| Some of my opinionsWow i haven't posted here for over a year
I posed as TheAgnostic on this thread of the history channel forums
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?messageID=700040180�
I felt like putting it here too
I'm
only showing the original post and mine so it won't have any replies
except comments but if someone does respond it'll be on that link
I
think the original poster might be lying since they posted the exact
same message on three different sections of the forum only two seconds
apart then never replied afterwards.. that and they seem very biased in
a certain way for "not affiliated with any particular group"
Disclaimer: I did not spell check or grammar check at all, so don't be surprised
Oiginal Post: The History channel is biased...who's surprised?
I must tell you, I'm just an average 40 year old guy who's not affiliated with any particular group.
But I've noticed a pattern,on your channel, of putting out
programming...especially at holiday times, that attempts to debunk any
supernatural part of a biblical event. Sure enough, last night you had
a program on Sodom and Gemorah(sp?). And as usual, you have these
scientists or professers on who come up with non-supernatural
explanations for events in the bible that were presented as
supernatural. And the worst part is, these scientists and professers
never say anything to prove their point...but they present their
findings as likely explanations.
I guess your shows, like these,
have an arrogance about them...and the fact that you often air such
programming to coincide with a Christian holiday is utterly insulting.
My Post:
wow has anyone noticed how this guy posted the exact same message in 3 different forum topics and never replied since?
o
well.. bias is a compelling topic and i would like to give my opinion.
I've also been reading replies to this post on the other forum topics.
I actually found these forums wondering if THC is becoming more bias after seeing Exodus Decoded.
It
seems as though it was narrated by two different people. When looking
at the three stone pictures, there was a great deal of interpreting to
fit the story of exodus. The man showing the stones even said there
isn't enough to say what these stones mean alone.
Even if the
story of exodus is true, it doesn't go either way of exsistance of god.
Non-supernatural explanations were used to explain the plausability of
this story. Later, one of the narrators says that maybe God didn't bend
the laws of nature but instead manipulated them. This, however, is not
scientific nor is it non-supernatural. There's nothing to show that god
did, didn't, can or can't manipulate nature. I'll get more into this in
a sec.
Even if there was divine intervention, that means that
god killed innocent men, women and children because he/she favored
some people over others. Someone just try and refute that.
Anyways..
supernatural isn't even really defined very well to begin with. Nature
can be defined as things that exsist and happen in the world. This
includes tendancies such as natural laws. We've establised these using
science through observation. If you can't observe it, it must not be
natural. If it's not natural, then it's supernatural. However, if
something we thought was supernatural can be explained through natural
tendancies, it becomes natural. So basically supernatural is something
we don't understand or doesn't exsist. I'll leave it off there as does
the history channel because it's up to the viewer or reader which is
true.
Truth is a funny subject i've been looking into lately. I
like to look at truth as absolute to the universe, and so when it comes
down to it, you can ask "how do u know?" and no answer satisfies, not
even circular reasoning. We don't know. This is why i've found
agnosticism to be the most logical and correct conclusion. Ultimate
truth cannot be known; everything else is merely an opinion. This is
also my bias which i don't think gives me any weakness. I feel this is
a very neutral perspective whether there is or isn't a god and
skeptical to question anything. Everything is bias in some way, but
it's important that we understand how it's bias so we know where it's
coming from.
Why does it seem that some people are saying
there are two gods? One is of faith and mystery, and one is of
skepticism and reasoning. From a theistic standpoint, isn't this of
idolization? to realize there is another god of opposition? I guess
it's not so much saying that it's another god but the "alter of 'human
reasoning'". But, even christians use human reasoning every day.. at
least i'd like to think so. Wouldn't one say that there was freewill
specifically so people could be skeptical and reason to find god rather
than blind faith? And if humans aren't supposed to have freewill to be
skeptical and reason, then what's the point in being human?
Everyone
is entitled to their opinion, but enforcing it on others is when the
line is drawn. The truth about science is that it's about trying to
explain how things work using observation to be as objective as
possible. We also need to be able to repeat the tests with the same
results and see if the explanation is wrong. Exsistance of god is
cannot be examined in this field. There's no way to observe that
exsistance or inexsistance of god can be wrong. Archeologists can say
humans did something because we know what humans can do. Palentologists
can't say god did or didn't do something because we don't know what god
can or can't do. Science doesn't cover the exsistence of god which
means it doesn't mean anything about us being theistic or atheist. I
actually know of many scientists with religious beliefs. There's no
reason not to be. They just can't teach their religion in a science
class because it's their own opinions and beliefs.
The US
takes the word secular as in without religion. This doesn't make it an
atheist nation. It's merely the seperation of church and state. One
reason this helps is that if one religion is in power, then all others,
including other sects of the same religion, are persicuted. This leaves
individuals free to believe which religion they choose. If anything is
publicly funded, it cannot hold a religious bias. I guess that includes
atheism. (but when is THC gonna touch on the religiously bias boys
scouts?)
I don't how much THC, but discovering that they aired
Drive Through America from Coldwater Media, which makes the
anti-evolution videos, i'm appalled. It's not just anti-evolution as if
they have some scientific theory theory, but they misinform about
evolution to persuade that there's an intelligent designer with new
clue to it's intelligence and no clue what the design is about. It may
be my bias that I don't see intelligent design as science, but i have
yet to be proven otherwise. Also as far as my understanding goes with
people that believe that, they tend to misunderstand principles of
thermodynamics and biology.
-Skip this is you don't care for my understanding of biology and thermodynamics-
Anti-evolutionist
claim that the second law of thermodynamics is about going from order
to disorder in a closed system, as a room gets messy over time and
opening the system would require an intelligent being to organize it
and that evolution goes against this law because life forms become more
complex.
This is is misinformation and the spread of this is direct support of ignorance.
The
second law of thermodynamics is about heat energy's tendancy of
diffusing in a closed system until reaching equilibrium where it's all
the same temperature. A more accurate analogy would be a warm frying
pan cooling until the air around it is the same temperature. An open
system would include an energy source such as a stove keeping the
energy at a gradient higher temperature than the air around it. Biology
works completely fine with the second law. For our metabolism, light
energy hit plants and they go thru photosynthesis making sugars
(C6H12O6) from water(6 H20), carbondyoxide (6 CO2) and energy. We, like
other animals, eat plants or other animals to get the sugars (using
energy in the process). Plants and animals (including us) resperate to
release energy from the sugars using the energy to form ATP from ADP
(take a biology class or something if u care to learn more about this),
molecules of less energy to power all the functions of the organism.
uphill reactions become downhill if u include ATP to ADP. All reactions
are downhill thus the second law is still obeyed.
BUT, some anti-evolutionists refute, this is biology complying with thermodynamics but not evolution!
It
does comply but takes some more understanding of biology as well. Cells
can divide in two ways: meiosis and mitosis. Both happen naturally and
have been observed and documented. When they divide, there is nothing
added to the total mass, but each can grow afterwards. For
reproduction, each sex make gametes which are products of meiosis.
Halves of the genes from each parent gets placed randomly into each
different gametes. Eventually when gametes of opposite sexes, the
furtilized egg has a new random combination with possible new mutations
of genes. A furtilized egg can't grow into a baby alone, though. The
single egg can only split so many times and remain the same size until
more energy and material is introduced. This is where it needs either a
yolk sack or placenta as a source of more energy to grow. Eventually
the organism will be born grow to adult still consuming more energy
hopefully able to reproduce before death. This would be reproductive
success. Death is inevitable. After reproduction, another lifeform is
"judged" by the eniroment to pass on it's genes once again. If a group
of one species is seperated and the enviroments are different, they may
become too different to reproduce. Thermodynamics is about energy, not
order and disorder, so i'm not even sure how you would apply
thermodynamics to that
ok BUT, some anti-evolutionist probably still try to refute, well how did all this start?
Idunno.
There are some hypotheses floating aroundbut isn't that already
evolution explained? we don't know therefore god exsists?
-end skip here-
Couldn't
one cut evolution at any point and say god did it? even saying just
humans originating from god but the rest evolution? even just 10
seconds ago if u actually read this far and everything is just made up
memories by some demon? or even the devil is behind the bible?
there's nothing to say for or against any of that
That
bit on evolution sure was a tangent but going back to the
anti-evolutionist videos, one of the arguements was that the origin of
life is too complicated to occur randomly. According to chemical
evolution theory, it didn't. Just because something is unlikely all at
once doesn't mean it can't happen, but that's also leaving out the
process. To stop there and assume god did it is being willfully
ignorant of other possibilities. It's also wrong to take the other
extreme and try to figure everything out without concern for
destruction in the process.
The last thing on the video asked,
"How could such a magnificent thing as life happen randomly?" I say God
or no god, life and everything about the universe is magnificent either
way.
By the way, Easter with egg hunts, bunnies, chicks(of the
pultry kind), and other cute things is based on older pegan culture
about rebirth and spring. Rebirth of Jesus was adapted into it.
American Christmas traditions of gift giving was specifically secular
just to have a holiday without being religious. Before that Europeans
were getting drunk for christmas. The christmas tree is derived from
Yule, another pegan holiday.
And anyone feel free to refute provided u read an have something new to say
|
