Aslan - the reason you can't see that your religion is riddled with internal 'moral relativism' is simply because you refuse to, similarly with your ludicrous assertion that evolution can't be explained scientifically because it can't be replicated. Of course we can't replicate processes that take millions of years, any more than we can replicate a cyclone or create a volcano - but surely you're not saying that these natural phenomena cannot be explained by scientific method? We can certainly 'prove' within acceptable confidence levels that natural selection occurs, and that our various dating methods are reliable, etc etc.

In the end, all you can do is assert your faith - which would be fine if you didn't simultaneously insist that laws and other social rules that apply to everybody should be derived from your arbitrary interpretations of the myths and legends of a group of goat-herders.

As for poor sad old bitter and twisted Timmy: you may not adhere to any particular religion, but your mind is as straitjacketed as if you did. Thanks for sharing your ignorant views on statistics, ethics and feminism - but the rest of us were discussing science, evolution and religion. It's not all about you, Timmy.

Morgan

Morgan,

The reason I don't see that Christianity is riddled with moral relativism is because it isn't and you have not shown that it is by showing that it has no absolute standard.

I never said that "evolution can't be explained scientifically because it can't be replicated". I said that evolution (molecules-to-man) is not strictly scientific because it cannot be replicated nor can it be observed. No, we can't replicate volcanic eruptions or cyclones but these things happen often enough for us to observe and measure. This is not the case with molecules-to-man evolution.

I don't doubt that natural selection occurs. Indeed, that theory was first proposed by a Christian and creationist. However, dating methods are not reliable and are regularly inconsistent with known facts, other dating methods/results and geological context.

You say: "In the end, all you can do is assert your faith - which would be fine if you didn't simultaneously insist that laws and other social rules that apply to everybody should be derived from your arbitrary interpretations of the myths and legends of a group of goat-herders."

Are you any different? All you do is assert your irrational, philosophically inconsistent, materialistic faith. That would be fine if you were consistent with your moral relativism and refused to say anything about anyone else, but you and many other materialistic moral relativists are pushing your own self-styled morality on everyone else.

Make no mistake, western civilisation has become what it is today, with its notions of justice, rule of law, democracy, social welfare and science, because of Christianity morality. Can your self-styled morality claim the same?

Morgan.. adding 'bitter' and 'twisted' to the existing "poor and old" for Timmy.. now be nice, as Pericles told me 'not a good look'

Annnyway, I'm thinking of changing my nick to 'goat herder' :)
but in reality its more like chicken herder (I have 5) or dog chaser (the neighbours 2 labradors come and bug me on a daily basis.

Morg. u won't really get to the point of showing us the 'error of our ways'. Like I've said many times, just like the blind man, when confronted by the 'Politically correct religious leaders' had only one thing to say "One think I know,I was blind, but now I see" :)

blessings all.

Aslan, Boaz interesting topic a bit off the orginal should we take it to another place?
I've got an non-theist forum or should we look for neutral ground?

Neo I think this thread is pretty exausted anyway :)

I don't think I can stretch my involvment any further to another forum just now.

Keep up the interesting comments, no drama that we often disagree, eventually we will all rejoice in you finding 'the truth' :) (don't u just hate that)...
Did u ever see the Frazier episode where he volunteers to drive a new woman in his life to Canada, a 6 hour journey, (otherwise he won't see her again because she is about to take a cab to the airport) only to find when he gets in the car and they settle in for the trip she says "So, Frazier, have u found the TRUTH yet"? u can imagine that his previous unsanctified thoughts about possibilities on the journey, rapidly turned into a rather tired and forlorn look.

Cheers

Been on holidays to NZ lovely place. Quick catch up on this thread sees I have not missed to much. Still lots of talking and little understanding. I find it interesting reading what people without scientific training interoperate science. Articles like the one I think Timmy mention in new scientist are a excellent example that science moves forward by it’s openness of the things it doesn’t fully understand. [Sentence deleted for flaming and the author has been suspended for a week].

I said we will never know exactly how life actually started simply because we can not go back it time. That does not stop us from showing it was a natural process. Just as we can demonstrate your mother and father produce you, we don’t have to produce a photo of the moment of conception to prove it.

Christianity has a much validity as astrology, you guys have had over two thousand years to came up with some irrefutable proof of your claims and have failed to do so. Science is our future and religion is part of our history. Step into the light.