Are you actually so confused that this in some way makes sense?
No one (particularly myp) confuses theory with fact in the way you see opinion as reality.
Is the "Creation" story conspiracy theory?
- Thread starter tecoyah
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conspiracy creation story theory
Are you actually so confused that this in some way makes sense?
No one (particularly myp) confuses theory with fact in the way you see opinion as reality.
Could you please explain this statement in more depth? I don't want to make assumptions about what you mean here.
Did I say that? Do yourself a favor and look up what theory means scientifically. A theory is not synonymous with unsupported opinion or belief in science.
stories don't halt science, people do. It takes a level of maturity to approch science from an objective level that certain cultures just didn't have. To expect a group of people to evolve in an instant is not logical.
I never said they are exactly the same but they all have a similar component, that being that once there was nothing and then there was something, that's quite an advanced concept. For the peoples that created these stories.
The belief of a geocentric universe was a first level question about understanding the universe. The reason why people just didn't accept it is because we as creatures have to learn. The concepts that a planet revolves around a star needed education to understand, one visionary decided to observe objects in the sky, his observation didn't sync with popular opinion, popular opinion is the Tyrrell.
Genisis is just a story, I am not a fundamentalist, you know this, why do you insist that I am, I will not participate in this discussion with you unless you can understand there is a difference between somebody that insists that Genesis is historical fact, and someone who accepts that it isn't the actual account of the birth of earth. I have had enough of telling you I am not a fundamentalist and you insisting I am.
.
Last edited:
Theories are supported by conclusive evidence, not spiritual support. Out is a fact that evolution occurs, it is a theory that it has developed from permortial ooze to the mdern man. Observed adaptations have proven evolution occures, it is a theory that in the millions of years or planet has sustained life that a single cell could evolve into a person. it absolutely doesn't debunk creation, it just states that the purpose of Genesis was not to establish fact.
Did you watch the video? It was the other way around.
I am not sure that is even universal to all religions.
I never said you believed it, but that is what it says/said.
So the whole church was wrong in its interpretation when they had an issue with Copernicus' and Galileo's work? What makes you think your interpretation is more "correct" to what it is supposed to "mean"?
Not once did I say or suggest God is definitely made up, so I don't really have a response to this.
Maybe you feel that way, but a lot of the public doesn't. Have you seen polls on how many people believe in creationism and reject evolution? Or the pressure to teach creationism next to evolution? It is scary.
I never showed intolerance, so again, I will not respond to this. And no if a majority want Christian based laws we should not have Christian based laws- have you ever heard of the first amendment or separation of church and state?
Also, the minority was never meant to "accept" it. We aren't a democracy. We are a republic. And for a reason.
And no one is crying- we are having a discussion. You don't like that the dictionary isn't the end-all of definitions, yet you have discussed that here too- nothing wrong with that, you can't always be changing the world. As for suggesting that I don't belong in this country, etc. etc. - using that sort of logic, I could say you don't belong in this century
Never mentioned religion, just stories.
That is what you have inturpreted it to say.
So the whole church was wrong in its interpretation when they had an issue with Copernicus' and Galileo's work? What makes you think your interpretation is more "correct" to what it is supposed to "mean"?[/QOUTE] Obviously the church was wrong, just look at the evidence, it is fallible, it is a creation of man after all.
]
My interpretation isn't correct, there is no such thing as a correct interpretation of spiritual text, my interpretation is my own, it only maters to me, I don't need council of others, it is between my lord and I, nobody else is involved, no church, pastor, or religion. I don't know where you come up with this notion that every body has to agree with my beliefs to affirm them, I don't suffer from that level of existential angst
you carried on about fairy tails, so yes you did, my response was rather nasty and I apologize for that.
It is a public school, the public gets to decide the curriculum, it is how the system works. Take responsibility for your own kids, tell them that evolution is the scientifically formulated theory of the origin of the species,. Most of what kids learn is from their parents. In my public school they thought evolution. My folks thought me Abbott the things the school had wrong.
The first amendment isn't about deputation of church and state, it is the state not respecting a particular religion. If the people in a democracy agree that murder or drug use is wrong it is the duty of the public servants to serve the public, it isn't anybody's right to say that someone can't have that opinion because it is based in Christian beliefs. It works the other way to in some states prostitution is legal, gay marriage is legal, recreational drug use is legal. If you don't like the government where you live, change it or move, its simple,
You are correct we are a republic, but the way or laws are written is based on what the people want other wise its a tyranny.
I absolutly belong in this century, you stated that polls support creationism over non creation so it looks like I do belong very comparably.And no one is crying- we are having a discussion. You don't like that the dictionary isn't the end-all of definitions, yet you have discussed that here too- nothing wrong with that, you can't always be changing the world. As for suggesting that I don't belong in this country, etc. etc. - using that sort of logic, I could say you don't belong in this century
If your definition of a word is opposite of what the dictionary says, you are no authority on meanings of words, it is your interpretation of a word that I disagree with, but as we learned about interpretation it isn't correct, you are entitled to fabricate meanings that only have value to you, but like me you must remember that it isn't your place to force your beliefs down every one eels's thought.
Try this approch to life it really makes life much more pleasant, live and let live.
You said "they" all say the same thing. What is the "they" you were referring to then? All the stories? Which stories? If you meant religious stories, then no, I don't think that is true. But this is unimportant semantics I think, so we can drop it if you want to.
So your interpretation is just your own yet you say the church was wrong about its interpretation? How does that make sense? Do you see my point now? The interpretations matter. And there have been widely held interpretations that have made religion and science clash to the point where religion has denied science in the past. And we still see it today in some areas like with creationism.
I never said God didn't exist in any of our discussions. What I have said is believing in God is not a scientific conclusion. What I have also said is that people are free to believe in fairy tales, but I never said believing in God means you believe in a fairy tale.
The public gets to decide- I am a part of that public. Sorry, but if the public thinks the school should teach kids about why becoming a criminal is good, I will fight that too. Wouldn't you? Schools can't teach ANYTHING. That doesn't make sense and it doesn't matter what kind of majority you might have.
I suggest you look further at what the first amendment entails and the landmark cases around that that the SCOTUS has ruled on in the past. Public schools are public- they are government owned.
Very few if anyone is 100% happy with every law on the books, so no, it is not "simple" to just get up and move. Especially for the anarchist's challenge.
You are jumping from one extreme to the other here. There is a large middle ground. The point of a Republic is to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Actually, it's more around 50-50 last I checked. But that's besides the point.
No one is fabricating anything. You just don't understand the meanings of some words. And I am not the only one that has said it- David has said it and tecoyah has suggested it. Do you think we are all conspiring against you? Of course not. Ever think that you might have it wrong? Go ask an English professor if you need an expert's opinion or look online.
I think my life is quite pleasant as is, so I don't really need to change my approach
(also you clearly know very little about my personal philosophy- if I was such a tyrant against opposing views as you make me out to be, why would I try my best to let people share their opinions on this site even when it sometimes gets borderline crazy instead of just banning them?)
they, meant the subject of the post being stories, for English to flow you don't have to keep repeating the subject of the sentences, to stop somebody from adding meaning to a word that was never implied.
First, creationism isn't science, so that clash is fabricated by people who need others to support their beliefs, which yours into my best point, my beliefs are not sponsered by a group of anybody, they are capable to stand on their own. You will never understand this until you realize you don't need others to affirm you. I don't rely on religious corrupt entities with sinister motives to affirm my belief, I don't need it. I don't belong to a church, I was once catholic, but am no longer. Why do I need to affirm something deeply personal and completely esoteric with others? My seems of self isn't that fragile.
Why use those words? You certainly implied.
Yes you are a part of the public, you have the right to make your case, I understand why you never succede in persuation, you have a tendency to condecend to people who don't agree with you, a very common trait of people who share your opinions, using psychological princaples I come to the conclusion that you hate religion based on your polorizing langueage. You may have two doctorates but your persuasive skills are terrible.
you are right, schools can't teach anything they want, they have to adhear to what their administration perscribes, if the tax payers choose a candidate that is more pro creation thsn that is what is valuble to that community to learn. Insted of insisting religious people are backward and belong to past centuries, make the case that there is no systement that religion is wrong, som basic persuasion skills, really. Its like you want all religion wiped away. Make your position known, insted of insiting everybody agree with you.
Court cases are not amendments, they simply set presadent. Church and state are seperate, complete seperation would be nullifying the peoples votes, being that most are Christian. What right do you have to tell people they can't vote to their beliefs you seem to want it both ways.
If the anarchist shouldn't get to dictate rules why do you wish to? Why should the law make you totally happy, you have to compromise with the people around you, you seem to want every thing. Something about that is people who will settle for nothing less then everything always end up with nothing.
I agree, the majority has not been tyrannical over the minority, public schools don't force children to worship any God, there is no forced religious ritual, there is no prayer in school, the school belongs completely to the secular realm except for one small Tony bit of meaningless theory, that is intolerance if I ever saw it.
You fabricated a meaning that was in complete opposition to the dictionary, if I wad to point at the ground and say that is up, there is no linguistic gymnastics that could make me right. That aside this is a stupid argument fine you are right I don't care. What ever you get people to agree with you on is so, if you insisted that you were a three headed purple dragon from outerspace and a couple of people agreed, I guess then it must be so.
You are, you insist that you must be right, and claim your opinion to be fact, it really is about me, you just have an issue with me going back to your argument about economy, your position was opinion based, and I illustrated that but just like a belligerent evangelical fundamentalist you insisted my opinion was wrong, you think opinions can be wrong, I learned in first grade that opinions were things that have no proof, I agree with you almost completely but that tiny point that I disagree is your mission to stomp out. I don't give up to your stomping and it frustrates you so deeply to the point you resort to calling my intelligence into question. There is room for every body, and everybody's beliefs, you reject that.I think my life is quite pleasant as is, so I don't really need to change my approach
Last edited:
Well, we are done here because it is clear that you think you know it all and don't want to listen to facts or other viewpoints. It is somewhat ironic that you call me condescending because at least I am open to other views if you can present them in a fact or logic based manner. You, on the other hand, seem to have everything figured out and then criticize others when you don't understand something like science, the clash of religion and science, definitions of words, etc. You cover this up by pretending everything is equally supported opinion (except for definitions from the dictionary), which just isn't true. The world isn't cut black and white with everything being equal one way or the other. It is mostly varying shades/intensities of grey.
The other issue is that you continually seem to jump to conclusions that have not been offered. For example, your response to my bit on tyranny of the majority completely misunderstood the point.
And before you say once more that the clash was imagined, tell that to Galileo who was accused of heresy and sent to indefinite imprisonment because of his advocacy of Copernican heliocentrism.
The other issue is that you continually seem to jump to conclusions that have not been offered. For example, your response to my bit on tyranny of the majority completely misunderstood the point.
And before you say once more that the clash was imagined, tell that to Galileo who was accused of heresy and sent to indefinite imprisonment because of his advocacy of Copernican heliocentrism.
you are done because the above statement is total hypocrisy. I illustrated from the very beginning that I understand atheism, you try to force me into a mold. I don't accept your opinions that you pretend are facts,
Beliefs are not fact based you harbor prejudice against anybody that has any that go against yours, my evidence is the last thread you destroyed attempting to force your farcical beliefs down my thought
I criticize the fabrications you created because they are a farce. And the conflict between religion and science is perpetuated by people like you who must remove all of belief from humanity. Your delusion must be a terrible place
I absolutely accept a gray area this display of frustration that is your need to affirm yourself is your biggest crux, its why you fail at every argument.
Your point was that your position is the only one that matters, everybody else that doesn't agree just can't understand. You want to be a tyrant, that is clear you place false rules on science.
The clash isn't because of a book, or a building, it was because of a governing body known as the church in those days they ruled many nations. I never deny the things a government has done to oppress its people be it a theocratic government or otherwise.
It wasn't something that doesn't exist by your evaluation, imaginary things don't have that kind of power. it was people, who had power that saw a set of facts that could potentially undermine that power. The tyrant that was the church did need to keep people I'm the dark to maintain its strangle hold.
what anybody believes is irrelevant, what happened was a man was silenced because he knew too much. Any extra frustration you have due to your anger toward religion is your hurdle to over come. Why you see it necessary to involve yourself in my belief structure is a classic example of exterior locus of self worth. You wouldn't spend pages and hours trying to convince me of your pointless positions.
Arrogant people are often insecure.
clax said:
Non-arrogant people are often insecure as well.....for the same or different reasons. What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that myp is insecure? Personally, I'm insecure because my penis isn't big enough :unsure:...
People that "believe" in science over religion do so because their sense of logic dictates that conclusion. People that "believe" in religion/stories/whatever, without empirical evidence do so because they believe there is more to "everything" than what science can affirm or refute.
The one thing I would mention (in my opinion only), I "believe" in order for either or both to be true, they must be consistent with each other. Science does NOT believe or disbelieve in religion. It has no opinion at all (other then Steven Hawking who has scientifically proven "God" doesn't exist! lol).
In the end, you can choose to believe in one or the other (or both). My personal opinion is that religious people more often lack the capacity to comprehend science (or are simply not interested in it's conclusions), and scientifically/logically oriented people comprehend only scientific/physical evidence for the existence of anything.
You wouldn't find one scientist in a hundred who would agree with that ignorant nonsense.
See my first comment in this post.
[Why doesn't his forum have a belief statement, like other religious forums?]
Because you can't dispute everything in the world. Some things are more proven than others. But I am not frustrated, I am not insecure (quite the opposite when it comes to this issue actually), and I am not arrogant. I don't understand why you have to repeat these opinions ad nauseum- you don't even know who I am- you don't know my name, you don't know what I do, yet you insist that I am these things. Well, whatever, I don't care you are some random person on the internet who does not understand a lot of things and I don't have the time or energy to explain them to you. That is not me being frustrated, but is me making a calculated decision to stop partaking in a discussion where the other side is a brick wall. I hope you can understand that.
This statement is extremely arrogant.
You don't know me, or what I do and don't understand, you are just some random person on the internet that created a political forum to talk down to people who disagree.
[/QUOTE] You are the brick wall, you are the one saying that people who believe in things can not be scientists, I said people are capable of looking at things objectively no matter their belief, your statements were prejudiced.
Address this to myp he has been holding a grudge with me because I agree with you, he will back pedal and lie and say he agrees with you although he argued the same point when I made it.
Seriously? Oh well I guess theories are just cooked up by mad men in basements and the people that see the evidence that supports the theories are just brainwashed followers.
Come on hammer that is absurd
Doesn't need one, you insist that theories are beliefs, perhaps people believe the theory but unlike a belief in God, there is irrefutable evidence that supports theories. God requires a leap of faith, the theory relies on evidence.
If it is just like a belief in God, where there is no proof either way, refutiate the theory, I am interested, genuinely. Keep in mind the Bible is inspirational spiritual text and has no real place in the realm of science.
Yea, I never said that. I can't tell if you have a comprehension issue or you actually disagree with me. And go ahead, go search through all my posts- you won't find me ever saying that a scientist can't believe some things (what I did say was that coming from a position of science you cannot believe- considerably different).
As for the arrogance bit again, if you were to argue 1+1=3 I don't really care how much you think it is opinion, the fact is 1+1=2. I know my credentials in real life and I have had the privilege of seeing science being conducted at a renowned, research university in this country. You can think it is arrogant when I say this is the way science is, but it is. You are arguing 1+1=3. If you saw someone do that, wouldn't you insist that 1+1=2 too? Or would you sit back because you think there is some validity to 1+1=3 and if you challenged it that would make you seem arrogant?
And I don't have a grudge against you...
