Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum Learn REAL Spanish now!  

Go Back   Notes from Spain and Spanish Forum > The Rastro > Life, the Universe, and Everything Else

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 30th January 2008, 01:08 PM   #61
Dave_K
Super Forero
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardksa View Post
It's not the wearing of religious apparel, but the thinking behind why it should be worn that is the problem. Like with western kids, and some adults, what you wear is a statement of who you are. A shallow attitude at best. And, when it came to refusing to let the Sihk kids wear his dagger to school, I see the point.
Hang on a second....I thought the "problem" that the French law was meant to deal with was Muslim girls wearing headscarves in school. But as you can't have a law that singles out a particular religion (that would be too obvious), you have to ban all religious paraphernalia (which would include the Sikh stuff). No, this was never about public safety.

(BTW, the Canadian Supreme Court in 2006 affirmed the right of Sikhs to wear the dagger in school in a case where a local school board had banned them).
Dave_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th January 2008, 01:34 PM   #62
tad
virtual idiot
 
tad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: palmers green
Posts: 2,400
Default

Interesting debate, I'm not going to contribute because some people have expressed my general thoughts far more eloquently than I would be capable myself.

For those of you that are interested in this sort of topic I can highly recommend a podcast broadcast as an arm of skeptic magazine called skepticality. As you can imagine they take a secular viewpoint, but they discuss a wide range of issues outside of the religious debate also.

I notice the podcast from 8th Jan is very relevant for americans interested in the political/religious/ethical debate and goes as far as looking at the views of specific electoral candidates.

I subscribed through itunes but I'm sure you can get there from the link.
tad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 06:12 AM   #63
saiguanas
Super Forero
 
saiguanas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 241
Default

Wow! Interesting window on the world view.

Let me just say that I am a bible believing Christian. I did not just pick up the Bible and say "I'll believe whatever is in here". Just like (hopefully) most evolutionists did not pick up a book and say the same. I believe because, in my life, things in the bible have been proven over and over again. That said, I do believe that you have the right to examine the Bible or any textbook that you choose and discover for yourself. You are free to think I am wrong just as I am free to think you are wrong.

I think the closed mindedness comes when we start calling each other "stupid", "ignorant", "peasants", etc. If you ask me what time it is, I will tell you. If you say "I don't believe that", I'll show you my watch and if you still don't believe me I'll say "Good luck then. I hope you don't miss the bus".

Personally I don't have enough faith to believe that I came from some soup full of gunk. I believe that I came from a man and that his name was Adam. I will not call you names because the explanation that you found to suit your need to know where you came from is different from mine. That's what I call closed minded.

I will say that the "greatest cause of aetheism are Christians", however we can say that the silent majority just love and live. My only responsibility is to tell you about the gospel and, if you don't believe, that is your choice and your decision that you have made with your soul (if you believe that you have one) just as my choice and my decision are what I have made with my soul.

I believe that creationist have just as much right to have a book that explains their point of view of nature just as much as anyone elses. To pull the book would be nothing short of censorship.

I have been to the Grand Canyon and my personal non religious belief is that I can't see how something that majestic was created by accident. It is something that you just will never understand from pictures. If you got a different feel from it, I'm happy for you but don't tell me that I can't share mine.

Seems there are folks on both sides that think they can beat something into the other guys brain. Nobody can just disagree.
saiguanas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 06:41 AM   #64
saiguanas
Super Forero
 
saiguanas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 241
Default

Here are a couple of websites that give an opinion on the first ammendment.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/060110

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050720


http://www.quazen.com/News/Alternati...nd-State..3079
This one gives response to the afore mentioned letter from Thomas Jefferson to the baptist church. Decide for yourself
saiguanas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 09:07 AM   #65
saiguanas
Super Forero
 
saiguanas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 241
Default

Sorry...these points just keep coming to me.

1. The bookstore at the Grand Canyon is not run by the NPS or Dept of the Interior. It is a private non-profit organization that raises money to support the Grand Canyon. They are free to sell any book they choose. They could decide to sell only Satanist books for all I Care.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/supportyourp...ssociation.htm

2. How about these Native American items? Do they need to be removed because they don't report the evolutionist viewpoint?

http://www.grandcanyonassociation.or...ry_Code=NATIVE

http://www.grandcanyonassociation.or...ry_Code=NATIVE

http://www.grandcanyonassociation.or...ry_Code=NATIVE

3. According to the Bible, man would be about 6,000 years old. According to the NPS website, they have evidence of man that dates (according to them) about 12,000 years. I guess they missed that when they were scouring the Park Service for any mention contrary to creation, right? Bush is gonna be pissed!

http://www.nps.gov/grca/historyculture/index.htm

4. Last but not least, what's better than words? How about a video that proves that PEER is lying about the "official" response to the question "How old is it"? This is directly from the NPS.gov website.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/photosmultim...howold_wmv.htm

So, no. Once again it is not Bush's fault. Jeez!

I know it sounds like Ranger Smith is saying "1.7 billion" and "6 million" but what he's really say is "NO COMMENT".

I may have my reservations about the dating of the Earth and the methods used by scientists (I don't necessarily believe the GC was formed by Noah's Flood either) but I can tell you point blank that there is not a government conspiracy led by the evil Grand Wizzard Bush to hush the park rangers at the Grand Canyon.

The point of my passion is not to convert you to my way of thinking but rather to debunk this very propagandist organization and this Jeff Ruch. It's like they're trying to stir something when nothing is there!

Last edited by saiguanas; 28th February 2008 at 09:13 AM. Reason: add comments
saiguanas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 05:33 PM   #66
jubilee
Mega Forero
 
jubilee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Derby
Posts: 264
Default

Like Saiguanas I find it needs less "faith" to believe that life was created by design than to believe that everything came to be by millions of random mutations. Observable mutations are frequently negative. Who sees zillions of positive mutations that make things better? I can't produce a good argument to throw in the debate, but I can't believe that all of the variety and complexity of life emerged by accident.
jubilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 05:53 PM   #67
eldeano
He's the most tip top
 
eldeano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jubilee View Post
I can't believe that all of the variety and complexity of life emerged by accident.
...and found its way to Derby
eldeano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 06:10 PM   #68
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

Well, humans' limit to comprehension far lags behind the complexity of the universe.
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 07:59 PM   #69
deecree
Errant in Forolandia
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kobol
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jubilee View Post
Like Saiguanas ... I can't produce a good argument to throw in the debate, but I can't believe that all of the variety and complexity of life emerged by accident.
I agree. If I can't find arguments, or I don't understand them, it's clear that God did it.
deecree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 08:32 PM   #70
saiguanas
Super Forero
 
saiguanas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValenciaSon View Post
Well, humans' limit to comprehension far lags behind the complexity of the universe.
See, I think we are much smarter than that.
saiguanas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 09:10 PM   #71
jubilee
Mega Forero
 
jubilee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Derby
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deecree View Post
I agree. If I can't find arguments, or I don't understand them, it's clear that God did it.
Actually it isn't the same as saying if I don't understand then God did it, it is saying that I cannot believe the evolutionary explanation. To borrow a very old analogy, it seems on a par with an explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary. OK, throw in the millions of years bit and lots of print over a lot of time, but I doubt you'd even get a single sentence strung together by random mutation of the bits... There is too much finely tuned very specific order for me to believe that creation is random and not design. The distance of the sun from the earth, the angle of the earth's rotation, the components of water, atmospheric gases etc here and nowhere else.. Then things like the complex specialisation of cells, performing a myriad of different functions in the body, genetic information coded into DNA, and on and on. To simplify the old analogy instead of randomly producing a dictionary, I could believe a random process producing something which looked like a clay tablet, but not a clay tablet with meaningful information on it. I believe it is true that no-one has ever found a mutation which increases genetic information. Even to produce one simple protein chain.... for example cytochrome C, present in all organisms with a mitochondrial respiratory chain. It consists of 104 amino acid residues and a covalently attached heme group. The sequence of amino acids is complex, and the two positive and two negative charges left on the molecule are important to the function of the polymer. Given the total number of possible sequences with 104 sites and 20 amino acids it will take a lot of random happenings to get one functional strand, and this is only one small protein necessary for one small cellular function. Wouldn't it be lost in all of the non-functional combinations? Then it has to randomly link up with all the other components to perform one basic biochemical process? And then it is still light years away from all the different processes of a one celled organism, let alone anything more refined...
jubilee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 09:35 PM   #72
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

Deductively based research says otherwise.
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 10:05 PM   #73
deecree
Errant in Forolandia
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kobol
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jubilee View Post
Actually it isn't the same as saying if I don't understand then God did it, it is saying that I cannot believe the evolutionary explanation.
That's fair enough.
Quote:
To borrow a very old analogy, it seems on a par with an explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary. OK, throw in the millions of years bit and lots of print over a lot of time, but I doubt you'd even get a single sentence strung together by random mutation of the bits...
I think a more accurate analogy would be to have the explosion(a seeming infinite number of them, every millisecond for 4 billion years) in the print shop to create a single letter rather than create a dictionary. From that letter, it just a series of long laborious steps to build the dictionary.

Quote:
There is too much finely tuned very specific order for me to believe that creation is random and not design. The distance of the sun from the earth, the angle of the earth's rotation, the components of water, atmospheric gases etc here and nowhere else.. Then things like the complex specialisation of cells, performing a myriad of different functions in the body, genetic information coded into DNA, and on and on.
This is true. It seems extremely unlikely that all these things can fall into place in the correct order. There's a lot to be considered here. One, on the pro-evolution side, is the sheer size of the universe. The correct planetary alignment and composition is not only to be expected, but to be expected hundreds of thousands of times.
As for the DNA, we are still yet to decide if 2 billion years is sufficient to create such complexity. Some are wrongly adamant about it on either side.
Quote:
To simplify the old analogy instead of randomly producing a dictionary, I could believe a random process producing something which looked like a clay tablet, but not a clay tablet with meaningful information on it.
The analogy doesn't make sense.
Quote:
I believe it is true that no-one has ever found a mutation which increases genetic information.
You believe incorrectly. Then number of them that must happen on a regular basis must be astounding.
Quote:
Even to produce one simple protein chain.... for example cytochrome C, present in all organisms with a mitochondrial respiratory chain. It consists of 104 amino acid residues and a covalently attached heme group. The sequence of amino acids is complex, and the two positive and two negative charges left on the molecule are important to the function of the polymer. Given the total number of possible sequences with 104 sites and 20 amino acids it will take a lot of random happenings to get one functional strand, and this is only one small protein necessary for one small cellular function. Wouldn't it be lost in all of the non-functional combinations? Then it has to randomly link up with all the other components to perform one basic biochemical process? And then it is still light years away from all the different processes of a one celled organism, let alone anything more refined...
Indeed. You'd need a hell of a lot of time, and a rather large planet where it could happen concurrently trillions of trillions of times until you got lucky.

On a slightly different note, it would be equally wrong to "believe" in evolution as it would be in a god creature, alien visitors or the boogie man.

Each of those could be very well be real. It's our job (or rather others) to prove them to be the case through critical thinking. I.e. disproving them.
Not all people feel the same way, they've been infected with faith, a mental disorder that inhibits human intelligence.
deecree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 11:12 PM   #74
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

So that is why the "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees". This is why this thread started.
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 11:31 PM   #75
deecree
Errant in Forolandia
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kobol
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValenciaSon View Post
So that is why the "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees". This is why this thread started.
May I suggest that it is all a conspiracy run by the flying spaghetti monster...
deecree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 11:33 PM   #76
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deecree View Post
May I suggest that it is all a conspiracy run by the flying spaghetti monster...
Well it's so complicated, it couldn't just happen without some intelligent design.
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 12:06 AM   #77
deecree
Errant in Forolandia
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kobol
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValenciaSon View Post
Well it's so complicated, it couldn't just happen without some intelligent design.
I have faith that it can.
deecree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 10:32 AM   #78
Juanjo
Lorquista
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,137
Default

[quote=jubilee;44364] I believe it is true that no-one has ever found a mutation which increases genetic information. Even to produce one simple protein chain.... for example cytochrome C, present in all organisms with a mitochondrial respiratory chain. ...[/quote]

Seeing your argument rests partly on DNA in the "Creation/Intelligent Design/Evolution" argument, consider the following: Mitochondrial DNA in all extant human beings and transmitted by females only points to a common female source ["Mitochondrial Eve"] who existed in Africa some 100,000 to 200,OOO years ago.

Creationists use the finding to justify the story in Genesis, skating rapidly over awkward time differences also derived from the Bible.

However as other research suggest that homo sapiens emerged some 250,000 years ago, it is probable that Mitochondrial Eve had some female competitors whose offspring did not survive. Why did they not survive? Were they annihilated by competitors for resources or did they not evolve well enough to survive their times? How did Mitochondrial Eve's offspring alone survive and prosper if not by evolution?

Juanjo
Juanjo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 02:27 PM   #79
saiguanas
Super Forero
 
saiguanas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValenciaSon View Post
So that is why the "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees". This is why this thread started.
Well, we've already proved that to be a lie. So,...

..ding, ding. Back to your corners.

Hey it's clear that without a personal revelation on either side that no one is going to give and it really shouldn't matter. You've got your reasons and belief and I've got mine. So what? We're different? Imagine that.

The reality is still real, whether you believe it or I believe it. So I guess we all just make our decision and hope for the best. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll never know...
saiguanas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 02:51 PM   #80
ValenciaSon
Hero Forero
 
ValenciaSon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Posts: 4,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saiguanas View Post
Well, we've already proved that to be a lie.
How so?
ValenciaSon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks
Learn REAL Spanish now!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.