The Dangers of Evolution

[K-man]

It doesn't - it's a quote that reflects my personal opinion regarding Atheism which I posted it in response to a comment K-Man made (that's why I included his comment with my post).

Can't work out the relevance as I have made no comment for or against the existence of God, and have not commented on Atheism.

Creation Science:

Macro -evolution doesn't happen. The firmament would explain longer lifespans for all life on earth before the flood, and the hydro-plate theory seems pretty solid to me. The erosion and deposition caused by the events associated with and following the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980 is a good example of the flaws that I see in the assumptions made by uniformitarianism. These theories are covered well in Dr. Hovind's lecture titled "The Hovind Theory." Here is a closer look at the hydro-plate theory:

And once again you would think we would waste nearly two hours watching that rubbish.

[video=youtube_share;xb4s362Hcys]http://youtu.be/xb4s362Hcys[/video]

Biblical Archaeology:

Despite the controversy over Ron Wyatt's credibility, I feel that the evidence found and Biblical correlation of the Exodus/Red Sea Crossing in itself is very moving (there have been follow up teams as well). Biblical archaeology is worth looking into in my opinion, worth saying "I want to see it for myself and then decide." If God is real, then so are His Commandments, His Word, His Spirit, His Son, and His enemies. If there is a spiritual war going on, then wouldn't it make sense that God's enemies wouldn't want people to know the truth about Him? If God is real, then isn't it probable that His enemies would want to indoctrinate the masses with their beliefs in order to subdue them?

Something to think about ...

Personally I find this a far more plausible explanation, and these guys have a track record going back over 40,000 years.

A basic understanding of the concept of “the Dreamtime” or Creation period is an important part of recognizing the inextricable bond traditional Aborigines have for the land and their culture.


Traditional Aborigines believe the earth, like the sky, always existed and was the home of supernatural beings. At the beginning of time the earth looked like a featureless, desolate plain. Nothing existed on the surface. The earth was covered in eternal darkness as the sun and moon were still slumbering under the earth’s cold crust. Only beneath the surface of the earth did life already exist in the form of thousands of supernatural beings which lay dormant, along with a vague form of human life that existed in the shape of semi-embryonic masses of half developed infants.
http://www.upfromaustralia.com/dreamabstoro.html

 

[Drasken]

My problem with creationism and literal interpritation of the bible, or any other holy book, is in translation. And the fact that I doubt literal meaning was ever the point.
On the bible specifically, a friend of mine who is very well an expert (He is a Kabbalistic Jew who is fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and has a Doctorate in religious studies) has said several times that the original text is much closer to God SEPERATED Heaven and Earth rather than CREATED it. And he also trusts in science. Religion was an attempt to explain WHY something happened while Science explains how.

Just because we understand HOW something happened, or how it works makes it no less magical or wonderous. The fact that scientists have proven that various elements in the presence of the right amount of electricity can form the basic building blocks of life, doesn't mean it's not impressive, or less magical. It shows how it may have happened.

Intelligent people can still be religious and understand science. I have seen it all the time. I have also seen people believe in science and magic. Not to say we can throw fire or fly, but mysticism has nothing to do with that.

Just like you don't have to be religious to be moral. And morality is in no way proof of a Deity. The fact is that when you attack science to enforce or legitimize your religion it shows a lack of faith. You must attack proven fact, and the beliefs of others to make your own beliefs valid? Doesn't make sense to me. This is a flaw I see in people of all religions. Even Atheists are guilty of it.

I find it rather sad. Believe what you believe. I don't care if it is a God, or Gods and Godesses. Or the Force. Or the laws of the universe as understood by modern science. But trying to disprove the beliefs of others to me is just trying to make your beliefs real to yourself isn't it?

I myself am very spiritual. I follow the teachings of Christ because they were good teachings, that in general aren't followed even by his supposed followers today. Buddha is another good teacher. But I know that science is valid and real. And has provable examples. Denial doesn't change that.

On a very small scale we can see the evolution of favorable traits. We have even forced it. Look at dog breeds. Useful traits were bred, and others force bred out.
In nature it happens much slower and is about what is useful to survival. Sorry, but evolution is proven. Which doesn't mean there can be no God. It means a process was explained.

 

[Drasken]

. If there is a spiritual war going on, then wouldn't it make sense that God's enemies wouldn't want people to know the truth about Him? If God is real, then isn't it probable that His enemies would want to indoctrinate the masses with their beliefs in order to subdue them?

Something to think about ...

It's also probable that there are a large amount of people out there making claims for no other purpose than to make money off of people via books and DVDs to line their pockets. These people do more harm than good.

People like the crazy guy who just made millions pushing a claim that the Rapture was at hand and claiming he knew the exact date. Which came, and went with absolutely nothing happening. Other than many families who bought into it enough to donate their life savings to him in order to help spread the message losing absolutely everything. Much like the so called Mayan 2012 end of the world which was based off of a completely false understanding of the Mayan Calender and supposed prophecies. Which immoral people and a small number of misled people proffited from.

Beware false prophets.

 

[Cirdan]

I'm still up for the tartare and mead. Do they allow backpacks in Valhalla?

Of course, backpacks are needed to carry the heads of slain giants back to Vallhalla to be mounted on the walls. If you want to be a Valkyrie you will also be issued a winged horse.

Now, to be less off topic giants represent the forses of chaos and "slaying giants and partying in Vallhalla" would mean living a good brave life without worrying about death and what other people think every minute. Unlike certain persons who spend their time telling people they are wrong and evil for not worshipping one particular perfect superbeing.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

About 99.25% of prisoners are religious. Over 90% of the National Academy of Science's members are not. Religiosity (as opposed to atheism) does not correlate with good behavior. It's the opposite.

Yes, but 99.25% of people in general are 'religious.' If 99.25% of people were atheists, then you would have similar results. The biggest difference is not religion or the lack there of, but education and the lack there of.

But let's go with 99.25% of people being "religious." They ignore their professed religion 99.25% of the time too. Being religious isn't a particular virtue. Religion is simply a part of one's culture. Different denominations of Christianity are a part of western culture. Prior to Christianity, different 'pagan' religions (they didn't call themselves pagan) were part of western culture.

Religious practices were part of community living. One participated in the religious ceremonies of one's community because they were part of the community. In fact, that is still how it is now. You go to church because your family, friends, peers, and others in your community go to church. Sunday service is an ingrained part of American culture. There is no particular virtue in simply attending aside from contributing to a shared communal ritual.

Jesus was opposed by the religious. Not just people who were simply religious, but the very religious leaders of his day. Not all of them; the Gospel accounts are clear that the religious leaders were divided and that it was a pharisee who donated his tomb to Jesus (who rose from the dead, thus freeing up the tomb for him to again use at a future date. Convenient.) and there are many points where the Gospels state that there was division between the clergy.

Being religious is no virtue in and of itself. Any more than being non religious is a virtue. Some people like to say that they're spiritual but not religious, so belief does not automatically equate to religious either.

As for prisoners who are religious, many are religious after the fact. But their religious beliefs were likely very far from their minds when they committed the crimes that they were imprisoned for.

I've known a good number of atheists and agnostics over the years. Some are good friends. They have the same foibles as my religious friends, and their lack of belief doesn't somehow elevate them above the brainwashed masses.

The fact is that for the most part, the masses aren't brainwashed. Religion is a social obligation for most. It is also a part of their social identity. "I am better than they are because I'm an American and I'm a Christian. Now let's go drinking and raise some hell.' Religion simply serves as another box to check off as to whether or not another is part of the clique. Or, are they one of us?

 

[arnisador]

Yes, but 99.25% of people in general are 'religious.'

Estimates vary for the U.S. (which is where this data is from) but the nonreligious are variously estimated at 5-20%. It depends a lot on how the questions is asked--and whether "no religion" means the same as "atheist" to people, some of whom might identify as "spiritual" in some sense.

Religion is a social obligation for most. It is also a part of their social identity. "I am better than they are because I'm an American and I'm a Christian. Now let's go drinking and raise some hell.' Religion simply serves as another box to check off as to whether or not another is part of the clique. Or, are they one of us?

Not long ago there were two unrelated surveys released in Britain--one showed that over 50% of the population said they didn't believe in god, and the other showed that over 60% said they were either Protestant or Catholic. (This is from memory--the numbers may be somewhat off.) They found an explanation: Many of those identifying as Protestant or Catholic also claimed to be irreligious. It was a social identity issue--they were socially and historically religious, much as I might say "I'm British" when I mean "I'm American but of largely British descent".

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Estimates vary for the U.S. (which is where this data is from) but the nonreligious are variously estimated at 5-20%. It depends a lot on how the questions is asked--and whether "no religion" means the same as "atheist" to people, some of whom might identify as "spiritual" in some sense.

Which means that 80-95% claim a religion. No religion, in my opinion, doesn't mean much without qualification, as as you said, "spiritual" isn't a religion, but many people identify themselves as such.

Not long ago there were two unrelated surveys released in Britain--one showed that over 50% of the population said they didn't believe in god, and the other showed that over 60% said they were either Protestant or Catholic. (This is from memory--the numbers may be somewhat off.) They found an explanation: Many of those identifying as Protestant or Catholic also claimed to be irreligious. It was a social identity issue--they were socially and historically religious, much as I might say "I'm British" when I mean "I'm American but of largely British descent".

Which underscores my point; being Protestant or Catholic is part of western culture. When you get right down to it, most people enjoy the culture that they live in and strict religious observance would inhibit their ability to do so.