1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Passion Play

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, Apr 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Perhaps those of you who are not afflicted by any such creepy "religious sense" had better get busy and procreate as much as possible, and by whatever means necessary, in order to improve the gene pool, so that humanity can finally rid itself of all such archaic tendancies, progress to the next level of evolution, and reach for the stars!

    It would be nice if this were the case, but statistics have shown that more intelligent people usually have far fewer children than the average joes.

    http://www.africa2000.com/XNDX/xbrighton.html

     
  2. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I thought that through survival of the fittest meant due to evolution we were getting smarter, because the smarter people should dominate the gene pool, now you are saying that smarter people have less children, you can not have it both ways :D .
     
  3. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Your lack of understanding of evolutionary principles is showing.

    The "fittest" does not necessarily mean the most evolved. It means the most adaptable to a change in conditions. Biological evolutions actually favors the survival of the simplest organism and those with the fastest procreation times. It is likely that man will become extinct long before the cockroach.

    I would also question your premsie that "smart people dominate the gene pool". I suspect that the percentage of imbeciles in the general population has remained constant throughout human history.
     
  4. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Qualified, degreed, and credentialed scientists generally obtain research funding by proposing studies that make the "correct" and most widely-recognized assumptions."

    Au contrare, mon ami. Just the opposite is true. Honors, glory, fame, and Nobel Prizes go to those who break new ground in science. If "creationism" had even a whit of credibility, you would see thousands of post-docs vieing to make a name for themselves under that principle.
     
  5. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    "Qualified, degreed, and credentialed scientists generally obtain research funding by proposing studies that make the "correct" and most widely-recognized assumptions."

    Only to a small extent. Federal funding is awarded by peer review, and like anything, such can be subjective. My own experience with peer review however is that they do NOT support ideas that just backup existing theories. Science's purpose is to expand our knowlege, not buffer up old ideas.

    However if an idea is so outlandish and lacking any supportive proof, it probably won't get any funding at first, even if it is in fact correct. If for example someone proposed the idea of a perpetual motion machine, they would never get funding without also offering up substantial background mathmatics or other supporting evidence that such a machine would be possible and that the theories of physics as we know them are in need of correction. However once such background proof was accepted, you can bet they would get all the funding the world could offer (or a bullet in the head if you believe in conspiracy theories) ;)

    The problem with creationist "science", is that their hypothesis doesn't have the background work needed to make it believable. Before one can believe the world is 6000 or so years old, you need to provide good data on why so many other timetables of history disagree with that result. Various radioactive techniques are only the first thing that has to be challenged. Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 13,000 years. Ice core samples go back even longer (100,000+ years) and all of these show complementary data. In other words, an event in the tree rings can also be seen in the ice core samples and other tests.

    Therefore, before any science can be done arguing the young earth theory, you have to challenge numerous other theories as well and provide a BETTER explaination than what is observed, that takes the current data and fits itself into the theory perfectly. Einstein's theory didn't prove Newton wrong. Rather it proved that Newton only worked as a subset of the greater equations. For creationism to work, you have to incorporate ALL the data in all the various fields and provide a way for it to enhance creationism. However all too often creationists simply say "the data is wrong" instead.

    And if your science is based solely on trying to DISPROVE accepted theories rather than go after new information based on current observations, you'll get nowhere.
     
  6. RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Obviously I haven't been poring over the scientific journals for a very long time! The last time I saw anything published about tree rings, it was about an ancient causeway preserved in a bog, somewhere in the British isles. The oldest ring date found in the lumber was 37xx BCE.

    If tree rings do indeed give an unbroken record going back more than 13K years, would it trouble you too much to provide a pointer to the published evidence, so that anyone can check it out for his/herself? Ditto for the ice core samples that go back 100K+ years. The complementary data concept is particularly intriguing; where can I find that?

    Where can we find the published data that establish the radio-dating techniques as reliable, despite the unknowns that can and do cause problems?

    Without accompanying evidence to back them up, these could appear to be just more unfounded assertions. Show us! :grin: Make us believe, one assertion at a time!
     
  7. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "Without accompanying evidence to back them up, these could appear to be just more unfounded assertions. Show us! Make us believe, one assertion at a time!"

    So then where is the evidence of a 6000-year "young earth"????

    Everything that I have read regarding such "proof" (earth rotation, earth magnetics) is either fabricated, falsified, or ignorant of basic physics and chemistry.
     
  8. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    As for references:

    Becker, B. and B. Kromer, 1993. The continental tree-ring record -- absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography
    Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 103 (1-2): 67-71.

    Becker, B., B. Kromer and P. Trimborn, 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353: 647-649.

    Stuiver, Minze et al., 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.
     
  9. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Thanks Rich. Here is another tree-ring site.

    As for ice cores, visit the U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory for information about them. As they say, "An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record extending back hundreds of thousands of years."

    They have a timeline page that might be helpful.

    Some publications about ice core research.

    I don't have specific paper references handy about them being complementary, but I know one of the way vulcanologists (sp?) have used tree-ring and ice cores to verify dates of early history eruptions of Krakatoa and other super-volcanos that had a global impact. Both methods show the same dates for the same explosions.
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    My mistake. Then you believe sex is a virtue? An original gift from God? Why then are we ashamed and secretive about it? Why are we instructed to turn away from its images, resist its temptations and always cover our sexual organs from view by others? As a gift from God, shouldn't we celebrate it openly and avail ourselves of this divine blessing at every opportunity?:joy: The pat answer of course is God intended sex ONLY for procreation. But why did God make it so enjoyable and tempting then? Perhaps God thought if it wasn't, humans would have no desire for children?:shrug:

    Did this "idiot" wait for you to be within sight of him before he performed his vile act? Do you believe he did it purely for the shock value to you and your companions? Was he even aware of your presence? Or did he ignore you, just as you very well could have done him? Could he have chosen to "backpack in a permit-only wilderness area", precisely to lessen the chance of inadvertent exposure to groups like yours?

    Obviously I know only what you relate of this incident. But I gather yours was a high school age outing. Is this a large basis for your attitudes towards nudity and your body? Perhaps with age, it's time to reconsider, or maybe forgive?

    To answer your question, I am not offended by outdoor urination, nude or otherwise. And even if the act was done directly into the lake, by all reasonable measure, it remained as pristine as it always was. Almost by definition a pristine wilderness lake contains all the urine of all the animals in its watershed. It makes it no less pristine and in fact may be vital to its ecology. Defecation would be another matter. But urine is not a waste product, it is a relief valve for excess minerals and protein and is probably as sterile and bacteria free as most tap water. I don't suggest drinking it(although there are advocates), but it almost certainly would do you no short or long term harm, physical at least.


    There is a theory, and at this point it probably IS "fringe science", that there is a "God part of the brain". No, it is NOT the part where God resides and speaks to us from.:kisshead: The theory goes that when human ancestors first began to understand their own mortality, they needed a rationalization to take any risks, let alone even leave the cave.:eek: Of course this was a fairly risky time for humans and risks had to be taken to survive at all. The rationalization they came up with to overcome their fear of death was to assume death wasn't the end, that they would enter another world, hopefully a better world, upon dying. It is theorized that this was the primative origins for gods and religions.

    As a species, we seem to be more obsessed with death then any other. As a result I s'pose we contemplate it and draw conclusions about it more then others also. And given the historical human penchant for blood sacrifice, both animal and human, it's reasonable to assume some significant portion of us share your "inate sense that someone or something must die to make things right." And yes, hopefully, someday we'll out grow that. Some might call it evolution.:D

    What you have described is not only "fringe science". Much more accurately it describes religion. The Bible "must" be the revelation of God. Therefore the Earth "must" be 6000 years old. Therefore anything that contradicts a 6000 year old Earth "must" be wrong. And so on and so forth.
    [edit] I forgot to add that the "assumptions" you doubt in "origins" are based on study and interpretation of the fossil and geological record. And for "cosmology/destiny" are most often postulated FIRST on mathematical models which are then confirmed(or not) by observation and experiment. "Fringe"? Maybe yes. Unfounded wild speculation? Hardly.

    Einstein was primarily a mathematical theorist. He left it to others to prove or disprove his theories. Although his model has vast implications for the entire Universe. A visit to an observatory or peek through a telescope was a novelty and basically meaningless for him. He was just keeping tabs on the observations that might confirm his ideas. We are still confirming his ideas and so far his "math" has been pretty good. And of course "relativity" was certainly "fringe" when he first proposed it.

    Then why would you bestow any more credibility on "Creation science" then the "fringe sciences" you decry? Could it be because you prefer the conclusions? Your preconceived conclusions?

    Isn't "the established areas of "fringe science" a bit of a contradiction in terms? As has been noted by others, almost ALL "science" starts out on the fringe. Not many breakthroughs come by confirming and reconfirming already generally accepted theories and principles peer reviewed and experimentally replicated.

    That's right. Here's an example of "creation science". On its face it sounds plausable and reasonable enough. However, a few minutes of thoughtful contemplation or 60 seconds or so of explanation graphically illustrates how ludicrious and decietful, AND condescending to intelligence it really is. I should note that this "young Earth proof" has now been deleted from most creationist websites and literature. Most likely because the theory can be so easily discredited by anyone with half a brain. But this "proof" circulated for years as proof positive the Earth could not be millions or billions of years old and is probably STILL repeated by word of mouth to those who can't or don't want to comprehend the truth. It goes something like this.
    http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/creation.htm

    Can you spot the faulty logic?
    Here's some handy hints that are suspiciously omitted from the "proof".
    The Earth slows down by 1/1500-1/2000 second per day per century.
    And, the length of a "second" is based on a day in 1900.
     
  11. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
  12. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    God did not intend sex only for procreation.

    "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."
    1 Corinthians 7:3-5

    The husband and the wife belong to each other and become one and God intends for us to enjoy this intimate connection by enjoying our spouse's body.

    "How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus. Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held captive by its tresses. How beautiful you are and how pleasing, O love, with your delights! Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. May the wine go straight to my lover, flowing gently over lips and teeth. I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me. Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside, let us spend the night in the henna bushes."
    Song of Solomon 7:1-11

    The Song of Solomon is as erotic and romantic a book as you can find. This doesn't sound like a relationship for only procreation. :icon_kiss

    The sinful nature ;) (bear with me) of humans has made us ashamed and secretive about sex and the human body. Sinful nature boils down to simply a desire to do things our own way independent from God. As a person delves into pornography, one-night stands, affairs, etc., no matter how good it feels, deep down there is a wrongness to it. A desire to hide it from others and not share it with those around you. This is because we are not using sex and our bodies as God intended.

    Sex is meant to be an intimate connection between a husband and wife :)) I know we disagree Happy so you don't have to attack this statement). Anything else is inherently wrong, and thus "feels" wrong. We should not be ashamed of our bodies; however, our bodies were not meant to be shown or given to everyone, just our spouses. Reading a Penthouse feels wrong, but laying in bed all day with your wife on a Saturday doesn't feel inappropriate or "dirty".

    You will probably say that to some people, they are not ashamed of the things I mentioned, and that is true. But I would surmise that these people make up a miniscule part of the population. If you don't believe casual sex or reading a dirty magazine is wrong, then would you bring it up in conversation with your child's teacher, or at a business meeting, or with the nice lady at the check-out stand. :shrug: Yet, to tell any of these people that you and your wife had an intimate weekend getaway does not seem inappropriate at all.

    Perhaps I'm rambling, but that's my opinion anyway.
     
  13. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    While I agree with the points you make, Tusk, there is a bit a relativism about sex/shame/sin around the world. On one hand we have some Arab cultures where a woman can expose only her eyes in public, on the other hand walk around London, Amsterdam, or even Frankfurt airport and you will see "sex shops" shamelessly in the open. And, of course, the red light district in Amsterdam is a tourist attraction. USA values are somewhat in the middle of these relatavistic views. Most Europeans view the Janet Jackson caper as a non-event. But they also look at the violence in our movies, the hate-filled speech in our music, our adventurism in Iraq and shake their heads disapprovingly.
     
  14. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Wel put Tusk.
     
  15. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    It was meant as a joke, sheesh! :(

    I admit I am not a scientist and probably do not understand evolutionary science and do not have as much formal education as you and others here, and that is why I have mostly stepped back and let others like RJS1111111 who also seam to be more knowledgeable then I am on this subject, however I am well read and I do personally know people that are just as well educated and knowledgeable on evolutionary theory as anyone here but believe in creation. Both Evolution and Creation come down to a degree of faith, and both start with a predetermined bias, evolutionist try to explain things totally from a naturalistic perspective while creationist start with the Bible, their is no difference and both can be successfully argued with scientific evidence. I simply have more trust in the Word of God then in the knowledge of man which changes with the season.
     
  16. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "their is no difference and both can be successfully argued with scientific evidence."

    No, there are volumes of scientific evidence in all fileds of science which support the evolutionary mechanisms suggested by Darwin. In my field of research (more correctly the lab I work at) evolutionary mechanisms are observable facts, not theory or fiction. On the other hand, I have seen no credible evidence for a 6000-year-old earth, much less a universe that young. (Remember, according to Genesis, God created the universe, not just the earth, in those "six days"). While there are some blind alleys with regard to our origins, a literal interpretation of the Bible has no basis in fact. The history of fundamentalism going up against science has shown that the fundies have been wrong (that everything orbits the earth, for example or that the earth is flat). Science is not about faith. Science is a search for the truth. Anyone who believes in God, should value the truth over fundamentalist dogma. "Creation science" is a poitical agenda, not a science.
     
  17. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "I simply have more trust in the Word of God then in the knowledge of man which changes with the season."

    Generally the knowledge of man improves with time. I would suggest that you trust God directly rather than a literal interpretation of the imperfectly translated allegories of an ancient culture.

    My own faith is in a God that reveals His nature through determinisitic truths - the Great Architect of the Universe.
     
  18. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Stop it man! You're makin' me blush!:blush: But, "Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus"? Oh, that's right, we're talking "Jewish Princess" here.;)

    And I should point out that Solomon and the Princess apparently spent the night in the buff, outdoors, in the pristine henna bushes. I hope he didn't have to urinate sometime during the night!:eek:

    Tusk, I'm not suggesting we should have sex with anything that moves. We all have to decide for ourselves what our sexual morality is and when and where to apply it.

    But as Rich points out, sexual mores run the gamut. In some cultures men are expected to service their sister-in-laws if the brother is away. Some where only women pick their mates and where and with whom to have sex with. And while other factors are at play, I doubt if any of these have higher murder, adultry, abuse or divorce rates then our own. In the past, as illustrated by Solomon, extramarital sex, polygamy, etc. were commonly accepted practices. That was their culture, their society, their morality. Cripes, didn't the patriarch Abraham have sex with Hagar not only with the permission of his wife, but at her suggestion?

    As with everything else religious, I don't care what you decide to personally believe or the culture or morality you therefore enforce on you and your own family. I must object though when subjective morality and belief is forcibly imposed on others. This includes but is not limited to teaching creationism in public schools as science, laws against public nudity and prostitution, state sanctioned "honor killings" and enforced dress codes, or that homosexual activity should be punished, prohibited or even officially discouraged by the state.
     
  19. Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    No, their are volumes of scientific evidence that have been interpreted as evidence for evaluation, much of this evidence looked at through a young earth creationist point of view rather then an evolutionist point of view can be seen to support creation. True their are those that have interpreted the Bible to say that the whole universe is only 6000 years old but the Bible only indicates that life on earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old and that God created the whole universe but not necessarily in the same creation week that he created land above the water, grass, trees, animals and man etc. Their are several distinct kinds of Bible creationist out their, some like Bogy believe that God used evolution over millions of years to create not only the universe, but also earth and all life on earth and that the book of Genesis in the Bible is just a good allegory, I do not agree with his theology here, but in other areas we are in complete agreement on. Then their are creationist like myself who believe that God may have or likely created much of the Universe and the basic building blocks of the earth over millions of years ago but that the land above the water and all life on earth were created over a literal 6 day period 6 - 10K years ago and I do not believe this conflict's with a literal creation story as taught in the Bible, I also believe in a limited biological evolution where all animals evolved from a basic species type but not from a totally different species. Then their are also those creationist that believe that the whole universe was created 6 - 10K years ago over 6 days, but I do not believe that the Bible teaches this. Also the Bible never taught that the world was flat or that the sun circled the earth, these are mis interpretations of the Bible that some had in the past and atheist and agnostics like to use to discredit the Bible. I believe in a literal interpretation in the Bible and that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not every word because I believe that the men who wrote and configured the Bible were inspired but not the exact words, so yes their are likely some miner mistakes. To understand the Bible and what it is trying to teach I agree that one needs to take the text in context both in the culture that it was written in but also in the particular situation that a text refers to. One also needs to study the whole Bible to determine what it teaches, their have been many false doctrines in the church do to taking a verse or two out of context to prove a doctrine. Yes the Bible does have some allegory's, Christ himself told some allegory's, but buy letting the Bible interpret it self we can usually determine weather the Bible is teaching as true history or an allegory. I also believe that God did use super natural miracles at time's in the past to use as a teaching tool that can not be explained scientifically, the biggest of which is that Christ died and was dead for 3 days and was then raised from the dead. If Christ could do this, and no I can not prove that he did this but their is plenty of historical evidence that Christ was a live and was crucified, and their were witnesses that saw him alive after he was crucified, who's lives were in danger simply for teaching this, it is unlikely that these witnesses would make it up or were somehow delusional. If God can do this their is no doubt in my mind that the God that I know could not create life on earth in 6 days as I feel the Bible teaches.
     
  20. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    True, but I don't think the outcome of that action was what either of them had expected or hoped for. It resulted in pain, mistrust, feelings of inadequacy and an overall strain on their marriage. Thus, it was something that happened, but it wasn't a profitable action (so to speak).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page