Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

When Jesus returns and makes Mano kneel before Him and confess Him as Lord, do you think he'll also have to admit the earth was only thousands of year's old?

LMAO!  Well played, STO.

When that happens, I'll ask him for proof!

When that happens, I'll ask him for proof!

At that time, it will be too late!

The very leaders of the Christian faith have said the universe is billions of years old and agreed with the science we have presented you with. 

Mano...the "very leaders of the Christian faith" is BUNK.  This is used to try and con someone into believing what you are selling.

All forms of dating the Earth show that its between 4 and 5 billion years old.  Everything we know of the universe shows its age to be 12 to 15 billion years old.

Apparent age is something you can't account for so you dismiss it...some science.

Claiming over and over again that there is no proof is just making you look silly.  There IS proof.  Its everywhere.  Your inability to see it or accept it as unequivocal is singular to you and a select group of truly blinded people.

If you want to believe something bad enough, you can believe anything.  You have demonstrated it.

I really wish I could bypass it, because its superstitious bunk.  Unfortunately, I've been drawn into it.  I am truly amazed that this discussion has taken this turn.  For the past 8 or 10 pages we have gone round and round in circles about this subject.  No matter how much physical proof, and it is PROOF, is provided to a man with faith in his belief he will never accept that proof.  STO has shown that no matter how much evidence I provide to refute his claims, he will dig up anything he can to try and bring it into question.  You continue to fall back on the miniscule chance that this God of yours is playing some mean spirited trick on us, or testing our faith.

You can bypass it.  According to your beliefs, you are in control so you definitely can bypass it.

"Mean spirited trick" is just another example of SPIN used to try sell one's argument.  And that is really all you have going for your arguments. 

It is truly disturbing.

Desperate claims of proof to validate one's position IS truly disturbing. 

Again, I have no problem with faith in God. 

You have posted "...Mean spirited trick..." and "...some weird, sadistic path of deception..." in your responses.  It doesn't seem like someone that doesn't have a problem with faith in God.  Perhaps you do believe in God with modifications to the accounting.  Obviously you don't agree with the account of creation.  Are there any other things that you don't believe or is the rest of the accounting acceptable?

I have a serious issue, especially after digging deeper and deeper into it over the past couple of weeks, with the concept that ANYONE would try to teach another person that the creation myth is a reality and that the Earth and universe are only 6000 years old. 

You are fixated on the number 6000 - why?  Let us change it to 11,000 years.  That way we can get past that number. 

As for ANYONE that would try to teach another person that creation is a reality, show me where I have stated it to be so.  I am questioning your claim that it IS a myth - not trying to state that it IS fact.  However, show me where I have stated it to be fact so that I can correct my post.

Its irresponsible and irrational. 

More language of SPIN. 

I can't stand organized religions, but even those religions STAND BEHIND THE SCIENCE!!!

I'm not sure where you are going with this one...you can't stand organizations that follow science???

If Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the age of the universe and evolution, why are we even having this argument?  This is the pre-eminent authority on Christianity.  The hardline to God himself.  The MAN! 

In the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope is the eminent authority on Earth.  To other Christian religions, other religions, agnostics, etc., the Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.  If the Pope believes in your arguments, that is his prerogative.  However, the Pope does not speak for everyone...not even everyone in the Roman Catholic Church. 

I don't want to sidetrack the existing lines of argument, but I do have a question for Mano and R2k. 

Where does spirituality come from?  Do you think this self-realization is a human trait or do other animals exhibit these characteristics although they can't express them in ways we understand?

What is the reason for evolutionary processes to select the spirituality trait to survive in mankind? 

Basically, how do you address the very existence of spiritual leanings in mankind?

I'm starting to think that your only purpose at this point, mlm, is to frustrate me into submission.  It won't happen.

Mano...the "very leaders of the Christian faith" is BUNK.

How is it bunk?  Find me ONE clear leader of any major religious faith that doesn't support the scientifically accepted age of the universe.  Just ONE!

You can claim that the Pope doesn't speak for all Christians, and you would be right, but the Roman Catholic Church is the single most powerful, and by powerful I mean richest, religious organization on the planet.  They employ more scientists than all other religious organizations combined.  Obviously, the concept of the creation myth being a reasonable possibility would be a HUGE benefit to the Holy See.  Don't you think that if there was ANY chance at all that there was some scientific validity to the idea that the Earth was only 11000 years old(6000 is not the issue) that the Pope and the Catholic Church would be all over it like white on rice?

Apparent age is something you can't account for so you dismiss it...some science

Apparent age can't be accounted for because its a philosophy, not a theory.  A theory can be tested.  This is just a philosophy used to gainsay any and all logical arguments against it.

So yes, I dismiss it.  Wholeheartedly with all my being, I dismiss it.

If you want to believe something bad enough, you can believe anything.  You have demonstrated it.

Don't try and turn the "belief" argument back on me, mlm.  Its insulting.  I believe what has been physically proven beyond all reasonable doubt.  If this were a court of law, a 12 to 15 billion year old universe would be proven.  It meets all the criteria.  The unreasonable argument that some mythical being is testing our faith and making it appear the universe is 12 to 15 billions years old would be laughed out of court.

"Mean spirited trick" is just another example of SPIN used to try sell one's argument.  And that is really all you have going for your arguments.

What else would you call it?  You are asking me to believe that God is tricking us into thinking something that isn't really there, while inspiring someone to write a truth in a book that is impossible to prove.  Sounds like a mean spirited trick to me.

You have posted "...Mean spirited trick..." and "...some weird, sadistic path of deception..." in your responses.  It doesn't seem like someone that doesn't have a problem with faith in God.

I have no problem with faith in God at all.  I do have a problem with blind faith.  I do have a problem with ignorance.  Until this thread, I had never met a man of faith that actually believed that the creation myth could be true to a word.  I respect a man of faith who can accept science and still have his faith.  I can't respect anyone's faith that is precedented on trying to force science to fit that faith.  There's a difference, mlm.

Perhaps you do believe in God with modifications to the accounting.  Obviously you don't agree with the account of creation.  Are there any other things that you don't believe or is the rest of the accounting acceptable?

No.  Not one account of God that has been written by man is acceptable.  The Bible, the Koran, the Book or Mormon, Dianetics, etc, etc, etc.  Perhaps there is a God out there somewhere, but I seriously doubt that the human race has any valid knowledge of it.  This is my belief.

As for ANYONE that would try to teach another person that creation is a reality, show me where I have stated it to be so.  I am questioning your claim that it IS a myth - not trying to state that it IS fact.

I wasn't implying that you, specifically, were supporting this myth as a fact or that you, specifically, were teaching it that way.  Obviously, though, for anyone to have this belief, it has to be taught by someone else to them.  I find that very disturbing.  Its propagating ignorance.

I'm not sure where you are going with this one...you can't stand organizations that follow science???

My disdain for organized religion is well documented in this thread, mlm.  Since it is the Christian creation myth that is at question here, though, I think its very important to acknowledge that the major Christian leaders agree with science's findings about the age of the universe and the Earth.

If the followers are willing to accept the leaders' statements about Jesus being the son of God, and being born of the virgin Mary, and walking on water, and raising from the dead, then why are some of those same followers not willing to accept that same leader's statement that the Earth is 4-5 billion years old?

I don't want to sidetrack the existing lines of argument,

By all means, LTS!!!  LMAO!  I love my Steelers brethren, but even a Canadian has only so much patience!!

Where does spirituality come from?  Do you think this self-realization is a human trait or do other animals exhibit these characteristics although they can't express them in ways we understand?

I think you are asking two different questions, LTS.  To me, there is a big difference between spirituality and self-realization.

Self realization is what I think makes man unique.  Without it, I suppose there could be no spirituality, but they are not one and the same.

 

Basically, how do you address the very existence of spiritual leanings in mankind?

If that's the primary question, then I can try to answer it.  Man is an emotional being.  We have intelligence, imagination and fear.  When you combine those things, you have a being who not only questions his existence, he fears his end.  Those questions and that fear lead him to the belief that there must be something beyond himself.  A higher power, a being above himself.   The idea that this life, that is painfully short, is all that there is can be a frightful concept.  Man's nature is self preservation and there is no better way to preserve yourself than to convince yourself that you will continue on even once your body is gone.

Make no mistake, LTS, this belief system has evolved with man.  Primitive man worshipped the things he could see, but couldn't understand.  The sun, the moon, the wind, etc.  As man developed, so did those he worshipped.  The Greek and Roman gods and the stories that were used to describe all of man's surroundings and plights, for example.  The pagan gods of the anceint Egyptians.  And, eventually, a monotheistic god that created all and was both loving and spiteful.  Both forgiving and jealous.  This belief system is still evolving before our very eyes.  It wasn't long ago that the predominant belief amongst Christians was that which we have been arguing here for the past 10 pages.  Now, all major religions accept that this god didn't create the Earth, and all that surrounds it, a few thousand years ago.  The Holy See has just recently acknowledged the possiblity that alien life may exist in the universe.  Faith is evolving all the time.

Will man ever evolve to the point where he doesn't need to rely on that crutch?  I don't know.  I hope so.  I believe we will never truly understand our surroundings until we face those fears head on.  It seems to me that there are more and more people questioning religion and faith than ever before.  Is that the start of this new evolution?  Perhaps it is, or perhaps I'm mistaken. 

I don't want to sidetrack the existing lines of argument, but I do have a question for Mano and R2k.  

Where does spirituality come from?  Do you think this self-realization is a human trait or do other animals exhibit these characteristics although they can't express them in ways we understand?

What is the reason for evolutionary processes to select the spirituality trait to survive in mankind?  

Basically, how do you address the very existence of spiritual leanings in mankind?

Good to have you back LTS, and now this is a debate that im more than willing to get in to :)

ok your question is extremely important to me and many others, ill take the questions in turn.

Spirituality in the sense of a metaphysical belief system ( which is what i think you are going for here) simply comes from the unknown, the fear of the unknown, it paints an illusion to settle ones mind at rest, it empowers people and to some it can even give hope. but its source is simply one of ignorance, it answers questions that could not be answered at the time, after all as we both agreed upon, no one knows for sure what will happen when one dies, its a profound thought and im sure many of us have thought about what would happen when we take that walk in to the light at the end of the tunnel.

your second question is far more difficult to answer, who knows what animals think, what we can observe is that they care for their young, nurture and protect them, they exhibit what we could define as love or care, but how do you know exactly what they are thinking?  sentient beings for me are very hard to define, its a completely subjective term in my mind and because of that i wont say that self realisation is exclusive, thats just a hunch though, i dont know of any evidence to support either side enough to make me believe in one or the other.

and to wrap up, i have had this conversation recently, and we pretty much agreed that , it answered the unknown, at a time when an elephant was awe inspiring ( see hinduism) there were many questions that were answered...with haste. but lets take it away from a purely religious perspective, i dont think that all of religions practices are bad, one thing that i am a fan of is self-reflection or meditation to think about ones life or events, it clears the mind and i think its good for you. but that doesn't have any divine connotations for me personally. religion is the answer to one mans question ' what happened when we die' ...' i know...we get to go to the illisian fields overseen by hades'  and theories evolved through out time.

as for how the spiritual trait arose and then was kept within us from an evolutionary perspective, if you accept that evolution respects survival then its clear to see, religion bridged people together, it created a society with common goals in mind, it also nurtured curiosity and hope, all admirable traits, well worth having, the issue becomes apparent when evidence and logic point to a contradictory world view yet people hold on to what some may calls outdated forms of control. ( i didnt touch on this much as i thought it may be a bit of a flammable subject but its certainly one way in which spirituality has arisen in different forms.) all in all, spirituality is fine as i think i have eluded to, but not all of its forms are beneficent to our society and its progress, because they support and perpetuate ignorance and blind faith ( which is the real issue i have at times with religion, refusing to accept what is in front of you,)

i hope i didnt ramble to much, i hope you can tell its a very interesting subject for me, and i would have waited until tomorrow to reply but i felt i should get something down, im sure i have miscommunicated some points but i will clarify any questions you may have, especially if you think i didnt answer your questions. another thing to note is that, while something may have helped in the past, it does not mean that it should be kept and held on to, its like certain cultural elements, they are outdated and progress demands change, i am of the belief that religion in the popular sense, has out grown its use now, while i dont think you can pull the plug on religion world wide as it has a HUGE impact on our lives still , i do believe people should start to move away from some of the popular forms of spirituality and realise that its not needed any more, note: popular forms i.e. religion, meditation and self reflection its all good in my book and i encourage it!

2k

haha mano!, you are for more succinct than i :) but we both conveyed similar view points i tried to gloss of the issue quickly but as i said, if there is anything that you want to go in to further detail with, BY ALL MEANS, LETS!

2k

"Don't try and turn the "belief" argument back on me, mlm.  Its insulting.  I believe what has been physically proven beyond all reasonable doubt.  If this were a court of law, a 12 to 15 billion year old universe would be proven.  It meets all the criteria.  The unreasonable argument that some mythical being is testing our faith and making it appear the universe is 12 to 15 billions years old would be laughed out of court."


I have wanted to jump in on this discussion for some time and I figure there's no time like the present.

The quote above is exactly the point where I get stuck.  I hear people say all the time that there is scientific proof the universe is this age or that age.  Now I'm not a scientist but I do know that somewhere during the process of the scientific method comes the requirement of an actual experiment.  This is needed to show evidence that the preordained hypothesis is correct, or if not, why not.  During the course of performing any experiment for the old/young universe question, we are always stuck having to use the available human record as evidence.  The question here is -- how reliable is this information?

The reason why I ask this is because I know for absolute certainty that human beings are notoriously fallible and corrupt.  Just look at how much trouble we have sometimes figuring out the exact details of our history within the past 200 years.  Historians are constantly revising data based on new information, sometimes because it is learned that a chief witness lied about pertinent information.  Anytime science is combined with politics, the result gets really ugly.

If we really want to put this issue to a true scientific test, the best we can hope for is to say the true age of the universe is indeterminable.

bigwig...welcome aboard!

Now I'm not a scientist but I do know that somewhere during the process of the scientific method comes the requirement of an actual experiment.  This is needed to show evidence that the preordained hypothesis is correct, or if not, why not.  During the course of performing any experiment for the old/young universe question, we are always stuck having to use the available human record as evidence.  The question here is -- how reliable is this information?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but "available human records" don't enter into this discussion.  The science we are talking about is centered around dating the materials of the Earth and the vastness of space to determine the age of the universe and this planet.  The accuracy of record keeping in ages past is irrelevant.

Like you, I am no scientist, but there have been countless experiments performed and all the reliable evidence points us in the same direction so far as I can tell.  The scientific community doesn't just accept these findings arbitrarily, contrary to the opinions of some around here.  These experiments and hypotheses are ripped to shreds by countless other scientists to ensure their validity before they become sanctioned as an accepted fact.

Holy Crap! I take a month off from the boards and this happens....... Lol

Holy Crap! I take a month off from the boards and this happens....... Lol

Let us know when you get caught up, Cap!

Mano is smart enough not to subscribe to "Mythological religious propaganda" Surprising. We do have something in common.



 Go Pack!

I have a feeling my argument just took a HUGE hit!  Support from Bernie is like the kiss of death around here!! 

Consider the possibility that at some time Bernie has to be right on something.  It's almost impossible to always be wrong.

Mano, what I'm talking about is the methods being used to determine age.

For example, we are told all the time that the Grand Canyon was formed by water running through a small valley over millions of years.  Sounds reasonable, right?  But then I read about some of the land disturbances that resulted when Mt. St. Helens erupted.  In just a matter of a few hours, there were very large ravines dug out of solid rock.  These "mini-canyons" (for lack of a better term) showed a startling resemblance to the forms and fixtures of the Grand Canyon, except at a much smaller scale.  From there, some scientists began questioning whether the theory behind the formation of the Grand Canyon was correct.  Could it have been caused by some sudden and extreme seismic activity thousands of years before the canyon was discovered?  These and other questions were asked by certain scientists at that time.  We could verify this if we, in fact, had someone who had a few million years of spare time, and was kind enough to write it all down (i.e., human record).  I say this tongue in cheek, of course.

My point is that when scientists try to determine the age of something from the past, certain assumptions must be made before an age can be reached.  If these assumptions are incorrect, then what?  The above example shows a remarkable similarity between something we know happened very quickly and something we assume happened very slowly.  There are a number of other examples like this that cast some doubt as to whether scientists are making correct assumptions when dating archeological findings.

As I said, I am not a scientist myself.  Nor am I trying to persuade anybody to change their belief structure.  I myself am unconvinced one way or the other.  But whether the universe is young or old, I lean heavily toward the belief in creation science, simply because I find it much more believable than the theory of evolution.

I have spent some time on boards where this very topic was discussed in great detail.  The question I always ask is -- how did it all start?  I ask this in an honest attempt to learn, not as rhetoric designed to invoke a heated argument.  I am amazed at how many people would insult me for just bringing this up.  I was told numerous times that the origin of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and only an idiot would ask such a question.

So much for reasonable discussion.

So there we are.  I'm just another one of these analytical thinkers looking for agenda-free answers to age-old questions.  I love discussing this subject and this board appears to be the first where people are being honest and sincere while expressing their opinions.