On the Limitations of Science - Part Two

	Duration: 07:47 minutes Upload Time: 2007-09-28 18:49:57 User: NeoPrometheus73 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: The continuatino and conclusion of my discussion.
Comments
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites Exactly, Fundamentalism is incapable of even considering the possibility that it could be wrong. The new translations attempt to make the original words more accessible, but no Fundamentalist would ever say... "You know what, this bit about the 6 day creation was obviously just a misunderstanding made by an ancient people. Accordingly, why don't we keep the opening, that 'In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth,' but drop this outdated bit about how He did it?" 07-10-11 13:53:09 __________________________________________________
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites The people who originally formed the Bible did this kind of thing freely, according to their current understanding and theory of religious truth, but to do it now is Heresy. The reason religion has come to the forefront of world conflict is that Fundamentalism is unwilling to budge from its modern beliefs about the Bible (or the Qur'an, etc). 07-10-11 13:56:02 __________________________________________________
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites Right, because the Bible clearly proves evolution false. The REAL enemy of creationism is that pesky First Amendment Establishment Clause. If we could get rid of that, the we could teach the whole Bible in public education and EVERYONE would know that Jesus is their personal Lord and Savior, and everyone else is going to Hell. Since Bush is already taking a dump on our Constitutional rights, I'm sure it's only a matter of time. 07-10-10 13:23:13 __________________________________________________
mrdeadmeat ::: Favorites If the bible is the truth then it proves evolution wrong. The theory of evoultion has proved itself lacky many places. We need to teach the truth in school, maybe we should add all the wholes the evolution theory has to our text book instead of only just pointing to what supports it. 07-10-10 13:39:31 __________________________________________________
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites If the Qur'an is true, then it proves the Bible wrong. Maybe we should start redirecting our science to find evidence supporting the Qur'an? Of course, the texts of Scientoloty proves the Bible, the Qur'an, AND Evolution false. Maybe we should start directing science toward proving Scientology. Which religion should we teach in public schools to disprove evolution... hmmm... they ALL claim to be the only infallable truth. 07-10-10 14:51:07 __________________________________________________
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites But wait, wouldn't putting one religion in the public schools be discriminating against the others? Say we choose Islam... wouldn't that upset the Christians? How do we resolve this issue? Oh, wait, we already have. It's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the Government from promoting any religion's Holy Book as the only infallable truth. It's silly, but the First Amendment is designed to allow people to believe whatever they want. 07-10-10 14:53:32 __________________________________________________
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites Maybe we are trapped to sticking to science, which objectively examines evidence without assuming that any of the religions are the one and only truth. 07-10-10 14:55:42 __________________________________________________
mrdeadmeat ::: Favorites If scientology is right then that is the truth. What I am getting at is that the TRUTH is important, let's not accept something unproven just so we don't have to believe in the supernatural. Maybe we should actually redirect science from being bias(to any path), back to it's original track of finding out how the world works. Let's stop preaching vague theories as truth when clearly there is alot of counter evidence. 07-10-11 10:43:24 __________________________________________________
NeoPrometheus73 ::: Favorites I would agree that some "evolutionists" go to far, to say that evolution disproves God. Of course, this perspective was initiated by Christians, who seem to think that if you disprove one word of their Bible, you've somehow wrecked their entire religion. Which side seems less flexible or less willing to adapt to the possibility of being wrong? I see science textbooks being revised and updated constantly. How often do they update and change the Bible, beyond simply translating it? 07-10-11 13:38:24 __________________________________________________
mrdeadmeat ::: Favorites Yes, let's take the book of God and make some changes. There are alot of things I don't like in there,,, Ow wait we did do that, the new international version NIV has changed to bible to be less offensive and in the process made a pile of streaming s**t... The bible is not a science book. 07-10-11 13:41:51 __________________________________________________