America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[Dov Henis]

Religions have evolved in the minds of human communities/groups as means for the survival (survival = proliferation) of those specific groups, by means of instructed-adopted individual and social regimes that contribute to and advance the survival of the group. Simple obvious Darwinian evolution process.

 

I think,

Dov

[paigetheoracle]

Learnin to learn has hit a good point - there are two types of people in the religious field, those who use the Bible as a moral guide and those use it as an object to belt others over the head with ( I, of course belong to the third group).

 

It really isn't about religion as such but about being a closed book that refuses to learn or an open one that does nothing else. It was never about whether evolution or the Bible was right but whether you were fighting to defend a camp or 'club' (religion is not about sides but the dissolution of barriers to truth) you belonged too and it hasn't changed. The original scientists, whoever they were, never saw any conflict between their moral beliefs and their scientific ones. It was as always and always will be about 'exclusive' mentality (possessive ignorance) as opposed to 'inclusive' learning (free spirit, open to all). How can you go forward when you refuse to see that there is a forward? How can you learn about alternative lifestyles/ forms of being, when you refuse to admit they exist or have rights?

 

This is all about attitude and how it sets in operation a power initiative that occludes the light of understanding or discloses: If people want to hide in the past, cowering in their caves, shunning the world that scares them, like all good troglodytes, who am I to stop them? All I can do is stand up outside and say 'Look, it is okay. The world (universe) is not as dangerous as you fear - indeed it is beautiful, if you have the courage to explore it' (life is voluntary, death is obligatory - no one can force you to discover anything but they can do their best to shut you up personally and bury you in your own little box of ignorance, until you open up to life again of your own free will).

[cwes99_03]

Poppycock! Rubbish! Balderdash! Galileo's experience contradicts every bit of what you say there.:)

You again lump all people into the same group. Those people back then were philosophers. They chose to purposefully change the interpretation of things to fit their philosophical views of things, not what the actual religious text read.

 

Did you care to comment on the last part of that post. Here I'll quote it for you.

 

God created the lines, scientists have tried to study them. True christians let God explain what those lines are, and didn't make up things to fit their own fancy.

 

Note I denote two different types of christians, and for that sake different types of religious people all over the world. There are those who worship according to what their religious texts say, and there are those who aren't satisfied with that, so they add in their own philosophies on life and everything else. These people are philosophers not adherents to a religion. They pick and choose what they want.

 

The Bible expressly identifies the things I mentioned in my post. Do a google search, you'll see I'm right. The fact that some in Europe during the dark ages chose to believe a Greek philosophy of self importance rather than find out exactly what the Bible says, identifies them as something other than "true" christians.

Again, you give negative rep because of poor understanding. I'm disappointed in your actions.

[cwes99_03]

So basically a day can mean anything you want it to?

 

You don't see these different definitions as contrary?

If some are literal and some are not, is it left up to each ready to interpret which are literal and which are 'stories'?

 

No. You are in fact grossly mistaken if you take this kind of thinking. I don't want it to mean these different things. No living man can want it to mean these things and have it be whatever they want it to be. There is a right way and a wrong way to understand the meaning of the word "day" as it is used in scripture. To understand the right way, one must learn the language, learn how it was used in the day it was written, learn the idiomatic speech patters, etc. etc. etc. One does this by comparing other writing, comparing the same use of words in different parts of the same writing, and many other things.

Thus the definitions are not contrary, partly because the words translated to English to mean day are different uses of the word day, and partly because the context that the word is used in changes the meaning of the word.

If I were to write on that very day in that very hour, you would understand me to mean that a day is a 24 hour period.

If I were to say someday in the near future. You would understand me to mean an upcoming time period, or possibly even an exact day, and would have to do further reading to understand which I am refering to.

If one views the Bible as all being authored by the same being, using different people to actually pen it, then that person has a starting point. The overall theme will be the same. The underlying facts will be the same. Some of the speech patterns may vary from writer to writer. etc. etc. etc.

Do you get the point?

To understand one scripture, you may be required to read the entire Bible, and have a complete understanding of it. This takes years.

Likewise, a 10,000 piece puzzle is not viewed by only looking at one piece. It takes a knowledge of all the pieces and how they fit together to know what the puzzle is picturing.

[cwes99_03]

In my opinion as an amateur biologist-evolutionist religion is religion is religion as far as biological evolution is concerned, and as far as we now know the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis goes back around 100,000 years ago. I think.

 

Dov

 

PS: Dov in Hebrew = Bear, ursus.

 

Don't think it. Provide proof for it. I'm not saying it hasn't been said, but please provide the data that supports this hypothesis as an effort to make sure that we aren't misleading people based on faulty memory.

[paigetheoracle]

You again lump all people into the same group. Those people back then were philosophers. They chose to purposefully change the interpretation of things to fit their philosophical views of things, not what the actual religious text read.

 

Did you care to comment on the last part of that post. Here I'll quote it for you.

 

 

 

Note I denote two different types of christians, and for that sake different types of religious people all over the world. There are those who worship according to what their religious texts say, and there are those who aren't satisfied with that, so they add in their own philosophies on life and everything else. These people are philosophers not adherents to a religion. They pick and choose what they want.

 

The Bible expressly identifies the things I mentioned in my post. Do a google search, you'll see I'm right. The fact that some in Europe during the dark ages chose to believe a Greek philosophy of self importance rather than find out exactly what the Bible says, identifies them as something other than "true" christians.

Again, you give negative rep because of poor understanding. I'm disappointed in your actions.

 

God gave Man free will so he couldn't be blamed for their actions. He also gave them brains, so that they could explore and discover the truth for themselves as adults, not be slavish adherents with no minds of their own.

Your disappointment in Turtle is of no consequence as it shows you are coming into the argument with the belief that you know better than him (An arrogant schoolteacher looking down on him as an unruly pupil). God is an inclusive organism - only the frightened want to shut out others who best them in an argument as is sadly the case here.

 

We make Go(o)d in our unity and The (D)evil by our disunity (Division and conquest). If God is in anything, he must be in everything and that includes sinners and saints, Christians and Muslims, believers and non-believers or are you saying God is Schizoid in character, cut-off from himself and should remain so? Religion is not a football match - God doesn't choose sides, he is unity as a concept (What is infinity - where is eternity? What are the boundaries of God and how can there be any, if he is truly master of all?).

 

If we follow logic in this argument, whether you're religious or not, the facts speak for themselves. This is about human folly as it always is and inequality leading to conflict. Why try to shut someone up unless you are afraid of what they have to say and that can only be because you are trying to shore up your own doubts by keeping away any temptation to think outside the box yourself.

 

Who poorly understands reality here, you or Turtle? Who shows true Christian attitude and why? Ask yourself this and seek answers. Brow beating or baseball bat beating, is all the same in its attempt to suppress truth. There is no authority for anything but in the human heart - belief is belief, not fact.

[InfiniteNow]

Considering a thread move to theology. Please get back on topic, start a new thread to continue the discussion in place, or I will move it unless a compelling request not to is presented me.

[cwes99_03]

Religions have evolved in the minds of human communities/groups as means for the survival (survival = proliferation) of those specific groups, by means of instructed-adopted individual and social regimes that contribute to and advance the survival of the group. Simple obvious Darwinian evolution process.

 

I think,

Dov

Sorry, I'm posting so much but I've been busy the past couple of days and am catching up.

 

What good would religion do to a small group of one family? Or would you be saying that the ancient Isrealites believed a bunch of made up stories about abraham and his family. Abraham was one man with a nephew Lot and their respective families. What good would inventing a religion do for them?

 

Further, if religion was just an invention of people thousands of years ago, how did those people accurately know things that scientists are just now discovering, such as the idea that the sun "hangs on nothing" for an example. Astronomers throughout many other lands, all thought the sun was suspended by something, a string of sorts. This was accepted for milennia as truth until just within the last few hundred years.

Until 1492 everyone thought the earth was flat, but 1500 BC, the Bible, and it's adherents, described the earth as round.

 

I find the idea that religion evolved as a social necessity to be weak at best or severly underdeveloped/flawed. Perhaps you could take this further in this thread.

[Dov Henis]

Don't think it. Provide proof for it. I'm not saying it hasn't been said, but please provide the data that supports this hypothesis as an effort to make sure that we aren't misleading people based on faulty memory.

 

Respectfully,

 

- Everytging I say or write I think.

 

- Proof/data for what hypothesis?

 

Dov

[Dov Henis]

I find the idea that religion evolved as a social necessity to be weak at best or severly underdeveloped/flawed. Perhaps you could take this further in this thread.

 

Obviously you do not accept Darwinian evolution nor the scientific grounds for it. Therefore you would not accept any explanation of why and how religion evolved. This is your privilege and it probably helps you live with satisfaction. Good for you.

 

Dov

[cwes99_03]

Obviously you do not accept Darwinian evolution nor the scientific grounds for it. Therefore you would not accept any explanation of why and how religion evolved. This is your privilege and it probably helps you live with satisfaction. Good for you.

 

Dov

What is this a boo hoo side step to get away from answering the question. I asked for a simple discussion of it as it pertains to the matter. I am a pretty open minded individual, problem is I tend to see problems in a lot of what people believe. Sometimes the problems I see turn out to not be problems after all. But to prove that they problems I see aren't really problems, one must endeavor to be more specific in their description.

Quit trying to circumnavigate the issue just because someone challenges your idea or the idea of others. I raised a couple of valid points. If they are not valid then please explain, but do so in a respectful manner, and don't be afraid to go deeper than a simple topical answer. I am well educated, and excel at understanding and problem solving.

[cwes99_03]

Considering a thread move to theology. Please get back on topic, start a new thread to continue the discussion in place, or I will move it unless a compelling request not to is presented me.

 

Sorry Infinite, but this thread is in social sciences because it is discussing the different attitudes of people in different social communities. If it were strictly theological then I would agree but since it involves different societal groups within America and how they each view the issue, I believe this is the propper place. I am but one voice bringing up various different views, but I have a right and according to site rules a need to defend and back up my points and counterpoints with evidence.

[cwes99_03]

God gave Man free will so he couldn't be blamed for their actions. He also gave them brains, so that they could explore and discover the truth for themselves as adults, not be slavish adherents with no minds of their own.

Your disappointment in Turtle is of no consequence as it shows you are coming into the argument with the belief that you know better than him (An arrogant schoolteacher looking down on him as an unruly pupil). God is an inclusive organism - only the frightened want to shut out others who best them in an argument as is sadly the case here.

 

We make Go(o)d in our unity and The (D)evil by our disunity (Division and conquest). If God is in anything, he must be in everything and that includes sinners and saints, Christians and Muslims, believers and non-believers or are you saying God is Schizoid in character, cut-off from himself and should remain so? Religion is not a football match - God doesn't choose sides, he is unity as a concept (What is infinity - where is eternity? What are the boundaries of God and how can there be any, if he is truly master of all?).

 

If we follow logic in this argument, whether you're religious or not, the facts speak for themselves. This is about human folly as it always is and inequality leading to conflict. Why try to shut someone up unless you are afraid of what they have to say and that can only be because you are trying to shore up your own doubts by keeping away any temptation to think outside the box yourself.

 

Who poorly understands reality here, you or Turtle? Who shows true Christian attitude and why? Ask yourself this and seek answers. Brow beating or baseball bat beating, is all the same in its attempt to suppress truth. There is no authority for anything but in the human heart - belief is belief, not fact.

Sorry Paige, but this is simply a human philosophy that cannot be backed by any scripture. If it can, then by all means prove it.

I'm not trying to shut anyone up. I am trying to increase an understanding of all who read this and might misunderstand it because of one person's misstep.

The line of reasoning you ended your post with is a flawed one. There are various reasons for proving someone wrong. One being that they are wrong, but might be misconstrued as being right if no one offer an alternative viewpoint. Another being as you said, to cover up your own ineptitude. Which is it for you? By calling me wrong, are you covering up a lie, or are you trying to show how I am wrong to protect others who might read it. If it was the latter, then please keep your posts to the subject at hand, like I did earlier, instead of making personal attacks.

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry Infinite, but this thread is in social sciences because it is discussing the different attitudes of people in different social communities. If it were strictly theological then I would agree but since it involves different societal groups within America and how they each view the issue, I believe this is the propper place. I am but one voice bringing up various different views, but I have a right and according to site rules a need to defend and back up my points and counterpoints with evidence.

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for your approval.

[cwes99_03]

Thanks, but without the approval of the regular members of this site, this site wouldn't exist. I'm not saying that you can't because I say so. I'm giving you reason why you shouldn't. Man is everyone in a bad mood today?

[Dov Henis]

What is this a boo hoo side step to get away from answering the question. .

 

This thread aimed to place one specific critical "politicization of science in the USA" under a magnifying glass, the AAAS, the Antiscientism Evangelist in the USA, pointing to its role in the relatively low acceptance of Evolution in the USA vs in many other countries.

 

The ensuing discussion of the reasons for the low state of acceptance of evolution in the USA revealed the major role that religious thinking and attitudes in the USA play in non-acceptance of evolution. I tried to explain why and how religion evolved, as follows:

 

1) In my opinion as an amateur biologist-evolutionist, religion is religion is religion as far as biological evolution is concerned, and as far as we now know the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis goes back around 100,000 years ago.

 

2) Religions have evolved in the minds of human communities/groups as means for the survival (survival = proliferation) of those specific groups, by means of instructed-adopted individual and social regimes that contribute to and advance the survival of the group. Simple obvious Darwinian evolution process.

 

 

Again, obviously you do not accept Darwinian evolution nor the scientific grounds for it. Therefore you will not accept any explanation of why and how religion evolved. This is your privilege and it probably helps you live with satisfaction. Good for you.

 

A "discussion" between persons thinking-speaking religiouslang and sciencelang is pointless; it is like trying to carry on a ping-pong game in which each of the two players plays on a different table. This is Absurd.

 

I think.

Respectfully,

Dov

[Turtle]

A "discussion" between persons thinking-speaking religiouslang and sciencelang is pointless; it is like trying to carry on a ping-pong game in which each of the two players plays on a different table. This is Absurd.

 

I think.

Respectfully,

Dov

 

It is beyond absurd...it is preposterous.

I know.

Agreeably,

Turtle