Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

View Poll Results: Do you believe in evolution or creation?
Creation 119 29.38%
Evolution 286 70.62%
Voters: 405. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 06-10-2017, 12:14 PM
Selkirk's Avatar
Selkirk Selkirk is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In the shadow of the Valhalla Mountains, BC .
Posts: 9,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Thanks for your deep insight.

Do you have any evidence you'd like to share that supports your belief in evolution?
I can't be bothered. Only a fool argues with a fool.

Shame on me for getting involved in this thread.

Selkirk
__________________
  #92  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:26 PM
Crankbait Crankbait is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
My reading into this debate over the years has proven one thing to me - there is no unbiased research concerning this, one way or the other.
good interview with a pro in the field;

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/...tenttype=audio
  #93  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:35 PM
sjemac sjemac is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Just finished that one actually. Pretty easy to tear apart a book that was published 158 years ago. There is so much that Darwin didn't know. He didn't have teams of people worldwide digging for fossils, didn't have teams of cleaners. He did a good job working with what he had.

What Darwin didn't know will fill libraries.
Yes. Origin of Species is not considered the final word on anything and never has been -- unlike the Bible which is regarded by some as a factual document that can never change and never be disputed.
__________________
Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity.

Marshall McLuhan
  #94  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:46 PM
Crankbait Crankbait is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
I suspect you're trying to make your point by stating your opinion as fact? Also, if something is bad as it causes death, just thought I'd let you know, approximately 1.25M die annually due to car accidents. So, if religion is bad because it causes deaths, you've given it up, are you going to give up driving, as it clearly causes deaths as well?
The car death argument is terribly skewed whether here or for the gun argument.

How many cars are being driven on road and off road in a year?

If everybody who abides to any religion as a zealot, full on thumping 24/7/365 without a break in pushiness, how many deaths would there be?
  #95  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:49 PM
Crankbait Crankbait is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selkirk View Post
Looking at this thread's poll results, it's disturbing to see the number of creationists who lurk here.

I thought this was Western Canada ... not backwoods Alabama!
Dude, you've been a member since 2008???????
  #96  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:53 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crankbait View Post
good interview with a pro in the field;

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/...tenttype=audio
1) How was that not unbiased?
2) The interview relies on unreliable dating methods, (what is a reliable dating method?). They are dating the stones to determine the age of the bones?
3) I recently read an article that stated humans originated in Europe, without a doubt. The amount of contradictions concerning this is confusing at best.
4) They found random bones (parts of a cranium, parts of a face, a jawbone, a couple other random bones, scattered over the site) and decide that it is a conclusive discovery of Homo Sapiens? They flatly stated that there were differences in the bone structure so why are we to believe them?

Sorry, but there are so many assumptions and wild guesses in these types of interviews I can't help but laugh.
  #97  
Old 06-10-2017, 02:39 PM
alta270 alta270 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 445
Default

People are confusing one thing.

Evolution does not attempt to answer about the origin of life like creation does. Evolution only discusses the changes in that life. No less, and no more.
  #98  
Old 06-10-2017, 03:34 PM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Thumbs up Adaptation part of evolution does

Quote:
Originally Posted by alta270 View Post
People are confusing one thing.

Evolution does not attempt to answer about the origin of life like creation does. Evolution only discusses the changes in that life. No less, and no more.

Adaptation
For more details on this topic, see Adaptation.

Homologous bones in the limbs of tetrapods. The bones of these animals have the same basic structure, but have been adapted for specific uses.
Adaptation is the process that makes organisms better suited to their habitat.[192][193] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass. By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished. Adaptations are produced by natural selection.[194] The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky:

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.[195]
Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.[196]
An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.[197]
Adaptation may cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.[198] Other striking examples are the bacteria Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[199] Flavobacterium evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[200][201] and the soil bacterium Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.[202][203] An interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and adapt by natural selection (increasing organisms' evolvability).[204][205][206][207][208]


A baleen whale skeleton, a and b label flipper bones, which were adapted from front leg bones: while c indicates vestigial leg bones, suggesting an adaptation from land to sea.[209]
Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures. Consequently, structures with similar internal organisation may have different functions in related organisms. This is the result of a single ancestral structure being adapted to function in different ways. The bones within bat wings, for example, are very similar to those in mice feet and primate hands, due to the descent of all these structures from a common mammalian ancestor.[210] However, since all living organisms are related to some extent,[211] even organs that appear to have little or no structural similarity, such as arthropod, squid and vertebrate eyes, or the limbs and wings of arthropods and vertebrates, can depend on a common set of homologous genes that control their assembly and function; this is called deep homology.[212][213]

During evolution, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures.[214] Such structures may have little or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely related species. Examples include pseudogenes,[215] the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish,[216] wings in flightless birds,[217] the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes,[209] and sexual traits in organisms that reproduce via asexual reproduction.[218] Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth,[219] the coccyx,[214] the vermiform appendix,[214] and other behavioural vestiges such as goose bumps[220][221] and primitive reflexes.[222][223][224]

However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[225] One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[225] Within cells, molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella[226] and protein sorting machinery[227] evolved by the recruitment of several pre-existing proteins that previously had different functions.[177] Another example is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[228][229]

An area of current investigation in evolutionary developmental biology is the developmental basis of adaptations and exaptations.[230] This research addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development and how modifications of development and developmental processes produce novel features.[231] These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to produce new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals.[232] It is also possible for structures that have been lost in evolution to reappear due to changes in developmental genes, such as a mutation in chickens causing embryos to grow teeth similar to those of crocodiles.[233] It is now becoming clear that most alterations in the form of organisms are due to changes in a small set of conserved genes.[234]
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
  #99  
Old 06-10-2017, 03:39 PM
Freddy Freddy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 71
Default

I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Believe in big bang theory and intelligent design theory but not darwinism.
The debate between all of these could fill a library.
The biggest problem with Darwinism is current biology science believes it as fact when it is a theory. In Darwin theory he also explains why it could not be possible truth and why it is a theory.
Now in Canada 10,000 + biologists are employed in Canada and there would be Zero job security if they announced they believe in intelligent design thus the majority of these people believe in some sort of mother earth theology.
  #100  
Old 06-10-2017, 03:40 PM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alta270 View Post
People are confusing one thing.

Evolution does not attempt to answer about the origin of life like creation does. Evolution only discusses the changes in that life. No less, and no more.

Common descent
Further information: Common descent and Evidence of common descent
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[211][285] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[286] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups—similar to a family tree.[287] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.[288][289]


The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor.
Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[290] By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry.

More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.[291] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.[292] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genomes and analysing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.[293]

Evolution of life
Main articles: Evolutionary history of life and Timeline of evolutionary history of life

Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the centre.[294] The three domains are coloured, with bacteria blue, archaea green and eukaryotes red.
Prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[295][296] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organisation occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[297] The eukaryotic cells emerged between 1.6–2.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[298][299] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent coevolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[300] Another engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[301]

The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[295][302] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[303] In January 2016, scientists reported that, about 800 million years ago, a minor genetic change in a single molecule called GK-PID may have allowed organisms to go from a single cell organism to one of many cells.[304]

Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.[305] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[306]

About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonised the land and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.[307] Insects were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species.[308] Amphibians first appeared around 364 million years ago, followed by early amniotes and birds around 155 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages), mammals around 129 million years ago, homininae around 10 million years ago and modern humans around 250,000 years ago.[309][310][311] However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.[188]

Applications
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
  #101  
Old 06-10-2017, 03:58 PM
Redfrog's Avatar
Redfrog Redfrog is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
Default

I believe I'll have a Forty Creek on ice.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.


It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
  #102  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:30 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.5swedeforelk View Post
Any chance that it's an underlying but deep-seated doubt?
If us Christians are wrong, so we've been scoffed... meh.

But what if you're wrong?
I do not think this is about right or wrong.

I do not think both sides can be right, but I do think both sides can be wrong.

For me it is more about embracing the mystery and also about respecting what other believe as being sacred.

I have had my share of spiritual argument and the only thing I have learned for myself is that there is nothing spiritual about arguing about spiritual things,
  #103  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:55 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg View Post

I am in the God camp. When you tell me my belief In God is like believing in Santa Claus that is very offensive..
I am not an atheist. I believe in God and I also believe in Santa Claus. I was introduced to both when I was very young. I think of myself as one whose thoughts of God and Santa are evolving and will continue to evolve. The God and the Santa of my youth are not gone but are very much alive in the God and Santa that are with me today.
  #104  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:07 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
So where does that leave humans? Survival of the fittest and natural selection doesn't really apply to us. We nurture and protect the weak.
If there was an evolution our inventions have allowed us to leave that path. Not only have our inventions allowed us to nurture and protect the weak, the week are the breeding stock for our future generations. It might explain why cancer and heart disease and diabetes and arthritis seem so common today.

For a long part of our existence we survived by being fit enough to survive. Now our survival as a species is in the hands of science. We will see how that works out
  #105  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:15 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf View Post
I don't know how a person can look at the awe inspiring world we live in and believe it came about by random chance. That takes way more faith than believing in a creator.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This^
  #106  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:30 PM
bb356 bb356 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rycroft
Posts: 21,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfrog View Post
I believe I'll have a Forty Creek on ice.
  #107  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:40 PM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Believe in big bang theory and intelligent design theory but not darwinism.
The debate between all of these could fill a library.
The biggest problem with Darwinism is current biology science believes it as fact when it is a theory. In Darwin theory he also explains why it could not be possible truth and why it is a theory.
Now in Canada 10,000 + biologists are employed in Canada and there would be Zero job security if they announced they believe in intelligent design thus the majority of these people believe in some sort of mother earth theology.
I believe in micro breweries!
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
  #108  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:40 PM
dodger's Avatar
dodger dodger is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sooner View Post
One day, everyone of us will know the answer to the question. We will either see our loved ones again or not.

I only go to church for weddings and funerals. Even though I was raised going to a Lutheran church, I walked from the idea of going to a building with a pointy roof to believe in something in my mid teens. Since then, my church is a cut line, a bike ride or a road trip for work where I can be by myself and my thoughts. This belief in something was not brain washed into me by zealous Pastors and parents. My mind is open to a lot of stuff and there is no question the Dino's and other fossils found contradicts religious timelines. And I can't truly explain why I believe. It's just there. So, I like to think we will see each other again. If that belief helps me close my eyes for the last time or mourn the loss of someone special by just a bit, nothing wrong with that Imo. If I do and you don't, I'm ok with that.


We don't have to or about it. If we don't agree, it would not mean we can't be friends.


Until the day comes to meet your maker as they say, the debate will never be won, kinda like coke vs pepsi.
Thanks ^^^^^
Dodger
__________________
Freedom comes with responsibility and integrity. Not stupidity and self entitlement.
  #109  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:57 PM
ETOWNCANUCK ETOWNCANUCK is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,900
Default

if there truly is a "God"(s)
Why is it in His name(s)
That the most horrific events occur?
  #110  
Old 06-10-2017, 06:14 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK View Post
if there truly is a "God"(s)
Why is it in His name(s)
That the most horrific events occur?
A lot of those most horrific events have nothing to do with God. I do not think that even many of the horrific events recorded in the Bible were caused by God.
  #111  
Old 06-10-2017, 06:15 PM
Gunslinger257's Avatar
Gunslinger257 Gunslinger257 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stanger
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK View Post
if there truly is a "God"(s)
Why is it in His name(s)
That the most horrific events occur?
Because humans are good at finding someone else to blame. In our weakness we fight to at least be precieved as the fittest. So long as there is a weakest and fittest amoung humans there will always be war.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
__________________
Ecclesiastes 10:2
  #112  
Old 06-10-2017, 06:27 PM
ETOWNCANUCK ETOWNCANUCK is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by covey ridge View Post
A lot of those most horrific events have nothing to do with God. I do not think that even many of the horrific events recorded in the Bible were caused by God.
I said God (s) plural.

pretty sure the current terrorism acts involve a "God"

Religion,

Oldest joke in the "book"
  #113  
Old 06-10-2017, 06:46 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunslinger257 View Post
Because humans are good at finding someone else to blame. In our weakness we fight to at least be precieved as the fittest. So long as there is a weakest and fittest amoung humans there will always be war.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
This does not ring true to being in agreement with the verse that is the signature of your post.
  #114  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:00 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK View Post
I said God (s) plural.

pretty sure the current terrorism acts involve a "God"

Religion,

Oldest joke in the "book"
Actually if you said God (s) that does not mean just plural. It means God or Gods.

and I do not think the current terrorism acts have anything to do with God or Gods, but more to do with certain types that have a twisted view of what God expects. Some of those twisted views might be thought of by some as religion.

A am not sure what joke or book you are talking about?

You may have a point in blaming religion for a lot of the bad things that happen but religion and God are not one and the same no matter how many times God's name is used.
  #115  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:08 PM
Unregistered user Unregistered user is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,140
Default

People worship gods, it's part of what makes people human. I can't believe in creationism any more than the tooth fairy. It is a decent attempt at trying to answer the big question of why we are here. Given the knowledge available to the bible's authors it was a pretty good stab at it and many folks today still swear by it. But long before Judaism hit the popular world there were other religions that had their own ideas of how we got here, are they any less relevant? Evolution to me seems to be on the right track at least it is an evolving theory as opposed to creationism whose adherents believe is cast in stone.
__________________
Former Ford Fan
  #116  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:15 PM
SLH SLH is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikergolf View Post
I don't know how a person can look at the awe inspiring world we live in and believe it came about by random chance. That takes way more faith than believing in a creator.
Funny how we can look at the same thing and see the exact opposite. When I look at these things I cant believe any supernatural or otherwise entity could have that kind of imagination. Maybe I should never have read EdAbbey.
  #117  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:21 PM
Gunslinger257's Avatar
Gunslinger257 Gunslinger257 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stanger
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by covey ridge View Post
This does not ring true to being in agreement with the verse that is the signature of your post.
I hesitate to reply and not be eloquent enough to make my point clear. My point is in our sinful nature we compete with one another trying to get one step ahead of our neighbour thus causing war. If my line of thought is in contrast to the truth please explain more.
__________________
Ecclesiastes 10:2
  #118  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:25 PM
ETOWNCANUCK ETOWNCANUCK is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by covey ridge View Post
Actually if you said God (s) that does not mean just plural. It means God or Gods.

and I do not think the current terrorism acts have anything to do with God or Gods, but more to do with certain types that have a twisted view of what God expects. Some of those twisted views might be thought of by some as religion.

A am not sure what joke or book you are talking about?

You may have a point in blaming religion for a lot of the bad things that happen but religion and God are not one and the same no matter how many times God's name is used.

Any religious text that comes in a book.

Those are real,
God is not. IMO

I do believe one can choose to believe in what they want.
If that's your belief so be it.

These days religion is being used more and more for personal gain,
Either as an individual or by groups.

To the point that it is becoming a joke.
And not the ha ha funny joke,
More like pathetic.
  #119  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:37 PM
Gunslinger257's Avatar
Gunslinger257 Gunslinger257 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stanger
Posts: 969
Default

I guess I should post on topic so as not to run this train off its tracks.

I believe in the case of both creation and evaluation we are trying to define our world in human terms. Math and science are attempting to use a finite system to attempt to understand the infinite. Religion is a system of rules in attempt to define the infinite.

There is a difference between faith and religion.
__________________
Ecclesiastes 10:2
  #120  
Old 06-10-2017, 07:44 PM
270person 270person is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alta270 View Post
How can one hate something that one doesn't believe in

I don't believe one word of Scientology and the myths, fairy tales, and utter stupidity they spew and I think it's perfectly acceptable to hate them. Not because they gather to glorify their stupidity, but rather, because they take advantage of people, and destroy families and do it for one reason. Money. In the form of a faith.

They're a church. At least some governments say they are.

Faith is a great business. Start a new one. Lobby government to be recognized as legitimate. Don't pay taxes. Make your followers paranoid. Bilk innocents.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.