Evolution - what's your take on it?

[Angel]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977

Why I believe in Creation

Authored by: Joseph Farah

I was stunned the other day when I asked evolution-believing listeners to my nationally syndicated radio show to call in and tell me why they believed.

"Just give me one reason why you accept the theory," I said. "Just give me the strongest argument. You don't have to give me mountains of evidence. Just tell me why I should accept it."

Not one evolutionist called in.

Meanwhile, the phone banks lit up with dozens of evolution skeptics.

Go figure. For more than 40 years, evolution has been taught as fact in government schools to generations of children, yet there is still widespread skepticism, if not cynicism, about the theory across the country.



But, because of political correctness and the fear of ostracism, most people are afraid to admit what they believe about our origins. That's why I wrote my last column – "I believe in Creation."

The reaction to it has been unprecedented. While I expected mostly negative fallout, most letters have been quite positive.

So, I decided to take this issue a step further. Since the evolutionists don't want to tell me why they believe in their theory, I figured I would explain why I believe in mine.

The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.

But what about the worldly evidence?

The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.

I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!

Think of all the world's legends about dragons. Look at those images. What were those folks seeing? They were clearly seeing dinosaurs. You can see them etched in cave drawings. You can see them in ancient literature. You can see them described in the Bible. You can see them in virtually every culture in every corner of the world.

Did the human race have a collective common nightmare? Or did these people actually see dragons? I believe they saw dragons – what we now call dinosaurs.

Furthermore, many of the dinosaur fossils discovered in various parts of the world were found right along human footprints and remains. How did that happen?

And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.

There are also countless contemporary sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in Asia and Africa.

You know what I think? I think we've been sold a bill of goods about the dinosaurs. I don't believe they died off millions and millions of years ago. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they've died off completely.

Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science.

How could all the thousands of historical records of dragons and behemoths throughout mankind's time on earth be ignored? Let's admit it. At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently – if not still walking it today.

If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak

Of course humankind has yet to discover (or find) all living species, but to think that dinosaurs (T-rex, Brontosaurus, etc.) and man co-existed during the same time-period is a hard to consider, for me at least.

My favorite part of this article is:

I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!

How can he be 100% certain of something having walked the planet, and then in the next sentence question it's existence?

Do you question science or religion? Did God create the heaven and the earth in a matter of a few days, or did the universe as it is today come into being through a longer period of time (by other means)?

[WillyGilligan]

How can he be 100% certain of something having walked the planet, and then in the next sentence question it's existence?

Umm..he's not contradicting himself. He questions whether they're extinct, not existant.

For most of it, his claims that there aren't any shreds of evidence that humans and dinosaurs didn't coexist is a little funny. Funny in that sense of "absence of proof isn't proof of absence".

[Angel]

How can he be 100% certain of something having walked the planet, and then in the next sentence question it's existence?

Umm..he's not contradicting himself. He questions whether they're extinct, not existant.

you're right, my mistake one misreading the one word.

[3278]

"Just give me one reason why you accept the theory," I said. "Just give me the strongest argument. You don't have to give me mountains of evidence. Just tell me why I should accept it."

Not one evolutionist called in.

And it couldn't possibly be that not a whole lot of evolutionarily-minded people were listening to WorldNetDaily RadioActive. I mean, /<a href="http://www.wnd.com/">World Net Daily</a>./ Dude.

The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.

That's odd. You'd think someone like Joe Farah would have actually studied the bible, and anyone who's studied the bible knows there are several things wrong in it, or widely contradictory, or at least just plain dumb. Finding things wrong in the bible is like shooting dead fish in a very small barrel.

The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.

No, paleontologists insist that, based on very simple and easily proveable concepts like, "If these things are buried a hundred feet lower than these things, then they lived earlier." Duh.

I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

"I don't believe," is a common creationist argument, also known as the Argument from Personal Incredulity, one of the most basic logical fallacies. What he's really saying is, "I, with no education in science, paleontology, archaeology, or any other related field, cannot possibly fathom how people believe dinosaurs and humans didn't live together just because dinosaur fossils are all older than the oldest possible human fossils."

There are ample proofs that the two species didn't coexist, from simple rock layerings to carbon [and other] dating, to study of phenotypic drift in junk genes. Any of these things could be wrong - and science wouldn't be science if it didn't admit it - but taken all together, with strong correlations between all possible results, it is superbly unlikely they are all wrong enough to overcome the several-million-year difference required.

Think of all the world's legends about dragons. Look at those images. What were those folks seeing? They were clearly seeing dinosaurs. You can see them etched in cave drawings. You can see them in ancient literature. You can see them described in the Bible. You can see them in virtually every culture in every corner of the world.

Yes, this logic proves what I've known for years: griffins are actually real. So are talking dogs.

What a wanker.

Furthermore, many of the dinosaur fossils discovered in various parts of the world were found right along human footprints and remains. How did that happen?

No. No such find in the history of science has ever proven to be anything other than a hoax, nearly always perpetrated by either creationists or by people seeking fame. Or both.

And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured.

Uh, which ones would those be, exactly? The dinosaur ones?

Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science.

And that's not even remotely how it works. This guy doesn't know anything about actual evolutionary theory, or evolutionary biology, or, for that matter, anything approaching reason. What he's describing isn't the history of the evolutionary theory, it's a straw man version that bears no real resemblance to reality.

If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak

Wait, that's it? His disproof of evolution is based on two points:
1. The bible says so.
2. Dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans.

You know, even if it were discovered dinosaurs were still alive, it would have - pay close attention now - <b>no effect at all on evolutionary theory.</b>

Yes, it's the evidence of which we dare not speak, evidence so ridiculous it's certainly not worth the time I just spent ridiculing it.

[Szechuan]

I think I just fell in love.

[Kitt]

I personally believe that evolution is true. I did even when I followed religion. There is scientific proof that certain creatures have evolved into other creatures. In Jurassic Park, it's mentioned that dinosaurs have a lot in common skeletally with birds and "Even the word 'Raptor' means 'bird of prey'." If you look at whales, they have bones in their fins that resemble human hands. Just look at all of the genetic and skeletal similarities between humans and various sorts of monkeys, gorillas, etc. It just makes sense. And as for the theory that humans and dinosaurs ever coexisted has been repeatedly disproved by the lack of human fossils found along with the dinosaurs. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but until someone can prove otherwise, I still believe that humans were not alive when dinosaurs were. Cave paintings could have been the first form of exaggeration. Someone sees a lizard, gets scared, then comes up with "It was this fucking big, guys! I swear!" and happens to draw it on a wall. Yay for ancient fish stories.

[mrmooky]

"Just give me one reason why you accept the theory," I said. "Just give me the strongest argument. You don't have to give me mountains of evidence. Just tell me why I should accept it."

Not one evolutionist called in.

See, this is one of the things I hate most about the internet. Some idiot mounts a piece of crap like this as an argument, other idiots accept it as an argument, and then other people feel compelled to waste their time trying to explain the obvious flaw to a bunch of immovable idiots. This kind of shit doesn't call for a counter-argument. It calls for a swift kick to the balls.

[Cain]

I'm with 32 on this one. While evolutionary theory does have its holes, nothing this guy posted resembles any of them. This is just the rantings of a single nutjob, and not a well-constructed argument against evolutionary theory based on scientific evidence and fact.

[Reika]

This is probably just me, but I think the guy is grousing because he didn't start a massive flame war like he was hoping. I'm sure he believes what he's saying, but he sounds like a classic troll to me.

[mrmooky]

Nononononono. He's from WorldNet Daily. Chances are he really is that stupid.

[UncleJoseph]

My current girlfriend is a bible-thumping ultra-conservative republican christian-right jesus freak. This has led me to think about religion a little more often these days, and we've had the creation/evolution argument more than once.

The more I think about religion in (primarily the christian god believing kind), the more I think it is complete bullshit. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but my personal experience with religion, along with countless discussions with "good christians" has convinced me that religion is simply all about arrogance and naivety. Every argument someone makes to me is always backed by "the bible tells me so" or "it's a matter of faith."

Being a long time atheist, I don't believe the bible is proof of anything. It was written by men. Whether they were divinely inspired, nobody will ever know.

There is another thing that really bothers me about the creationism. A lot of creationists believe that the earth was literally created in 7 days, and man appeared, and then woman. This would all be fine and dandy if there was one shred of physical evidence that suggested this. Instead, ALL of the evidence points toward evolution (granted with much speculation and many differing interpretations of data).

What I love is the fact that creation /can/ fit the evolution model, if the bible is interpreted as being metaphorical or representative of actual events. Creationists, however, are insulted by the idea that we evolutionists claim their model fits into ours, and also completely deny that our model fits into theirs (which of course it doesn't).

The creation theory, along with evolution, are nothing more that simple-minded humas passing down generations of misinformation in an attempt to understand the things they don't understand.

But then, it's a matter of faith.

[Johnny the Bull]

My current girlfriend is a bible-thumping ultra-conservative republican christian-right jesus freak.

How do you fuck? How?

I'd feel dirty fucking an evangelist.

[Angel]

My current girlfriend is a bible-thumping ultra-conservative republican christian-right jesus freak.

How do you fuck? How?

I was gonna ask something like that too.

[Thorn]

The more I think about religion in (primarily the christian god believing kind), the more I think it is complete bullshit.

(snip)

The creation theory, along with evolution, are nothing more that simple-minded humas passing down generations of misinformation in an attempt to understand the things they don't understand.

Would it be punny or just tasteless to say "Amen" here?

Regardless, total agreement. In fact, I've been thinking, lately, about the whole baliwick of religion and such - not just Christianity, but all religions. Where do these ideas come from, who comes up with some of this crap, etc.

And it occurred to me: from the time human beings came up with language and the ability to think abstractly/conceptually, I can only imagine that kids have been asking the same questions.

Why is the sky blue? Where does the sun go at night? Where does the moon go during the day? Why is the moon there sometimes and not other times? Why does the moon get bigger and smaller and then bigger again? How come it's hot now but was really cold a few months ago? What is snow made of? What are the stars made of? Why do the leaves fall off of trees? Where do babies come from?

You get the idea.

And, really, these are classic, quintessential questions. We've all asked them, in our attempts to understand the world around us when we were really young and just starting to observe the world and try to make it make sense.

But is that questioning new? I started to think about it, and of course it's not new. Kids didn't just start asking these questions in the past couple-hundred years. Look at Greek mythology - it's all about explaining how the world works. Just about all the questions above have some "answer" in Greek mythology, plus a lot more.

So really, I got to thinking that a lot of religious stories (including those found in the Bible) sound a lot like some of the wacky shit parents will come up with when put on the spot by some question their kid has thrown at them, and they don't know the answer but don't want to look stupid in front of their kid.

I mean, a while ago I was entertaining Boltie and Grinder and wound up making up a story for them involving a set of twin protagonists and a giant. And by the end of it? Totally sounded like some lesser-known Norse myth. (Well, without the weight of years behind it, of course - but that tone and about that level of realism, you understand.)

So my current theory is that most religious stories are probably the most creative, most practical examples of some of the things parents were telling their kids in whatever era the religion comes out of.

And before you ask - no. I don't have any articles or books or any other evidence to back this up. But it's something I've been thinking about recently, and this is my current working theory. If it's wrong somehow, tell me.

[Crazy Elf]

My current girlfriend is a bible-thumping ultra-conservative republican christian-right jesus freak

Then dump her. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[MissTeja]

Did God create the heaven and the earth in a matter of a few days, or did the universe as it is today come into being through a longer period of time (by other means)?

There is another thing that really bothers me about the creationism. A lot of creationists believe that the earth was literally created in 7 days, and man appeared, and then woman. This would all be fine and dandy if there was one shred of physical evidence that suggested this.

I'm agnostic, but I was raised conservative Christian. In my own quest for what was the truth, I came across much information that dealt with interpreting the Bible as a book of fables. Based on real accounts of what had happened, of course, passed down through generations, and printed into word once it was a possibility to do so. In this, there were much interpretations of the timetables simply being wrong. They said that God did not create the world in seven days. Maybe it was seven billion years, but not seven days. They said they believed it was put into those terms to help aid understanding. Also, certain people in the Bible, of course, did not live to be 800 or 1,000 years old - as the life expectancy was surely far, far lower back then, however, it is possible that should a man live to be 60, he could very well be termed as 800 years old dependant upon how they managed their calendar.

Also, take Noah and the Ark. Of course he did not put one of every animal in the world on the ark, but without today's explorations and technology to back them up, it is possible the man could have lived on an island or penninsula, had that flood, and have tried to rescue every animal species they knew of. They may not have known other animals or other lands beyond their own.

I'm not sticking these out there for anyone to get flustered over and spend hours forming an argument to them, because I'm not arguing these points. I just saw your guys' comments regarding the subject and thought I'd let the two of you see another opinion of how the world may or may not have been made in seven days.

[Serious Paul]

Wait Cain and 3278 agree? Great the seventh seal has been broken.

I think 3278 has said anything I could say, and better, so lets get back to Uncle Joseph's sex life! :cool

[Eliahad]

Here's a silly question to just throw out there and get hacked to pieces. It kind of goes along with what Thorn was saying, though in a slightly different way. Actually, it has nothing at all to do with what Thorn said, but I thought about it while I was reading her post.

Follow me for a second:

Thorn stated (and I agree) that old timey religious stories are often explaining the 'why's' of what goes on in the universe.

Now, Science, while not old timey, is also doing its best to try and explain what the hell is going on in the universe.

So could we throw Science in as a New Religion?

Now, I understand why there are so many flaws in this slight, and marginally illogical line of thought, but isn't it an interesting idea that some 'INTERSTELLAR GALACTIC RACE!" will come and look at our mathmatical theories in a couple of centuries, call us heathens and erraticate us because our Science isn't the same as theirs?

[Thorn]

Well, I think you're going to light some people on fire by calling science a "religion", but I don't think you're aim is completely off.

If we run with the theory that most religions are all about trying to explain the world, then the aim of science is no different than the aim of relgion: to explain and understand the world. The big difference is that science goes about it in a way that involves evidence and substantiation.

I think some people do treat it as a religion (i.e. if you don't believe the way I do, you're not a worthy being), but I think it fails the true "religion" test simply because it doesn't particularly involve faith. It involves things which we interpret (mostly correctly, imo) as fact.

So, you know, there's a similar evangelical element to the hard-line scientists, but I'm not sure that it could really be considered a "religion", though I'm sure it fulfills a lot of the same needs within the individual.

[FlameBlade]

I'm curious...

Does science has "axioms" from which one can build from?

Mathematics has axioms, and entire foundation of mathematics are built from axioms made by Greek Mathematicians many centuries ago. Entire idea of mathematics are built from that. In other words, mathematics is pure fact. (Just kill people who misuse mathematic by not presenting them as whole (can you say politicans?), please.)

Science...From what I understand...it also builds from core fundamental facts. Science has has a method, guideline of how one "verify" a fact. What does scientists do are: collect different kinds of facts from an experiments, and devise many different experiments, and eventually, establish a sphere of theory from a set of facts. If not all facts fits, then modify the theory so all facts fit.

After all...Physics is a shining light of how theory work. Theories of atoms came in four different stages...First, one saw atoms as a ball of stuff, with electrons floating around aimlessly...Then came more experiments, and eventually Rutherford's experiment. From the experiment, scientists learned that their theory was flawed, and therefore has to be adjusted from the facts that were presented to them. As a result, they modified the theory to fit all facts of the case.

Theory only serve to fit all facts that we KNOW. Anytime something don't fit, we find a way to change the theoretical model to fit what we just learned.

[UncleJoseph]

My sex life is not public information. But it is fine, thank you.

[FlakJacket]

How do you fuck? How?

I'd feel dirty fucking an evangelist.

Missionary position?

[Serious Paul]

I think the line between science and religion could easily become hard to delineate for some of us, that's certainly true. However, to me at least, no more so than say sports. How many of us have a friend who is "religous" in his or her sporting experiences? or Politics?

The only difference I could see is maybe scope. After all Football isn't often used to explain the greater mysteries of life.

[Eliahad]

Except by advertisers.

[Kitt]

How do you fuck? How?

I'd feel dirty fucking an evangelist.

Missionary position?

That's terrible! I love it!

[FlameBlade]

and yet, talking about sex is helping evolutionary standpoint

[Anguirel]

Does science has "axioms" from which one can build from?

Yes (though not all scientists like to admit it). A few of them are pretty impressive as far as fundamental assumptions (my preferred word for those fundamental axioms of math) go, actually, and they underlie just about all of science. Things like "It is possible to understand the universe," and "the universe functions in a rational fashion," and "the universe is, at least above a certain level, deterministic and predictable". To explain these in reverse order... You need to have determinism to make physics work, e.g. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" fails if you don't have determinism. If the universe is irrational (in a non-mathematical sense, I think, as we can kinda handle irrational numbers), then trying to codify it is useless. It simply will not behave in an ordered fashion in every case; e.g. "Sure, mixing Hydrogen and Oxygen with some fire will net you water this time, but next time it might be oil, or gold, or purple (the element violetium (Vi) )." The understandability is fundamental to any attempt at science. If you don't assume it's at least possible to understand, there's no reason to even try.

Now, is it a religion? Absolutely. It has worshippers, it explains the Universe and everything around us, it has zealots, it has splinter cults. The only crucifixion is metaphorical and usually happens in Literature or Philosophical debates. The dogma changes to reflect changes with the times. The difference between this religion and the religions best known? Where those all start with "I believe," true science starts with "I don't know." Where they have leaps of faith, science has accidents of curiousity. Where they will condemn any idea that doesn't match with their view of the world with little real attempt to understand or examine it for plausibility, science will welcome challenges, and will rigorously examine views, even those extreme and contrary to the current model, and will adopt them should they prove better able to explain and predict future events.

[lorg]

Before I mention the Uncle Joe sex comments let me first comment on the dinos. Humans and dinos at the same time? Where did that come from? Science according to the Flintstones? Think that might have been where he got his theories.

In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!

I'm quite possitive there arn't a herd of T-Rexes running around someplace but there are remnents of the dinosaurs still around like the crockodiles are there not. Hench he could be correct there.

Does science has "axioms" from which one can build from?

As far as I know only math has axiomatic theory. But then math is science. The others are just winging it for the time being while math is proven and proven again before being accepted. Example, Pythagoras: a*a+b*b = c*c, true then, true now, true forever. While in physics it changes constantly, "ohh look we manged to split the atom and we found all this other stuff, guess the atom isn't the smallest part anymore, now the smallest part is the (repat over and over again) quark. When they split that I don't know what silly thing they'll find. So the others have some kind of rules to guide them but they are not axioms.

Does that mean science has the answer for everything? Not so sure. But then I think it is well ahead of religion and mythology in the score card. But it is not like I'm going to stat to pray to Einstein for scientific (as opposed to spiritual) guidance.



ok now to what you have all been waiting for, so Joe hooked up with Eve (or whatever he rightwing christian bible thumping name might be), unless they are married they are now living in sin and well nothing is as good as when you are being bad

[Serious Paul]

[Van Der Litreb]

Wow, that column is the funniest thing I've read since Cryptonomicon. [Okay, so it's the only thing I've read since 8 am this morning, after being up all night reading the damn book.]

32, you should consider sending the guy an email with your responses. Might be fun to see his reply.


"This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak." Come, now. This is fucking brilliant.

[Anguirel]

The least he could do would be to cite the evidence, research, and archaeological finds to which he is referring...

[UncleJoseph]

Yes, sinning on a daily basis is fun. I love corrupting the readers of the good book!!!!

[Gunny]

In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!

Here's my theory on where this came from.

For about 8-10 years, there's been a wildly debated theory that certain lines of dinosaur evolved into birds. The longer this theory goes on, the more it seems to be slowly accepted by the elitist palentologists, as more and more varient species of dinosaurs are found. So, in theory, the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, they just evolved.

[Johnny the Bull]

Yes, sinning on a daily basis is fun. I love corrupting the readers of the good book!!!!

Never considered it in that light. Got to get myself to Church for some Sunday pickup.

[3278]

Now, is [science] a religion? Absolutely. It has worshippers, it explains the Universe and everything around us, it has zealots, it has splinter cults.

If that's how you choose to define "Religion" - a group with worshippers, an attempt to explain the universe, zealots, and splinter cults - then yes, it is a religion. However, this is ultimately only true in a metaphorical or figurative sense; true religion a priori includes an element of the supernatural, which science - usually, ideally - does not. This is, in fact, despite the similarities between the two groups - and they are [too] many - what differentiates them [besides, of course, the difference between faith-based belief and empirical observation].

[Anguirel]

Now, is [science] a religion? Absolutely. It has worshippers, it explains the Universe and everything around us, it has zealots, it has splinter cults.

If that's how you choose to define "Religion" - a group with worshippers, an attempt to explain the universe, zealots, and splinter cults - then yes, it is a religion. However, this is ultimately only true in a metaphorical or figurative sense; true religion a priori includes an element of the supernatural, which science - usually, ideally - does not. This is, in fact, despite the similarities between the two groups - and they are [too] many - what differentiates them [besides, of course, the difference between faith-based belief and empirical observation].

I'd actually go a step further and add a set of guidleines for living one's ife, but I don't think any element of the supernatural is required for a religion. Taoism has no real sense of supernatural, nor Confucianism. I suppose they could be simply Philosophies and not Religions, i fyou're going to tack on a supernatural element as a requirement, but I never saw that as what religion was about. Religion, to me, is about belief, faith, worship, and a code of conduct. You can have all of that and never have any sort of a supernatural element enter the picture at all.

[mrmooky]

Taoism has no real sense of supernatural, nor Confucianism.

Don't forget Shinto or animism. The most supernatural they get is ascribing spirit to already extant things. Multiplying entities is a particularly Western aspect of religion.

[WillyGilligan]

Does it work better if the dividing line between science and religion is that while both seek to describe the workings of the universe, religion seeks to distill morality from that explanation?

[UncleJoseph]

I think the dividing line is the issue of supernatural/higher power, and everything that stems from it. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Likewise, they can coexist just fine. However, a high percentage of scientists are atheists. Scientific thinkers are primarily logical. Since religion is not based fundamentally on logic, one wonders how a scientist would be able to accept a religion.

What really cracks me up, is that if some guy wrote down a bunch of shit and said, "God breathed his word into me, and I pass it on to you," we'd put him in a mental hospital. Not to mention how many atrocities against humankind have been and are still committed in the name of religion or faith. Let's just forget the constitution, and have a national religion...you know, "One nation under God." That would settle the debate....nevermind that the US was formed by people who fled religious persecution, and then committed horrible acts of persecution themselves in the name of their chosen faith....

Religion has done /almost/ nothing but bad in my opinion. It has kept the masses down, prohibited advancements in medicine and technology, slaughtered thousands, if not millions, and intellectuall castrated people for generations. On the other hand, I almost envy people who can believe in something so strongly, which gives them a sense of purpose. And, for the most part, provides a reasonable moral framework from which to live one's life, as long as everyone believes the same thing, so you don't have to kill them...

[3278]

I'd actually go a step further and add a set of guidleines for living one's ife...

That's "morality," not "religion." [/I/ think.]

...but I don't think any element of the supernatural is required for a religion.

<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... Well...</a>

Taoism has no real sense of supernatural, nor Confucianism.

Taoism includes magic, potions for longer life, chi, karma, and - if I may quote: "The Way as it cycles through the five elements of the Wuxing is also said to be circular, acting upon itself through change to affect a cycle of life and death in the ten thousand things of the phenomenal universe," which I think is pretty supernatural. Confucianism much less so.

[Eliahad]

Here's something interesting. "Supernatural"

Just looking at the word I see it meaning "Something beyond nature." Since most nature I know is explained by science, or rational observation, science can therefore /never/ be supernatural. Yet, it /can/ be based upon theory and conjecture (faith). Like the axioms that Flame was talking about. As long as these theories are never proved false, they are accepted as truth...

*for the record* I do not necessarily believe what I'm talking about. To be, uh, ironic, I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate.

[Kitt]

Taoism has no real sense of supernatural, nor Confucianism. I suppose they could be simply Philosophies and not Religions...

That's what I was always taught. They're either Philosophies or 'belief systems' depending on how large your vocabulary is. Unfortunately, I've always had the teachers with a vocabulary too small to score 400 on the SATs.

[lorg]

That's what I was always taught. They're either Philosophies or 'belief systems' depending on how large your vocabulary is. Unfortunately, I've always had the teachers with a vocabulary too small to score 400 on the SATs.

We don't have the SATs here so just how low is 400? Is that what you get when you manage to write down your name or what? What is concidered a good score, what is the max etc.

But perhaps most important; what did you all score?

[Anguirel]

We don't have the SATs here so just how low is 400? Is that what you get when you manage to write down your name or what? What is concidered a good score, what is the max etc.

Scores range from 200 to 800. 200 is showing up and filling out the information block correctly. 800 is every answer right. All questions are multiple choice, guessing is penalized by having incorrect answers penalize you for 1/4 the value of a correct answer. Leaving a question blank nets no score either way.

But perhaps most important; what did you all score?

740 on the Verbal. In my defense, I was sick that day. 720 on the Math.

[Van Der Litreb]

Taoism includes magic, potions for longer life, chi, karma, and ...

Depends very much on what school of Taoism we're talking about, much like the billion different Christian variations. In Tao Te Ching, for example, I'm pretty sure there is no mention of any supernatural elements (lots of supernatural metaphors, of course, but..). [I could well remember this incorrectly; please don't kill you me if that's the case. Besides, why kill me when there are still more than a quarter of a million Maltese people at large?] But in more contemporary Taoist writings - say those from the past 1000 years or so - dragons, spirits, magic, and immortals abound. It's like a bad Shadowrun book.

Whether Taosim should be considered a religion vs. a natural philosophy depends on how you define the two, I guess. Personally I don't consider it (and Buddhism, ect.) a religion, simply because being a practitioner doesn't require faith]/i].

[lorg]

We have something similar, looking at the english translation they actually refer to it as the SweSAT now.

SweSAT

DTM – Interpreting Diagrams, Tables and Maps
This subtest measures the ability to read diagrams, tables and maps. The questions demand both the ability to identify information and to analyse information that derives from different sources.

WORD – Vocabulary
This subtest tests awareness of the meaning of words and concepts. The words may be Swedish or foreign. They may also be archaic or words that have come into use in Swedish in recent years. The items are taken from many different subject areas. They can also include technical terms that are widely used.

READ – Reading Comprehension
This section tests the ability to acquire information from a text in Swedish. The items require the capacity to perceive details in the text and also to draw conclusions from the text as a whole.

ERC – English Reading Comprehension
The ability to read and understand a non-fiction test in English is tested in this section. It contains both long and short texts. One of the longer tests is a ”Cloze test”, which contains gaps where words have been omitted. The emphasis of this subtest is on the capacity to perceive information, follow an argument and draw conclusions on the basis of the text in English.

DS – Data Sufficiency
This section involves deciding whether enough information has been provided to solve a problem. The items require mathematical skills but primarily test the capacity to draw logical conclusions.


Don't know how it is now but previously the top score was 2.0, I scored 1.8. It is a score of all parts combined. Don't recall what I had on the different parts now, it was after all 8 years since I took the test last (and first) time.

[3278]

Taoism includes magic, potions for longer life, chi, karma, and ...

Depends very much on what school of Taoism we're talking about, much like the billion different Christian variations.

Absolutely. I'm not sure if there's any variation of Taoism that is 100 percent supernatural-free - karma can be considered supernatural, after all - but there is a very broad spectrum, from philosophy to alchemy. Every sack has a few bad apples, after all. I, unsurprisingly, prefer the older, more logical, less dragon-filled philosophy.

[JongWK]

I'd actually go a step further and add a set of guidleines for living one's ife, but I don't think any element of the supernatural is required for a religion. Taoism has no real sense of supernatural, nor Confucianism. I suppose they could be simply Philosophies and not Religions, i fyou're going to tack on a supernatural element as a requirement, but I never saw that as what religion was about. Religion, to me, is about belief, faith, worship, and a code of conduct. You can have all of that and never have any sort of a supernatural element enter the picture at all.

Not sure about Taoism, but I'd say Confucianism is a philosophy and social system, even though plenty of people think of it as a religion (or have mixed it with local traditions).

[Marius]

Whether Taosim should be considered a religion vs. a natural philosophy depends on how you define the two, I guess. Personally I don't consider it (and Buddhism, ect.) a religion, simply because being a practitioner doesn't require faith.

I think it (speaking mostly of Buddhism here) does require faith. It's not quite the Christian kind of spectacular faith that actual things exist - you don't have to accept without evidence that there's a dispeptic bearded man in the sky judging you, that there are invisible tigers under your bed, or that giant cosmic shampoo bottles fart out the speckled starscape in the evening - but you do have to accept on faith the philosophical story involved.

The philosophy, like many philosophies of mind, is also a psychology. It explains what people want, why they feel the way they do, and how to change that. But it explains them without evidence. In this way, it's not particularly different from, say, classical psychoanalysis - not particularly religious-seeming in the temples-and-mysteries sort of way. But then, I'd say that anyone who still actually believes that everything at odds in their head resulted from an unresolved childhood conflict between three distinct mental structures named Id, Ego, and Superego, and who tries to structure their lives around that philosophy . . . I'd say they were certainly acting in a very misguided, religious way.

[Coasini]

My take on evolution:

I do not believe that species jump and evolve to another species outright. I don't even believe that we evolved from chimpanzees, or whatever line of primates you want to cite.

What I do believe is that people wildly underestimate protein strands of DNA, and what they can do. We've recently found some strands of DNA on Mars with the drone we sent up there, building blocks for species and races that are not currently active. I think we find them here on Earth every day. I bleieve that 'macroevolution', as it were, is when conditions on a planet change to support a certain group of genetic code. Over the course of hundreds, or thousands of generations, that genetic code rapidly evolves from a simple organism to its finished product, and then continues refining itself over time even further.

I believe that this suitably explains why at one age, dinosaurs ruled, and why only certain things existed throughout the 'ice age', and why man and all species that came with him thrived during another time. I also believe it is why only certain species' can be found on certain parts of the planet.

I believe that every day, DNA is being created by discarded matter, or cells that were shed, etc.

But, this is just a theory, and I have no way of doing any proof-work on it.