nullmouse

It's not fair to lump all religious people into the creationist camp, because many, if not most people of faith accept that the universe is much, much older than the creationists would have everyone believe. It's near impossible to refute the theory of evolution, and I myself have no problem with the fact that mankind descended from the lower primates. What the Bible and other religious texts teach us is that there is an order to the universe and that God is the instigator and occasional protagonist of the events that occur within it. It's impossible to say how large or small a part humanity plays in God's grand scheme, if indeed there is a scheme at all.

I think I've mentioned a few times in my replies that I know several people that have no problem dedicating their career to science without compromising their religious beliefs, so I agree wholeheartedly with Dave. As good as Dawkins is at raising the public awareness of science, I find his anti-religion diatribes somewhat arrogant and overly dismissive. I'm sure the God Delusion is a thoroughly entertaining personal perspective from Dawkins, but I've read a few articles that really slam his understanding of religion.

surely that's a very simplistic view of the definition of scientific theory? particularly when science is very much an evolving discipline. what was scientific fact 100 years ago may not be now. but yes, of course scientific theories are based on more than just hunches. they do experiments and stuff to right?

I think you're maybe confusing a hypothesis with a theory - Scientists have a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon and then set out to test that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is correct, then it contributes to scientific theory. Theories are always based on observation and fact, and predict how something will behave.

Scientific theories, however, can be adapted and changed as the ability to make observsations increases - But they're always based on facts.

i have an urge to watch the first series of look around you now. thanks alun, thalun.

The first season was by far the best

you've kinda contradicted yourself there by saying science makes the argument pointless but then pointing out that a lot of science is theoretical.

Semantics! A scientific 'theory' has a different meaning than the standard english usage - For example, normally when someone says they have a 'theory' they often mean a 'hunch', whilst a scientific 'theory' is a construct that explains a group of facts.

Mr Exotic!

My meetings take place in Kilau, which in itself is wonderful but nae quite Paris

Normally I'd explain that my meetings are usually in shitty hospital conference rooms, but this one is in the Natural History Museum in Paris - Fukkin A!

I should make it back in plenty time, my meeting finishes at lunchtime after all. Should be a great gig!

And MC Hawkings best song is "Rock Out With Your Hawk Out"

Agreed, but much less relevant to the thread. Let's combine forces and plug their greatness, though.

(Even if we're eventually going to fight.)

the idea that science can solve everything

What we need more of is science.

It's untrue to say that each generation adapts and modifies the content and message of the Bible. It is continually being put into new and more modern language is due to the fact religious teaching is now carried out in native, rather than classical tongues.

Is it not a bit naive to expect the original meaning to be maintained when it's been translated into numerous versions, some word-for-word and some using idioms judged to be equivalent? Nuances in languages can alter meaning substantially, and the judgement on how to reflect that would be left to human bias - Pretty far from the word of God, really.

The bible is open to many interpretations, as I think we've all touched upon in the rest of this thread - In some highly religious groups (Intelligent Design) it's even being hidden behind countless layers of scientific clap-trap to give the idea of a creator more tangible / plausible integrity. If that's not modifying the content and message to suit a modern goal, I don't know what is.

If you don't know about the history of the 'conflict' between science and the bible and you haven't read the bible then what are you basing your opinions on? What other people have told you? Did you check the facts relating to what they told you? If not then you aren't being very scientific, you are just believing propaganda because if there really IS a conflict between religion and science then they have been putting out misinformation and lies about each other to try and discredit each other and sway public opinion.

You don't have to look much further than the Dover trial in the USA to know there is conflict between religion and science, but it's all coming from the religious side. As you rightly point out, Darwin and his theories never excluded god, allowing for relgious believers and scientists to reconcile their own beliefs. However, that's not enough for the bible literalists, who did see Darwin's theories as an attack on religion.

ID / Creationism have been putting out misinformation and lies under the guise of scientific credibility, yet provide no scientific proof for any of their claims and observe every opportunity to attack evolution. It's scientific vacuity is damaging to religion - plugging every gap with 'God did it' and using 'irreducible complexity' as the gold standard for a system being hand-made and not evolved. Everytime science can fill one of their shakily defined holes it squeezes God out of the equation.

As I said, I work with several highly relgious scientists in biology based research labs - None of them have any trouble reconciling their work to their beliefs.

A lot of people say that religion is used as a crutch for weak people, but in the current climate I think it takes a lot of balls to hold a religious belief and state it publicly because so many 'enlightened' children of science take such joy in attacking and making fun of anyone who doesn't agree with their paradigm.

I don't agree with this, I feel you're blaming science unfairly. It's certainly something I've never seen any evidence of - And even on this thread, the only religions that I rant about negatively are those that take the absolute literal interpretation.

The bible is the most important book written ever. It influences every aspect of our lives every day. Our entire system of ethics, enshrined in the laws of the land, are built upon what the bible says and you haven't read it. It's quite literally the foundation of our civilization. It is still the biggest force in shaping the world today, especially since the neocons got into power in America and have tried to turn the world into a christian vs muslim thing.

As a code of morals, the bible has it's advantages. As anything to base science upon, it's meaningless.

When I think of God i think of a being with an ability to change everything and anything, we exist only due to his continued will and the laws of physics, universal constants, anything that has or will ever exist can be changed by him at will in the past, present or future. He can do anything....so why couldn't he make it appear that the world was older than it is? I just said in my definition of God that he could do ANYTHING so he MUST be able to do it.

The beauty of this definition is no one can argue with it. But a being that could change everything and anything removes free will, no?

I shall try again - you are walking on a road that forks off in two directions over the horizon. You meet a man walking the other way...can you tell which fork of the road he came from?

He could have come from fork A or fork B and you would be in exactly the same position in space and time either way. So lacking any other information you can't decide where he came from. So either the world could be billions of years old or it could have been designed by God 6,000 years ago to appear to be billions of years old.

I'm not going to argue which fork he came from, either way is pretty damn impressive, but I think it takes a real fool to mistake a man that's been walking for 6,000 years from one who's been on the go for 4.5 billion years.

I'd mention all the radiometric tests that have been done to age the earth and the awfully large pile of fossil data that's kicking around - but as you say, your definition of god allows all this to be accounted for by his whim. Which is where we're obviously going to come to loggerheads - I'll happily support your religion, but if you insist the basis of my career is fabricated lies by your deity then I may become a tad defensive. Why is there any need to take a literalist approach?

no, "they" don't.

so so far, a 'bit off' (or way off) with everything you've posted in this thread?!! o_O

Sorry dude, Young Earth Creationism takes a literal view of the Bible and reckons the earth is about 6,000 years old - GraemeC may have been referring to this.

Y.E.C. believers are the type that have displays near the Grand Canyon, claiming it was formed in a day as a result of that huge, flash flood Noah had to contend with.

Or, alternatively, the concept of days in the bible is metaphorical (given no bastard was there to watch it, other than the big bloke himself and a eventually a couple of unreliable apple thieves on the last 'day'), which would mean we could apply a much more liberal time scale to the whole creation process. I know a lot of scientists who are religious (hell yes they exist) that choose to believe the metaphorical version and think that literal creationist / Intelligent Design interpretations are crazy.

Personally, I think the idea that we could have evolved from chance collisions and synergistic reactions on top of some suprisingly stable and fortuitous conformation of space debris is far more exciting than just saying we're just manufactured by some celestial bloke with too much playdoh and spare time. To me it's like saying 'a wizard did it' every time a plot hole needs to be plugged in a fantasy film.

aye, with the video by yours truly...

thanks for that Nully.

Just doing my job, ma'am.

Mothboy makes a mammoth appearance on the new Ad Noiseam compilation. And it's a monster:

MusicNonStop.co.uk

= "cranking"

Really? Wow. I never knew there was a proper word for it. I vow to use this from now on, it'll shorten those text messages - "Sittin @ home cranking to Countdown"

EDIT - I can't believe I was bored enough to Google 'cranking':

Welcome to Cranking Fetish. We have been having a blast in the short time that we have been here' date=' and the fun lives on. We have done shoots with several attractive and very beautiful models. We have some of the finest models available and more are being added every month. What started out as a few cranking sessions and some filming between the 2 of us has grown into something we never thought possible. We are simply having fun and we are convinced that one trip inside of our members area will prove the same to you. We offer exceptional models, in exceptional cars, with exceptional quality, all at an exceptional price. Cranking, Revving, Driving, Flooding, Stalling and more at Cranking Fetish. Be sure and check out our video store and pick up a few videos along the way. And while you are at it, don't miss your visit at our message board where you can hang out and post comments, request, or just hang out and shoot the breeze. The fun times are straight ahead here at Cranking Fetish so sit down, buckle up, and brace yourself as we take you on the pedal pumping ride of your life. [/quote']

There goes my guess, which was "Sitting at home, masturbating whilst crying."

Scary but true - I went to High School with Roz from Miss The Occupier, and failed to notice it was her during all the times I saw Josephine live.

I'm Mr. Unobservant.

Never caught you guys live, but I obviously recognised the band name:

BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Band aims to rock all over world

Sounding pretty good to me, would be more verbose but my muse has left me. Really like the main beat and the miasma of electronic sounds in the background, less of a fan of the keyboard melody - But I struggle to think of any suggestion for what I'd do to change it. God I suck at constructive criticism.

Fudgy fudge fudge - Are you responsible for booking Miss The Occupier on Jan the 6th at The Moorings?

I echo Jim, it's three albums for £25 in lush packaging and will keep you enthralled for ages. As for weekly budgets, there's only the obligatory compilations and granny-pleasing favourites this month to really spend money on otherwise, surely?

I'm with Pipex and have never had a problem with them. Not the cheapest but certainly not the most expensive either. My only mild annoyance with them just now is that they are not currently offering their existing customers an upgrade to 8Mb broadband but yet new customers can get it no problem. Hopefully this will change over time.

Until recently I'd have recommended Pipex too, but since I moved six months ago they haven't once billed me correctly - I set up a Direct Debit initially, which didn't work so I paid arrears by card, set up a new Direct Debit. Which didn't work.

Long story short, last month they took four Direct Debit payments from me and had five seperate Direct Debit mandates set up on my account - They've overcharged me from three Direct Debits, totalling over 100 of error. Totally shoddy.

My ex-flat mate also went with Pipex, and they've bollocksed up his charging every month too. So aye, great tech support etc but shockingly poor finance department ruins their reputation in my eyes.

I saw it last night and thought it was excellent!

Alun was also there seeing it for his second time I believe.

Yup, was indeed - Picked up many a nuance second spin through, mainly in the soundtrack (particularily the use of foley for the faun and captain). I'm almost tempted to start a thread with a spoiler warning. But I should be working. So maybe later.

having seen Pan's Labyrinth last night I've got to say I thought it was totally over rated. It's been marketed as a creepy monster film and it concentrates more on family stuff and the Spanish Civil war. From that aspect it was a really good film, but from the fairytale aspect I was really disappointed, it needed more monsters and a less cheesy ending.

The Pale Man was ace though, he should have been in it for longer.

Really? I've not seen anything advertising it as a straightforward monster film. How odd.

Attrition - Tearing Arms From Deities 1980-2005

And catch their all new video for A Girl Called Harmony by Russian film maker Edward 209 here:

Their remix album, released a few years ago, is pretty damn good too in my opinion - "The Hand That Feeds"

i'd like to aslo add pan's labyrinth after seeing it yesterday.

Yes, I agree.