Its in the Mail on Sunday - it must be true Course if it was an advert, surely there are grounds for complaint to the standards board? I think she's now been publicly outed as a charlatan for quite some time.
No problem with this - although I do insist that you include (in addition to literal creationism, evolutionary theory and the hybrid you're proposing) for fairness the alternative creation viewpoint of Pastafarian thinking. Has your research included investigating this alternative viewpoint:
"All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith—a form of the Omphalos hypothesis. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Its in the Mail on Sunday - it must be true Course if it was an advert, surely there are grounds for complaint to the standards board? I think she's now been publicly outed as a charlatan for quite some time.
Very interesting post.
I know quite a few scientists who accept something much like your harmonised theory (except they don't distort relativity theory).
The problem is simply that the scientific theory works without God. Maybe God exists; maybe not. But it is possible to give a theory that works very well without God.
Yes, there are holes in the scientific viewpoint. But the scientists working in those areas know where the holes are, and what evidence they need to plug them (even if we don't yet [and maybe never will] have the technology or understanding to find that evidence).
Pastafarians are tragic deluded creatures - it's well known that His Noodly Appendage is one of the many disguises of the Purple Oyster. As can be revealed by The Casting of the Parmesan.
The only true faith is, of course, in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh (mhhhnbs)).
Gratifying, I must say, to see the rush of forumites onto this thread in order to assist Rocky with a bunch of helpful answers to his questions.
ok... how come my reply comes BEFORE the post I replied to
This is Rocky's thread.. not mine something a little out of order here.. I think something went a bit "off" when my post was moved
Umm... presumably you have seen the statement at the top of this page?
Chit Chat; Talk about anything not related to dancing...
..or maybe you just didn't notice it because it didn't use QR code...
What can I say... it is wot it is, to be an writist..
Fundamentalism on all sides is the cancer of our planet. And what the fundamentalist are too blind to accept is that you cannot solve the problem by creating more division. And yet this is what we see in our schools, in our papers and on our TV's on a regular basis.
Instead, what you have to do is create a common ground that draws them closer together. And that's all I've tried to do in creating this thread. I don’t believe in a personal God or in dogmatic organized religion, so for me to put foreword a religious viewpoint is difficult: but I felt it was important to point out that there could be a way of drawing the two ideologies closer together rather than just to criticize, and thus perpetuate the division. I might not have achieved much, and I might not have got all the little points right - but at least I've tried to open our minds a little.
The Eastern philosophies that a certain forumite so despises and says is 'full of sh1t' have at their heart one fundamental premise: that we are all connected, and that whilst we are all individuals, we are yet still one and the same. This is in any event shown in science, and there are huge similarities between what quantum mechanics says about connectivity and how that relates to something like Buddhism – so it shouldn’t be too much of a leap for the intelligent, free thinking individuals amongst us..
This has been written about on numerous occasions, by both scientists, who are experts in physics and also by spiritualists, who have a more intuitive sense of the metaphysical connection. Erwin Schrödinger believed this and he was one of the main architects of the Quantum revolution - and there are many books on the subject written by physicist’s: Fritjof Capra’s, Tao of Physics, being just one example. Another notable case of the application of quantum physics to topics outside physics is the case of Deepak Chopra, who was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness." A spiritualist winning The Noble Prize in Physics… think about that for a moment…
Contrary to what our friendly forumite says, these forms of ‘religious’ beliefs are also not as dogmatic and/or as rigid as he would have you believe. The Dali Lama has also written books on the correlation between science and Buddhism: most notably, The Universe In A Single Atom: The Convergence Of Science and Spirituality. Wherein he says: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims," Oh, and he also won The Noble Peace Prize in 1989…
So, our Forum 'friend' says that spiritualism is a cop out and that it is full of sh1t and that spiritualist’s don’t know squat. Umm… but spiritualist’s and many of the greatest scientists and Nobel Laureates of our time disagree..
Who do you believe?
If we can create common ground by openly looking for connections to some of form of unity, rather than the divisions that perpetuates ALL forms of fundementalism, we create a better future for our children.
That's why one would bother.
Last edited by Rocky; 22nd-January-2008 at 03:31 PM.
That isn't what I said, you donkey, and I've grown tired of you spewing forth invective based on misunderstanding and carelessness.
I put a great deal of effort into understanding what other people are posting and trying to ensure I'm not being unfair to them when I respond. Since I feel you are no longer extending that courtesy to me I withdraw from this discussion.
Last edited by David Bailey; 22nd-January-2008 at 05:48 PM.
Unfortunately, he didn't win the Nobel prize.
The Nobel Prize winners for 1998: Robert B. Laughlin, Horst L. Störmer, Daniel C. Tsui
And in fact searching the entire list of Laureates doesn't give a single match for Chopra.
But it gets worse, I'm afraid.
Because it's actually an Ig Nobel prize that Deepak Chopra was awarded in 1998. Which is a parody award rather than something to be proud of.
Sorry, Rocky, but you're not covering yourself with glory here.
Probably not if creationism is presented as one of many competing religious beliefs in RE, and evolution as the universally accepted current scientific theory in science.
Should this be about exercising choices, or about understanding different perspectives? Presumably you would use a scientific process to objectively assess religion?
So this would be restricted to a single version of creationism + your version? What about other religious creationist beliefs and freedom of choice?
Whereas the idea that there is a god who created everything is believable? If so, how did He/She/It/Them get there? Was She/It/Them/He created, did It/Them/He/She evolve, or did They/He/She/It spontaneously come into existence?
So you re-write selective bits of the bible. And use Einstein’s Theory of Relativity selectively too. Sure to be popular all round then.
I'm sure it would be an interesting philosophical exercise for students in a theology college, but I somehow can't see it making the National Curriculum.
'The answer' isn't to force religion and science together, and certainly not to pretend that religious belief has an equivalence to scientific theory - it doesn't. It would be better to encourage an understanding of both science and religions (in the plural), recognising that each comes from a different world view, with a different heritage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks