Religions > Atheism > Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2005 09:31:35 PM |
| Object: |
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
Larry Moran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I reserve that right, within reason, and the right to distrust
science. But you are completely missing the greater implication of this
philosophical context which is that religion is above science. Science
is the servant of religion. For me this is a personal view which I would
never try to impose on someone.
Your personal view is incorrect. You should think about changing your
religion.
Religion is the servant of science...or, more accurately, religion always
loses to rationality. In every single case of conflict between religion
and science, it has been religion that gave way.
1860 T.H. Huxley on knowing "all the consequences to which all possible
combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give rise"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402142040.31d13e07%40posting.google.com
Speaking of pithy T.H. Huxley remarks,
1985 Robert G.B. Reid on "received aphorisms"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980613224255.8353A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
That's the way is has
always been because no religious mythology can stand up to the truth of
scientific evidence and rational thinking.
If, in your personal beliefs, you see a conflict between your religion
and rational thinking then you should question your faith. What's the
point of following a religion that requires you to abandon rational
thinking? Is that what your god tells you to do?
If, in your personal beliefs, you see a conflict between your religion
of materialism and rational thinking, then you should question your
faith. What's the point of following a religion that requires you to
abandon rational thinking? Is that what your dogma of materialism tells
you to do?
.
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
07 Feb 2005 10:00:40 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Larry Moran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I reserve that right, within reason, and the right to distrust
science. But you are completely missing the greater implication of this
philosophical context which is that religion is above science. Science
is the servant of religion. For me this is a personal view which I would
never try to impose on someone.
Your personal view is incorrect. You should think about changing your
religion.
Religion is the servant of science...or, more accurately, religion always
loses to rationality. In every single case of conflict between religion
and science, it has been religion that gave way.
1860 T.H. Huxley on knowing "all the consequences to which all possible
combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give rise"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402142040.31d13e07%40posting.google.com
Speaking of pithy T.H. Huxley remarks,
1985 Robert G.B. Reid on "received aphorisms"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980613224255.8353A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
That's the way is has
always been because no religious mythology can stand up to the truth of
scientific evidence and rational thinking.
If, in your personal beliefs, you see a conflict between your religion
and rational thinking then you should question your faith. What's the
point of following a religion that requires you to abandon rational
thinking? Is that what your god tells you to do?
If, in your personal beliefs, you see a conflict between your religion
of materialism and rational thinking, then you should question your
faith. What's the point of following a religion that requires you to
abandon rational thinking? Is that what your dogma of materialism tells
you to do?
David, I am interested in whether you actually agree with the point you
responded to here? By implication you do, as you recommend the mirror
position, but i don't want to take it as read unless you say.
The reason i ask is to do with the issue of lightning rods on churches,
which seems to me to fall directly in line with what is being talked of
here. Asimov in one of his articles many years ago said that he thought
it one of the most significant outcomes of science versus religion, when
the churches finally succumbed and began to implement the practise after
their original vociferous denunciation of it. What finally convinced
them was the number of times church buildings without lightning rods
were hit compared to all sorts of sinful buildings that had them and
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
08 Feb 2005 02:11:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
08 Feb 2005 05:24:16 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
I will admit the theological implications of this point are very
interesting, apparently once churches deferred to science, they didn't
need to be struck any more. However i am not holding my breath that
david will be back to respond.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
08 Feb 2005 06:02:56 PM |
|
|
In article <wSbOd.13$kX4.637@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
I will admit the theological implications of this point are very
interesting, apparently once churches deferred to science, they didn't
need to be struck any more. However i am not holding my breath that
david will be back to respond.
On the science side, lighning rods do not prevent lightning from
striking, what they do is to allow striking to occur with minimal damage
by conducting the surge of current between the earth and sky to
dissipate harmlessly along the lightining rod conductor.
Invented, IIRC, by Benjamin Franklin, and this invention was enough to
make him famous around the world for "taming" the lightning.
I also seem to recall hearing that some Christians of the time objected
to the use of lightning rods as unwarranted interference with God's
will, or some such nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Playle" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
09 Feb 2005 07:39:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:02:56 -0700, Virgil wrote:
I also seem to recall hearing that some Christians of the time objected
to the use of lightning rods as unwarranted interference with God's
will, or some such nonsense.
It's funny how an omnipotent God's will is so easily foiled by a
simple piece of metal!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
09 Feb 2005 08:20:23 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
< snip >
On the science side, lighning rods do not prevent lightning from
striking, what they do is to allow striking to occur with minimal damage
by conducting the surge of current between the earth and sky to
dissipate harmlessly along the lightining rod conductor.
Right. IIRC, though, this dissipative process often prevents the flash
that we call "lightning" by balancing out the charges before they reach
whatever threshold is needed to create the "spark".
What many people don't know is that lightning rods only protect a
certain radius around the rod. Putting up one rod at one end of a house
generally doesn't protect the other end from a strike, unless the rod
is very tall.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
09 Feb 2005 05:51:44 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <wSbOd.13$kX4.637@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
I will admit the theological implications of this point are very
interesting, apparently once churches deferred to science, they didn't
need to be struck any more. However i am not holding my breath that
david will be back to respond.
On the science side, lighning rods do not prevent lightning from
striking, what they do is to allow striking to occur with minimal damage
by conducting the surge of current between the earth and sky to
dissipate harmlessly along the lightining rod conductor.
Invented, IIRC, by Benjamin Franklin, and this invention was enough to
make him famous around the world for "taming" the lightning.
I also seem to recall hearing that some Christians of the time objected
to the use of lightning rods as unwarranted interference with God's
will, or some such nonsense.
I do not believe this to be correct. The average lightnig rod is too
light to carry the load. My recollection of the system is the lighting
rod dissipates the build up of charge on the building and surrounding
ground into the air. Experiment found that lightning rods were much more
effective if they had a fine point on the top, as this apparently led to
easier movement of charge into the air. I understand all the history of
the situation, with its built in irony, and am still fairly sure that
david is going to ignore this thread.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
09 Feb 2005 01:29:16 PM |
|
|
shane wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
I will admit the theological implications of this point are very
interesting, apparently once churches deferred to science, they didn't
need to be struck any more. However i am not holding my breath that
david will be back to respond.
What is interesting is, even after lightening rods had been invented,
churches stubbornly refused to use them. It took several hits on very
prominent chuches evoking head shaking and laughter among many to get the
idiots believers to actually install lightening rods.
Common sense doesn't work on christians, laughter some times does.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
09 Feb 2005 10:52:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:29:16 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
shane wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
I will admit the theological implications of this point are very
interesting, apparently once churches deferred to science, they didn't
need to be struck any more. However i am not holding my breath that
david will be back to respond.
What is interesting is, even after lightening rods had been invented,
churches stubbornly refused to use them. It took several hits on very
prominent chuches evoking head shaking and laughter among many to get the
idiots believers to actually install lightening rods.
Common sense doesn't work on christians, laughter some times does.
Correct the best way to handle any theist is to make fun of their
beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
08 Feb 2005 07:50:31 PM |
|
|
In article <ovsg011hgts8rimgd5j3oj48pg4v8fu5r8@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:00:40 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> said in alt.atheism:
were missed. Did they do the right thing by falling into line with the
rational thinking of science? or should science have been dis-regarded
for faith in gods ability to direct lightning where he will.
I still can't understand how an all-powerful god can't hit a building
with lightning just because the building has lightning rods installed.
Is that something like iron chariots?
It's well known that cold iron defeats the powers of evil.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
08 Feb 2005 10:01:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:50:31 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
said in alt.atheism:
It's well known that cold iron defeats the powers of evil.
One of which is the Christian god.
--
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-20
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
08 Feb 2005 11:38:39 PM |
|
|
In article <do2j01p0vf7egvkunr5sbabosk5obb343f@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:50:31 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
said in alt.atheism:
It's well known that cold iron defeats the powers of evil.
One of which is the Christian god.
Shhhhh! It's impolite to point that out.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
01 Mar 2005 11:58:23 PM |
|
|
In article <proto-23CBDA.00383909022005@reader2.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <do2j01p0vf7egvkunr5sbabosk5obb343f@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:50:31 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
said in alt.atheism:
It's well known that cold iron defeats the powers of evil.
One of which is the Christian god.
Shhhhh! It's impolite to point that out.
*
Cold iron even defeats God:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of
the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,
because they had chariots of iron."
--Judges 1:19
earle
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution? |
02 Mar 2005 12:12:39 PM |
|
|
Earle Jones wrote:
In article <proto-23CBDA.00383909022005@reader2.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
In article <do2j01p0vf7egvkunr5sbabosk5obb343f@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:50:31 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
said in alt.atheism:
It's well known that cold iron defeats the powers of evil.
One of which is the Christian god.
Shhhhh! It's impolite to point that out.
*
Cold iron even defeats God:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of
the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,
because they had chariots of iron."
--Judges 1:19
Exodus 4:23.
In one of the bible's weirdest bits, god attacks Moses
outside an inn and cannot kill a single Israelite. Not
a very powerful god at all.
And this has to be one on the worst edits in the entire OT.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
