...Continued

Try giving one reason (that I've not yet falsified) why evolution is a religion? You can't, can you?

You assert that evolution is a religion, with no evidence or reasoning, even though evolution doesn't adhere to the definition of “religion” one iota. You even use the word “doctrine” in an incorrect manner.

You're being deliberately deceiving. Shame on you!

<<...Biblical dimensions of the ark were about the size of the National Gallery in Melbourne.>>

Even if it was twice that size, it still wouldn't fit all the land Creatures. Not to mention that at that size, it would have broken apart – being made of wood. All marine life would've died because of the saltwater and freshwater mixing.

Creationists try to get around the inadequate size of the Ark by saying that it contained two of each “kind”, and that the variety of species we see today “Super-evolved” from these “kinds”. But this theory (unsupported by science) means that a speciation event would have had to occur every 4 hours, and all without any beneficial mutations, as Creationists assert.

Creationists get around this (and every other flaw) by invoking the supernatural, and then wonder why they're not taken seriously by scientists.

There are literally hundreds of reasons why we know, with absolute certainty and without a doubt, that the Flood and the story of Noah never happened... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Of course, you won't read it, Dan. You seem to think that ignoring the facts means they don't exist, but for anyone else who values facts over mythology, it's an interesting read.

For a good laugh, see... http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/ (Warning: May Cause brain cells to commit suicide.)

Some poor logic displayed by Creationists, is their argument that there are many flood legends around the world – forgetting that flood legends are common because floods are common.

If the world's flood myths came from a common source, then there's a lot about them that we'd expect to see that we don't... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

But please do give an answer to HarryG's question. What would we see in a “fair and balanced” report on Creationism?

Evolution is a religion! Don't make me laugh! Its common sense!

If you non-believers needs more facts, please read my complete history for the answers I have already put down on this site!

Here is a model for you to think about.

Science and religion were once living side by side, but a fork in the road slowly divided the conscious minds, and the tree of life has mapped its new direction.

Anyone feeling the need to sweep the myths under the carpet.

Religion has no place in a first worlds of thinking! But it can help the second and the third.

EVO

The question of divorcing science from religion is rather a mute point – it has become more a matter of preferred belief based on certain ignorance. One only needs look objectively at the example of say, evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Francisco J. Ayala. By any definition, Ayala is a scientist, and a respected one at that, with a highly rated peer review. He is also a former Dominican priest, a man of current religious faith, promoter of evolution, anti intelligent design and anti creationist. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society; fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and of the California Academy of Sciences.

The argument therefore is not whether you can maintain the full integrity of science whilst holding to a religious conviction (because, clearly, you can) but more, a capacity to be open to an understanding beyond one's own innate prejudice.

The really fruitful discussion between mainstream religion and science is happening in a much more low-key fashion, which does not usually get the attention that the current creationist/ evolution controversy would. Unlike as in many forums, it is displayed in a fashion where there is a courtesy and creativity one would expect from those genuinely seeking the truth - whether in religion or in science.

relda,
of course, you are absolutely right. I have already called Dan's attention to Ayala (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784&page=0#104370) but I am afraid it did not impress him. Neither will it impress those who approach the relation of science (evolution) and religion with the opposite single-mindedness, as sincere as both approaches might be.

relda

"Liberal Catholic theologian, Father Richard P. McBrien perhaps sums up the dissidence within the masses: "If... after appropriate study, reflection, and prayer, a person is convinced that his or her conscience is correct, in spite of a conflict with the moral teachings of the church, the person not only may but must follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the church."

I think, in the Synoptic Gospels of a modern bible, only Luke makes reference to the infancy of Jesus, beyond the nativity and escape to Egypt. Here, we are given a glimpse of the future that awaits Jesus. Jesus, aged 12, goes missing for 3 days and he is found debating with the temple/church leaders. At this age, they merely find him 'amusing'. But later on in the story...... well, we all know where this path leads and the reaction he got from the "church" leaders at the end of his life?

Therefore I would agree with Father McBrien. To me, the story of Jesus is about teaching people to be themselves, their own person, not blindly yielding their own consciences to others, who in turn would use them for their own, self-serving purposes.

"And call no one your father on earth for you have one Father - the one in Heaven."
Matthew 23.9

The message is to become one's own guide through life. At peace with oneself. Hardly ever possible if you give yourself over to the unsavoury diktats of others?

"The Kingdom of God is within you".

I suppose the story of Jesus is really that the lesson of life is to learn what is right for oneself, allowing others to do the same. The only "commandment" to entrust, is to find what is right for ourselves, without deliberately hurting others. Should we persecute and/or torture others to demonstrate our own self-importance? Manipulate the hearts of others from love towards hate?

Ultimately, if the choice of life is between love and hate, I know which way I prefer.

K£vin,
Like other educated Jews in his day, Jesus was faithful to the Law of Moses, learned in Jewish scriptures and oral law, steeped in the spirit of the Pharisees, and expectant of the coming of the Messianic Era and called a "rabbi." The Torah of Jesus (Torat Yeshua) is love and, ‘ispo facto’ fulfilled its intent – i.e. love does no wrong to a neighbor and therefore fulfills the law. This is the true ‘community’ of God.

Where the major tenet, “to find truth no matter where it may be” becomes overly zealous, as was the case with the early 13th Century Dominican order, it follows, 'Where words fail, blows will avail…' – the words attributed to Saint Dominic, when he failed in his conversion of the Cathars. One must obviously treat history with some respect, and also to understand the ignorance of the time – rather than attributing the ‘evil’ to self-importance, I’d suggest something a little more dangerous - misguided zeal. It is certainly insufficient to say, as does the Roman Catholic encyclopedia, “Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess.” Our secular sensibilities suggest there was not the slightest excuse for the repression raged by the Inquisition, let alone the huge ‘collateral damage’ (excess). Father Richard P. McBrien, undoubtedly had he expressed the same sentiments 800 years ago, would have found himself a necessary victim of the ‘collateral damage’.