|
Post by PTH on Sept 6, 2005 22:14:54 GMT -5
I'm thinking of signing up. Seriously. www.venganza.org/index.htm-------------- OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith. Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t. You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Sincerely Yours, Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen. P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 6, 2005 22:37:31 GMT -5
Spiritually vapid and scientifically inaccurate. Might be something Bush or evolutionists could both get behind. * The central character of this tale is one George Leroy Tirebiter, in all his incarnations, factual and fictional—a sort of Mr. Here Comes Everybody like HCE(arwicker) in Joyce's Finnegan's Wake.
Tirebiter is asleep as the record fades in on his television, which is featuring a classically Los Angelan revival service. Waking up hungry (perhaps because of the revival—which is centered around food, an apparently scarce commodity in the nightmare world that is about to unfold), he checks out the refrigerator, finding only some Laughing Cow cheese and some mescaline. This is hardly promising, so he calls a pizza joint, but they won't deliver in his sector after curfew (sector? curfew??). His attention drifts back to the television. The preacher is in the midst of handing out food to the faithful, and George, upon asking, gets some too. On comes the news: The U.S. Government has merged with TMZ General Corp., manufacturers of zinc bushings. Who needs that? George switches around the various channels. George Tirebiter, running for office. George Tirebiter, star of the "Porgie and Mudhead" movies, now an old man, is on a quiz show. Ahhh, an old movie. It's "High School Madness!" a Paranoid Pictures production, one of the old Porgie and Mudhead series. (Incidentally, this sequence is loosely based on an old forgotten classic series, the Henry Aldrich movies, which portrayed the "typical teens" of the Forties.)
"High School Madness!" Porgie is going to graduate from high school today, and his mother is cooking up some groatcakes for breakfast. His father, who has recently changed his name to Adolph, is busily wolfing down his breakfast so he can get back to defoliating his Victory Garden. "Don't eat with your hands, son, use your entrenching tool!" "Aw, gee, Dad. It's not every day a guy graduates from high school!" "(chuckle) How many times have I heard that before?" But, whoops, it's too late for breakfast—Porgie's buddy Mudhead is outside in his car, ready to go. On the way to school, they wonder about what they'll do after graduation. Porgie says, "With counter-subversive educational priorities the way they are today, it really helps our side to re-enlist." There is a flashback to a pep (pill) rally where the principal of More Science High is about to speak. And speak he does, in some of the most ringing phrases since Eisenhower, despite harassment from a bunch of Chicanos in the back, who keep yelling out silly things like "Eat it raw" and "ExtraLOVE you," and "What is reality?" (Of course, they've appeared briefly earlier, in the revival scene, demanding more sugar. Damn Mexicans, all they do is cause trouble.) Fade back in on Porgie and Mudhead. There is a screech of brakes. "Where are ya gonna graduate from?" asks Mudhead. "Holy Mudhead, Mackerel! More Science High, it's, it's disappeared!"
Fwwwzzzzzip. (pause) Tadah!
intermission
After some technical difficulties at the station get ironed out, the movie continues: Bottles, Mudhead's crazy, hopped-up girlfriend knows where the high school went. It was stolen by "those bullies at Commie Martyrs High School" as a senior prank. Porgie dismisses this as nonsense, and suddenly there is a crowd of students, mostly Mexicans, around the car. "You're a white man, Porgie. Whaddya think we oughta do?" ("Speak English, Alvarado," one of his buddies says, trying to help.) The principal, it seems, is on the radio. He urges them to stay calm, adding that their welfare and insecurity will be assured by the Department of Redundancy Department. "Now, don't get excited," says Porgie. ("Who's excited?" asks a Mexican voice from the back).
The video portion goes out. Switching of channels. Another old flick, this one seemingly set in the Korean War. Pico and Alvarado have been out on patrol for a long time. Silverberg won't go over Pork Chop Hill—killing pigs ain't kosher, he says. Lt. Tirebiter tries to keep morale up. Something's moving in Sector N. Quick, the password. "I'd better disguise my voice," and, in a WWII propaganda-film Japanese voice: "You so smaht, who wunna Seconda Wulda Wah?" The correct answer, "Not responsible," comes back. It's them. They're bushed—they've been shooting reds and yellows all day. But the gooks are around them on three sides. They've got women, children, animals, and tonight they'll all be out in the paddies because it's the planting moon. The lieutenant outlines the plan, finishing up with "Then we'll lock and load and go out there and ki-, ki-, ki- . . ." "Hey, what're we gonna do, lieutenant?" "We're gonna go out there and ki-, ki-, ki- ..." The voices mount in a crescendo, and we hear one voice yelling "Porgie, Porgie, Porgie!"/Commercial. Switching channels, and there are Porgie and Mudhead, at Communist Martyrs High School. It's dark inside, and suddenly there's Bottles, inside with them. She goes in a door with a flashing red light (after they encounter yet another Mexican), and there, broken up in pieces, each of which is labelled, is More Science High. Not only that, but there is Mr. Tirebiter, People's Commissioner Tirebiter now that he's won the election for dogkiller. And there is Porgie, with his hand in Bottles' pants!
"Oyez, oyez, all rise for the courtroom scene, take one." "I'd like to take one, too," admits Porgie, on trial now for his crime. His father is both defense and prosecution, to make sure he is persecuted to the full extent of the law. "That's my dad!" says Porgie proudly. And Mudhead is called to the stand—"That one over there," says Mr. Tirebiter (and there's Alvarado—"Don't point at me, Daddy-o; I'll cut off yer finger.").
And suddenly (are you still with me?) we're in Lt. Tirebiter's court-martial. "Sir, you never told me I'd have to go out there and kill anybody." "... We will not tolerate the use of prohibited language in these courts-martials ..."
And back to Porgie's trial. Mudhead defends Porgie for being in Commie Martyrs, because he was looking for his high school—otherwise he couldn't get out. "So he was trying to get out?" "Isn't everybody?" "GET OUT in times of declared emergency ..." Porgie: "What emergency?" Prosecutor: "You see, judge, Youth here apparently doesn't know about the disappearance of the old school!" "But that's what Porgie was looking for!"
And to the court-martial. Tirebiter, in a rage, chews out the judge and announces that he's walking off the set! "You'll never work in this town again, Tirebiter" thunders the judge. And his agent goes out the door to try and get him to come back.
And to Porgie's trial. Porgie admits that he doesn't have any friends at Commie Martyrs. In fact, nobody's ever seen anybody from there. And now there's no room because it's all filled up with More Science, (You may now ask yourself: How can you be in two places at once when you're not anyplace at all?) And the kids, it develops, are all in Korea. And Porgie discovers he's been lied to. "Say," he asks, "whose movie is this?" "This is no movie, this is real."
Lt. Tirebiter asks, "Which reel?"
And with his sage advice ...
I can say no more....- www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/album.php?album=dctd
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Sept 6, 2005 22:45:14 GMT -5
guts are aching from laughter!
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 7, 2005 6:42:47 GMT -5
There are so many creation theories available . . . I see you have found the Italian one. Perspective, perception, and preconception are everything in the creation discussion. Social Darwinism posits “there was nothing; then there was something; and out of the primordial soup came all that there now is”. ID posits “there was nothing but a something (let’s call it ‘God’) that in creative and imaginative process at the very least began something that became all that there now is or gave direction to the something that it became all that there now is”. Some believe one way; some another. It speaks of elitism and an intellectual superiority complex to disparage a belief system. Starts to sound like Don Cherry and Guy Lafleur talking about European hockey.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 7, 2005 6:49:57 GMT -5
Alternate (original?) creation story: When there was no heaven, no earth, no height, no depth, no name, when Apsu was alone, the sweet water, the first begetter;
and Tiamat the bitter water, and that return to the womb, her Mummu, when there were no gods- When sweet and bitter mingled together, no reed was plaited no rushes muddied the water, the gods were nameless, natureless, futureless,
then from Apsu and Tiamat in the waters gods were created,
in the waters silt precipitated,
Lahmu and Lahumu, were named; they were not yet old not yet grown tall
when Anshar and Kishar overtook them both, (ie born after)
the lines of sky and earth stretched where horizons meet to separate cloud from silt.
Days on days, years on year passed till Anu, the empty heaven, heir and supplanter, first-born of his father, in his own nature
begot Nudimmud-Ea, intellect, wisdom, wider than heaven's horizon, the strongest of all the kindred.
Discord broke out among the gods although they were brothers,
warring and jarring in the belly of Tiamat, heaven shook,
it reeled with the surge of the dance;
Apsu could not silence the clamour, their behavior was bad, overbearing and proud.
But still Tiamat lay inert till Apsu, the father of gods, bellowed for that servant who clouds his judgment, his Mummu,
'Dear counselor, come with me to Tiamat.'
They have gone, and in front of Tiamat they sit down and talk together about the young gods, their first-born children; Apsu said,
'Their manners revolt me, day and night without remission we suffer. My will is to destroy them, all of their kind, we shall have peace at last and we will sleep again.'
When Tiamat heard she was stung, she writhed in lonely desolation, her heart worked in secret passion, Tiamat said, 'Why must we destroy the children that we made? If their ways are troublesome, let us wait a little while.'
Then Mummu advised Apsu, and he spoke in malice, 'Father, destroy them in full rebellion, you will have quiet in the daytime and at night you will sleep.'
When Apsu heard, the die was cast against his children, his face flamed with the pleasure of evil; but Mummu her embraced, he hung on his neck, he sat him down on his knees and kissed him.
The decision was known to all their children; confusion seized them and after, a great silence, for they were confounded. ........... The god who is the source of wisdom, the bright intelligence that perceives and plans,
Nudimmud-Ea, saw through it,
he sounded the coil of chaos, and against it devised the artifice of the universe. He spoke the word that charmed the waters, it fell upon Apsu, he lay asleep, the sweet waters slept, Apsu slept, Mummu was overcome, Apsu lay drowned, undone.Babylonian Creation epic
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 8, 2005 0:04:24 GMT -5
Oh boy, here we go again.......
I will never buy into the creationist theory until the big guy comes downs and kicks my ass (if he exists). The only thing that can shake me from my unbending evolutionist belief is.......what was there before the big bang? Actually the bigger question is: What or where was the beginning?
Just to "look smart", I will start a thread about it!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 11, 2005 13:22:18 GMT -5
Oh boy, here we go again....... I will never buy into the creationist theory until the big guy comes downs and kicks my ass (if he exists). The only thing that can shake me from my unbending evolutionist belief is.......what was there before the big bang? Actually the bigger question is: What or where was the beginning? Just to "look smart", I will start a thread about it! I think a fundamental point is bing missed here. While it is true that there are "crationsists", who do, against all evidence and reason hold that the Old Testament of the Bible provides a literal and scientific account of the origin of the universe, and while it may be true that there is some crossover of this group to the "Intellignet Design " camp, it is my belief that this scientifically challenged and literalist group is not what Intelligent Design is about. You are, as am along with almost all the world's population probably what could easily be described as an Intelligent Design proponent. Intellligent design proponents emphatically do NOT ignore the very old ideas (long before Darwin...he did not invent the idea at all) underlying evolutionary theory broadly understood. This despite the fact as Franko pointed our in an earlier post. no evolutionary theory yet has fully provided a satisfactoy proof or evidence for its full claims. Dr. Stanley Jaki has written very informatively on this issue. Incidentally, he (Jaki) does accept the not scientifically proven claims of evolutionary theorists, but, oddly enough, he does so on the basis of primarily theological and subsequent philosophical grounds. The science is indicative and highly suggestive of the claims made, but the full claims of evolutionary theory do not in fact have rigorous scientific evidence proving the claims. The real point I am trying to make is that Intelligent Designists, are a mixed lot. There are some who believe that Intelligent Design is proven by the scientific evidence. ((Jaki (and I incidentally( are not in this camp) ). Most however, as best I can tell are very rightly taking exception to those who would use general evolutionary science, the "how" of creation as if it were to promote atheim and intellectual materialism; a dumb idea from the late 19th century in my opinion. Most folk, as is tue throughout human history and myself included, and probably you too, believe that there simply must be something stunningly creative and intelligent behing this stunningly beautiful and magnificent reality of our universe. While some Intelligent Design proponents may think the evidence supports an absolute proof, like the traditional theistic arguments from design, most simply hold that there most certainly is a very, very strong case not to accept a blindly incompetent atheistic philosophical dogma along with the merely scientific data. The vast preponderance of theists have no argument with science which is itself very largely a work of Christain Europe. The Intelligent Design hypothesis is I repeat what most of us commonly assume without much thinking about it. It is probabilistic, not deductive like Aistotle's and Aquinas' "fina cause" arguments which I accept as sound arguments. Intelligent Design does not as Jaki states, PROVE the existence of God as cosmological arguments do, but they do in fact make very plausible cases against blindly accepting as somehow proven which it is absolutely not, that atheistic materialism is the position of reason. It is in fact an unreasonable position dogmatically held by some with the tenacity matching biblical literalists, and equally without sufficient foundation. Partial truths are expounded as whole truths which is not the proper use of our intelligently designed brains and minds. No merely scintific theory from dogmatic atheistic evolutionists or dogmatic theistic evolutionsists can substantiate any theory on the question of the existence or non-existence of God. But this stunning universe very plausibly suggests a Designer who can be sought and found or ignored in philosophical metaphysical argument and religion.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 12, 2005 8:39:51 GMT -5
In the beginning there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Filed: 11/09/2005) In recent weeks, a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools has become the world's fastest growing 'religion'. The Noodly Saviour looked at the furore He had created and pronounced it good, writes James Langton.
For a growing band of devoted followers, He is the Supreme Being; creator of the universe and all living things. To the rest of us, the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like a giant heap of pasta and meatballs topped with eyeballs on stalks. As it turns out, both interpretations are correct. the Pastafarians
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 12, 2005 19:58:37 GMT -5
In the beginning there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Filed: 11/09/2005) In recent weeks, a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools has become the world's fastest growing 'religion'. The Noodly Saviour looked at the furore He had created and pronounced it good, writes James Langton.
For a growing band of devoted followers, He is the Supreme Being; creator of the universe and all living things. To the rest of us, the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like a giant heap of pasta and meatballs topped with eyeballs on stalks. As it turns out, both interpretations are correct. the Pastafarians Ya gotta like the art. Creationists were begging for it.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 12, 2005 21:24:01 GMT -5
no evolutionary theory yet has fully provided a satisfactoy proof or evidence for its full claims. Dr. Stanley Jaki has written very informatively on this issue. Incidentally, he (Jaki) does accept the not scientifically proven claims of evolutionary theorists, but, oddly enough, he does so on the basis of primarily theological and subsequent philosophical grounds. The science is indicative and highly suggestive of the claims made, but the full claims of evolutionary theory do not in fact have rigorous scientific evidence proving the claims. Still, an incomplete theory with some gaps (which could plausibly be filled) is to me about a billion times more credible than any theory based on just about no solid facts... To me, accepting by "faith" that science will fill the gaps isn't a huge leap; putting the science entirely aside would be on such leap though.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 13, 2005 8:40:22 GMT -5
no evolutionary theory yet has fully provided a satisfactoy proof or evidence for its full claims. Dr. Stanley Jaki has written very informatively on this issue. Incidentally, he (Jaki) does accept the not scientifically proven claims of evolutionary theorists, but, oddly enough, he does so on the basis of primarily theological and subsequent philosophical grounds. The science is indicative and highly suggestive of the claims made, but the full claims of evolutionary theory do not in fact have rigorous scientific evidence proving the claims. Still, an incomplete theory with some gaps (which could plausibly be filled) is to me about a billion times more credible than any theory based on just about no solid facts... To me, accepting by "faith" that science will fill the gaps isn't a huge leap; putting the science entirely aside would be on such leap though. What is missing in the theory of evolutionary science is I gather fundamental insofar as they lack evidence in support of fundamental claims. That is a serious lack, but I agree fully that the "creationist" nonsense which is different from the Intelligent Design position and the philosophical proofs for the existence of God, almost completely ignores the excellent contributions of science to the questions. That approach to knowledge has long been known as fideism. No major religious body adopts that irrational view. That said, a common fallacy in the secular imagination is that there is some inherent conflict between religious thought and scientific thought. My point to this thread is that along with anti-rational creationists, there are also agressive atheistic dogmatists who try to misuse science for their agenda. Most of the great seminal thinkers in the development of science which occurred in the west were not atheists at all. The western belief in a natural world designed by god with purpose and ultimate intelligibility was basic to the development of science, and that is why it is a stunning acheivement of our history.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 13, 2005 10:42:48 GMT -5
OK. Who are the other 16 pirates? I was feeling so alone for the longest while, now there is hope.
Creationism is based on the Bible. The Bible was written by man. It is human nature to exaggerate events and numbers. The Bible can not be held as a true account of anything.
Evolution has a flaw in which it can not explain the beginning. This flaw was quickly jumped on by creationists, who devotely opposed evolution, but as soon as their was a chink in the theory they now say "Sure evolution is correct, but so is creationism because God began it all". To me the swinging pendulum of the church shows a lack of faith in their own theory ..... science hypthesizes and then tries to prove or disprove the theory. Creationism holds on to faith, which shouldn't change (faith is faith afterall), but alas the theory of creationism has changed so much over the years ..... first is was Adam and Eve, then they changed the timeline in the Bible (apparently God's six days might be longer than our 6 days), then all that incest in the Bible was metaphorical, (I mean if you aren't allowed to covet thy neighbour's wife, try explaining covetting your father's??).
No matter what science proves, creationists will also ask "but what caused that" .... it is impossible to end the circle.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 13, 2005 10:54:51 GMT -5
But the same argument can be made for science. First the world was flat, then it was round, then it was flat again for certain societies, now its round again. Man used to live with dinosaurs, then he didn’t. Man descended from apes in a straight, linear fashion, now there are various “branches” of human evolution. Science challenges its beliefs, and rightly so, and so do religions.
There is nothing wrong with modifying one’s “faith.” In fact, its healthy, and dare I say, necessary. Otherwise you become dogmatic, or worse, fundamentalist. That the Church – or religions in general – adapt their theories/faiths based on scientific evidence is not only good, but praiseworthy.
As for causality, “beginning” and “end” are human concepts. We tend to think they are “real” and even “necessary” because that’s the world we live in, and the physics we have learned. But that doesn’t necessarily make it true. Einstein, and quantum physics in general, hypothesize that “linear” time doesn’t really exist – that is to say that things must have a beginning, a middle and an end, and never the three shall meet. They suggest that time is more “flat”, that all time exists at the same time, if you will. That what “happened” two hundred (or two million) years ago, is actually “happening” right now, just on some different plane. Which, according to them, would make time travel possible. Theoretically anyways.
What does that mean for the “god” argument? Don’t know. Could be used either way, I guess. But the quest for “the beginning of the universe and/or god” may not be a relevant one, if time itself is meaningless. There doesn’t have to be a “beginning” because “beginnings” are human concepts, which may or may not have a bearing on the “real” physical world. We think that beginnings and ends are real, because we watch people being born, living, and dying, but in the grand scheme of the cosmos, maybe beginnings and endings don’t really exist. Religion is based on this concept (the after life, or even re-incarnation, in which people don’t stop existing, they simply exist somewhere else), and apparently quantum physics at least hints at the same theoretical concept.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 13, 2005 11:22:33 GMT -5
I no longer believe that nothing can be created nor destroyed.
ibid. John Ferguson Jr., Rejean Houle, Bob Goodenow argument for destroyed. Bob Gainey argument for resurected. Montreal Expos argument for created and destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 13, 2005 11:30:51 GMT -5
The Cycle of Ages:The Cyclic Time Concept of the Vedas(by Raja Vidya das ) Linear Versus Cyclic Time The modern historical scientists' linear concept of time strikingly resembles the traditional Judaeo-Christian concept, and it strikingly differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Indians. The cosmological ideas of several prominent Greek thinkers included a cyclic or episodic time similar to that found in the Vedic literature of India. For example, we find in Hesiod's Works and Days a series of ages (gold, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron) similar to the Indian yugas (ages). In both systems the quality of human life becomes progressively worse with each passing age. In On Nature, Empedocles speaks of cosmic time cycles. In Plato's dialogues, there are descriptions of revolving time and recurring catastrophes destroying or nearly destroying human civilization. Aristotle said often in his works that the arts and sciences had been discovered many times in the past. In the teachings of Plato, Pythagoras, and Empedocles on the transmigration of the soul, the cyclical pattern extends to individual psycho-physical existence. When Judaeo-Christian civilization arose in Europe, another understanding of time became prominent -- time going forward in a straight line. Broadly speaking, this concept of time involves a unique act of cosmic creation, a unique appearance of human beings, and a unique history of salvation, culminating in a unique denouement, the last judgment. The drama occurs only once. Individually, the life of a human being mirrors this process; so, with some exceptions, orthodox Christian theologians rejected transmigration of the soul. Modern historical sciences share the basic Judaeo-Christian assumptions about time. The universe we inhabit is a unique occurrence: Humans arose once on this planet; the history of our ancestors followed a unique though unpredestined evolutionary pathway; and the collapse of the "Big Bang" universe will bring everything to a close. One is tempted to propose that the modern account of human evolution is a Judaeo-Christian heresy that covertly retains fundamental structures of Judaeo-Christian cosmology, eschatology, and salvation history while overtly dispensing with the scriptural account of divine intervention in the origin of species, including our own. The Vedic Calculation of Time: The Vedic concept of time is cyclic, rotating in cycles of four yugas: Satya-yuga: 1,728,000 human years Treta-yuga: 1,296,000 human years Dvapara-yuga: 864,000 human years Kali-yuga: 432,000 human years This yuga cycle totaling 4.32 million years is also called a maha- or divya-yuga. One thousand such cycles, 4.32 billion years, make up one day of Lord Brahma, the demigod who governs the universe. Such a day of Brahma is called a kalpa. Each of Brahma's nights lasts as long as his day. Life is manifest on earth only during the day of Brahma. With the onset of Brahma's night, the entire universe is devastated and plunged into darkness. When another day of Brahma begins, life again becomes manifest. - www.hknet.org.nz/cycleOages.html* Everything You Know is Wrong
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 13, 2005 12:39:53 GMT -5
The Cycle of Ages:The Cyclic Time Concept of the Vedas(by Raja Vidya das ) Linear Versus Cyclic Time The modern historical scientists' linear concept of time strikingly resembles the traditional Judaeo-Christian concept, and it strikingly differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Indians. The cosmological ideas of several prominent Greek thinkers included a cyclic or episodic time similar to that found in the Vedic literature of India. For example, we find in Hesiod's Works and Days a series of ages (gold, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron) similar to the Indian yugas (ages). In both systems the quality of human life becomes progressively worse with each passing age. In On Nature, Empedocles speaks of cosmic time cycles. In Plato's dialogues, there are descriptions of revolving time and recurring catastrophes destroying or nearly destroying human civilization. Aristotle said often in his works that the arts and sciences had been discovered many times in the past. In the teachings of Plato, Pythagoras, and Empedocles on the transmigration of the soul, the cyclical pattern extends to individual psycho-physical existence. When Judaeo-Christian civilization arose in Europe, another understanding of time became prominent -- time going forward in a straight line. Broadly speaking, this concept of time involves a unique act of cosmic creation, a unique appearance of human beings, and a unique history of salvation, culminating in a unique denouement, the last judgment. The drama occurs only once. Individually, the life of a human being mirrors this process; so, with some exceptions, orthodox Christian theologians rejected transmigration of the soul. Modern historical sciences share the basic Judaeo-Christian assumptions about time. The universe we inhabit is a unique occurrence: Humans arose once on this planet; the history of our ancestors followed a unique though unpredestined evolutionary pathway; and the collapse of the "Big Bang" universe will bring everything to a close. One is tempted to propose that the modern account of human evolution is a Judaeo-Christian heresy that covertly retains fundamental structures of Judaeo-Christian cosmology, eschatology, and salvation history while overtly dispensing with the scriptural account of divine intervention in the origin of species, including our own. The Vedic Calculation of Time: The Vedic concept of time is cyclic, rotating in cycles of four yugas: Satya-yuga: 1,728,000 human years Treta-yuga: 1,296,000 human years Dvapara-yuga: 864,000 human years Kali-yuga: 432,000 human years This yuga cycle totaling 4.32 million years is also called a maha- or divya-yuga. One thousand such cycles, 4.32 billion years, make up one day of Lord Brahma, the demigod who governs the universe. Such a day of Brahma is called a kalpa. Each of Brahma's nights lasts as long as his day. Life is manifest on earth only during the day of Brahma. With the onset of Brahma's night, the entire universe is devastated and plunged into darkness. When another day of Brahma begins, life again becomes manifest. - www.hknet.org.nz/cycleOages.html* Everything You Know is Wrong Great post! So, now I know everything I knew I knew is now known to be not known. But you knew that.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 13, 2005 12:52:43 GMT -5
The Cycle of Ages:The Cyclic Time Concept of the Vedas(by Raja Vidya das ) Linear Versus Cyclic Time The modern historical scientists' linear concept of time strikingly resembles the traditional Judaeo-Christian concept, and it strikingly differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Indians. The cosmological ideas of several prominent Greek thinkers included a cyclic or episodic time similar to that found in the Vedic literature of India. For example, we find in Hesiod's Works and Days a series of ages (gold, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron) similar to the Indian yugas (ages). In both systems the quality of human life becomes progressively worse with each passing age. In On Nature, Empedocles speaks of cosmic time cycles. In Plato's dialogues, there are descriptions of revolving time and recurring catastrophes destroying or nearly destroying human civilization. Aristotle said often in his works that the arts and sciences had been discovered many times in the past. In the teachings of Plato, Pythagoras, and Empedocles on the transmigration of the soul, the cyclical pattern extends to individual psycho-physical existence. When Judaeo-Christian civilization arose in Europe, another understanding of time became prominent -- time going forward in a straight line. Broadly speaking, this concept of time involves a unique act of cosmic creation, a unique appearance of human beings, and a unique history of salvation, culminating in a unique denouement, the last judgment. The drama occurs only once. Individually, the life of a human being mirrors this process; so, with some exceptions, orthodox Christian theologians rejected transmigration of the soul. Modern historical sciences share the basic Judaeo-Christian assumptions about time. The universe we inhabit is a unique occurrence: Humans arose once on this planet; the history of our ancestors followed a unique though unpredestined evolutionary pathway; and the collapse of the "Big Bang" universe will bring everything to a close. One is tempted to propose that the modern account of human evolution is a Judaeo-Christian heresy that covertly retains fundamental structures of Judaeo-Christian cosmology, eschatology, and salvation history while overtly dispensing with the scriptural account of divine intervention in the origin of species, including our own. The Vedic Calculation of Time: The Vedic concept of time is cyclic, rotating in cycles of four yugas: Satya-yuga: 1,728,000 human years Treta-yuga: 1,296,000 human years Dvapara-yuga: 864,000 human years Kali-yuga: 432,000 human years This yuga cycle totaling 4.32 million years is also called a maha- or divya-yuga. One thousand such cycles, 4.32 billion years, make up one day of Lord Brahma, the demigod who governs the universe. Such a day of Brahma is called a kalpa. Each of Brahma's nights lasts as long as his day. Life is manifest on earth only during the day of Brahma. With the onset of Brahma's night, the entire universe is devastated and plunged into darkness. When another day of Brahma begins, life again becomes manifest. - www.hknet.org.nz/cycleOages.html* Everything You Know is Wrong While I hope to read your post more carefully and thoughtfully later, the following excerpted bit certainly agrees at the pivotal role of the Christain theological and philosophical atmosphere "Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. ....The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. " www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 13, 2005 18:19:46 GMT -5
But the same argument can be made for science. First the world was flat, then it was round, then it was flat again for certain societies, now its round again. Man used to live with dinosaurs, then he didn’t. Man descended from apes in a straight, linear fashion, now there are various “branches” of human evolution. Science challenges its beliefs, and rightly so, and so do religions. There is nothing wrong with modifying one’s “faith.” In fact, its healthy, and dare I say, necessary. Otherwise you become dogmatic, or worse, fundamentalist. That the Church – or religions in general – adapt their theories/faiths based on scientific evidence is not only good, but praiseworthy. As for causality, “beginning” and “end” are human concepts. We tend to think they are “real” and even “necessary” because that’s the world we live in, and the physics we have learned. But that doesn’t necessarily make it true. Einstein, and quantum physics in general, hypothesize that “linear” time doesn’t really exist – that is to say that things must have a beginning, a middle and an end, and never the three shall meet. They suggest that time is more “flat”, that all time exists at the same time, if you will. That what “happened” two hundred (or two million) years ago, is actually “happening” right now, just on some different plane. Which, according to them, would make time travel possible. Theoretically anyways. What does that mean for the “god” argument? Don’t know. Could be used either way, I guess. But the quest for “the beginning of the universe and/or god” may not be a relevant one, if time itself is meaningless. There doesn’t have to be a “beginning” because “beginnings” are human concepts, which may or may not have a bearing on the “real” physical world. We think that beginnings and ends are real, because we watch people being born, living, and dying, but in the grand scheme of the cosmos, maybe beginnings and endings don’t really exist. Religion is based on this concept (the after life, or even re-incarnation, in which people don’t stop existing, they simply exist somewhere else), and apparently quantum physics at least hints at the same theoretical concept. This has to be a first, but I agree with practically everything you said there. I would only argue that science did not think the world was flat, science hypothesized it was flat and then scientists proved this to be wrong. The church in fact were promoters of this flat world, and many scientist were killed by the church for promoting the theory of a "non-flat" world. When I say faith should be stagnate, I mean you either believe or you don't believe. Faith is faith afterall .... by definition it is something which doesn't need to be proven. This is not a luxury (or a hardship depending on your viewpoint) of science. Science by definition requires proof. If you believe in the Bible. Then you believe in Adam and Eve? Maybe, some do and that is who I question. I will say that I do find it plausible for someone to believe in the teachings of the Bible (as a fancy version of Aesop's fable's) without taking the Bible literally. I also see the concept of time as flat. But I don't believe is time travel where you see solid matter 20 years ago. Theoretically, if man could travel faster than the speed of light then he could see "visions" of what he saw in the past, since you are travelling faster than the light that reflected of you eye. I don't see how that could be solid matter that you can interact with , but Hawking and Einstein are smarter thanme so I defer to them.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 13, 2005 23:11:45 GMT -5
No matter what science proves, creationists will also ask "but what caused that" .... it is impossible to end the circle. Circular arguments are wonderful! ;D Judeao-Christian creationism is based on the Bible. Other faiths have their own creation stories. Some would say inspired by god. Anything? You must give some credence to the histories included within. I would only argue that science did not think the world was flat, science hypothesized it was flat and then scientists proved this to be wrong. Playing with semantics here, but scient ists were the hypothesizers . . . mere mortals attempting to do what theologians were: trying to understand their universe. Without quoting all that has been written . . . My understanding is that the Hebrew does not necessarily mean that creation's six days were 24 hours long, and that "Adam" is generic for "man" (as in "mankind", though I'm not sure what that means for an Adam and Eve). I've often wondered about Java man, Peking man, and whatever man is now considered first. It seems that going back in the evolutionary time-table one must find a first man and first woman to begin the race . . . or did many like beings appear at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 14, 2005 0:01:04 GMT -5
In the beginning there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Filed: 11/09/2005) In recent weeks, a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools has become the world's fastest growing 'religion'. The Noodly Saviour looked at the furore He had created and pronounced it good, writes James Langton.
For a growing band of devoted followers, He is the Supreme Being; creator of the universe and all living things. To the rest of us, the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like a giant heap of pasta and meatballs topped with eyeballs on stalks. As it turns out, both interpretations are correct. the Pastafarians Beautiful artwork! Not positive if god or God or GOD exists of not, but there are too many tentacles to be relaxing naked with an exposed tentacle, small as it is. I will admit there is a God when Locke scores 70 goals in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 14, 2005 6:37:04 GMT -5
I've often wondered about Java man...
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 14, 2005 7:07:53 GMT -5
Cool it, man
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 14, 2005 7:11:01 GMT -5
Cool it, man I believe that would be the missing link, Daddio.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 14, 2005 10:53:47 GMT -5
In the beginning there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Filed: 11/09/2005) In recent weeks, a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools has become the world's fastest growing 'religion'. The Noodly Saviour looked at the furore He had created and pronounced it good, writes James Langton.
For a growing band of devoted followers, He is the Supreme Being; creator of the universe and all living things. To the rest of us, the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like a giant heap of pasta and meatballs topped with eyeballs on stalks. As it turns out, both interpretations are correct. the Pastafarians Beautiful artwork! Not positive if god or God or GOD exists of not, but there are too many tentacles to be relaxing naked with an exposed tentacle, small as it is. I will admit there is a God when Locke scores 70 goals in the NHL. All significant theologians unreservedly agree that God is a Habs fan.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 14, 2005 14:26:13 GMT -5
Did Toronto make a deal with the Devil when they signed the contract next to the signature of Bonnie Lindros?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 14, 2005 18:03:04 GMT -5
Anything? You must give some credence to the histories included within. I have great respect for people who have faith. I have 2 great friends of faith who I discuss stuff like this on when we get together. They don't agree with me but I feel in some regards they respect my point of view, since I have read the Bible, and I have attended Bible study (well when I was 11 until 13, but that counts ). As much as they have managed to point me in the direction of belief in the possibility of God, I still don't consider the Bible an account of history. To me, it is a book of stories giving Christians inspiration on how to live ..... much like Fables. I am not knocking that, the book has its place in history and it is a very good book. But the fact is it is not God's book. It is Man's book of godly ideas, and whether or not that was inspired by God or not, there is bound to be exaggerations in it. (such as the bread and wine that fed the masses, walking on water, etc.) The one thing I have always wondered (and I am sure if there is evidence you will show me the way) is there is such a detailed account of Jesus' birth and death, yet he supposed lived for 33 years and there is a great deal of his life missing in the Bible. Did the historians not remember those years? Did they stop following him during those years? To me it is lacking to be seriously considered a history book, (in its ambiguity alone it fails to be taken seriously as a history book IMO). This is a good point. Either way to a creationist or an evolutionist we are descendant somehow through incest. Not to be funny, but if creationist truly believe this than why can't we covet thy neighbour's wife? And why can't we commit adultery? God himself set us up to break those two commandments from the start.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 14, 2005 20:32:32 GMT -5
I still don't consider the Bible an account of history. Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, and interspersed in the prophets you will discover the history of the Jewish nation -- its successes and failures. Embellishments? Well, biblical literalists would say poor transcribing from oral tradition, but archaeology bears out some of the historical claims. Indeed, at the core it is. Might I point out a common fallacy? The Bible (broken into two parts – the Old Testament slash history of the Jewish religion and the New Testament slash history of the early Christian church) does not purport to be a full history, nor is it an apologetic of faith. It is a compilation of document records for the faithful/believers. Hence, what is missing is not important. Further, the writers wrote only of the three-year ministry of Jesus – the other “stuff” wasn’t important. Supposition/hypothesis is that Jesus spent His early years (first 30) at home, as a good Jewish boy following in His (earthly) father’s footsteps learning the carpentry trade (while His mother probably tried to get Him married off), though some posit that he spent his youth in India under the tutelage of a guru. For the most part boring, trivial, unimportant stuff. Much like, I think. Peter C. Newman’s book on Mr. Mulroney, who wrote what he thought was important (though in Newman’s case, thought would sell), the writers of the Gospels only wrote what they thought was important (and would “sell” Jesus to their respective audiences). I don’t know . . . incest wasn’t inappropriate (and it was necessary) for x number of generations? Coveting the wife is in the same line of wanting/taking something that doesn’t belong to you; adultery is a hindrance to a happy unified home. Bigamy? While accepted for a while in the Old Testament – forget it! – and Jesus is quite clear on why: Matthew 6:24 (KJV), No man can serve two masters.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 14, 2005 21:05:05 GMT -5
OK. Who are the other 16 pirates? I was feeling so alone for the longest while, now there is hope. Creationism is based on the Bible. The Bible was written by man. It is human nature to exaggerate events and numbers. The Bible can not be held as a true account of anything. Evolution has a flaw in which it can not explain the beginning. This flaw was quickly jumped on by creationists, who devotely opposed evolution, but as soon as their was a chink in the theory they now say "Sure evolution is correct, but so is creationism because God began it all". To me the swinging pendulum of the church shows a lack of faith in their own theory ..... science hypthesizes and then tries to prove or disprove the theory. Creationism holds on to faith, which shouldn't change (faith is faith afterall), but alas the theory of creationism has changed so much over the years ..... first is was Adam and Eve, then they changed the timeline in the Bible (apparently God's six days might be longer than our 6 days), then all that incest in the Bible was metaphorical, (I mean if you aren't allowed to covet thy neighbour's wife, try explaining covetting your father's??). No matter what science proves, creationists will also ask "but what caused that" .... it is impossible to end the circle. Whoa!!! Christianity is the religion of Christians. The church is the body of Christ. Christianity is not based upon the bible. Rather it is the bible that derived from the living church. The Church or Christianity IS NOT CREATIONISM. Creationism is a misguided attempt by a very small group of protestant people to fit science into the timeframe of the bible feebly defended by problems with the theory. The flaw with evolutionary theory is not that it cannot explain the beginning. As Stanley Jaki said, it is important that people realize that at the big bang, there WAS NO TIME OR SPACE. Therefore there was no "before" the big bang. Like it or not, if as seems the case based upon the science, this was the beginning then necessarily, some "Super" natural (above natural) entity created the universe. This is a simple fact about existence, including yours and mine. But this is not the problem with evolutionary theory. It does not have the fossil record anywhere on earth to defend it's core idea that genetic mutation and natural selection brought about the various species. However, this is not the problem of evolutionists, like myself and Stanley Jaki. While contrary to everyone's belief, the scientific evidence is not in fact there, a fact easily discovered by the lay reader, the evolution of the species was a commonly discussed idea long before Darwin. Christianity, the big thing that includes about one in four or five people on the planet including Catholics like me, Greek and Russian Orthodox Anglicans, Episcopalians, Coptic, presbyterians etc. etc. etc.. HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION even lacking demonstrative evidence as it does. Evolutionists do not (generally) even discuss the big bang. It is not their field. Christianity HAS NO PROBLEM WITH GENERAL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. It is a pretty good attempt at giving us the "how" of existence. Where people like myself and Jaki take exception is when people misappropriate the science and declare dogmatically that it can be used to posit or defend atheistic materialism. This is an abuse of the science. SCIENCE IS BASED UPON OBSERVATION. AT THE BIG BANG THERE WAS NOTHING TO OBSERVE. THEREFORE SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT CREATION. PERIOD. SCIENCE IS LARGELY AND MOSTLY A CREATION OF CHRISTIAN EUROPE. IT HAD NO OTHER SOURCE. PERIOD. The church has NEVER changed its doctrines concerning creation. Modern science is in fact just now catching up with what she (the church is female) has always and consistently taught. Aquinas held, as a good Catholic that the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing). THE CHURH...CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT ACCEPT AND NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL ACCEPT THE "Creationists" NONSENSE. THEY REPRESENT A LUNATIC FRINGE ON THIS ISSUE. Okay. Big Bang good. Evolution good. God behind big bang and evolution good. Creationism from biblical fundamentalists, bad.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Sept 14, 2005 21:38:16 GMT -5
Did Toronto make a deal with the Devil when they signed the contract next to the signature of Bonnie Lindros? HA HA HA ! Being stuck in a leafy blue shirt seems a suitable punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 15, 2005 19:38:38 GMT -5
Whoa!!! Christianity is the religion of Christians. The church is the body of Christ. Actually, we are all the body of Christ. He gave his life for our sins. The church as an entity does not exist without the people. Nope. But when I say Creationism I am speaking of Biblical creationism. The church/christianity were its biggest defenders. I take offense to this comment. Protestants are commonly known in my part of the world as non-Roman Catholics. There are no misguided Roman Catholics?? Most protestant religions were borne out of Roman Catholism. I hope when you use the word protestant in this context you meant non-religions (which to me would be pagan). This is one THEORY. In science you have postulates, theories, and rules. (I know there are more than that, but for this purpose this is enough). Rules are written in stone for all intents and purposes, theories are not. It is the best guess. The big bang has not been proven, it is a theory, so how does anyone know what was before it and what wasnt. Philosophers have there educated guess as do religious heads and scientists. People choose to believe who they want. You mean they no longer have a problem because evolutionists can not explain what caused the Big Bang. God is just a good an answer as pressure build up in a vaccum that exploded in a magnitude with a trillion times more energy than a nuclear bomb. If there was no time and space before the big bang, and the big bang came from nothing, then how was matter produced from the big bang? Energy releases itself in only two ways. Heat and Noise. The creation of matter is not one of them. Nobody is defending atheistic materialism. If anything we are asking science to explain more. Questioning science or religion does not show lack of faith or lack of conviction. It shows a quest for knowledge. If the Big Bang is a correct Theory, then a logical question arising is "What was before it" ..... saying nothing is philosphical - a soft science. I disagree. Before the big bang who knows what was there. But at the big bang there was matter and energy created - planets, stars, comets, fire, heat, etc. All observable material. If you can not create matter (Newton's Laws) then how did they come to be? Again a logical question. Science was prosecuted by the church when they disagreed with the science. Never? Adam and Eve ring a bell. The church thought (and still does in some parts if the world) that we all were descended from Adam and Eve, that the world was only 4000 (well some age, I think it is 4000) years old, some searched long and hard for the Garden of Eden for the church, and there was a great flood for 40 days and nights. (more incest after the initial Adam and Eve incest to save the human race) Science showed that we are descended from primates, carbon dating showed the world is billions of years old, sediment deposits prove there was no great flood, and nobody has fopund the Garden of Eden. With these revelations the church changed its thought to that Adam and Eve are symbolic and the universe (original it was God created man and the earth and heavens) could still be created by God. Aquinas was a philospoher. There are all kinds of philosophers with differing opinions so Aquinas or jake are not the end all and be all of thought. Plato, Aristotle, Mencius, Seneca, Freud, Hume, Marx, Satre, Beauvoir, Skinner, Wilson, Augustine, Nietzche, abd Descartes ideas are just as good as Aquinas or my own .... they are ideas. Aquinas is his Treatise on Man argued that the body and the soul are two principles related to each other as matter to form. The human soul is the inner principle that makes a potentially human body what it is. He feltthe human soul was immortal whereas Aristotle thought it was a thing. Two ideas.
|
|