Re: creation

In article <N0d2f.1281$%42.1070@okepread06>, Tom <moondok@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:diankm$ts1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <sxT1f.1208$%42.544@okepread06>, Tom <moondok@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>>> My point is there are people participating in this newsgroup who
>>> continue to blame religion for these events. Religion isn't to
>>> blame. People are.
>>
>> What's the difference really? Religion was created by people. So if
>> you blame some religion, you also blame the people who created and
>> are sustaining that religion.
>
> This is an argument that will never be resolved unless God is real and an
> explanation is giving after we die. I don't think religion was created by
> people. God created religion through personal revelation. Man may have
> written about it, but man didn't come up with it, IMO.

Christianity isn't the only religion around. So why did God
personally reveal herself in ways that created many religions among
which several are mutually incompatible? Christianity, in
particular, is incompatible with any other religion since
Christianity says it is the only true religion and all other
religions are false and leads to hell. In comparison, Islam is
significantly more tolerant since Islam tolerates at least Judaism
and Christianity.

The alternate explanation (religions were created by people, and the
conflicts among the world's different religions are really nothing
but conflicts between different groups of people) appears much more
likely, and gives a convincing explanation of the religious conflicts
in the world.

>>> People interpret scripture wrong.
>>
>> :-) .....the world is full of religious sects battling each other
>> about the "right" and "wrong" interpretation of various holy
>> scriptures....
>>
>> So how do you decide whether a particular interpretation of some
>> holy scripture is "right" or "wrong"? Do you have access to some
>> even holier scripture which settles the matter, or what?
>
> Religious texts include the same basic principles. Don't kill, be good to
> others, be good to yourself, and fill your life with love.

Not all religions are like that. But OK, today's major religions have
these components.

> From a biblical standpoint, this is how you determine whether an
> interpretation is "right" or "wrong." If the basic guidelines aren't
> adhered to, an interpretation can't follow its religion.

Well, then how do you determine whether e.g. Genesis' story of the
creation is right or wrong? You can't use the "Don't kill, be good
to others, be good to yourself, and fill your life with love" here
because someone who literaly believes in Genesis and someone
who considers the modern scientific view to be correct can both be
people wo do not kill, who are good to others and themselves, and
who fill their lives with love. Then, how do you determine who is
right and who is wrong regarding their opinion on Genesis?


>>> This is where the problems begin. I have never seen or heard of a
>>> test that proves the universe is older than a few thousand to a
>>> few tens of thousands years old. That is utter crap.
>>
>> Then it's time you step out of your closet and open your eyes and
>> ears! There are plenty of celestial objects much farther away than
>> some tens or thousands of light years. If the universe was a mere
>> tens of thousands of years old, the light from these objects wouldn't
>> have had the time to reach us yet and we would not be able to see
>> them.
>
> Since we have never been to these other light sources, how do we measure
> the time it takes for light to travel between them and Earth?

This is a two-step process:

1. We measure the distance to these objects through parallax measurements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stellarparallax2.png

2. We measure the speed of light in the laboratory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement_of_the_speed_of_light

Finally we divide the distance to the object by the speed of light to
obtain the time it takes light to travel from there to here. And,
yes, this requires some mathematics.


> As far as using light years is concerned, this ISN'T SCIENCE. It's
> Mathematics. That is if we could count from the source which I would
> honestly really like to know how that can be done.

Even though mathematics isn't science (instead it's more like philosophy)
mathematics is still an essential tool of science. Sometimes math is called
"the language of science". Without math, your understanding of science will
be severely crippled. Math provides the numbers, and science tells us
how to interpret these numbers.

Denying yourself math when learning science is like denying yourself ordinary
written language when trying to read a book.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Televangelist Robertson warns town of Gods wrath
    ... continue to exist--yet no one would argue that they have consciousness. ... The former is what religion and philosophy try to explain. ... >>The latter is what evolutionary science deals with. ... pursue science because they are dedicated to the discovery of new ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Justice and Equity
    ... Yet it is science which has informed us that in many cases the cause ... science which has given us this very useful information not religion. ... recognise is our common humanity. ... reformation is reason. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... inconsistent with the rest of science. ... Have you considered taking a class in comparative religion? ... questions of "ought" is compatible with science. ... and that is the key problem that "compatiblists" constantly ignore. ...
    (talk.origins)