Writer's Block: Church & State
People complain that the problem is with church encroaching upon state, but I think that is far from the truth. My opinion is that state is beginning to impede on the freedoms of religion and that state is forcing us to abandon our religious rights. There are several examples of this, and the most prominent is prayer in schools. If ( Read more... )
Fine, you don’t have to accept evolution because you “don’t believe in it”, despite the fact that evolution exists, and it is happening today. And no, I don’t have a problem with people who don’t think like I do. I have a problem with people who refuse to accept facts. The real problem with evolution is that religious minded zealots have sewn the seeds of doubt in the minds of people who find evolution contradicting to their belief that their God created the world, so they find comfort in supporting Intelligent Design.
No, there aren’t “more people like me than there are like you”. There are more people who “believe” for one. There are more people who support teaching Creationist “science” in schools, which frankly scares me half to death. Science belongs in schools, religion belongs in church. If parents don’t want their kids learning science, then they can put ‘em in a private Christian school, if they don’t want them learning religion, well, they shouldn’t have to limit their options when it comes to schools.
And again, you fail to make fine distinctions. We have “evidence” that things described in scripture happened, such as the Exodus of the Jews, and some archaeological evidence of places mentioned in Scriptures existed. We know a man named Jesus Christ existed, sure. But that doesn’t provide evidence of a God, just because we found Jesus’ finger bones, or remnants of Babylon, or historical records of the Exodus. At best, the Bible is a novel. It takes people, some real, some fictional, and some places, some real, some fictional, and incorporates them into a story. Evidence of the characters and places existing does not mean that the story is true. Just because “The bible says so” does not mean we have empirical evidence of God’s existence.
Also, yes, 95% of the world’s population believes in some form or another. Miracles... yeah. Mohammed starved himself then sat in a cave for a few weeks, that’ll give you some frackin’ visions of Allah... People believe because it’s taboo not to. The only rights they have taken away is the ability to pray at a public school, according to your original post (because I didn’t see anything else). It’s a government run facility, and in keeping church separate from state they had every right to ban prayer. You want to pray in school, keep it to yourself. You people have churches to gather in and pray in, why the hell should that carry over to schools?
And if anyone’s being undermined, it’s atheists. We cannot run for Government or any important jobs such as that, because people still have this ludicrous notion that atheists are “immoral”. I’ve been physically attacked for my refusal to believe, people have been killed because they refused to conform to their society’s belief system. Just because they won’t let religious doctrine into state schools, and because Government refuses to sign laws restricting peoples’ freedoms based on some ambiguous scripture quotes, that does NOT mean that religious freedoms are being taken away.
No, I do not hate people who believe, Freud. You can stop trying to psychoanalyze me, because you obviously lack the qualifications necessary to do so. I hate people who believe and refuse to accept the fact that I literally CANNOT believe, so they think they need to "enlighten" me. There is a difference, but you seem to have trouble making fine distinctions.
Reply
Also, I would like to thank you for accidently admitting that evolution is a theory. Yes, you are right. It is not set in stone. However, what is set in stone are Newton's laws of physics, chemistry, the temperatures at which things burn and freezes along with many other sciences that have been tested over time and end up the same way everytime. THAT, my friend, is science. THAT has been proven. THAT is irrefutable. Your little theory has not been proven nor will it ever be. You, ironically, take upon yourself a characteristic that you deem any believer has.
Also, when have I come to seek to englighten you? If you have noticed, this is on MY page. You are coming after ME. So, seriously, I am doing this as an act of mercy. Just admit that evolution is nothing more than a theory, save you dignity and lay down your king, because your ass is heading for a conversational checkmate.
Oh yeah. This one is a gem. "No, I do not hate people who believe, Freud." "I hate people who believe". Nice. Very nice.
Reply
The fundamentals of evolution that Darwin came up with ARE set in stone, and I won't bother explaining them to you because you probably wouldn't understand. How it actually happens, how life on earth went from simple one celled organisms to the organisms alive today, the progression of evolution and the changing of phenotypes, THAT is what is constantly being re-evaluated. We add more fossil life forms to the phylogeny of life forms every day because we FIND more extinct life forms every day. It is not a little theory, and it already has been proven. Get that through your skull.
Perhaps I should have been clear on that: I never said YOU were trying to enlighten me. I'm referring to the one in my linked post and many others who think that there's something drastically wrong with me because I don't believe. And I came to your page because of three fatally flawed arguments you made in your OP: 1) that ID is a viable scientific theory, that 2) evolution has not been "proven", and that 3) homosexuals seeking equal rights is somehow harmful, and then unifying these ridiculous notions of yours under the banner that you believe religion is under attack. I have to argue with these because I feel so strongly about these issues. You're not check-mating me anytime soon, and I will never "admit" that evolution is an unproven theory, because that would be an outright lie. You've won nothing.
You'd make a good lawyer, twisting my words to suit your purposes. I hate people who believe AND have to force their beliefs on everyone else; I'm not forcing you to "believe" in evolution, I'm telling you that it's true and there is nothing you can say that will make it otherwise. I have plenty of friends and family who "believe", I do not hate them because they believe.
But otherwise, your arguments are perfectly sound. I could say what I really think of you, but that would be crass of me.
Reply
Of course I understand how evolution works. I had to be spoon fed that crap in every scholastic institution I attended. Not to mention that my atheist friends tend to jump me in debates whenever they get the chance.
I'm going to go over the list of problems that you wrote concerning my original post. First, I never said that intelligent design was a viable scientific theory. I only expressed my skepticism in the theory of evolution. I have said in my former posts that even with evidence supporting the authenticity of the scriptures it still comes down to belief and faith, much like it comes down to your belief of people you never met before and how you hope that they were integral in their research. Second, I have never said that homosexuals seeking equal treatment was harmful. There are states that allow equal treatment in taxes where others don't. I am willing to support tax breaks for homosexuals who receive civil unions. I do NOT support the changing of the definition of marriage because that opens up a gate for new political debate that will force churches to marry homosexuals despite their stance on it. That is why. I believe in the old quote, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I won't deny them the free will to do what they please, but there is no way I'm giving them wiggle room to persecute churches frivolously when they are refused marriage ceremonies. Thirdly, evolution has NOT been proven. If it had been proven, there would be no debate. Either you got to get THAT through your skull and start helping them find something undeniable or just shut your mouth because you are starting to go around in circles.
I don't think there is anything drastically wrong with you. I am annoyed that you refuse to acknowledge that your opinion on evolution is largely based on belief and faith in others. I have admitted that any evidence I have is inconclusive and in the end it is based on faith, and that makes my perception a great deal wider than yours.
I worry because science is no longer pure. Science used to be the presentation of facts that could not be refuted. Instead, it is supported by evidence that is inconclusive and proves nothing. There are so many instances of hokey research where they try to prove evolution happened. Many times data is tampered with or researches look over HUGE gaping holes in their thesis just to get their point across. I can show you instances where evolutionary scams have been perpetrated if you wish. Science has become political and therefore has become untrustworthy. It has been more about establishing a zealous demagoguery than actually seeking out truth.
P.S. Your link is broken. I wasn't able to see it.
Reply
On that point, the fact that people weren’t allowed to form a religious based club in school is not really opposition to religious thinkers, it’s a legal issue for the school if anything. No matter what faith that club was based on, someone would have complained and it most likely would have escalated to a lawsuit. Also, the fact that the schools are state run facilities means that allowing a faith based club is thorny issue, and would be in breach of state laws. I’m not sure why that doesn’t apply to atheist clubs, as that has “thorny legal issue” written all over it, but that seems like another issue entirely.
And it seems the issue with the gay thing I went off on an entirely separate tangent, I apologize for that. I think that the marriage definition should be a little more ambiguous so that gay couples can marry, but I do not think that they should be allowed to press legal action on churches that refuse to marry them. It is a tricky issue to be sure, as marriage is a legal and religious recognizance, so the line between church and state is blurred. However, pressing legal action against churches for upholding their beliefs is as wrong as religious sorts trying to get gay rights legally limited BECAUSE of their beliefs. So no, they shouldn’t have any recourse to sue churches because the church is trying to uphold what they believe in, because if gay marriage is allowed, they have other options.
Thirdly, evolution has NOT been proven. If it had been proven, there would be no debate. You could say the same thing about Global Warming; it isn’t proven because there’s still a debate. All someone politically motivated has to do is sew the seeds of doubt, and the debate will rage until we all die from exhaustion. I’m actually wondering if you have something that can give some doubt to evolution. I mean, I could go in a lab, do a two generation experiment on bacteria with antibiotics, and create a resistant population and thus show that evolution happened in this population of bacteria. You can’t exactly disprove that.
And again, here we’re going to keep going in circles. I will never be dissuaded that evolution is just “a theory”, and you will obviously never be convinced of that. I think you have a very narrow world perspective because you think that evolution is just a matter of faith, you think the same of me because I don’t think it is, and neither one of us will ever be convinced otherwise. We could argue it until the end of time and it wouldn’t do a bit of good.
This is one thing that I have to agree on. A lot of politically motivated scientists have been doing incredibly crooked things; they fudge data, they outright lie, or they ignore crucial variables so their experiment reflects what they want it to. I don’t really need examples of evolutionary scams; the issue of antibacterial drugs in EVERYTHING is something I’m already very familiar with, for example. There’s a lot of financial gain for the scientist who can “prove” that triclosan (a common antibiotic in commercial products) does not cause bacterial populations to gain resistance to the drug by being in everything. It is unfortunately very political now, which is precisely why I would never go into research; there’s just too much treachery in it.
http://vampire-ninja.livejournal.com/258464.html#cutid1
Apparently, hyperlinks don't want to work today.
Reply
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
Reply
Now, it is easy to make people doubt things. It is quite another to disprove them all together. My reason for being skeptical of evolution is because of unanswered questions, vague definitions, and forgeries. Most likely you have heard about the Piltdown Man finding. If not, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man
The astonishing thing about this is that it took forty years to establish it as a fake and until then it was a marvel. I did not even know about the Archeorapter until I saw the link at the bottom (for further reading). If there can be this amount of deceit, can we not wonder how pure the motives of scientists can be? Just as Micheal said, people tend to believe what they hear. The headline in New York Times read "Darwin Theory is proved true" upon its discovery.
After that is the question of the Darwin finch which leads to my rebuttal on your assessment of anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Darwin theorized on his visit to the Galapogos that thirteen different species of finch (which are indigenious only to those islands) had developed from one bird and that there would be more variations in the future. However, after 170 plus years there are only thirteen of the same species of bird. The only noticeable difference was the size of their beaks which changed depending if there was a drought or not.
That is adaptation, which you may argue is evolution but I hold that it is not. The main reason for that is because new traits may surface for a brief time but then the subject eventually returns into what it used to be. Bacteria develop a resistance to antibiotics and viruses develop a resistance to antiviral medication, but nothing new is ever created. The adaptations are within very narrow margins of variability, which is the case I make for the bacteria example.
I am curious if the bacteria, is left alone for a certain time, will drop its resistance to antibiotics. In any case, I am capable of critical thinking. I just like to believe I think against the norm, which can be a good thing. There is a saying that goes: "Nobody can keep a golfer's score better than his opponent." That is why we cannot simply silence debate and assume it is set in stone. If we do, this stuff gets away from us.
Reply
Actually, I’ve heard of the Piltdown Man, but I never really knew what it was all about. Archaeoraptor is a new one for me. These are unfortunate examples of scientists trying to push their agendas by forging evidence. Piltdown Man's assembly strikes me as absolutely ludicrous: The skull of a man, the jaw of an orangutan, and the molars of a chimp. Really, scientists? You mean to say that years before any of those species existed, components of their heads were all mashed together in a freakish amalgamation? Really? Blimey. It also reflects poorly on the rest of the scientific community of the day, as the majority of them fell for it. The transitory fossils they’ve found that were real, other hominid life forms, those had skull forms that were similar to primates alive today, but they made sense. Piltdown Man, as they stated in the article, set us back decades.
Crichton’s article was very interesting indeed. And he’s completely right about global warming. A year or so ago, I would have qualified as a rabid environmentalist on this issue. Now, I don’t know who to believe. There is warming, there are dangers imminent, but it could be part of Earth’s natural cycles. The elevated CO2 from fossil fuel emissions is actually beneficial in a way; plant life can flourish, for example. And actually, the planet can regulate its own temperature: If enough of Greenland melts due to elevated temperatures, the cold water could disrupt the Atlantic current, stopping the flow of warm water to Europe, thus triggering an ice age. True issues are being pushed aside in favor of partisan rhetoric and finger pointing; issues like current health and population crises, resource consumption, etc.
The definition of evolution as given in my current textbook is “Change in allele frequency in a population over time.” This relates to frequency of genotypes and phenotypes; such as the beak size in Darwin’s finches. The adaptation you speak of is only one aspect of evolution; and because of fluctuating conditions on the island. This adaptation is not forward-looking, and it’s not really striving towards a perfect organism. Birds with one type of beak were more likely to survive depending on conditions, and this changed the frequency of beak traits back and forth many times in just a short period. I’m not sure why Darwin thought “new” variations would arise, as only the ones he found were really suited. I mean, there couldn’t be that many new factors introduced to the birds, especially on a cluster of isolated islands.
You bring up an interesting point about the antibacterial stuff. There are scientists right now who are trying to get people to stop using so many antibiotics because they theorize that we might be able to get the bacteria to evolve back to non-resistant populations, as they had before the introduction of penicillin, etc. The adaptations bacteria have to the antibiotics might not be as beneficial to them when no antibiotics are present. Take HIV for example. Some HIV viruses have a change in their RNA polymerase active site that prevents the anti-viral drug AZT from working. The non-resistant HIV will die off, but the AZT resistant HIV will continue about their course uninhibited. They have higher fitness in this case. Now, take away the AZT, and we’ve found that the non-resistant HIV have higher fitness. The idea is that the change in the active site is only beneficial in the presence of AZT, and with no AZT, the change is more obstructive than anything. So in that case, the population would have evolved back to a previous state, and evolution fundamentals account for that.
I’m confident in saying that the fundamentals of evolution are pretty much set in stone (Darwin’s four/five conditions), but the grand scheme of implications they entail will always be up for debate.
Reply
You know what? You actually seem like a pretty cool person. I really didn't mean to offend anybody when I posted that blog earlier. Just please know that I didn't mean to show any disrespect to anybody or to you. Those were just my thoughts and my opinions and I could have phrased them better. To your credit, when I clarified some points on what I meant you were quick to understand or apologize for any misconception. I guess what I'm saying is I am sorry for any offense and for some of the very rude things I said earlier. Please know that I only said some of those things because I lost my head.
I do have atheist friends and I keep them as my friends for a good reason. Although we have our disagreements, I still know they are good people and that they are honest in their convictions. I'm starting to sound like some syrupy Saturday morning cartoon, so I'll wrap it up.
I was totally against global warming and the belief in it, but now I wonder sometimes if I had been on the wrong side of it. I hope that I have enough honesty within me to acknowledge the truth of something if it is presented to me in such a way that I cannot deny it.
You bring up good points for my questions. I know that it can be unfair sometimes to demand so much evidence. I also admit that even if you managed to make a freakin' TIME MACHINE and showed the process to people first-hand there would STILL be people out there who would refuse it. XD It's just human nature to be stubborn sometimes. I may not still agree with you completely, but you did get me looking up stuff and got me thinking and that is always a good thing.
Another thing about the bacteria is I wonder if we are making ourselves weaker as well since we use antibiotics to fight our diseases instead of exercising what we have. Having all this anti-bacterial stuff probably isn't doing us that much good either. That's why I love the idea of vaccines.
Anyways, final thought: a person who can quote "Futurama" at the drop of a hat and who knows what "Okami" is couldn't possibly be a bad person. lolz XD
Take care.
Reply
"Evidently, you've never been in love!"
Reply
Leave a comment