Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Fugee
Question: where did the first "stuff" come from?

I think a better question is why does it matter?

Not knowing where the first "stuff" came is aguably a hole in the evolution theory, but it makes the theory no less useful to scientists.

Evolution, whether it actually occurred or not, is a very useful theory and helps explain a variety of biochemical processes. An analogy can be made to the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. No gas exists that follows this law, however, this does not make the law useless.

Most scientists I know are not against the idea of a force guiding evolution. The scientists I know largely believe that the theory of evolution is scientifically interesting, but theologically irrelevant.

What person, 2000 years ago, could have, with any scientific accuracy, articulated the process by which God created man? They couldn't. So instead they created a story wherein Adam was made out of clay. The story was told this way so the people of that time could wrap their minds around it. Were the bible written today, perhaps there would be mention of nucleic acids, allelic variation and single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The language of the bible is limited by the scientific knowledge of that time.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
What person, 2000 years ago, could have, with any scientific accuracy, articulated the process by which God created man? They couldn't. So instead they created a story wherein Adam was made out of clay. The story was told this way so the people of that time could wrap their minds around it. Were the bible written today, perhaps there would be mention of nucleic acids, allelic variation and single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The language of the bible is limited by the scientific knowledge of that time.

I agree, but I don't think that flies with the faith-based community. There are a lot of people out there who, once you ignore the West Wing-style "shall I poke my son's eye out" tomfoolery*, really think that everything in the Bible is fact. I am sure that you would be scared by how many people actually think this way.

* Which is really only tomfoolery because it's been so overdone; there are really people who adhere to the Bible so completely on other issues that their hamhanded attempts to explain why it's now ok to eat shellfish really do expose their hypocrisy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I think a better question is why does it matter?

Not knowing where the first "stuff" came is aguably a hole in the evolution theory, but it makes the theory no less useful to scientists.

Evolution, whether it actually occurred or not, is a very useful theory and helps explain a variety of biochemical processes. An analogy can be made to the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. No gas exists that follows this law, however, this does not make the law useless.

Most scientists I know are not against the idea of a force guiding evolution. The scientists I know largely believe that the theory of evolution is scientifically interesting, but theologically irrelevant.

What person, 2000 years ago, could have, with any scientific accuracy, articulated the process by which God created man? They couldn't. So instead they created a story wherein Adam was made out of clay. The story was told this way so the people of that time could wrap their minds around it. Were the bible written today, perhaps there would be mention of nucleic acids, allelic variation and single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The language of the bible is limited by the scientific knowledge of that time.

Give the man an award.

Why is this utterly reasonable fact so unpalatable to so many? Why is something as imbecilic as literalism considered an necessary element of faith for some? I see no reference to any religious text which requires literalism to worship. How is the guy who considers the bible allegorical yet still believes in God any less a believer than the imbecile who believes it literlally?

Oh yes, you are an imbecile if you believe just about anything literally. They ought to shoot all the literalists first, then move on to the lawyers.

[andViolins]

The Palestinians say he's dead.

The French say he's still alive.

Who do you believe????

aV

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I agree, but I don't think that flies with the faith-based community.

I'm not so sure about that. I remember being in the fourth grade and quizzing my religion teacher in my Catholic school to reconcile the dinosaurs in the museum with the Adam and Eve tale. Maybe he was a rebel Jesuit or something, but he made it very clear to me that the word "parable" had to be applied a lot when looking at the Bible against the real world. The answer made a hell of a lot of sense to my fourth grade mind, and I was happy to go on for a few more years with religion and the real world happily coexisting in my little head. Maybe the guy was a rogue agent, but I think that there are more people of faith out there that ascribe to a parable approach to the bible than the literal one.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by andViolins
The Palestinians say he's dead.

The French say he's still alive.

Who do you believe????

aV

I believe that had he gone to Florida instead, that the legislature would be passing a law right now to keep him "alive."

[sgtclub]

Read this morning that France is essentially at war with the Ivory Coast. I don't recall this being blessed by the security counsel. Why the double standard?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Read this morning that France is essentially at war with the Ivory Coast. I don't recall this being blessed by the security counsel. Why the double standard?

Because Iraq wasn't formerly a U.S. colony?

Besides, it's the french. What are the chances they win? They'll be begging for our help, if history is any guide, pretty soon.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Read this morning that France is essentially at war with the Ivory Coast. I don't recall this being blessed by the security counsel. Why the double standard?

The Ivory Coast is a former French colony and there are still French military bases there. The govermnment collapsed several months ago and the French bases, along with citizens of the Ivory Coast that were under French protection, have been under attack for months by one faction or another in the civil war taking place there.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because Iraq wasn't formerly a U.S. colony?

Besides, it's the french. What are the chances they win? They'll be begging for our help, if history is any guide, pretty soon.

Actually, I don't believe it's the real French. I'm pretty sure th forces there are Foreign Legion, which has maintianed its historical standards as a military force to be reckoned with. If the Foreign Legion had been defending France in 1938, we might never have had to fight WW II.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Read this morning that France is essentially at war with the Ivory Coast. I don't recall this being blessed by the security counsel. Why the double standard?

I don't remember, did we go to the security council for Afghanistan? I think if we were to start up (more) active hostilities in reaction to outward aggression towards us in Afghanistan, no one would bat an eye. I understand that the French / Ivory Coast situation is similar. The French were already there, and this war has been going on for years.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm not so sure about that. I remember being in the fourth grade and quizzing my religion teacher in my Catholic school to reconcile the dinosaurs in the museum with the Adam and Eve tale. Maybe he was a rebel Jesuit or something, but he made it very clear to me that the word "parable" had to be applied a lot when looking at the Bible against the real world. The answer made a hell of a lot of sense to my fourth grade mind, and I was happy to go on for a few more years with religion and the real world happily coexisting in my little head. Maybe the guy was a rogue agent, but I think that there are more people of faith out there that ascribe to a parable approach to the bible than the literal one.

This discussion has helped me understand why the literalist approach is attractive to some people.

The bible says God made Adam out of clay. If this is a parable for how God used evolution to produce humans, it really isn't that big of a deal. Made out of clay is simply shorthand for "used evolution".

But the bible also says that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. Did it literally happen? Or was this also a parable? If parable, what is "died and rose from the dead three days later" shorthand for? That we should all love each other and be good to each other? One could only wish that the faithful would show such flexibility.

In short, to allow some bible stories to be parable casts doubt on all the portions of the bible held sacred.

Also, consider that once one accepts that a man died and rose from the dead three days later, it's really no great leap to believe that God literally created a man out of clay.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The Ivory Coast is a former French colony and there are still French military bases there. The govermnment collapsed several months ago and the French bases, along with citizens of the Ivory Coast that were under French protection, have been under attack for months by one faction or another in the civil war taking place there.

So the standard is that if a country is a former colony you are free to invade?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So the standard is that if a country is a former colony you are free to invade?

The French invaded the Ivory Coast centuries before the Security Council existed.

ETbe less snarky: Look at Afghanistan for comparison. We have troops there, we offer (some) protection. If the warlords/talaban started attacking US interests in Afghanistan as well as innocent Afghanis, no one would have a problem with our getting involved in an Afghani civil war to help restore the peace and stability. As I understand it, the French were already a presence in the Ivory Coast, and one side of the civil war has looked upon them for protection. My impression is that French interests inside the Ivory Coast were attacked over the weekend, and the French have attacked back in retaliation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So the standard is that if a country is a former colony you are free to invade?

No, thats the standard if you have the dread GOP "feigned learning disability", which is contagious as hell at the moment.

If you read Tax's post in its entirety, he is saying "Its not an invasion - its a peace keeping operation in an area which is already secured by the French."

We weren't securing Iraq at the time we toppled Saddam.