Re: slightly OT, but still connected

This post is VERY OT and is one of the prime examples of what is wrong with
this newsgroup. It is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with amateur
astronomy. All that this post accomplishes is to add fuel to the fire that
exists between that Christians and Atheists that read this newsgroup. The
same goes for liberal vs conservative political perspectives. Let's stick to
the topic of amateur astronomy and ignore these trolling posts rather then
replying to them. Also, please thinks before you post to determine if your
post is going to offend anyone's religion or political convictions.




"Chris L Peterson" <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eop271l96vq4lbhi24j5cjj5m4fvcod0s9@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:27:27 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" <cd@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the universe
>>is
>>really billions of years old.
>
> There is overwhelming _scientific_ evidence that the Universe is
> billions of years old.
>
>>We have two schools of thought here that are
>>similar in one way: both ages come from man.
>
> Yes, that's exactly it. There are two schools of thought- religious and
> scientific. You may consider it an act of faith to accept one or the
> other, but once you have done so the evidence that science provides is
> internally consistent. Most religions simply provide a mass of facts and
> beliefs that don't follow from one another, and are often contradictory.
> If you accept religion, you are thinking in a completely different way
> than a rationalist.
>
>>Are we so
>>sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid? Are we
>>so
>>sure that The Bible is correct? The point is... no matter how you look at
>>it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on man's
>>correctness (or lack thereof).
>
> There is really just one science. Theories hold together or they don't.
> Scientifically, we are very certain about the quality of dating methods.
>
> Why should we believe the Bible? It is simply one of many collections of
> stories, one that is accepted as truth by a minority of humans (and an
> even smaller minority of all humans who have ever lived). While I'm not
> religious, if I were to rationally evaluate my religious options,
> Christianity would be about the last of my choices, with Judaism and
> Islam right behind. What I find interesting about these discussions is
> how rarely anyone offers a straight science versus religion question.
> Usually it is science versus the Bible, as if that is the only religious
> choice.
>
> I don't believe the Bible is correct because so many of the stories are
> just too damned silly, the characters are so unbelievable, and the
> morals are reprehensible. I don't believe the New Testament is correct
> for the same reasons, and because I consider the fundamental premises of
> salvation from sin to be unbelievable and offensive.
>
> IMO, there are far better spiritual choices- and they need not conflict
> with science at all.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Absence of evidence is not ... "Logic and science work." ... religion does not do this. ... is the domain of history and science, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... I would call those historical events. ... There is no evidence that such an event happened at all. ... Then it is clear that you have a view of science that is not reflected ... They were in no way using your definition of religion however. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Absence of evidence is not ... "Logic and science work." ... religion does not do this. ... is the domain of history and science, ...
    (talk.origins)