Empire: Total War Heaven

Exactly what are we discussing here?

1. Dietrich? I think you may have started on a shaky road here but I can see that you will improve over time.

2. Presbytarianism? Dunno much about it other than one of my American friend belongs to it. Heresy in the eyes of Roman Catholicism.

3. Creationism? I strongly disagree on letting Creationism to be taught in school in USA. School IMO is not the place for supernatural ideas--unless it is you know, proven. Besides, it might offend many other students' religious beliefs. What parents teach at home though is none of my business.

[This message has been edited by el_bandito (edited 09-08-2009 @ 04:31 AM).]

Simply... beliefs! Anything from religion (or the lack thereof) to UFO's and bogfoot. Go crazy.


Heresy in the eyes of the Roman Catholics, indeed! :P

I can't help but smile, honestly. I'm sorry to say this, but I do not consider the Catholics to be true to the religion. For many reasons.


Aaaaand yes. Creationism taught in school conflicts with others ideas, but at the same time, evolution does as well, although it is not required that you believe in evolution. There are, I will say, Christians who believe that God may have used evolution to create man, though I myself am not one of those people.

Hmmm. Supernatural. I have to remind myself from time to time that it is... supernatural. When you see it the way I have, not many things can even be... supernatural.

I can't help but smile, honestly. I'm sorry to say this, but I do not consider the Catholics to be true to the religion. For many reasons.

The religion? I find it ridiculous to claim there is "one true" christian religion. From the very beginning of the christian church there have been various internal debates as to the content of the religion.

Dietrich, you may find this thread gets closed unless there is a specific topic of discussion here

But I think it would be interesting to have a civil debate about creationism.

I would be quite interested in whether you believe in creationism because of scientific principles, or because of faith based religious beliefs.

There would be no point debating faith based arguments, but if you feel there is substantial evidence in favour of creationism, I for one would be very open to listening to your points

if you feel there is substantial evidence in favour of creationism

There is. I cannot have come by accident. An immense and benevolent Divine power was necessary.

Dietrich, you may find this thread gets closed unless there is a specific topic of discussion here

Yep. See my above sentence for the need of a more constructive thread theme.

I would be quite interested in whether you believe in creationism because of scientific principles

I don't quite see what scientific principle could point towards creationism...

Well, the way each religion talked about the beginning of the world, and man etc...is more like Grandpa's tale over a nice cozy fire in a Mongolian summer, probably created centuries ago to explain the unexplainable (man's inherent nature) at the time. It fits more in line with superstitious legends than any sensible theory. I just wanna know which caveman (you do believe in cavemen, right?) first came up with the idea of a deity.

Granted, the way scientists explain the origin of the Big Bang kinda baffles me too, but that has more to do with my inadequate knowledge of physics and chemistry.

I will post more when I remember.

Quoted from el_Bandito:

Well, the way each religion talked about the beginning of the world, and man etc...is more like Grandpa's tale over a nice cozy fire in a Mongolian summer, probably created centuries ago to explain the unexplainable (man's inherent nature) at the time. It fits more in line with superstitious legends than any sensible theory. I just wanna know which caveman (you do believe in cavemen, right?) first came up with the idea of a deity.

I have a nice fireside story that explains this. I'll have to break loose some cobwebs to type it up and post it. I will try to do that shortly.

I don't quite see what scientific principle could point towards creationism...

Give the guy the benefit of the doubt - I'm interested in why he holds his beliefs, and whether they are reason or faith based. If they are based on reason, then it provides a basis for perhaps showing him some of the compelling reasons why creationism is a predominantly rejected theory in the scientific and wider world.

Remember, folks, don't go all 'heresy!' on people. Even if it's something you quite badly disagree with, keep the caps locks, shouting and especially ad hom down to zero. For starters, it's not the way to convince someone you're right, and second, the last thing is against the CoC But you're all very mature people, hopefully, so we won't have to worry, will we?

I think, Mr. DietrichStahl, we'd all like to hear your views on creationism as told in the Obama thread, in a clear and concise manner so that we may debate the merits of both theories.

For the record, I'm of Evolution, place bets on there being no God but don't actually give a damn, and had a Methodist upbringing. My mother is a strong Methodist but believes in Evolution, too. My father is a physicist, which leads to interesting dinner table discussions. Don't be surprised, though, if I attack arguments from both sides.

Also:

I can't help but smile, honestly. I'm sorry to say this, but I do not consider the Catholics to be true to the religion. For many reasons.

Is not a good way to open. Catholics will take offence. A better sentence will be "I appreciate what the Catholics believe, but I believe in x because y". Rounding off with 'many reasons' don't help

Oh, and the no. 1 rule is that everyone's entitled to my opinion, as I am the unbiased person who views both sides equally. Yep. Honest.

Give the guy the benefit of the doubt - I'm interested in why he holds his beliefs, and whether they are reason or faith based. If they are based on reason, then it provides a basis for perhaps showing him some of the compelling reasons why creationism is a predominantly rejected theory in the scientific and wider world.

Fair enough. As I said, personally I don't see how you could arrive at such a belief using reason, but as you said, let's hear the guy out.

I don't think that creationism should be taught in US schools. Or any schools, really, except those in mainly religious countries (I mean genuinely religious, not people saying they're Christian because they're western, or just because it makes them appear patriotic).

Then again, I don't think that the theory of evolution should be taught as the complete truth, either. There are still a few things that we don't know about it, and we know that the theory has changed before, so telling everyone that it is the truth and has been entirely proven is incorrect as much as it is counter-productive.

Anyway, my own beliefs? I don't usually think about anything other than politics, but occasionally I run into people's religious beliefs when I'm thinking about that. Personally, I wouldn't say that there isn't a god, or at least that there isn't what we now call the supernatural. When you look at the evidence for most of the famous ghost stories, or even just photographs on the Internet, you can never truly say that one side is correct.

Whilst evolution may have created everything since, who or what created the first thing on the planet that started evolution? And whilst there may be a lot of support for the Big Bang theory, there is still no explanation for how the claims that there was 'no space' could possibly be proven. How could something, no matter how small it is, fit into nothing?

I know Catholics who think that god created the world, and that only now are people beginning to find out how, or at least why, he did it. It's an interesting opinion, and, if we're honest about what we know and how we know it, we don't have a clue.

And mythical creatures? Well, if you look closely enough, the famous ones, like the Loch Ness monster, are the attempts of Saint Columbus to present himself as the saviour of the Picts from their pagan beliefs. Simple

[This message has been edited by Gallowglass (edited 09-08-2009 @ 05:16 PM).]

I don't think that creationism should be taught in US schools. Or any schools, really, except those in mainly religious countries (I mean genuinely religious, not people saying they're Christian because they're western, or just because it makes them appear patriotic).

What's wrong with it being taught in religion class?

I don't think that creationism should be taught in US schools.

Or any schools, really, except those in mainly religious countries (I mean genuinely religious, not people saying they're Christian because they're western, or just because it makes them appear patriotic).

So, by that following sentence, I'd say you're either implying American Christians list themselves as such for their own gains and aren't the real thing, or you don't mind Creationism being taught in the US because they fit the categories you've just listed.

Then again, I don't think that the theory of evolution should be taught as the complete truth, either. There are still a few things that we don't know about it, and we know that the theory has changed before, so telling everyone that it is the truth and has been entirely proven is incorrect as much as it is counter-productive.

A quick shout out to the British system, it's in textbooks that evolution is "the most likely theory we have at the moment", and even a bit on GCSE (thus compulsory) on the flaws of evolution, including the fossil record.
It's not more than half a page, but it still shows that it's not presented as the ultimate answer

What's wrong with it being taught in religion class?/q]
Quite. By definition, that's where it should go. Otherwise, we should have pastafarianism, Hinduism and Shinto given equal space in the science classroom. Do the creationists who want creationism to be taught consider this point of view that the other religions have equal footing in this regard?

Well, if you look closely enough, the famous ones, like the Loch Ness monster, are the attempts of Saint Columbus to present himself as the saviour of the Picts from their pagan beliefs. Simple

Bigfoot and the Yeti must have gotten around a lot is all I can say, as if you say 'mythical beast', that's the top 3.

Then again, I don't think that the theory of evolution should be taught as the complete truth, either. There are still a few things that we don't know about it, and we know that the theory has changed before, so telling everyone that it is the truth and has been entirely proven is incorrect as much as it is counter-productive.

Like EoJ says, biology textbooks I've used don't claim evolution to be the complete truth. However, that is just how science works- we very rarely get the "complete truth", just something that fits very very well. Say, for example, Newton's theory of gravity. Anyone claiming it's the "complete truth" doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone claiming it isn't good enough a theory to be taught in high-school should take some time to actually study the theory before making such a claim.

[This message has been edited by bdf101 (edited 09-08-2009 @ 06:49 PM).]

What's wrong with it being taught in religion class?

I tend to hope that when people say "it shouldn't be taught" they mean "shouldn't be taught as Science." Of course the fact that RE tends to be an absolute bollocks (and I don't mean the content itself) lesson may or may not be a problem.

Evolutionism should not be taught in schools either. There is no concrete proof for any theory of the origin of the universe/matter.

Rather, just teach the stuff that we can observe right now.

Rather, just teach the stuff that we can observe right now.

Still doesn't mean those subjects are any easier to take for the mind. Many of my American friends almost slashed their wrists over Calc.

Evolutionism should not be taught in schools either. There is no concrete proof for any theory of the origin of the universe/matter.

Rather, just teach the stuff that we can observe right now.

i guess students aren't going to be learning much anthropology then. or history, for that matter. or paleontology and related geologic studies.

more importantly, the modern study of biology is absolutely impossible without considering evolution.

as for the "evolution shouldn't be taught as an utter fact" crowd:

we're a hell of a lot more certain of evolution than we are about half the stuff that's taught in schools as a complete truth. How silly it is to think that textbooks/schools should go so far out of the way to proclaim that technically evolution isn't 100% proven. The reality is that anyone in the field of biology (or fields that rely on biology, such as paleontology, anthropology, etc) is absolutely certain that evolution is a fact. That evolution is considered "only the most likely theory we have at the moment" is sort of a relic of the ideal scientific mode of thought, but it's not reflective of the reality of the scientific community's attitude (for better or for worse).

Furthermore, to consistently apply this rationale would mean that every page of any scientific textbook would read "these theories aren't completely proven and are just the most likely we have at the moment." I don't think that that would be very productive at all, nor do I think the average pre-university student is well equipped to fully comprehend what is really meant by such a declaration of uncertainty. Either way it's a ridiculous compromise.

To echo Mete, evolution is one of our best proven theories. There is about as much evidence against evolution as there is against germ theory.

Remember, folks, don't go all 'heresy!' on people.

I know that "heretic" is technically an ad hominem, but its a fairly novel and interesting one. Can we please call people heretics? Or blasphemers? May I damn them to the pits of Hell, yea, so that they may suffer in righteous punishment for their sins?

Whoa! I stay awake thirty hours to write my first post of the Saxon Chronicles, take several hours to sleep, and come back here to find.... blamo!

Whoa!

Okay.

#1. Alright, lets start off with creationism. When we wear that out, we'll move on to other stuff.

[q=]The religion? I find it ridiculous to claim there is "one true" christian religion. From the very beginning of the christian church there have been various internal debates as to the content of the religion.By "the" religion, I meant christianity as a whole, not individual denominations. I find the idea of praying to the Virgin Mary ridiculous, as she is not the proper person to be praying to, for one. Another is that I do not like the things the medieval Catholic church did and do. It seems like Sixteen of the twelve apostles are buried in spain. How many splinters of of the true cross are there, anyways?

Just little things that don't add up quite right. Other denominations are quite alike, such as the Presbyterians and the Baptists, whose main quarrel is on the baptism of infants. That's my reason, anyways.

[q=]I just wanna know which caveman (you do believe in cavemen, right?) first came up with the idea of a deity.I vary. Cavemen have existed, though I do not think them to be what a lot of people think of them as.

I'll just say that what Glacier Girl says about there never being any concrete proof of the origin of the universe is true.

Edit: I think I got ahead of myself on that one.

Forget I said that. I'm going to go by short, simple facts. Found my notes!

Now I won't have to write half the bible to make a point.

Alright. Crusading fact #1:

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from ninliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

[This message has been edited by DietrichStahl (edited 09-09-2009 @ 01:38 AM).]

Well, theoretically the idea that life can come from non-life may be proven through experiments, but you might need to wait 10000000 years to see the result.

Diet, you can quote others using the BB Code left of the edit screen.

Cavemen have existed, though I do not think them to be what a lot of people think of them as.

Well, what do you think of the Cavemen?

[This message has been edited by el_bandito (edited 09-09-2009 @ 03:01 AM).]

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from ninliving matter) has never been observed.

This is untrue. There was an experiment in the Naturalis, the Dutch Natural History Museum where they have a bowl of various substances behind a window. The children can examine the contents of the bowl through a microscope. Then they can press buttons to add things to the bowl, such as chemicals and protoplasm, and examine the contents again. Then, when their soup is ready, they can press another button and examine the contents. That last button sends a jolt of electricity and synthetic sunlight through the soup.

One in twenty or so mixes result in a very basic lifeform being created, that is visible through the microscope.

Then you press the reset button, and the bowl centrifuges and puts the compounds back into their original containers for the next attempt.

That was a kid's experiment. And it created Life, albeit very primitive.

I've done it myself. Several times. Twice I got a life sign, four times not. But I am no god, even though I did create Life from Lifelessness.

But I am no god, even though I did create Life from Lifelessness.

But you are God, Terikel! Doesn't matter if it was a fluke, you still created life (DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNN!!!!), which might have evolved into beings more superior that us.

Who says God didn't create us by accident?

[This message has been edited by el_bandito (edited 09-09-2009 @ 04:32 AM).]

Quoted from el_Bandito:

which might have evolved into beings more superior that us.

Maybe, who knows what can happen in a few million years?

Unfortunately, I hit the Reset button to allow the next kid to start fresh.

Now we will never know.

Evolutionism should not be taught in schools either. There is no concrete proof for any theory of the origin of the universe/matter.

I know this has been said already, but I feel that it need reiterating that this statement is ridiculous. Evolution is the theor which currently best explains observations, and has been suported by large ammount of evidence (and as has already been pointed out, most of modern biology makes no sense without it). While it can never be proved to be true without any shadow of a doubt (indeed, no theory can), the large ammounts of evidence in its favour means that we can say that were pretty damn sure that it works, and that it is the best theory to explain the observations and evidence that we have. Saying that it shouldn't be taught is pretty much like saying that gravitation or the model of the atom shouldn't be taght, because similarly they can't be proved to be true without an shadow of a doubt.