the ancient Egyptians / Sumerians before them? How about temples like Ggantija or Puma Punku, even Gobekli Tepe (9000-1000B.C) ... Just things that baffle me.

 

 

My thought on the 'Creationism vs Evolution' is both. When I think of our DNA for example I strongly think there is intelligent design in the universe and perhaps that can be called 'Creationism'. It's unfortunate that in modern debate that the word 'Creationism' is associated with the material in Genesis.  It is also unfortunate to me that we are still at the stage that we are looking at it as a 'versus' situation. I think the hard-cores on both sides are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.