# Creation vs. Evolution



## sweatshopchamp (Nov 6, 2004)

Which do you believe in Creation or Evolution? What do you base your belief on?


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 6, 2004)

here we go.   I'll simply state my choice & move along.. no point in arguing something that will go nowhere. 

Only Creation. 

I don't believe in evolution any form (stand-alone or as a designed method).


----------



## oaktownboy (Nov 6, 2004)

this is just gonna turn into anotha heat thread...yall shouldnt even start again


----------



## Du (Nov 6, 2004)

We were put here by aliens. Like the goo-ah-oold. Like from Stargate SG1.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 6, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> We were put here by aliens. Like the goo-ah-oold. Like from Stargate SG1.


that was my second choice.


----------



## jgirl (Nov 6, 2004)

Creation, evolution to me is a theory, and it seems like a good one, but more and more people are proving it wrong. I think Creation is the best "theory" and I base my beliefs on Genisis.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 6, 2004)

jgirl said:
			
		

> Creation, evolution to me is a theory, and it seems like a good one, but more and more people are proving it wrong. I think Creation is the best "theory" and I base my beliefs on Genisis.



lol


----------



## maniclion (Nov 6, 2004)

I believe in sex.


----------



## perfectbody (Nov 7, 2004)

There is a thread  where this topic was broadly discussed in this forum. Look out for it. 

The belief in Creation relieves people, so most people have it.  Anyway the truth is truth. 
U can't deny the truth.


----------



## adrien_j9 (Nov 7, 2004)

What is the possibility of both?  7 days to God may be several thousands of years for us.  Who's to say that it wasn't both?  That's what I believe.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2004)

In college you take a class where the right answer is life has to come from life it is impossibe for it to start from non life. THEN you take another where the right answer is that life crawled out of a primordial stew of non living rotting water. It was the same Professor.   either creation or dropped here by aliens. Did anyone see Father Guido Sarducci do the skit where God evolved?


----------



## I Are Baboon (Nov 7, 2004)

Evolution.  There is scientific proof.  It is not a theory.  

 

*this will be my only post in this thread*


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

I have absolutely no problem with the notion of God through force of divine will and command ordering Creation into existence and setting it in motion with a set of consistent rules, Natural Laws and phenomenon. Therefore I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that the mechanism of Evolution can be in perfect agreement with the fundamental view of Creation since God can chose whatever tools, processes and mechanisms he desires. He can just as easily create man from clay as he can create a genius from a donkey (hey don't look at me that way ), or an ape from an amoeba or a woman from a man's rib. 

It is interesting to note that God did not chose to just "will" that his "word [become spontaneous and instant] flesh" when Jesus came into physical existence on Earth. Rather, for reasons known only to God  he had Jesus suffer the humility of being born and grow as a normal human when it was clearly within God's power to directly and immediately manifest him through a simple action of will.

OD


----------



## Monolith (Nov 7, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> jgirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



double lol


----------



## madden player (Nov 7, 2004)

_It's evolution baby._


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> He can just as easily create man from clay as he can. . .a woman from a man's rib.
> OD




That would possibly be the original homosexual act.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

Absolutely descendants of a penal colony established by an ancient race of aliens who pushed their barbaric elements as far away as possible from their home planetary system. There is no reason to believe that creation or evolution ever began with the third rock from our sun.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> That would possibly be the original homosexual act.


Not funny...
But what is funny is: 'and ever since woman was created from a man's rib she has been continuing to rib him.'

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Absolutely descendants of a penal colony established by an ancient race of aliens who pushed their barbaric elements as far away as possible from their home planetary system. There is no reason to believe that creation or evolution ever began with the third rock from our sun.


Then there is no reason to believe that wisdom started with a random spasm of gas emitted from kbm8795  in the Creation vs. Evolution thread in the IM website in the billions of other websites on the 3rd planet from the sun within the Milkway Galaxy within the billions of other unknown galaxies within all of Creation.

OD


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Absolutely descendants of a penal colony established by an ancient race of aliens who pushed their barbaric elements as far away as possible from their home planetary system. There is no reason to believe that creation or evolution ever began with the third rock from our sun.



the whole idea of aliens seeding our planet only pushes the mystery of life somewhere else. where did the aliens come from?


----------



## madden player (Nov 7, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Not funny...
> But what is funny is: 'and ever since woman was created from a man's rib she has been continuing to rib him.'
> 
> OD


Almost funny.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 7, 2004)

OK, I see. Talking about politics is out and religion is in....


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> OK, I see. Talking about politics is out and religion is in....


 funny how that works, isn't it?


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> . . . God can chose whatever tools, processes and mechanisms he desires.
> 
> OD




ahhh...as long as his choices are in agreement with O.D.'s ministry.


----------



## sweatshopchamp (Nov 7, 2004)

I respect all your opinions.  But, The earth and everything in it is so complex and amazing to just have had a "big bang" and everything was here.  Its like coming accross a mansion and saying "wow this just created itself."  Every masterpiece has a master of design.  If you really arent sure about the subject and want to know more email me and I'll try to answer your questions.


----------



## JJJ (Nov 7, 2004)

sweatshopchamp said:
			
		

> I respect all your opinions.  But, The earth and everything in it is so complex and amazing to just have had a "big bang" and everything was here.  Its like coming accross a mansion and saying "wow this just created itself."  Every masterpiece has a master of design.  If you really arent sure about the subject and want to know more email me and I'll try to answer your questions.




Are you in some sort of cult?


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

Like Busy said, this has been debated to death.  Personally I believe in evolution.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> ahhh...as long as his choices are in agreement with O.D.'s ministry.


oooooooohhhhh, you better pray you are not a first born when the morning comes...
OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 7, 2004)

redspy said:
			
		

> Like Busy said, this has been debated to death.  Personally I believe in evolution.


I could accept it as 100% "fact" if not for the contravening "fact" we have anomalies such as yourself still crawling around on their bellies giving all our ape forefathers a bad name. My complain about evolution is it's always been one step forward and two back as some bastard screws it for the rest of us and slips up in the stinking snake manure. And to think in spite of our faces we all have noses...
 
 
OD


----------



## redspy (Nov 7, 2004)

Says he, the one who slipped into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't paying attention.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 7, 2004)

I don't see the conflict behind the two, except for those who feel mere humans would have all the answers to everything. The church was always good at that. Who's to say How God created the universe? And who's to say he didn't do it according to scientific law? Who's to say he didn't reach down  6 billion years ago, into that one stinking chemical morass of the cooling Earth, and in touching it create the first living cells? IMO told the Galaxy has 100 Billion stars in it, and the known universe has over 100 Billion galaxies. Boy, it would be a hell of a coincidence if we were the only sentients in such a space eh?

                               Back on Earth the fossil record is pretty hard to argue with. We can look at animals interact and observe how only the strongest survive and propagate, thus passing their superior genes on. Chimpanzees have a 97% DNA match with the Human animal, so short has it been since our two species diverged from a common ancestor. Higher apes can use tools and have been taught sign language. They can actually communicate with us on a 6yo's level. Chimpanzees hunt other chimps,buy sex with gifts of freshly hunted meat, love to steal human babies to eat, and once a week the males of the troupe go on a patrol of their territory to protect it from other chimps. They follow one strong leader at the head, go in single file with proper tactical spacing, and they don't make a sound! If they catch another chimp on their territory they kill him and eat him.

                       While there are gaps in the record its been pretty well documented that we evolved from a chimp-like ancestor, successfully adapted to environmental changes, and populated ,from out of Africa, to all corners of the earth. The church still insists on the fable of Adam and Eve. But wheres their proof? And what makes them so smart to think they know all the answers about God anyway?

                       At the least I'd say they have this one wrong. Physical evidence sways me more then a fable does........................Rich


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

I don't have a problem with evolution.. if that's the method, then that's the method. I just currently don't believe that it is.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> It is interesting to note that God did not chose to just "will" that his "word [become spontaneous and instant] flesh" when Jesus came into physical existence on Earth. Rather, for reasons known only to God  he had Jesus suffer the humility of being born and grow as a normal human when it was clearly within God's power to directly and immediately manifest him through a simple action of will.
> 
> OD



BTW, very good point, OD.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 7, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with evolution.. if that's the method, then that's the method. I just currently don't believe that it is.



                           Busy were all waiting like patience on a monument why, pray tell, you dont believe it is...............  ..............Rich


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Busy were all waiting like patience on a monument why, pray tell, you dont believe it is...............  ..............Rich


you'll be waiting quite a while   

.......Jim


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 7, 2004)

So you dont believe in evolution? But you dont know why you dont believe in it?...............................Rich


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> So you dont believe in evolution? But you dont know why you dont believe in it?...............................Rich


i never said that. i said i wasn't getting into it.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 7, 2004)

Find me somebody with anything more than an associates that doesn't beleive in evolution.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 7, 2004)

Me.

At least not the Darwin crack-headed theory.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 7, 2004)

I know quite a few people with advanced degrees that do not buy the evolution theory.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 7, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Find me somebody with anything more than an associates that doesn't beleive in evolution.




well, in computer science... but you didn't specify


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 7, 2004)

One of the big busts for evolutionists happend in 1980 when NASA scientists discovered that primitive Earth never had any methane, ammonia or hydrogen to amount to anything as previously believed. (This environment would have made it very favorable for organic compounds to emerge)Instead, it was water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

More studies and experiments have also shown this.

Even the simplist cell at the MOST basic level requires assembling the correct 20 amino acids in perfect order to produce protein molecues.. the ability to "get rid" of the other 60 aminos, and many of these aminos react differently to other aminos... etc. And after all this.. in combination with maybe 100 aminos, you still ONLY have a protein molecule.

THEN you have to assemble those protein molecules accordingly.. etc.

Its so very complicated, that it could not happen without the will of a creator.


This


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2004)

This is worse than people believing in Kerry


----------



## Vieope (Nov 7, 2004)

_I believe in myself, nothing else matters. _


----------



## Du (Nov 7, 2004)

I believe in Vieope, too.


----------



## milliman (Nov 7, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Find me somebody with anything more than an associates that doesn't believe in evolution.


Institute of Creation Research, Santee CA

A whole bunch of Phd types with degrees in all of the physical sciences.
By the way, most of them used to believe in Evolution.

http://www.icr.org/    click on the "scientists " tab for details

Here is another group with a whole bunch of Creation stuff, but I don't know if they are Phd's.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

The ICR guys go around the world and debate evolutionists.
The evolutionists lose every time because there are no transitional forms or follils to support the theory. Nothing to link it all together.

Evolution *is not* Science.

By definition, Science is the proposal of a theory to explain observed events.
Then you devise a test to support the theory.
You then measure the results to see if they support or deny the theory.
Anybody else should be able to duplicate your results, or it is not true.

Evolution is a theory.
You will never be able to duplicate it in a lab, so it is not provable. (neither is creation) 
the best you could do is see if it agrees to the observed events. Darwin proposed "the theory" and said it should be proved by the fossil record. To this date is has never been proved by the fossil record. They have never found the so called "missing link" or links.


----------



## milliman (Nov 7, 2004)

Creationism is basically believing that the world was created by a God who intelligently designed the whole thing to fit together. Each thing was created for a purpose.

Evolution is basically believing that everything is an accident. Over time, cells mutated and became better than the preceding cell or species.

I personally think the second one is more fantasy than the first one.

Think about this.
If you were walking in the forest and saw some pine needles arranged on the ground that said "BUSH SUCKS", would you think that they accidentally landed that way, or that some intelligent life form had placed them on the ground that way.
We could discuss later whether intelligent life likes Bush or not, but we will save that for a later day.

You would say it was obviously not an accident that they were arranged that way.

Why ? Why would you not think that it had accidentallly fallen off the tree that way ?

Because you would look at it and know that each pine needle was specifically placed in each spot to cummunicate meaning. each needle had to be in a precise place for each letter to make sense. And each group of letters had to be in the right order to make a word. and the two words had to be in the right order to communicate meaning to you.
All of it was intelligently designed to cummunicate with one another.

You could walk around in the forest for the rest of your life and you will never find pine needles forming words on accident. 

Imagine yourself on the moon. What would you expect to find by accident ? A rock ? ?
What if you found an arrow head. 
Would it be an accident or intelligent design ? remote possibility of an accident
What if you found a paper cup? Definitley intelligent design !
What if you found a shirt? Definitley intelligent design 
What about a cell phone? Definitley intelligent design !
How about a space ship? Definitley nto an accident.

But why ? the more complex the thing is, the more you know it was designed by a creator to be that way. So what is the most complex thing on the earth ? ? ?

the human body. Just look at some of its parts. The eye is as incredible as most cameras. It has auto focus, adapts to bright light or night vision by itself, automatically self lubricates and cleans the lens every 10 seconds or so (blinking).
It never grows any algea in the fluid in the eye and it heals itself.

Look at the kidney. Automatically monitors all chemical and fluid levels and filters out what is not needed or retains what it senses it is short on.

How about the hand. Strong enough to pick up huge weights, or supple enough to pick up a wine glass or a piece of paper. Sense hot, cold, texture, wet or dry.
How many robot arms are that versatile.

How about our legs. They still have not designed a robot that can go up and down stairs or a hill yet. 

How about the brain. Faster than any computer. Continually monitors heat, cold, temperature, wind, angle of the body. Adjust foot pressure to maintain upright posture whether you are standing or moving. maintains blood pressure, breathing etc.
Filters out all of the irrelevant data and only send important stuff to the brain to act on. ie pain

So why do we look at it and say "oh yeah, an accident" ?
Every little amino acid in your DNA has to be in the exact perfect place, just like the pine needles, to tell it how to function. How did each of those accidentally get there.
That, my brother, takes a lot of faith to believe that it is all an accident.

Science is really cool and very advanced these days, but they can not make anything live. Not one blade of grass or bacteria. Nothing, nada zero.

So do you really believe you are an accident ?
Or intelligently designed by a creator ?


----------



## Vieope (Nov 7, 2004)

du510 said:
			
		

> I believe in Vieope, too.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 7, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Institute of Creation Research, Santee CA
> 
> A whole bunch of Phd types with degrees in Chemistry to Geology.
> By the way, most of them used to believe in Evolution.
> ...



_That is interesting. _


----------



## milliman (Nov 7, 2004)

Someone brought up the good old chimpanzee too. Supposedly 97 or 99% like us. Right ! . . . . . . . . wrong !

Ponder this.

Evolution is based on a gene mutating and somehow getting better. (lets skip the fact that not one scientist can give you even one example of a mutated gene getting better, they are almost always lethal). 

Now that we can do genetic mapping of DNA, we can identify the genes that are responsible for many functions in our body.

for example, gene 1 might be eye color, gene 2 brain size, gene 3 muscle insertion point etcetera .

We could look at the DNA of Mudge, V, people in africa, or anywhere in the world and gene 1, 2, 3 and down the line would be the same on all of them. Maybe we could even anlayze Mudge's gene 3 muscle insertion point to see why his bench is so high. The point is, everybodies genes are in the same spot.

So we should be able to look at the chimpanzee genes and see how they supposedly mutated to get to ours. Right !

Suprisingly, all of the genes are in a totally different place. Not because they just happend to get scrambled, because we are not related at all.

Once someone designed the wheel they used it in all sort of things. bikes, cars, dollies, wheel barrows etcetera. The bike did not evolve into a wheel barrow, the creator just used the good design over and over again since it worked.  As did our creator.


----------



## milliman (Nov 7, 2004)

bump


----------



## Vieope (Nov 7, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> We could look at the DNA of Mudge, V, people in africa, or anywhere in the world and gene 1, 2, 3 and down the line would be the same on all of them.


_Now you went too far. _


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

The Institute for Creation Research only contends it "wins" every debate with evolutionists, and basically what they can't do is prove their Creation theory. They make the assumption that if evolution can't be proven, then it HAS to be "A" creator and then this is put forward as "intelligent design." 

But there are fundamental differences in both creation theory and evolutionary theory - in science, knowledge is flexible and is open to be corrected; in creation, there is only one answer that cannot be questioned. Creation "theory" is not a science; it is more a debunking tool of evolution designed to replace development of critical thinking skills in science with religious texts. 

The "debates" they conduct are merely exercises in exposing the gaps in evolution - and yes, in science, theories are developed and discarded as knowledge grows. They promote creationism through the stealth of "intelligent design" although the textbooks they select do not include an endless possibility of ideas on how life formed. While I don't necessarily dispute the possibility of creation (in several different ways) I also don't assume there aren't other answers out there, or that the real "intelligent design" isn't the path mankind has been intentionally placed upon by whatever our origination.


----------



## milliman (Nov 7, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> The Institute for Creation Research only contends it "wins" every debate with evolutionists, and basically what they can't do is prove their Creation theory. They make the assumption that if evolution can't be proven, then it HAS to be "A" creator and then this is put forward as "intelligent design." /QUOTE]
> 
> I guess this is true.
> Both are theories and by definition, can not be proven by the scientific method because nobody can create life.
> ...


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

No, actually the facts don't necessarily prove the conclusion for creation theory. It is an idea with possibilities. Creation theorists in the Middle Ages supported the notion that the world was flat - and held onto that belief for a couple hundred years after it was proven wrong. Creation theorists put forth the idea that races were deliberately placed on different continents for a reason, and then held early evolutionist hostage for research funding until they skewed that research to prove the inferiority of other races. These are things that today's creationists tend to quietly sweep under the carpet, pretending that they have gained new creation knowledge independently of other sciences. 

One of the issues with "intelligent design" is that, while conceptually it should encourage discussion of MANY different possibilities, it advocates in texts for a particular religious position, as if that alone could be the only alternative. Then they explain that knowledge can grow with the creation approach only if research is confined to that specific singular truth - and have thus contributed very little toward expanding our knowledge. The bulk of their research is only designed to disprove evolutionary work by asserting, when the gaps are found, that there is only one possible alternative answer. They provide nothing new beyond a rhetorical reapproachment to religious education of the 19th century. 

Evolution was not considered necessarily contradictory to God - I don't believe it claims that there is no presence of "God" or any possibility of creation. The knowledge that is present is taught as fact, to a degree, but the whole foundation of theory is that while something is testable, it can also be expanded and eventually proven wrong; that is what is taught in schools. For example, in geology, one researcher hypothesized that plates rubbed against each other and that caused earthquakes - but everyone else disagreed with that idea for about 20 more years. Even though it does not explain everything, that is the best knowledge we have at this point - and it is open to being shown to be only a piece of the puzzle. 

As in every other academic subject, the knowledge presented is only the information that we, as humans, have explored up to this point, with some emphasis on critical thinking skills. And yes, as part of that process, it is certainly acceptable for students to ponder creation as an explanation. But those are not necessarily the only possibilities. If we accept one as an unchangeable truth, we might prevent ourselves from unlocking many other answers about the world and universe that God or destiny has waiting for us to explore. 

In my opinion, these creationist people fall into the category of those who would say "If God had meant Man to fly, he would have given him wings."


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 7, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no problem with the notion of God through force of divine will and command ordering Creation into existence and setting it in motion with a set of consistent rules, Natural Laws and phenomenon. Therefore I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that the mechanism of Evolution can be in perfect agreement with the fundamental view of Creation since God can chose whatever tools, processes and mechanisms he desires. He can just as easily create man from clay as he can create a genius from a donkey (hey don't look at me that way ), or an ape from an amoeba or a woman from a man's rib.
> 
> 
> OD



I totally agree


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Nov 7, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Creationism is basically believing that the world was created by a God who intelligently designed the whole thing to fit together. Each thing was created for a purpose.
> 
> Evolution is basically believing that everything is an accident. Over time, cells mutated and became better than the preceding cell or species.
> 
> ...




wow, this is an amazing post


----------



## Arnold (Nov 7, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> This is worse than people believing in Kerry



I do not think many "believed" in Kerry, we just wanted Bush out of office and Kerry was the only solution.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 7, 2004)

You can't put a man out of office if God speaks "through" him.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 8, 2004)

""""""""Evolution is based on a gene mutating and somehow getting better. (lets skip the fact that not one scientist can give you even one example of a mutated gene getting better, they are almost always lethal). """"""""

                           No it isn't. Its based on living creatures "evolving" and successfully adapting to changing environmental variables. A gene doesn't "mutate", unless you consider a baby of two separate parents a mutation. A living organism does however evolve and there is great scientific evidence that many of the currently animals have done so. There is also great evidence of the many who failed to adopt to a changing environment. Evolutionary theory isn't just based on the human animal.

                         Part of the problem is most of our evolution happened in Africa. Ever been to Africa? I have! You would think that, after seeing so much fauna of every type imaginable,  you'd see a lot of dead ones and various carcasses littering the landscape. Unfortunately Africa is a great disposer of dead stuff. Even the bones get eaten as Africa's just one big disposal chute. Almost all of our evolutionary chain must have surely been 'et in the same way which is why its so hard to dig up the "Lucy's" and other human ancestors. Its remarkable we've found all we have, and we "have" quite a bit. Even the creationists must wonder who these animals were? Why did they look so much like us? Where did they come from and where did they go? And lastly, why is this one so subtly different from that one, and why does carbon dating irrefutably say one is so much older then that one?

                            Nothing was "mutated". A bolt of lightening didn't hit one animal and suddenly mutate it into another. 6 million years ago a troupe of ape like creatures starting walking upright on the plains of Africa because they needed to in order to survive. The environment was changing, as was their food sources, and they had to start walking upright or face extinction. In another area that same animal found other ways to survive. One became the modern ape and one became Homo Sapien. This all happened over millions of years and there was no sudden "mutation" of one animal into another. Along the way there were many experiments of nature that died out, for instance "Neanderthal".

                       "My" own people migrated north to ice age Europe and found themselves in a hostile environment that forced them to adopt and improvise. Long,long winter months forced them indoors for extended periods and thus prodded them to develop higher social skills. In this manner "culture" began,as did the first Govt.'s, laws, art, spoken language...ect  The large animals they had to hunt for survival forced them to develop better weapons, better tools, better ways to store the meat, to make clothing, and to make and control fire. Did you ever wonder why almost every invention, improvement on, or discovery has been made by someone of European roots?

                     As to how life first started on Earth? How can we ever truly find the answer to that? You cant "experiment" millions and billions of years. You cant re-create that in a laboratory, nor millions of years of evolution. All you can do is theorize. But theory backed up by sound scientific evidence is a theory on sound footing. Much more so then some childrens fable anyways. Besides its very possible the first primitive life forms, or the precursors needed to make them, came to earth on comets or asteroids anyway. Its very possible the Universe  seeds life thru itself in such a way.

                         In the next 10 to 20 years NASA and Europe's space agency are going to be putting telescopes in space that are so sensitive they will be able to see Earth sized planets orbiting other stars. Not only that but they will be capable of analyzing the light reflected off these planets to determine if they have atmospheres suitable for life to exist. Imagine when we find another Earth orbiting a nearby star? What will the creationists say then?

                          That the Earth is flat? That its the center of the universe? That everything rotates around us? And that were all going to Hell if we believe otherwise?

                          I think I'll believe in the science.......  ........Rich


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 8, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> You can't put a man out of office if God speaks "through" him.



Well there are certainly nasty repercussions if one tries. Recall what happened to Egypt when it tried to lay the Smack on Moses.

OD


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Evolution was a way to justify peoples belief that God did not exist and therefore they could do whatever they wanted. They would not need to be held accountable to anyone at the end of their life. Nothing was right or wrong, only what the strongest did was correct.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 8, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> No, actually the facts don't necessarily prove the conclusion for creation theory. It is an idea with possibilities. Creation theorists in the Middle Ages supported the notion that the world was flat - and held onto that belief for a couple hundred years after it was proven wrong. * Fact: Man is fallable *Creation theorists put forth the idea that races were deliberately placed on different continents for a reason, and then held early evolutionist hostage for research funding until they skewed that research to prove the inferiority of other races. * Unsure of the accuracy of this complaint. I suspect it more likely that they projected an inferiority based less on race and more on moral or religious devotion and that latter inferiority is likely what they used to account for the differences in nations affluence, prominence and divine favor. *These are things that today's creationists tend to quietly sweep under the carpet, pretending that they have gained new creation knowledge independently of other sciences.
> 
> One of the issues with "intelligent design" is that, while conceptually it should encourage discussion of MANY different possibilities, it advocates in texts for a particular religious position, as if that alone could be the only alternative.*This I believe is their precise complaint about evolutionist theory pundits is it not?* Then they explain that knowledge can grow with the creation approach only if research is confined to that specific singular truth - and have thus contributed very little toward expanding our knowledge. * I doubt many archeologist are happy with the idea of tithing a portion of their research grants to a competing theory that does not support grave robbing and paying them their own salt either. *The bulk of their research is only designed to disprove evolutionary work by asserting, when the gaps are found, that there is only one possible alternative answer. * In science this is healthy to have a tension between two competing theories to intice the struggle for truth.*They provide nothing new beyond a rhetorical reapproachment to religious education of the 19th century. * It seems to me that the evolutionists have resorted to a form of faith based teachings similar to the traditional religious based approach to account for the remaining mysteries and gaps in their "science".*
> 
> ...



Comments Embedded:
OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 8, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> The Institute for Creation Research only contends it "wins" every debate with evolutionists, and basically what they can't do is prove their Creation theory. They make the assumption that if evolution can't be proven, then it HAS to be "A" creator and then this is put forward as "intelligent design."
> 
> But there are fundamental differences in both creation theory and evolutionary theory - in science, knowledge is flexible and is open to be corrected; in creation, there is only one answer that cannot be questioned. * Then from the perspective of scientific thought, being a possibility this does not preclude the possibility that it is correct does it? Does science object to finding truth through other methodologies?*Creation "theory" is not a science; it is more a debunking tool of evolution designed to replace development of critical thinking skills in science with religious texts. * Critical thinking is only relevant for cases where humanity is capable of fathoming and modeling things acceptable to the human way of rationalizing. I believe that God has already alerted humanity and gone on record as having stated that 'his ways are not our ways' and 'equality with God is not something to be grasped at' (as one might be tempted to pick an apple from the tree in the garden) and 'do not seek to fathom that which is too sublime for you'.*
> 
> The "debates" they conduct are merely exercises in exposing the gaps in evolution - and yes, in science, theories are developed and discarded as knowledge grows. * Up to now no one was challenging the theory that was being taught as fact. I think this is a good thing since we need a check and balance and compel science to come up with better data.*They promote creationism through the stealth of "intelligent design" although the textbooks they select do not include an endless possibility of ideas on how life formed.* Instructors can always have multiple texts of competing theories when forming their instruction if the publishers will not place summary works into single texts.* While I don't necessarily dispute the possibility of creation (in several different ways) I also don't assume there aren't other answers out there, or that the real "intelligent design" isn't the path mankind has been intentionally placed upon by whatever our origination.*Write a book and lobby to have it taught in schools as a competing theory.*



Comments embedded.
OD


----------



## ZECH (Nov 8, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I do not think many "believed" in Kerry, we just wanted Bush out of office and Kerry was the only solution.


No he wasn't. He was just the only one with a chance to win. And it just proved that liberals will vote for ANYONE not conservative. You or me, if we could win the Democratic nomination, would stand as good of a chance as Kerry did of winning, just because we were on the "liberal" ticket regardless of our beliefs or stances.
That is what is so pathetic of our nation now. Until a group of people are willing to take a stand, this will not change and no one will ever stand a chance of knocking off these Lifetime politicians.


----------



## RexStunnahH (Nov 8, 2004)

I would say creation,I don't see a whole lot of humans evolving into something.If we evolved from something where did that something evolve from,the big bang,doesn't it say it all started with an explosion in space,and organisms and stuff came about,well where did all this come from?There has to be a beginning.Something that started the bigbang.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

sweatshopchamp said:
			
		

> Which do you believe in Creation or Evolution? What do you base your belief on?



Whose creation story?  Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Native American?  Every culture has a creation story, and all are different.

Is there any way to back up the story that the earth was created in 6 days by an anthropomorphic God?  There is, however, plenty of scientific evidence to support the evolution of the universe and of life.  

Yes, something created the universe and the world, and it has evolved and is evolving.  Evolution was and is the process of creation.  It doesn't mean it happened in 6 days, however.

That's what I believe.


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 8, 2004)

What we are assuming is that a "competing" theory is simply the endorsement of one religious belief as the only alternative to scientific inquiry. Belief in creationism neither calls for or endorses inquiry beyond guidelines interpreted by man in relation to one particular religious belief. Obviously, in the public school system, there are student of varying religious beliefs, each with a version on the formation of life on this planet. American creationists want the teachings of one religious belief to "compete" with scientific inquiry. 

There are fundamental differences in how facts are presented. One, based on a religious belief, does not allow for exploration or challenge. It is presented as an absolute, not a "fact" which is the truth based on the knowledge accumulated by man to date. Scientific facts can be changed over time as new ideas are tested and old ideas are proven wrong; creationism contends that there is only one absolute that cannot be challenged or altered and that any information that could alter that cannot be examined. 

In the case of race, this was indeed part of the facts that western religions tried to propogate - that exploration of the differences between pigment had to be conducted within the basis of an inherent inferiority. This is probably best displayed today by the "scientific" theory put forward by Rev. Moon's Unification Church, which claims that if we put Africans up at the North Pole for a couple of generations, they will become "white." As late as the middle of the 20th century, creationists contended that the "mixture" of the races would result in falling intelligence and birth defects. 

Obviously, if we are to embrace these "theories" as competitive in public school science classes, we'll have to look at hundreds of competing religious theories about nearly every singular contention, including those that popular religions find objectionable. This is one reason why we have religious schools operated by singular denominations. Of course, if accreditation becomes based on teaching all of the "competing" theories, these schools will balk at being required to teach another religion's approach or encouraging that their own be challenged. Since each is taught not as a theory that can be later disproved but rather an absolute that cannot be questioned, they fit into religion classes much better than science.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> In the next 10 to 20 years NASA and Europe's space agency are going to be putting telescopes in space that are so sensitive they will be able to see Earth sized planets orbiting other stars. Not only that but they will be capable of analyzing the light reflected off these planets to determine if they have atmospheres suitable for life to exist. Imagine when we find another Earth orbiting a nearby star? What will the creationists say then?



I don't see how that would disprove anything... Except maybe that the virtually "freak-cosmic string of accidents" that we are happened elsewhere.

It would be ignorant to believe we are the only form of life in the universe, but that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Creation theorists in the Middle Ages supported the notion that the world was flat - and held onto that belief for a couple hundred years after it was proven wrong.


Creation had nothing to do with a flat earth. People try to attribute wrong ideas to someone to try to make them seem stupid. That is what this is.  
The whole world thought the earth was flat. Columbus is the one who wanted to go out and see what was beyond the sunset.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Creation theorists put forth the idea that races were deliberately placed on different continents for a reason, and then held early evolutionist hostage for research funding until they skewed that research to prove the inferiority of other races.


Creation has nothing to do with people on different continents. It deals with how did life begin. Quit straying from the issue.  

There is no Biblical scholar who would ever theorize the above either. Creation said that Adam & Eve were created in the Garden of Eden (over in Iraq area.) That is one place, they were not created on differing continents. After the flood, Noah and his family were the only survivors. As their decendents built the tower of Babel, God confused there languages. So they separated and spread out from there. This is what is written.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> One of the issues with "intelligent design" is that, . . . The bulk of their research is only designed to disprove evolutionary work by asserting, when the gaps are found, that there is only one possible alternative answer. They provide nothing new beyond a rhetorical reapproachment to religious education of the 19th century.


From what I have observed, they study the facts, and just like a regular scientist, figure out how stuff works. They hypothesize, test it, and see if this fits with what they expected.

They do take there results and show how it could not possibly fit into an evolutionary frame work. 

Evolutionary scientists are not even "Intellectually Honest". If they find facts that do not support evolution, they do not discuss it or bring it up at all. They also discard creation since it can not be duplicated in a laboratory. If you even have the opinion of a creator and intelligent design, or write about problems with evolution, you are ridiculed or even lose your job.



			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> Evolution was not considered necessarily contradictory to God - I don't believe it claims that there is no presence of "God" or any possibility of creation. ."


How do you have that opinion ?  
Evolution says, Big Bang, life started on its own, mutated into something better, and here we are today.

Where does God come into that picture ?  
Or is he just a big smiley face in the sky watching it all happen ? 




			
				kbm8795 said:
			
		

> In my opinion, these creationist people fall into the category of those who would say "If God had meant Man to fly, he would have given him wings."


Pretty nasty opinion. You have already pigeon holed a creationist.
I bet you have never even looked at any of their work.

I think God gave man the ability to learn how to do so many things, and he expects us to be wise stewards with the knowledge we have learned and use it for good.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 8, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> No he wasn't. He was just the only one with a chance to win.



same difference, if you do not vote republican or democratic not much point, right?

I could have voted for an independant, but that would have just hurt Kerry's chances for winning even more, so that made no sense.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 8, 2004)

Oh, and this whole argument about creation vs. evolution is pointless for two reasons:

Number one the religeous people will never change their beliefs no mater how much science you give them, they will hold their faith in that book (the bible) until they drop dead.

Number two, neither can be proved, granted there is science that backs up evolution, but not how the world was created, all we really have is a theory.

I believe that if you're a rational, thinking human being you would realize that a story such as Genesis is just that, a story. To take that story literally is just plain silly IMO.

Okay, I am done.


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I don't see how that would disprove anything... Except maybe that the virtually "freak-cosmic string of accidents" that we are happened elsewhere.
> 
> It would be ignorant to believe we are the only form of life in the universe, but that doesn't mean anything.


Studying the universe is really cool. Beautiful stuff.

The hubble telescope brought out a big problem with the big bang theory.
Imagine a explosion, stuff would be ejected in every direction from the center. Up, down, side to side, front back . . . Should be like a big expanding ball . . Factor in gravity and you should get clumping of stuff to make galaxies but still expanding from the CENTER.

After Hubble was put in space, they found that the solar system was basically flat. And the different galaxies were going in all sorts of directions other than just expanding.

Just another of the many problems with the big bang / evolution theory.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2004)

This man is the Devil's Advocate, do not be fooled by his wheelchaired facade of innocence.


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Here is the fossil formation problem with evolution.

How is a fossil formed ? An animal has to die, then get buried quickly by mud and silt to preserve its body. If the body is left on top of the soil, other animals eat it and tear it to pieces. When a fish dies, it usually floats on the water and is eaten by birds or other fish. So it would be a rare day to find a fossil under normal methods. And when you did find one, you would usually find a single specimen.

What do you find in real life ? Ever been fossil hunting ?

You find fossils all over the place. Huge layers of fossils of all types of critters.
How could you explain this ?

If you had a globlal flood (Noah), which is also reported in most cultures around the world on all continents, then you would have mass death all over the world. the animals would die quickly and due to the floods be covered in mud quickly and fossilized in mass. 

Seems to fit what we find pretty well.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> This man is the Devil's Advocate, do not be fooled by his wheelchaired facade of innocence.


Holy shit, that guy *needs* to hit the gym!


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Here is the fossil formation problem with evolution.
> 
> How is a fossil formed ? An animal has to die, then get buried quickly by mud and silt to preserve its body. If the body is left on top of the soil, other animals eat it and tear it to pieces. When a fish dies, it usually floats on the water and is eaten by birds or other fish. So it would be a rare day to find a fossil under normal methods. And when you did find one, you would usually find a single specimen.
> 
> ...


So was Noah too drunk to remember to load up the Brontosaurus', T-Rex's and Unicorns or what?


----------



## kbm8795 (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Creation had nothing to do with a flat earth. People try to attribute wrong ideas to someone to try to make them seem stupid. That is what this is.
> 
> *Creationism has a history. Consult documents about the teachings of life and the world from the Church at the time.*
> 
> ...



Well, I agree with that, but my opinion is that we should not spend that time promoting absolutism.


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> So was Noah too drunk to remember to load up the Brontosaurus', T-Rex's and Unicorns or what?


Good question.  Mine too.
Only answer is he took babies.

And if you saw Jurassic Park, you know that can cause all sorts of problems.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> Holy shit, that guy *needs* to hit the gym!



That is Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist of the first degree.  He has one of the most brilliant minds this side of Albert Einstein.  He also has ALS, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease.  His body is wasted and useless, but his mind is as sharp and brilliant as ever.


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> That is Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist of the first degree.  He has one of the most brilliant minds this side of Albert Einstein.  He also has ALS, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease.  His body is wasted and useless, but his mind is as sharp and brilliant as ever.


I was aware.


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

KBM,

No doubt early church had problems.  Indulgences, witch hunts, etcetera.
They wanted to string up Galileo since he did not think the earth was the center of the universe. They wanted to kill Martin Luther since he said you were saved by faith instead of absolution from the Pope.

But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
People do bad things and when it is the name of religion, it tarnishes it.

From a historical and archeological standpoint, everything in the Bible has proved to be true. (Creation aside since not possible to prove)

When you think of Nostradomus and his predictions, everybody listens, even though many have been wrong, or are so generic that they could apply to almost anything.

Biblical prophecies have always come true. But nobody wants to listen to them because then you would have to believe in the bearded guy.

What about Ham ? ? ?


ps
I like the idea of aliens too.
Bible is silent on creation in other parts of the universe too.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

Which version of the bible do we follow when we look at the creation of the world from a creationists perspective.  Indesd which religions cover the creation of the world in anything close to detail?  I am not being sarcastic ... I am looking for more information on the views of creationist.


----------



## Monolith (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Creationism is basically believing that the world was created by a God who intelligently designed the whole thing to fit together. Each thing was created for a purpose.
> 
> Evolution is basically believing that everything is an accident. Over time, cells mutated and became better than the preceding cell or species.
> 
> I personally think the second one is more fantasy than the first one.



rofl.  

Yeah, i can _totally_ see how 10,000 years of selective breeding in domesticated animals - i.e. accelerated evolution - isn't shit compared to the rantings of _one_ of the earths several hundred religions.  I mean, really, it makes complete sense that after 8000 years of civilization, we finally stumble onto Christianity and we know its correct!!  Its _so_ obvious that every religion before and since is completely bogus.  Man, i really cant understand why people won't believe me!




			
				milliman said:
			
		

> Think about this.
> If you were walking in the forest and saw some pine needles arranged on the ground that said "BUSH SUCKS", would you think that they accidentally landed that way, or that some intelligent life form had placed them on the ground that way.
> We could discuss later whether intelligent life likes Bush or not, but we will save that for a later day.
> 
> ...




Uh... this "example" is so logically retarded i cant believe youre trying to use it.  If i saw BUSH SUCKS spelled out in pine needles, id recognize it as a human act - not because i have some bizarre epiphany and realize that only someone of _incredible_ intelligence could have crafted such a witty remark - but because *the english language was created by man - and it has no meaning for ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE*.

You think the world is so perfectly created that it couldnt _possibly_ be the work of anything other than an intelligent being, right?  Well imagine this:  you view this planet as perfect because _you evolved to thrive in its ecosystem_.  Obviously humanity wouldnt wake up one day and find itself living at the bottom of the ocean, and say to themselves, "well damn, this obviously isnt the work of intelligence... that guy would have known we breathe AIR and not WATER!!"  Your opinion of the earths perfection is a result of your adaptation to its environment.  Just like fish adapted to water, and birds adapted to sky.

What if i said to you that a 2,000 degree sulfur vent in a trench 5 miles deep out in the pacific was the most perfectly crafted "world" in existence?  You'd probably think that was a bit of a hasty assumption, no?  Well, perhaps it wouldnt be very comfy for you, but for the organisms that thrive within that hellish pit, every other place on earth looks like some inhospitable wasteland.  To those organisms, the planet is the universe.  To them, their home is the only place that seems perfectly created to make them prosper.  For humans, the earth is that vent.  The galaxy is the rest of the world.  We view our home as perfect because we cant contemplate living anywhere else.  That is by _no means_ an excuse to draw the conclusion that it must have been perfectly created for our service.  As with the organisms in the 2,000 degree vent, we're biased towards what we understand.  Ignoring that bias (as you are) isnt simply a matter of faith, its ignorant.







			
				milliman said:
			
		

> the more complex the thing is, the more you know it was designed by a creator to be that way. So what is the most complex thing on the earth ? ? ?
> 
> the human body. Just look at some of its parts. The eye is as incredible as most cameras. It has auto focus, adapts to bright light or night vision by itself, automatically self lubricates and cleans the lens every 10 seconds or so (blinking).
> It never grows any algea in the fluid in the eye and it heals itself.
> ...



Ugh.  This is the same stuperific logic you used up above.  I'm not going to repeat myself, because i have a feeling youre going to ignore everything i said and just come back with "but god says so dued!", so ill just say this:

The eye is "perfect" because 20/20 vision is the best vision humanity has ever had, right?

The kidney is perfect because we've never had a need to filter out "element 292", right?

The hand is perfect because it can sense cold, hot, wet, dry... and we've never had a need to be able to differentiate between 39.1 and 39.2 degrees.  We've never had to determine how much water is in a towel, only that it's wet.

Our legs!  Yes, theyre perfect too, because they allow us to do everything that, well... everything that legs let us do!  Of course, if we had three legs which allowed us to move much faster than we currently do, two legged humans wouldnt be viewed as being very perfect, would they?

As for "all those little amino's"... how do you know it wasnt just a random amalgamation of protein?  Lets assume it was - these aminos clump together, and out pops a human.  "WOW!" he says, "those aminos were put together in the PERFECT fashion to create me!!  I MUST have had an intelligent creator!"

Two galaxys over, s'more aminos clump together, and out pops a 6 tentacled blob of goop.  "WOW!" it says, "those aminos were put together in the PERFECT fashion to create me!!  I MUST have had an intelligent creator!"

Is this sinking in yet?





			
				milliman said:
			
		

> Science is really cool and very advanced these days, but they can not make anything live. Not one blade of grass or bacteria. Nothing, nada zero.
> 
> So do you really believe you are an accident ?
> Or intelligently designed by a creator ?



Ok, so in the past 2000 years, what has the christian god done?  Let's see... he's caused at least 9 major wars by my count, resulting in the toppling of empires and the deaths of millions of people.  Uh, i guess thats a "point" for god.

Lets look at science over the past 2000 years.  What has it done for us?  Well, it put a roof over our heads.  It gave us agriculture.  It gave us domesticated animals.  It gave us the steam engine, the industrial revolution, the airplane, the space shuttle, and the computer.  Its made war a shorter and less bloody affair.  How many points should we give science for that?

Add up the two sides... and im thinking science has the better "intelligent design."  Or at the very least, if given the choice between two guiding principles, i'd _hope_ that most people would go with science.  It's done more for us than any of the worlds endlessly morphing religions have.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

MaxMirkin said:
			
		

> I was aware.



 Bad Max.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Biblical prophecies have always come true. But nobody wants to listen to them because then you would have to believe in the bearded guy.
> 
> What about Ham ? ? ?



What biblical prophecies in particular?

Ham?  With cheese, a little mayo.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> That is Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist of the first degree.  He has one of the most brilliant minds this side of Albert Einstein.  He also has ALS, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease.  His body is wasted and useless, but his mind is as sharp and brilliant as ever.




I wonder if he can nut.


----------



## Minotaur (Nov 8, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I wonder if he can nut.



I wouldn't bet the farm that he can.  In fact, I wouldn't put the fishtank on it.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I wonder if he can nut.



I wonder why you're wondering that.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

_I like coffee with sweet toasts. _


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I like coffee with sweet toasts. _




That was deep, V.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

V is known for his depth Busy ...


----------



## MaxMirkin (Nov 8, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> V is known for his depth Busy ...


....and his total disregard for the evils of common sense.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

_It killed this thread, didn´t it? Then it worked just fine.  _


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> rofl.
> 
> Yeah, i can _totally_ see how 10,000 years of selective breeding in domesticated animals - i.e. accelerated evolution -
> *Uh no !  Selective breeding for desireable traits does not produce evolution. A horse still has horse babies. The horse does not evolve into another animal.  *
> ...


Answers embedded in bold.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

_I knew somebody would try to prove me wrong.  _


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2004)

Who created this God, Yhwh, Allah everyone speaks so highly of?  Who does he pray to?


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> Which version of the bible do we follow when we look at the creation of the world from a creationists perspective. Indesd which religions cover the creation of the world in anything close to detail? I am not being sarcastic ... I am looking for more information on the views of creationist.


Pick any, they are all the same. The only differences are the words used. Old English versus current English.  Written to 8th grade level or 12th grade level.

King James, NIV, NASB, New KJ, living bible 

Creation is only the book of Genesis.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should see how this thread evolved.  It's ancestors were threads like it and natural selection of the posters who end up posting in these threads have stopped taking it to a literal or serious manner (and know better than to do it) and now they have evolved in funny, pointless, play threads

by the way, I am a christian that believes in evolution, and a variable that we as humans are either not capable of understanding or have not come up with yet, maybe the subject of time, matter, something we have no foundation on at all, etc.  Branches of psychology/science believe that everything is derived from some other thing, so I feel either that some other thing isn't made available to us (as a creation of God) or we have not made the connection between Point A to Point B (as a creation of evolution)


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

Plus I feel that the Bible has been overtranslated that all there is to say is by now it has been mistranslated, so to find loopholes in Creationsim when referring to the application of evolution is pointless


----------



## BoneCrusher (Nov 8, 2004)

So then the bible that the Mormons use is the same as the one the Amish use?  I doubt that Milliman.  I know that in a crunch two people of unlike secular beliefs would stand side by side in this debate ... but as a non religious person I see a great chasm that needs filled.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> by the way, I am a christian that believes in evolution


_Oh, I love the suspicious and rational christian.  _


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

_I wish Manic have said that, you would look at him and say: "Come on bite me!"  _


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Who created this God, Yhwh, Allah everyone speaks so highly of? Who does he pray to?


The reason I ask is because Creationist can't fathom how we could just be without some divine manipulation of the forces that brought us into the state we are in, yet they don't question who created the God that created them. How can they beleive that God just is and wasn't created and not be able to think maybe the Universe just is? If God was created who created his creator, ad infinitum?


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

I simply don't see why someone would say that there isn't room in the Bible for evolution?  

I mean, no one was there.  I don't look for answers but if you need answers then you could go so far as make up some pretty rational conclusions.  

For one, God created the Earth- no Christian will deny that.  Ok, so if God can do that, and make a human out of dirt, and a woman out of a rib, then why can't he control time right?  I would imagine if God is before all creation, so God has always been around, therefore there was no beginning to time, then there's something that we can't grasp as simple human beings, right?  In other words, all we as human beings know is a beginning and an end to everything, birth and death, even the beginning and end of our own planet- we know when both happen(ed).  So it would be "God-like" to be without this temporal limitation.  So to say that evolution and the Bible cannot coexist and to be Christian is, in my opinion, wrong.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

manic I posted that before I read your post.  Ironically, I think I may have answered your question.  

This is what makes us human, and why do we need to know everything. 

IF there was a God before God, then how does it affect us? 

This is faith, we believe in what we feel, otherwise it wouldn't be faith- it would be knowledge


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

_Damn Crono you are being serious that is so weird. _


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

boobies


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Minotaur said:
			
		

> What biblical prophecies in particular?
> 
> Ham? With cheese, a little mayo.


Without looking, some major ones that come to mind are:

1) Moses bringing on the plagues to Egypt,

2) Book of Daniel was attacked by historians since it accurately predicted Assyrian and Babylonian empires would take over. Prophecies were so exact, that historians thought it was written after the events took place. It was not until they found old manuscripts of dated way before that it was proved to be a prophecy instead of a recitation of past history.

3) Death of Christ Psalm 22 

"They have pierced my hands and feet.
I can count all of my bones, 
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing."

When written, they did not have crucifixtion, so no word could be used.
Pierced was used instead. The reference to bones is that all of his bones
were unbroken. Romans broke the leg bones at the end to hasten death.
But due to the scourging, he died earlier.
Casting lots is what they did for the dividing up dead peoples clothing.

How much more precise can you get.

3) Birth of Christ, town, city, year

4) Resurrection


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> boobies


_That is better. Always end your posts like that. _


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

By the way, I haven't read ANY of this thread so I honestly don't know what's been said, for all I know it's a thread about monkey poo and I could be digging myself into a hole but either way, refer to Religious Thread #1-99999 for application to my post.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Evolution *is not* Science.
> 
> By definition, Science is the proposal of a theory to explain observed events.
> Then you devise a test to support the theory.
> ...


What's your stand on 'black holes'?  They also cannot be tested, but well supported by proven theories and mathematics.   

Are you a mill worker?  Tool and die?  Machinist?  What religion are ya if you don't mind me asking?

I'm a confirmed roman catholic BTW.  I even have a little sister that 'cants' the alla luya song.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 8, 2004)

Yeah? And where did you get this? From MTV? First off all the Hubble "discovered" was the age of the Universe. The one who discovered how its actually expanding was the guy its named after, in the '20s or thereabouts. There is no such conflict with the Big Bang theory because when the "big bang" happened there was no such thing as space, matter, and time. That came later. There is no center of the Universe and there is no edge. And everything, except for a few galaxies locked with ours by gravity, is moving away from us.

                     Nothing is flat, the Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, but a 2 dimensional model to imagine it all is this......imagine you ink a bunch of dots on a balloon and then start blowing it up. No matter what dot you stand on, on the expanding balloon, it appears your on the center and everything else is moving away from you. The Universe is the same way, no matter where you are it appears that your in the center and everything else is moving away. But the paradox is there is no center because the Universe was created before there even was any laws of physics.

                   What E. Hubble discovered was that the Universe was expanding at a non-uniform rate. That Objects farther from us are moving away at a faster speed, as we are from them. Don't ask me what all this shit means because I forgot, didn't really understand it in the first place, don't want to look it up again, and probably wouldn't understand it this time either. I know he used the Doppler effect which I do understand.

                        And to find other earth like planets, in life zone stable orbits around hospitable Stars, would be huge. As was the discovery of other planets in the first place, as was the discovery of the universe. Each one further chips away at the nonsense the Church preaches and when we eventually find evidence of life evolving on other worlds the whole house of religious cards will come crashing down.

                     I think religion is a good thing. And I'm not knocking it! But they should really open their eyes and step into reality..........Rich







			
				milliman said:
			
		

> Studying the universe is really cool. Beautiful stuff.
> 
> The hubble telescope brought out a big problem with the big bang theory.
> Imagine a explosion, stuff would be ejected in every direction from the center. Up, down, side to side, front back . . . Should be like a big expanding ball . . Factor in gravity and you should get clumping of stuff to make galaxies but still expanding from the CENTER.
> ...


----------



## shutupntra1n (Nov 8, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> I just do not appreciate the stereotypes that people believe that all Christians are radicals. If you go read any number of religious threads they bash on Christians for being one sided, whereas so is the other argument. I don't see why I can't fall somewhere in the middle, and I know most people don't, but I'm a Christian and don't appreciate something that I feel so strongly about being ridiculed. I mean I can take a joke and all but if you're going to harrass me for my beliefs then at least know my beliefs. By the way, I haven't read ANY of this thread so I honestly don't know what's been said, for all I know it's a thread about monkey poo and I could be digging myself into a hole but either way, refer to Religious Thread #1-99999 for application to my post.


Clearly one more post I think I'll frame and hang on the wall of IM memories. That's all I'm saying here. I don't argue religion b/c to each his own fate and I sleep well at night knowing what mine is.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

shutupntra1n said:
			
		

> Clearly one more post I think I'll frame and hang on the wall of IM memories. That's all I'm saying here. I don't argue religion b/c to each his own fate and I sleep well at night knowing what mine is.


 

I edited that post so I didn't sound like I'm bitching so much.  I know how to keep from whining if someone said something I don't agree with (see thead: Listen to me Black People .)  And in truth, like I said, I haven't read this thread so I really jumped the gun defending I just assumed there was Side A and Side B to this argument. And in a thread like this, there's no room for whining.  

even still, I think you said it best.  and it kinda got me in a mood for a nap


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

BoneCrusher said:
			
		

> So then the bible that the Mormons use is the same as the one the Amish use? I doubt that Milliman. I know that in a crunch two people of unlike secular beliefs would stand side by side in this debate ... but as a non religious person I see a great chasm that needs filled.


The Bible is comprised of 39 books in the old testament and 27 books in the new testament. All Christians use this. Jews only use the first 39. Mormons add on to this and use the Book of Mormon.

The Bible has many translations, but it HAS NEVER BEEN REWRITTEN.
There are plenty of ancient manuscripts to verify this.

The Amish use the same Bible. They focus a lot of attention on the verse that says "do not be conformed to the world". They take this to mean do not use electricity, or cars or whatever. Most Christians would say this means not to get involved with pursuing material wealth or whatever the world sees as a sign of success.

You can take anything in the Bible you want (other than creation) and trace it historically to its actual place. Money, cities, people groups etcetera.

The Mormons use a book written by Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon). It basically says that Jesus came to the US and details what he did here. When you test it for accuracy, (people, money places) none of it, or very little can be authenticated. IT HAS been rewritten too. It predicted we would find people like Pilgrims on the moon.

If a book is supposedly from God, then all of it must be true. So if some of the Bible is proved wrong, then it could not be from God. Hence, I do not give any credibility to the Book of Mormon. 

That being said, every Mormon I have met has been a nice person.
However Jehovah's witnesses (cult) have usually been jerks.

The best way to get them to leave you alone is to tell them that you have been dis-fellowshipped. When you tell them that, they act like you have leprosy.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Who created this God, Yhwh, Allah everyone speaks so highly of?  Who does he pray to?



I'm trying not to get into this, but here's a quick answer to that:

If there is a God and He created the universe, then He exists _outside_ the universe & is not bound by the "beginning" or "end" of a life that we are or any law that science teaches.  We can't possible know what is outside of the universe & therefore cannot put any limitations on Him.

Where we are, we are born/have a beginning. That is not necessarily the case for Him & His existence.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> I haven't read this thread so I really jumped the gun defending I just assumed there was Side A and Side B to this argument.


_ Yes, christian, definitely.  
I am just teasing you. I love christians. _


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

shutupntra1n said:
			
		

> Clearly one more post I think I'll frame and hang on the wall of IM memories. That's all I'm saying here. I don't argue religion b/c to each his own fate and I sleep well at night knowing what mine is.


In a way, I completely agree with your statement here lis.  Because IMHO, we make our fate.  Why should I change what I want my fate to be to incorporate somebody elses' beleifs?


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> In a way, I completely agree with your statement here lis.  Because IMHO, we make our fate.  Why should I change what I want my fate to be to incorporate somebody elses' beleifs?


I don't think anyone's trying to convince anyone of anything. Just giving input on why you believe what you believe.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Here is the fossil formation problem with evolution.
> 
> How is a fossil formed ? An animal has to die, then get buried quickly by mud and silt to preserve its body. If the body is left on top of the soil, other animals eat it and tear it to pieces. When a fish dies, it usually floats on the water and is eaten by birds or other fish. So it would be a rare day to find a fossil under normal methods. And when you did find one, you would usually find a single specimen.
> 
> ...


 We already have that, when the dinosaurs died off. They did it so quickly that a global catastrophe is suspected of killing them off in a very few years. This catastrophe, whatever it was, changed the earths habitat and the dinosaurs for the most part were unable to adopt. Global change disrupted the food supply for the plant eaters, the decline of the plant eaters led to the die out of the predators who depended on them as food. And the whole, for the most part, dinosaur family died off. What survived on land were the ancestors of amphibians, reptiles like crocs,snakes,birds, and small ammals. These small  rodent sized mammals are the ancestors of you and I. Over 65 million years, thru the process of natural selection, they evolved into a multitude of other types of mammals. Including Homo Sapien.

                     And breeding horses, for no matter how long, is irrelevant. For natural selection to be observed there can be no human involvement or manipulation of events of any kind. You would have to do as Darwin did. To go to a unspoiled place like the Galapago's and just observe.........................................Rich


----------



## shutupntra1n (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> In a way, I completely agree with your statement here lis. Because IMHO, we make our fate. Why should I change what I want my fate to be to incorporate somebody elses' beleifs?


I don't argue with people religion anymore than I care at work why they can't use their cell phone cause they are with a shitty company. At the end of the day, I can only help my own fate


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Where we are, we are born/have a beginning. That is not necessarily the case for Him & His existence.


Okay, everybody asks what is the meaning of "our" life.... but your statement makes me wanna ask "what's the meaning of GOD's life?"


BTW busy, 

  Lis and I have had several chats about religion.  I actually enjoy trying to understand how othre people think.  'although' it scares me at times when I realize how very different we can be.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Okay, everybody asks what is the meaning of "our" life.... but your statement makes me wanna ask "what's the meaning of GOD's life?"


I'd be a very rich man if I had that answer!


----------



## shutupntra1n (Nov 8, 2004)

Actually Luke, I only posted here cause I highly enjoy Crono's posts. No religious this-n-that for me. I'll go to church if I want that sorta reinforcement. Y'll have fun now and play nice


----------



## Vieope (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Okay, everybody asks what is the meaning of "our" life.... but your statement makes me wanna ask "what's the meaning of GOD's life?"


_Damn   _


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

Dont' leave lis... i'm asking you to join in! 

unless you don't want to.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> BTW busy,
> 
> Lis and I have had several chats about religion.  I actually enjoy trying to understand how othre people think.  'although' it scares me at times when I realize how very different we can be.


I agree completely. I love hearing what other people think, but we're never all going to agree on a subject like this.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I agree completely. I love hearing what other people think, but we're never all going to agree on a subject like this.


Well, I agree on THAT part 

I'm attracted to 'irony'. It's something I find really interesting. It makes life feel more like a Hemmingway novel or something  .

And I find it so ironic how America has developed into a pretty damn seriously religious country! Especially since is was founded by europeans who wanted to escape religion (that ruled their government). Now today, we have Goerge W. and Europe is scared of us and our churches . Gotta love it.

I used to work in a machine shop in tool and die assembly and met lotsa interesting characters. But they ALL built hot rods, with Ford flat heads and went to church like clockwork. I drove european cars to work..... they tell me to buy american or get out of their country (michigan) lol. That reminds me of religion (IHO)

My mother is a nurse and my father is a science teacher...  In case that helps people understand where I am coming from.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> In a way, I completely agree with your statement here lis.  Because IMHO, we make our fate.  Why should I change what I want my fate to be to incorporate somebody elses' beleifs?


hey, CUN... I mean SUNT said she doesn't want to get into a religious debate, don't drag her into it


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> What's your stand on 'black holes'? They also cannot be tested, but well supported by proven theories and mathematics.
> 
> *Really cool and interesting concept. Makes for all sorts of episodes on Star Trek. *
> 
> ...


response in bold.


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone's trying to convince anyone of anything. Just giving input on why you believe what you believe.


Good point Busy,

I am not trying to convince anyone.

There is so much that does not support evolution, but you never hear about it. So I am trying to bring forth my little amount that I know or can remember.

Each person can say "Very interesting" and throw it away, or file it in their memory banks. For me, it answered the questions in my mind I needed to be a Christian. I could not believe the Bible, if I could not believe the first Book. So it is a big and exciting part of my life to know that it is all possible thru creation.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 8, 2004)

I dont think were "argueing". And creationists certainly have as much right to an opinion as I have. This thread has actually "evolved" in a fairly respectful and adult manner.

                               Course that just might be its appearance, since I have about 6 assholes on ignore........................  .............Rich


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> I dont think were "argueing". And creationists certainly have as much right to an opinion as I have. This thread has actually "evolved" in a fairly respectful and adult manner.
> 
> Course that just might be its appearance, since I have about 6 assholes on ignore........................  .............Rich


 Am I one?


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 8, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> This thread has actually "evolved" in a fairly respectful and adult manner.



It has, suprisingly... they usually get pretty ugly.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> response in bold.


 
Cantor's sing at the alter during mass.  I go to church on thanksgiving and christmas 

"bean counter"  LMAO!  

It's good to know that they don't always take the bible to be the word of god, because that book can be contorted into anyshape if you know what I mean.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Course that just might be its appearance, since I have about 6 assholes on ignore........................  .............Rich


That's uncalled for, we all know who you're talking about.  And don't forget to check out my sig again


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Cool universe picture. Some kind of nubula.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

horse head nebula!

GREAT pic MR. Bean


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Yeah? And where did you get this? *I can't find it right now, but I will look later. Galaxies were going in different directions than the expected expanding ball theory.*
> 
> From MTV? First off all the Hubble "discovered" was the age of the Universe. The one who discovered how its actually expanding was the guy its named after, in the '20s or thereabouts. There is no such conflict with the Big Bang theory because when the "big bang" happened there was no such thing as space, matter, and time. That came later. There is no center of the Universe and there is no edge. And everything, except for a few galaxies locked with ours by gravity, is moving away from us. *Well, there would be a theoretical center if you worked backwards to the original spot or area. The no edge concept is really intriguing. What is it expanding into then, an empty void ? *
> 
> ...


Rich,
notes in bold


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> horse head nebula!
> 
> GREAT pic MR. Bean


----------



## milliman (Nov 8, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> It has, suprisingly... they usually get pretty ugly.


Quit talking about how ugly I am. The wife reminds me enough already.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

I always loved the 'star lab' in grades school.  You know, that inflated silver thing w/ the protector inside and funky spaced out 'tangerine dream'esque  music .  I did planetariums too


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Rich,
> notes in bold


wonder if he could read that?  he might have blocked himself


----------



## Monolith (Nov 8, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Uh no ! Selective breeding for desireable traits does not produce evolution. A horse still has horse babies. The horse does not evolve into another animal.



Uhh... what exactly is your definition of evolution, then, if not the selection of desirable traits?  You do realize that that is more or less the core of evolutionary theory, right...?





			
				milliman said:
			
		

> The point has escaped you dude. DNA is responsible for the genetic blue print to build your body. It took intelligence to write the genetic code to make it work.



Gah.  This isnt a difficult concept, man.  DNA _appears_ to be this incredibly intricate and perfectly designed map for creating a human.  But what im suggesting is that we wouldnt know the difference, because we have nothing to compare it to.  If there were some error in the "genetic code" which gave us hair in our armpits when we werent supposed to have any there, is humanity _ever_ going to realize it?  No.  If there were some error in the code and we were supposed to have twice the intelligence we currently have, will we ever realize it?  No.

DNA, humanity, life, our reality - it all seems perfect because it's all we know.  Our entire universe could very well be the equivelent of a sulfur vent, and we would never know it.  We have absolutely no way to categorize ourselves as anything other than "beings" when we have no tangible experience with anything beyond our own existence and our own reality.  For all we know, what we call intelligence might very well be considered mere instinct by a more intelligent entity.  We consider ourselves as perfect beings, yet some other entity could very well consider us yet another generic, mindless organism... just breeding, reproducing, and dying.





			
				milliman said:
			
		

> How did the first organism get there ? Imagine yourself looking at earth when it was first formed. A blob of stuff. Lets assume that a lightening bolt started the first life form. How did it survive ?
> What would it eat ? How would it reproduce ?



Well, it's not like an enzyme has to "eat" or it dies.  It doesnt exactly reproduce, either (at least not in the sense youre implying).  Talk to a chemist if youre really that curious... i wouldnt do it justice.  Suffice to say it was a whole lot of aminos, nucleic acids, polypeptide bonds, etc, all having their way with each other.  Eventually you get organelles - pro-mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc... the first prokaryotic units.  Beyond that, you get to the infamous blue-green algae.

Anyway, it's not as simple as *poof*, and a gerbil jumps out of a petri dish.  Each little miniscule step towards greater efficiency (and, ultimately, what we call life) could take hundreds of millions of years.




			
				milliman said:
			
		

> I guess this proves you hate religion.
> We were not talking about religion, we were talking about creation versus evolution.



Sorry, my mistake.  I wasnt aware that non-religious people believed in creationism.  Can you educate me?


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

tit gave a horse head once.  She calls that Saturday night.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 8, 2004)

... nebula


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Nov 9, 2004)

I believe God created the universe


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 9, 2004)

Liberals will eventually probably try to sue God for not creating all things "equal" in the universe.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> rofl.
> ...Ok, so in the past 2000 years, what has the christian god done?  Let's see... he's caused at least 9 major wars by my count, resulting in the toppling of empires and the deaths of millions of people.  Uh, i guess thats a "point" for god.
> 
> Lets look at science over the past 2000 years.  What has it done for us?  Well, it put a roof over our heads.  It gave us agriculture.  It gave us domesticated animals.  It gave us the steam engine, the industrial revolution, the airplane, the space shuttle, and the computer.  Its made war a shorter and less bloody affair.  How many points should we give science for that?
> ...


Uhm Monolith, you were doing pretty well in the dialog/debate until you tossed this out. On the one hand you imply that there is no Christian God and then go on to crucify him and blame him for all these religious wars. If you mean people use their religions in ways that are not consistent with teachings then perhaps you can lay the blame on these humans but I don't think you can rationally blame Christianity on 9 wars without being able to see who the aggressors were and what the motives were and what was in the hearts of the people who were in these wars. How many unrecorded and recorded wars are attributed to Godless men? I bet you it's thousands more so than the 9 you mention. Certainly the Greek Gods are responsible for a lot more (fora  start ref. Alexander the Great, The Trojan Wars, the Babylonian empire, The Zulu Wars, Genghis Khan, The Khmer Rouge, Sun Zi Sun Tzu, The Roman Empire's (not holy Rome) Conquests, The Viking Hoards, The Saxons, The Normans, The Barbarians etc. etc. etc.)

Also what you attribute to Science is nothing of the sort. Although I concede Science has produced many discoveries (e.g. we had roofs over our heads in the first caves, we have had wild corn and agriculture long before it was cultivated [and were tossed out of the original Garden of Eden ], among the first domesticated animals we had unkosher pigs [but we may have evolved from them?], steam has been blowing around in nature's hot springs and vents for a long time). For the most part all science has been able to do is emulate and approximate what it observes in Nature (although we do now have more abstract predictive mechanisms). In a manner of speaking, a religious person can argue that Science can be viewed as the study of Gods works in Nature and the application of those principals to man's own vision (which has also been a large cause for unintended consequences and misery). Ponder that we have Science to thank for the Holy Atomic Bomb.

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I knew somebody would try to prove me wrong.  _


Vieope, it's not so much that you are wrong as you are irrelevant to anything. But we still love you; when you are not around...
OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> Plus I feel that the Bible has been overtranslated that all there is to say is by now it has been mistranslated...


This is precisely why God told humanity that "I will write my word on your hearts". His complaint was that we had hearts of stone and that he will break that stone (i.e. our hearts) as Moses did the tablets which upon the 10 commands were written and would restore us hearts of flesh again. 

I am going to get out of camp with some of my friends here but the Word of God (which became flesh in Jesus) is a perpetually living thing. It is NOT simply a static bit of ink, fonts, syllables, words, paragraphs and footnotes recorded and put together in a bound form. Fundamentally it is MUCH more than this and people need to open their hearts to that reality. 

"Where two or more of you gather in my name and agree I am there". Agreement implies peace. May Peace be with You.

I also caution everyone to not banter about in idle talk of God as if he is some novelty to be debated or mused over. Humanity has been warned repeatedly that God will not be mocked. So speak lightly and reverently as many of the modern visionaries have stated that there is only one thing holding back his arm from striking the earth in divine retribution at this time - and that is the incessant inter-pleading of the woman that bore Jesus to extend the period of mercy and individual's final opportunity for reconciliation.

They laughed at the time of the Great Flood too...

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> ... Each one further chips away at the nonsense the Church preaches and when we eventually find evidence of life evolving on other worlds the whole house of religious cards will come crashing down.
> 
> I think religion is a good thing. And I'm not knocking it! But they should really open their eyes and step into reality..........Rich


The Church preaches nothing about other lifeforms or the nature of the universe except that God is the Creator and the single one with the authority to Create or Destroy. Can you be more specific? 

In fact some of the most influential and renown scientists and philosophers and intellectuals of all time were Christians. To name just a few:
???	Michael Faraday (Sandemanian) 
???	John Flamsteed 
???	Alexander Fleming (Catholic) 
???	Augustin Jean Fresnel 
???	Galileo Galilei (Catholic) 
???	Luigi Galvani (Catholic) 
???	Josiah Gibbs 
???	John Herschel 
???	William Herschel 
???	Edward Jenner 
???	James Joule 
???	Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) 
???	Johannes Kepler (Lutheran) 
???	Donald Knuth 
???	Antoine Lavoisier (Catholic) 
???	Anton van Leeuwenhoek (Dutch Reformed) 
???	Gottfried Leibniz (Lutheran) 
???	Carl Linnaeus  
???	Joseph Lister (Quaker) 
???	Guglielmo Marconi (born Catholic, converted to Anglicanism) 
???	James Clerk Maxwell (born Presbyterian, converted to Baptist faith) 
???	Gregor Mendel (Catholic Abbot) 
???	Edward Morley 
???	Samuel Morse 
???	Isaac Newton (born Anglican, converted to Arianism) 
???	Nicholas Oresme (Catholic) 
???	Blaise Pascal 
???	Louis Pasteur (Catholic) 
???	Bernhard Riemann 
???	George Stokes 
???	Urbain Le Verrier (Catholic) 
???	Wright brothers (Brethren) 

OD


----------



## Vieope (Nov 9, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Vieope, it's not so much that you are wrong as you are irrelevant to anything. But we still love you; when you are not around...
> OD


_Yeah, I am the one that people don´t like.  _


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 9, 2004)

I think the take home message here is that Stephen created everything, and he did it with little more than a roll of duct tape, some zip-ties, and a zest for life.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> The Bible is comprised of 39 books in the old testament and 27 books in the new testament. All Christians use this. Jews only use the first 39. Mormons add on to this and use the Book of Mormon.
> 
> The Bible has many translations, but it HAS NEVER BEEN REWRITTEN.
> There are plenty of ancient manuscripts to verify this.
> ...



You may find it interesting to know that the original scribes penning the original portions of scriptures secretly used an a self referential and embedded encryption number system based on prime numbers. It produced a "digital fingerprint" when one added up the Jewish letters in their number sequence and made it irrefutable that the texts were not edited from the originals since the "check sums" were all in place in the original manuscripts when modern day scholars discovered this system. I think they did find a few manuscripts that were dubious to scholars to have portions of the texts proved altered by "someone" in areas where a scribe or religious leader was clearly inserting his own opinion or teaching on a matter. Very interesting stuff and there is a book out on it now.

For the record I am perplexed by the Mormons and have studied their manuscripts quite a bit. They are some of the finest and most devout people I have ever met on a personal basis. But Joseph Smith is either an absolute liar or an absolute Saint. There is no middle ground. Sadly for my Mormon friends I am currently inclined to think he was the prior because the teachings of the dubious angelic being called Moroni subordinate the role of Jesus and there are terrible inconsistencies in the concept of taking the "whole of the bible" and tacking on a completely new book that is rooted in American Patriotism and Americans as being God's chosen people. I personally think it is a form of national patriotism masquerading as religion. It is very difficult for me to say this since I have the highest respect for the good people of this denomination and they have made and continue to make enormous contributions to mankind and are a force for God. But there is a future conflict down the road that must be resolved at some point by God.

OD


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> Liberals will eventually probably try to sue God for not creating all things "equal" in the universe.


 
And some how conservatives will make money out of the deal


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Okay, everybody asks what is the meaning of "our" life.... but your statement makes me wanna ask "what's the meaning of GOD's life?"
> 
> 
> BTW busy,
> ...



The meaning of our life is to serve God and continue on the Creation process through the dynamic of Life and to evolve ourselves into the creatures that God intended us to be and to participate in Creation.

The meaning of God's life is known to him alone but based on what I am seeing I assume a large part of that is to save Humans from becoming ineligible to participate with him eternally in Creation. I genuinely believe he intends to let humans evolve (with his grace) to greater than an angelic state of existence and participate intimately with him in Life and all of Physical Creation as well as great dimensions of all of Spiritual Creation. I sense infinite possibilities, unbounded and unending friendship and unfathomable abilities and higher levels of existence.  I think of it in terms of a marriage and a commitment and all the possibilities implied in a union not constrained by human limitations or physical abilities. I think that there was something profoundly sacred and (possibly prophetic with respect to his relationship with all that are in him or a part of him) when he referred to himself as "I am whom am".

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> Liberals will eventually probably try to sue God for not creating all things "equal" in the universe.


In fact all things use to be equal until some revolted and thought they were more equal than others. Satan was a liberal... 

OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _Yeah, I am the one that people don´t like.  _


You are SO WRONG! We *love* to not like you. Just kidding bro...

OD


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> The meaning of our life is to serve God and continue on the Creation process through the dynamic of Life and to evolve ourselves into the creatures that God intended us to be and to participate in Creation.
> OD


 
That was a reterhical question OD.  I _know_ what the meaning of my life is.  Knowing the meaning of somebody else's life doesn't help me and for somebody to adopt somebody else's reasons, can very well make life _less enjoyable_.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> That was a reterhical question OD.  I _know_ what the meaning of my life is.  Knowing the meaning of somebody else's life doesn't help me and for somebody to adopt somebody else's reasons, can very well make life _less enjoyable_.


Well enjoy *yourself* then. If you did not know it that singular self-focused philosophy is fundamentally what the Hedonist subscribe to. There is even a religion and set of rules for that...

OD


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Well enjoy *yourself* then. If you did not know it that singular self-focused philosophy is fundamentally what the Hedonist subscribe to. There is even a religion and set of rules for that...
> 
> OD


I think you're missing the point OD. I"m starting my own religion and nobody is invited! I'm developing my own rules as I go through life that will help me to accomplish _my meaning for life_. It would be unfair for anybody else's religion to bound me on my OWN path. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

Please note, i'm not saying I make _laws_ for some fantasy world that I"ve created for myself to live in. My laws are my morals. Unfortunately, many people mistake morals for their personal religious 'rules' that you talk about.

Does that not make sense? Please tell me how my logic is.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 9, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich46yo
Yeah? And where did you get this? I can't find it right now, but I will look later. Galaxies were going in different directions than the expected expanding ball theory. 
Pray do tell me when you find out.
From MTV? First off all the Hubble "discovered" was the age of the Universe. The one who discovered how its actually expanding was the guy its named after, in the '20s or thereabouts. There is no such conflict with the Big Bang theory because when the "big bang" happened there was no such thing as space, matter, and time. That came later. There is no center of the Universe and there is no edge. And everything, except for a few galaxies locked with ours by gravity, is moving away from us. """Well, there would be a theoretical center if you worked backwards to the original spot or area. The no edge concept is really intriguing. What is it expanding into then, an empty void ? """
Basically thats correct. Where the Universe doesn't yet exist then neither does space,mass, and time. At the time of the big bang the universe didn't exist yet right? So neither did the physical laws to explain it and make it. The edge, is such a thing exists, cant even be called an edge because it doesn't have ANY properties of any kind to even describe it.

Nothing is flat, the Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, but a 2 dimensional model to imagine it all is this......imagine you ink a bunch of dots on a balloon and then start blowing it up. No matter what dot you stand on, on the expanding balloon, it appears your on the center and everything else is moving away from you. The Universe is the same way, no matter where you are it appears that your in the center and everything else is moving away. But the paradox is there is no center because the Universe was created before there even was any laws of physics. """""Rich, do you have access to any pictures that show the universe ? If this is true and we are on the edge of the balloon, then everything on one side of us should be totally empty, since we have not expanded into it yet. But you do not find that. You find stars and galaxies all around us in all directions."""""""
Your not listening to me. There is no "edge". I used the balloon as a Two dimensional model to make a point with something that would help you understand it. The Universe exists in 3 spacial dimensions, at least those that we can observe, the balloon two. You can no more say there is an edge to the universe then you can say there is a north to the north pole.

What E. Hubble discovered was that the Universe was expanding at a non-uniform rate. That Objects farther from us are moving away at a faster speed, as we are from them. Don't ask me what all this shit means because I forgot, didn't really understand it in the first place, don't want to look it up again, and probably wouldn't understand it this time either. I know he used the Doppler effect which I do understand.

And to find other earth like planets, in life zone stable orbits around hospitable Stars, would be huge. As was the discovery of other planets in the first place, as was the discovery of the universe. Each one further chips away at the nonsense the Church preaches and when we eventually find evidence of life evolving on other worlds the whole house of religious cards will come crashing down. I wouldn't bet the house on that happening.

I think religion is a good thing. And I'm not knocking it! But they should really open their eyes and step into reality..........Rich

Maybe I mis-stated what I had heard. I should go listen to the astronomy guys again some time. The brain in this old fart has been know to show signs decay and not recall info correctly.
 Hey I never said I can understand it all either. Heres the thing, what Hubble discovered was that the Universe is expanding at different speeds, and no matter where your at in it you appear to be in the center and almost all the other galaxies, other then the few grabbed in gravity by your own, are moving away from you. He also found that the farther the object from you the faster its moving away.

                 How did he find all this out? Well imagine a train going by you blowing its horn? The farther the train gets from you the longer the horn blows, even tho its blowing the horn exactly as long as it did when it went right by you. The reason for this is because as the space between you and the train increased the sound waves stretched making the sound last longer, "I hope I remember all this right". The same thing happens with light waves in all the spectrum's. The farther away the object the more the light stretches and if you can measure that then you know the distance of the object from you. Thats how the telescope discovered the age of the universe, "around 15 to 20 billion right"? And thats why they talk about "red shift" from far off objects. Because the farther the object the redder the light in the visible spectrum appears to the human eye.

               So whats going to happen to the Universe? One of two things, and its all comes down to its critical mass. If its mass is high enough it will probably reverse on itself and start expanding inward, eventually collapseing completly, thus destroying itself. If low enough it will expand outward forever and space/time as we know it will have no end. But again you cant think in terms of beginnings, edges, middle of, south,north...whatever. You may be able to only measure the universe in terms of "time". But linear measurments are impossable because space,mass,time, didnt even exist at the time of the universe being created.

              The fascinating thing is that one ridiculous hairy ape came down from the trees and in a length of time so short it can hardly be fitted into "universe terms" they figured so much of this shit out already. Even more fascinating when you consider "modern science" is only a few hundred years old. Imagine what we'll know 200 years from now?, if we don't murder ourselves completely by then that is.......................Rich


----------



## ZECH (Nov 9, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Pick any, they are all the same. The only differences are the words used. Old English versus current English.  Written to 8th grade level or 12th grade level.
> 
> King James, NIV, NASB, New KJ, living bible
> 
> Creation is only the book of Genesis.


I disagree...............I think the correct one is the 1611 KJV. The only one translated from the original greek and hebrew. All the new ones leave out any reference to the blood and other things that are of major importance.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Jim 





			
				Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the point OD. I"m starting my own religion and nobody is invited! I'm developing my own rules as I go through life that will help me to accomplish _my meaning for life_. It would be unfair for anybody else's religion to bound me on my OWN path. I'm sorry you don't understand that.
> 
> Please note, I'm not saying I make _laws_ for some fantasy world that I"ve created for myself to live in. My laws are my morals. Unfortunately, many people mistake morals for their personal religious 'rules' that you talk about.
> 
> Does that not make sense? Please tell me how my logic is.


Oh, I did not realize you were on a crusade to set up a new religion. From the little I read it sounded like you already were replicating in large part a portion of Hedonism. Now that you have made your intentions clear on this you might check into that system and not trouble yourself to replicate the hard work of others. You might also make yourself familiar with the works of Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Aum Shinri Kyo, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate and The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. Sadly, few followers remain alive from most of these (except the prolific Moonies) since they all murdered each other or committed suicide directly or indirectly. 

I understand now the path that you are on and can see that we probably have a different opinion on what constitute commonly accepted morals.  But I do know the difference from morality, religion and self idolatry thank-you. And yes, what you say now I am confident makes perfect sense to you. Perhaps if I ponder the greater mysteries of self indulgence I can come to the same conclusion that you have but I suspect you and I are worlds apart in our natural inclinations and abilities in this regard. A man needs to know his limitations eh? What I have observed to be true though is that everyone sees their actions and motives as sane and rational from the perspective of their own existence. Truly, the majority is not always guaranteed to have the correct view. But frankly I am not certain that God (certainly not the god of self) wants a majority view and I am lead to believe he seeks quality over quantity. But I think it probable that as there are billions of individuals there are at least that many opinions on a given day as to what is correct in this regard (and no doubt many billions more that proceeded us and perished). Clearly they can???t all be right from an individually unique insight since the behaviors of humanity all conflict so greatly (we have peaceful people, hateful people, murders, wishful thinkers, social drop outs etc...). If there is only individual choice as you imply then that means that behavior does not count and there is no notion of good and evil as a real force or even as a conceptual construct. At least that???s what my logic resolves to in the matter. Given that we live in a 3-dimensional world (minimally) it would seem anomalous to not be ale to use the concepts of good and evil as a label for the axes of existence in a way that can bound all possible combinations of behaviors. How else could e we categorize murder and what would we categorize compassion if not good and evil? Perhaps simply ???an experience??? and ???another experience??? or in the most generalized expression of self worship ???my choice???? Depending on where you stood in your religion of personal physical pleasure, murder and self fulfillment/actualization could both be equally acceptable practices. Not that you subscribe to any of this personally but the pattern of your thinking could clearly permit this possibility if I understand what you are saying. Pardon me for saying it seems a little scary for the rest of us.

It would seem to me that I can???t comment on your logic though because I have yet to see an example of it? Have you anything to offer based on logic? 

OD


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I disagree...............I think the correct one is the 1611 KJV. The only one translated from the original greek and hebrew. All the new ones leave out any reference to the blood and other things that are of major importance.


Yes, the incest and violence and atrocities brought on by the scornful God.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

*OD,*

I've seen this before, where individuals call non conformers 'self idolizers' I think you're just jealous that I dont need to depend on a twenty century old book to know what is moral and what is not.....



> Charles Manson


 I didn't say I was starting a cult. Unfortunately you cannot understand somebody not worshiping your god, and I had to use the word 'religion' when talking about my take on what I ideally would like to do. 



> If there is only individual choice as you imply then that means that behavior does not count and there is no notion of good and evil as a real force or even as a conceptual construct


I beleive behaviour is a result of the conditioning and understanding of chemical reactions that take place in everybodies body. Although the reactions maybe different, they can all be conditioned to be known and accepted. For example, the color blue, to me, looks different than to a colorblind indiviual, but it's still recognizable as 'blue' .... See any logic in there?



> but I suspect you and I are worlds apart in our natural inclinations and abilities in this regard.


I disagree, I think either of us could be forced to re-think our existance during a single traumatic event. _God Forbid (<---- using that as a common phrase, not a prayer )_



> But frankly I am not certain that God (certainly not the God of self) wants a majority view and I am lead to believe he seeks quality over quantity


And you honestly beleive that YOU will be valued over me? I'm in school right now about to change programs to help me realize a great majority of the meaning of my life. I've just been offered two jobs in a feild I enjoy, but turned them do to persue studying tissue and nural engineering in a different city. I have dream of developing artificial orgrans for people who need them. I promise I wont discriminate by religion. I'm not trying to show 'worth'. And for you to make a statement like that shows that you at least have some stake in your religion for the sole purpose of being more 'valuable' Good luck with that buddy, I sincerely hope you can fill that void.



> How else could e we categorize murder and what would we categorize compassion if not good and evil? Perhaps simply ???an experience??? and ???another experience??? or in the most generalized expression of self worship ???my choice???? Depending on where you stood in your religion of personal physical pleasure, murder and self fulfillment/actualization could both be equally acceptable practices.


I agree with this 100%. Now show me how having your religion makes you make the right choice. There are more murderers in church on a sunday morning than in the bar on friday nights. Fear brings them there. Don't simplify or rationalize human thought. Everybody operates differently. Some people just don't need your god.



> Not that you subscribe to any of this personally but the pattern of your thinking could clearly permit this possibility if I understand what you are saying. Pardon me for saying it seems a little scary for the rest of us.


I am equally scared of your type. The secret..... _listen closely because this is something you need to work on.... _is to open up and accept that people are different.  



> It would seem to me that I can???t comment on your logic though because I have yet to see an example of it? Have you anything to offer based on logic?


Here's a peice of my logic. American indians.... Very peaceful people (in general). They were never introduced by jesus or your god. Jesus never visited them. They have their own religions. 

You speak of god being selective and valuing some more than others. Why would god not "value" american indians? 

I am BY NO MEANS trying to sway anybody here. I am not starting a 'religion', i'm just not adopting one. I worded that part of my post poorly, i apologize. I'm sure there are several people reading that are afraid to post. You are free to 'think'. It's in your nature anyway, but be prepared for OD's kind to call it "doubt",  "disbeleif" or "self Idolization".


----------



## milliman (Nov 9, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Uhh... what exactly is your definition of evolution, then, if not the selection of desirable traits? You do realize that that is more or less the core of evolutionary theory, right...?


Evolution, by definition, is the mutation of genes to create a better more sophisticated animal. A new species with better capabilities. Life supposedly started in the primordial soup, then single cell things, then multi cell things, then invertabrates, then vertabrates etcetera.

You have to get from ameoba to man. Thus, you need to be able to add new genes to the gene pool since they did not start there. And you will never breed enough desireable traits into an amoeba to get to a man.

Breeding horses does not introduce any new genes into the species or world. It only makes more of what was already there. If you only breed black horses and kill all others, eventually, you will only have black horses. You will eliminate all of the other genes. BUT, you still have HORSES.



			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> Gah. This isnt a difficult concept, man. DNA _appears_ to be this incredibly intricate and perfectly designed map for creating a human. But what im suggesting is that we wouldnt know the difference, because we have nothing to compare it to. If there were some error in the "genetic code" which gave us hair in our armpits when we werent supposed to have any there, is humanity _ever_ going to realize it? No. If there were some error in the code and we were supposed to have twice the intelligence we currently have, will we ever realize it? No.
> 
> DNA, humanity, life, our reality - it all seems perfect because it's all we know. Our entire universe could very well be the equivelent of a sulfur vent, and we would never know it. We have absolutely no way to categorize ourselves as anything other than "beings" when we have no tangible experience with anything beyond our own existence and our own reality. For all we know, what we call intelligence might very well be considered mere instinct by a more intelligent entity. We consider ourselves as perfect beings, yet some other entity could very well consider us yet another generic, mindless organism... just breeding, reproducing, and dying.


I am lost on your point.
I think you are saying that we wouldn't know how advanced we had evolved since we are in the middle of evolving, at whatever stage that is.

Why is this relevant ?
My point is how did the genetic blue print get there in the first place.
Whether it is the blue print for things living in sulfer vents or horses or whatever. In order to get that blue print I think you need a creator rather than an accidental conglomeration of the millions of enzymes, proteins and amino acids in just the perfect order to make it live.



			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> Well, it's not like an enzyme has to "eat" or it dies. It doesnt exactly reproduce, either (at least not in the sense youre implying). Talk to a chemist if youre really that curious... i wouldnt do it justice. Suffice to say it was a whole lot of aminos, nucleic acids, polypeptide bonds, etc, all having their way with each other. Eventually you get organelles - pro-mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc... the first prokaryotic units. Beyond that, you get to the infamous blue-green algae.
> 
> Anyway, it's not as simple as *poof*, and a gerbil jumps out of a petri dish. Each little miniscule step towards greater efficiency (and, ultimately, what we call life) could take hundreds of millions of years.


I realize its not as simple as "poof".

First, this violates the second (and most fundamental) law of thermodynamics which states things will go from a state of order to disorder, and not vice versa. Example, if you have a bunch of smoke in one corner of the room, it will not stay there, it will spread out into the whole room. Building blocks do not miraculously arrange themselves into a castle or something, they need someone to put the thought process together to do that.

So first you have to assume that enzymes and amino acids somehow come together out of nothing. 

Second, you have to believe they somehow know how to work together to start some type of living thing.

Third you have to believe that new genes were consistently added into the gene pool to have better and more sophisticated animals.

Oh yeah, and you have to believe that the second law of thermodynamics has to be wrong. That total order can come from a world of total disorder.

I think that takes a lot of faith !


----------



## milliman (Nov 9, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> And some how conservatives will make money out of the deal


I think these people are called "entrepreneurs" or "businessmen".
They have been around since the beginning of time.


----------



## milliman (Nov 9, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I disagree...............I think the correct one is the 1611 KJV. The only one translated from the original greek and hebrew. All the new ones leave out any reference to the blood and other things that are of major importance.


DG

I know NIV is translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages too. I think NASB is too, but I would have to check.
KJV is hard for me to read with all of the old english.

I don't think they leave anything out. If you think so, give me an example so I can see.


----------



## milliman (Nov 9, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Yes, the incest and violence and atrocities brought on by the scornful God.


Yes, Yes Lion, blame God for everything evil and nothing good.  
Here is a short story that you might find enlightening.

*At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade and mock their statement of faith. *

*[size=-1]One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?" "Yes he did, sir," the young man replied.[/size] *

*[size=-1]The professor responded, "If God made everything, then God made evil, and if we can only create from within ourselves, then God is evil."[/size] *

*[size=-1]The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth.[/size] *

*[size=-1]Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?"[/size] *

*[size=-1]"Yes you may," responded the professor. The young man stood up and said, "Sir, is there such thing as cold?" "Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"[/size] *

*[size=-1]The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold does not exist. What we consider to be cold, is really only the absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how[/size] *
*[size=-1]we feel when heat is not there."[/size] *

*[size=-1]The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is." And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light.[/size] *
*[size=-1]Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."[/size] *

*[size=-1]Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?"[/size] *

*[size=-1]The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil."[/size] *

*[size=-1]The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."[/size] *

*[size=-1]The professor had nothing to say.[/size]  *


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Yes, Yes Lion, blame God for everything evil and nothing good.
> Here is a short story that you might find enlightening.
> 
> *[size=-1]The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is." And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light.[/size] *
> ...


*^*


----------



## milliman (Nov 9, 2004)

Lion,

How did you get that out of this little story ?  

Somebody is not evil because they do not believe like me, or believe in God. 

But if they do not believe in the same God, they may have a totally different idea of what is right and wrong. What is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable.

Since America was a nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, there a lot of people who grew up here who may hold many of the same values as me and still not be a Christian or believe in God (the so called moralist).

I, as a Christian, can be held to a standard that is written in the Bible. It does not change this year and next year as I see fit. To some people, what is right and wrong can change from year to year or just based on the facts presented at that time (moral relativism).


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2004)

It's say's clearly that evil is the absence of God and from what I learned as a young Baptist God is in the heart, but Buddhist don't believe in a God so he is not in their hearts.

Why can we not all live by the Golden Rule and let it rest at that, no harm no foul.

*Christianity*_All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. _
[size=-1]Matthew 7:1[/size]
*Confucianism*_Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. _
[size=-1]Analects 12:2[/size]
*Buddhism*_Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. _[size=-1]
Udana-Varga 5,1
[/size]*Hinduism*_This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. _
[size=-1]Mahabharata 5,1517[/size]
*Islam*_No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. _
[size=-1]Sunnah[/size]
*Judaism*_What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. _
[size=-1]Talmud, Shabbat 3id[/size]
*Taoism*_Regard your neighbor???s gain as your gain, and your neighbor???s loss as your own loss._
[size=-1]Tai Shang Kan Yin P???ien[/size]
*Zoroastrianism*_That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. _
[size=-1]Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5[/size]


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> I think these people are called "entrepreneurs" or "businessmen".
> They have been around since the beginning of time.


Yes, the heads of Enron and Halaburton are really just 'businessmen'.  What did it say in the Bible that the conservatives hold about greed?


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> *OD,*
> 
> I've seen this before, where individuals call non conformers 'self idolizers' I think you're just jealous that I dont need to depend on a twenty century old book to know what is moral and what is not.....
> * Nope, not jealous. Not even upset with you. Just making conversation and testing your resolve. I'd advise though against holding the ancient wisdoms with scorn. A lot of the science you are currently studying is based in ancient ideas and discoveries.*
> ...


Comments embedded in situ

OD


----------



## milliman (Nov 9, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Yes, the heads of Enron and Halaburton are really just 'businessmen'. What did it say in the Bible that the conservatives hold about greed?


Whoops, had to edit this.

Nothing wrong with making an *honest* profit.
  Although Enron and Haliburton have had problems. I am not defending them.

Why do you try to tar and feather only conservatives here for making a profit?

Here are some big time liberal Democrats making profits
Bill Gates
Barbara Streisand,
Dixie Chicks . . .
Michael Moore (lying sack of s**t)
Larry Flynt
Hollywood in general

Are all these people saints while making a profit ?  I would say no.

Not all conservatives or liberals are good people. And not everyone who makes a profit is bad.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

*OD,*



> *What made you get so defensive? Did I mention anything about how I thought God valued me or me relative to you? *


As a matter of fact you did. There was a touch of arrogance that set me off. Nobody's perfect.  



> *May I ask, without provoking an emotional response, why do you seem to have a preoccupation with religion as a conflicting element of your life?*


That's an excellent question. The simple answer is that I beleive that freedom is the distance between church and state. And with this past election, I've gotten more interested in issues such as health care, stem cell research, partial birth abortions, capital punishment, and the funding of science and technology. I truly beleive that the future of our economy will depend on some of these issues; especially science and technology. You can see why the 'religious rules' of a political party would be something of interest to me.

Another reason... I sat through 10 years of Caticism (sp?) I am a confirmed catholic. I have seen 10 caticism teachers come and go, as well as several fathers in our community. I haven't found a single person worth looking up to, let alone letting them preach to a community and try to represent some "supreme being". I have trouble listening to preaching  There are so many thing that's cannot be expressed that way. There are so many things that people need to go out and understand on their own. And the meaning of an individuals life..... god, that's the most important one IMHO.

As I said, I don't like to hear people preach. I perfer to find things on my own. Who knows, maybe one day I"ll find "god". All I can tell you is that it'll be because I found him on my own, not because some 'born again' crack addict child molestor that got booted from one church and ended up in mine preached to me about 'god'



> *For a man supposedly in touch with his own inner self you seem to be prone to some serious insecurities about things*


Don't steal my material dude  lmao That's what I was hinting at about you.



> *Do you think someday you will be able to create an artificial brain? How about a soul (joking). *


There you go with the self idolizing again. By me mentioning my plans, I was hoping to show you that I have good intentions about helping people. ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, every religion; contarary to how your god is selective. By artificial organs, i'm referring to hearts, livers, and nervous system components. MS is a very serious dissease that is going to effect more and more people in the next couple generations. Both my mother and her sister (my aunt) have MS. I would like to have something to do with the development of treating the dissease, not the symptoms. 

I have no intentions of creating 'life' as you are suggesting. again with the self idolizing. lmao Get off of it O' dude.



> * - But I have little use of luck since I only gamble on rare occasions for entertainment and count on loosing it all then going home*


Is this a metaphor or are you talking about money? Because the conversation is about religion, what are you implying that you are counting on loosing 'it all' too? 



> *My religion causes me to consider an universal perspective of "good" that may be more important than my own immediate self interest*


 These responses sure do contain an awful lot of 'fluff'... May I ask what kind of education you have?



> *religion helps me to automatically do what I believe is the "right thing" for everyone body..... Comprehend?*


Not really... what is a "everyone body" ? lol Yes buddy, I DO comprehend that your religion helps you to do what is "RIGHT". Now why is it so difficult to 'comprehend' that religion isn't neccessary to know what is right from wrong? _(Please note this response when reading the last response about american indians)_

I could understand the need for religion is you had to resort to your bible to find detailed answers to your daily problems...

I could understand if god himself told you what you need to do....

But no, in the end, it's you ocean dude. You tell you what to do. You Interpret the bible that you read. The whole book is interpreted and translated up the goat ass. It's been through 4 languages, 2 of which are DEAD.

Although i do comprehend what you are saying, your answer really just wasn't sufficient 



> *you seemed to be espousing that could be harmful to you and society (out of concern for you)*


Concern for muah? You compared me to Charles Manson. Was he Captured because somebody was concerned about him. More Fluff dude.



> *What I don't accept are people that deliberately go out of their way to be wildly different*


Wow, what is so wildly different about me?

Please allow me to quote you from 4 paragraphs up...

_"I don't really need to understand why someone does not worshiping God. That is their problem - frankly I could care less. There are plenty of people who do not."_

Which is it Mr. John Kerry. Are there many like me, or am I wildy different?



> *Now, settle down, I am not saying you are like this but just telling you what I still "need work on". I see such as phoneys and sniffling children attention starved for someone to come take notice of them*


Once again, people are different. I for example view you as the type that is sniffling and crying out for attention  Something else both of us might need to work on.



> Its refreshing to see that you you think you are such a self sufficient and profoundly deep thinker and not in need of any help in self determination of your values and have worked through them all at such an early age. Bravo.* Do you think they will ever invent an artificial ego?*


You're starting to look weak here. When somebody strings together a 36 words sentance full of sloppy grammar just to tack on a corny insult..... 

But once again, I view the bapitist born-again christian preacher types as the ones with the ego issues. So it's a matter of perspective.

BUT, there is a difference.- 

You are preaching.
I am informing that people don't have to listen. I am not telling people what to do. I am simply telling them that they can decide on their own.
You are still preaching.  Please explain how my position makes me look like more of an ego-maniac than you? 



> *Why do you think God does not value Indians? I personally have a tremendous respect for a people with such deeply held and authentic spiritual beliefs. Much of what they believe (not that I am well versed mind you) seems to be amazingly consistent with universal principals of good and evil and a greater Creator.*


Wow, you didn't answer my question at ALL... no suprise there. Ask your father next time you go to church. Why do indians not beleive in your god.

BUT, you made a TERRIFIC POINT! 

_"Much of what they believe (not that I am well versed mind you) seems to be amazingly consistent with universal principals of good and evil and a greater Creator"_

You are admitting that although they don't beleive in the same god as you... they make the same decisions.

Now explain to me again why I am 'wildly different'? 

BTW, i am enjoying this Ocean dude. If I offend you please PM me and I'll gladly edit my post to your liking.

Now if you'll excuse me, i've rented some movies and can't decide what to watch first; the summer of sam or the excorsist.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Sorry. I agree ! ! !
> These guys are just greedy and try to milk the system.
> 
> I was thinking about the small businessman who finds a niche and tries to fill it.
> It is not wrong to try to make a profit.


Sorry guy, i'm just a smart ass.  When I say 'conservative', what i really mean is people who make money in oil companies.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 9, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> *OD,*
> 
> As a matter of fact you did. There was a touch of arrogance that set me off. Nobody's perfect.
> 
> ...



Sorry I just can't continue with you Luke. You are way too defensive to permit any kind of meaningful dialog. I am basically just making light idle conversation here and you are all posturing and debating and getting defensive. I tossed out a few funny comments to lighten things up and to spark some ideas and you took them as attacks. I did not compare you to Charles Manson - your insecurities did. You need to be able to differentiate between personal attacks and general comments and conceptual talking points: Here are examples of direct personal attacks:
OD - this is all fluff.
OD - That's a run on sentence
OD - What kind of education do you have? (btw: 3 advanced college degrees)
OD - I think you are arrogant.

Did I do that to you in any of our discourse? I don't think so. The single thing I will say now though is you need to work on your maturity, your insecurity and your intolerance of the things that you see in others and must also hate in yourself before you go on to bigger things. Sorry. And please don't deep analyze peoples simple comments (e.g. about "not gambling"). There was no hidden message there at all. The only thing I am implying is I don't believe or rely on luck since that implies some kind of destiny. I believe that we make our own destines through our choices and being open to respond to opportunities that come up through everyday events and though the relationships we make. Pity we could not have gotten further along in that regard.

Good "Luck" on your adventure to explore artificial organs. 

OD


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 9, 2004)

Wow, what a horrible way to step out. And I thought we were having an intelligent debate here. 

I was seriously looking forward to hearing your responses to my questions.



> Pity we could not have gotten further along in that regard.


Your choice   



			
				OceanDude said:
			
		

> Now that you have made your intentions clear on this you might check into that system and not trouble *yourself to replicate* the hard work of others. You might also make yourself familiar with the works of *Charles Manson*


My insecurities?  I think you just resort to lies when you can't think of fluff to say. 

Insecure?


Monitarily incesecure? -I"ve accepted the fact that i'm a poor college student
Spiritually? - I'm secure enough to admit I go it 'alone'
sexually?-  j/k 
emotionally secure? - I've got a big fuq'n smile on my face 
I think your argument for withdrawl is suspect OD! I think you are just afraid of being checkmated or 'intellectually bitchslapped' by a young punk. 

Thank you again though for outlining the areas you feel I need to work on. If you'd like I'd be happy to PM you with a summary of the areas I think you need to work on.

Either way... Take care.


----------



## King Silverback (Nov 9, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> Liberals will eventually probably try to sue God for not creating all things "equal" in the universe.


    
I believe in Creation all the way!!!


----------



## ZECH (Nov 10, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> DG
> 
> I know NIV is translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages too. I think NASB is too, but I would have to check.
> KJV is hard for me to read with all of the old english.
> ...


I have a book at home, I don't even rember the name of. It list many examples of passages with deleted references and words changed. When I get home tonight I will post some examples and the name of the book in case you want to look it up.


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I have a book at home, I don't even rember the name of. It list many examples of passages with deleted references and words changed. When I get home tonight I will post some examples and the name of the book in case you want to look it up.


DG,
That would be great.  To my knowledge, the only differences are the use of words.  No changes in the actual meaning of what was written.

some examples
Charity was used in many places in the KJV version, now they use the word love. Charity back then meant love of your neighbor, but today it seems to have the meaning of an actual organization.

Thee thou thine

propitiation

justification


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

OD,

Sorry to change the subject, but that $9,800 Dodge Viper you found for Rocky seemed like a great deal. Power, handling and all.
Had it been wrecked ?

Seems low for a Viper.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 10, 2004)

That's how much a Viper Motor goes for


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 10, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> OD,
> 
> Sorry to change the subject, but that $9,800 Dodge Viper you found for Rocky seemed like a great deal. Power, handling and all.
> Had it been wrecked ?
> ...


No this was a super good deal. Not sure what is going on but it also only has 15,000 miles!! One of those too good to seem true deals. The online link should have a way to order a complete car history which will show any legal evidence of reported insurance claims. Of course if the owner was a slick auto/body mechanic he could have picked it up wrecked and renovated himself, run back the odometer and sold it as a "cherry" car with no adverse public records. I am tempted to get it myself - hell of a car V10!!! It would not be hard to get an expert to examine it for evidence of renovation/wreck etc.


OD


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

I would volunteer to test drive it for you.
I have a blue BMW Z3 M roadster, James Bond style.
I would compare them for you.

I try the Viper, you get to try the Beemer . . .
I sure we will both be grinning from ear to ear.    

Deal ?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 10, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> I would volunteer to test drive it for you.
> I have a blue BMW Z3 M roadster, James Bond style.
> I would compare them for you.
> 
> ...


Wear pants, cause if you wear shorts and you forget to lift your legs over the side when you get out you'll scorch your calfs on the exhaust that runs on the side under the doors.  And don't drive it on leg day the clutch is workout in itself as is getting in and out. (I speak from experience)


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 10, 2004)

I am extremely happy with my porshe cayenne. So the viper would just be a weekend car for cruising down the beach strip area and catching some rays with the top off and out rumbling all the harley bad boys at the stop lights lol. Think I will pass on that deal but thanks we need you here getting creation all sorted out.
OD


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Wear pants, cause if you wear shorts and you forget to lift your legs over the side when you get out you'll scorch your calfs on the exhaust that runs on the side under the doors. And don't drive it on leg day the clutch is workout in itself as is getting in and out. (I speak from experience)


That had to be fund experience.
Need a lot of clutch to handle those ponies.
Does this substitute for a leg day ?  

Nice avatar.  I have posted some of those red x's.


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Think I will pass on that deal but thanks we need you here getting creation all sorted out.
> OD


----------



## cman (Nov 10, 2004)

adrien_j9 said:
			
		

> What is the possibility of both? 7 days to God may be several thousands of years for us. Who's to say that it wasn't both? That's what I believe.


The sun rose and set each day so gen was 6 24 hr days but in the new testament there is a place that says when the 6 days started the earth was already old.

Jer 4:23 mentions life before Adam and Eve that was destroid.

also told Adam and Eve to *RE*plenish the Earth. not plenish.

There is a lot more if interested.
I have done a 6 month study on pre Adamite earthlings and it is pretty interesting to me.
any way thats my Two cents,
If you want more and can keep it civilized I will share more.
 
I don't have thin skin, hope you don't either.


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

*I have heard that some groups like the thought of a "pre-adamic" race to try merge evolution into the Bible. I would like to see what you have on it.*

*Questions in bold.*



			
				cman said:
			
		

> The sun rose and set each day so gen was 6 24 hr days but in the new testament there is a place that says when the 6 days started the earth was already old.
> 
> *Please reference verse*
> 
> ...


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 10, 2004)

cman said:
			
		

> The sun rose and set each day so gen was 6 24 hr days but in the new testament there is a place that says when the 6 days started the earth was already old.
> 
> Jer 4:23 mentions life before Adam and Eve that was destroid.
> 
> ...


This time and the time BEFORE is of interest to me also. There seem to be not so subtle hints in the ancient Jewish literature (a portion of the bible) that talk of angelic beings, giants and the like wandering the earth. There is a bit of reference to some of what was happening in heaven as well. If you go back to the Jewish manuscripts we have all manner of legend and accounts of great calamities in the heavens and what sounds like the earth being spun on its axis. I think it possible that some of the original Greek and other mythology has some legacy extending from a common history (The Book of Giants Roman/Greeks) that we can see in this period (Nimrod, Golem, the Nephilim,descendants of Anak, Shemhazai, Armaros ,Barakel, Kawkabel,Ezekeel, Arakiel, Samsaweel, Seriel).

In fact there is a great bit of scholarly work that suggests that not only was Genesis not specifying 6-24 hr days but rather entire ages AS WELL AS  STRONGLY pointing to the very real possibility that this was in fact the 2nd or later creation. There is evidence and interpretation that the earth was barren from a devastating consequence of sin and spiritual warfare and God had reordered all things in heaven and on earth as a result of a terrible revolt (check out http://www.piney.com/BibGen13ch3.html for some interesting insight).

Extremely interesting stuff,
OD


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 10, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I am extremely happy with my porshe cayenne. OD


I didn't know you were a car dude? That changes everything...  Are you a member of rennlist? Let me know if you'd be interested in a 944 turbo with 370 rwhp


----------



## ZECH (Nov 10, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> DG,
> That would be great.  To my knowledge, the only differences are the use of words.  No changes in the actual meaning of what was written.
> 
> some examples
> ...



The name of the book is "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White.(Bethany House Publishers) Copyright 1995


Examples:
KJV: Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption *through his blood*, even the forgiveness of sins.

NIV: Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Notice how the word Blood was completely left out!



John 6:47
KJV: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth *on me* hath everlasting life.

NASB: Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.


Acts 22:16
KJV: arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on *the name of the Lord*.

NASB: Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

"His name" could be anyone, even the devil.




1Timothy 6:10
KJV: For the love of money is *the root of all evil*: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

NASB: For the love of money is *a root of all sorts of evil*, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.

NIV: For the love of money is *a root of all kinds of evil*. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.


Philippians 4:13
KJV: I can do all things through *Christ* which strengtheneth me.
NASB: I can do all things through *Him* who strengtheneth me.

Again "him" could be anyone.

There are hundreds of examples in the book.


----------



## milliman (Nov 10, 2004)

Thanks DG,  

This is interesting. I am going to go check it out.





			
				dg806 said:
			
		

> The name of the book is "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White.(Bethany House Publishers) Copyright 1995
> 
> 
> Examples:
> ...


----------



## perfectbody (Nov 11, 2004)

God-related religions will disappear soon.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 11, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> The name of the book is "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White.(Bethany House Publishers) Copyright 1995
> 
> 
> Examples:
> ...


No disrespect here but the difference in these translations is so trivial there is pragmatically no relevance to the differences. The only time one gets into slight trouble with minor translation differences is when you get into very deep theological analysis and try to deduce or extrapolate histories or issues of the peoples and societal interactions and greater things. That is a job best left to the relatively few experts on the planet.

OD


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 11, 2004)

perfectbody said:
			
		

> God-related religions will disappear soon.


over 80% of the world believes in a God. 

soon? Don't bet the house on that one!


----------



## ZECH (Nov 11, 2004)

I don't believe the wording is trivial. Young christians have a hard time following what is meant. When you change the wording, you also change meaning. I have had preachers read from different bibles than mine(KJV) and you literally cannnot keep up and get lost where they are reading from. You change one word this 100 years in a translation and a word the next 100 years in a translation and soon it is not even what you started with. Haven't you ever played the game where you whisper a story in one person's ear and then he whispers to another and so on. If you go through 10 people, the 10th person's story is totally different than what you first said.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 11, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I don't believe the wording is trivial. Young christians have a hard time following what is meant. When you change the wording, you also change meaning. I have had preachers read from different bibles than mine(KJV) and you literally cannnot keep up and get lost where they are reading from. You change one word this 100 years in a translation and a word the next 100 years in a translation and soon it is not even what you started with. Haven't you ever played the game where you whisper a story in one person's ear and then he whispers to another and so on. If you go through 10 people, the 10th person's story is totally different than what you first said.


I am respectfully going to disagree. In particular the KJV is full of antiquated English expressions (no one talks in terms of they, thine, thou except for a limited time when they did composed that translation and then only the nobles). Most young people are clueless about the most basic concept being conveyed in KJV without sitting through a lot of study classes  simply for lack of familiar English expressive constructs. The imagery and conceptual concepts in the bible can be challenging enough without having to jump through syntax and lexiconical constructs. I think it just fine to use translations that use very straightforward everyday English (but will not support the forms that no go into full up street slang) to get people started. The greater detail can then be worked through for the studiously inclined with the help of study guides and academic work. The original manuscripts are always available as a check and balance if we see wild deviations in the hundreds of years of translations on translations. King James had no monopoly on spiritual insight or in linguistic perfection. I personally like the New American Bible translation since it is very conventional modern English and has extensive foot notes to identify slight differences of opinion among scholars about the translations as well as linkage to other parts of scripture that show consistency and reinforce the interpretation. In this manner the reader has a full record and visibility of what the alternative views are. Pragmatically I have never seen any major disputes between the slight variations in interpretation since the concepts are what are more important.

Thou dost fathom and prehendere that which I have thus spoken to thee and taken it onto thine self to be as a salve meant as it was thus spoken for purpose of a soothing ponderment and less an occasion for scornful disregard to thine own mind???s familiarities?

Peace Bro,
OD


----------



## ZECH (Nov 11, 2004)

Thou shalt speaketh thoust own opinions providing thou art capable of being nonbiased. Thoust own knowledge foretold is exceeding thy own. We shalt agree in faith to disagree with thy brother


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 11, 2004)

can't we all just agree that I'm the coolest mofo in the world?  Huh?  Right?  Ok, settled then


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 11, 2004)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> can't we all just agree that I'm the coolest mofo in the world? Huh? Right? Ok, settled then


cooler than GOD?


----------



## milliman (Nov 11, 2004)

perfectbody said:
			
		

> God-related religions will disappear soon.


    

Good Quotes:

God is dead !
. -- *Friedrich Nietzsche*


Nietzsche is dead !
. -- *God*


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 11, 2004)

Nietzsche wrote lots of great stuff on women in _'human all to human'   _


----------



## maniclion (Nov 11, 2004)

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

This is my favorite Bible, illustrated with Lego's


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 11, 2004)




----------



## Vieope (Nov 11, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> Nietzsche wrote lots of great stuff on women in _'human all to human'   _


----------



## Vieope (Nov 11, 2004)

maniclion said:
			
		

> http://www.thebricktestament.com/
> 
> This is my favorite Bible, illustrated with Lego's


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Uhm Monolith, you were doing pretty well in the dialog/debate until you tossed this out. On the one hand you imply that there is no Christian God and then go on to crucify him and blame him for all these religious wars.



Uhm OD, god is an abstract concept.  Sort of like aliens.  You may not believe in it, but you recognize the idea.  i.e., "I blame god for making old people clog the road in front of churches on sunday." 




			
				OceanDude said:
			
		

> If you mean people use their religions in ways that are not consistent with teachings then perhaps you can lay the blame on these humans but I don't think you can rationally blame Christianity on 9 wars without being able to see who the aggressors were and what the motives were and what was in the hearts of the people who were in these wars. How many unrecorded and recorded wars are attributed to Godless men? I bet you it's thousands more so than the 9 you mention. Certainly the Greek Gods are responsible for a lot more (fora  start ref. Alexander the Great, The Trojan Wars, the Babylonian empire, The Zulu Wars, Genghis Khan, The Khmer Rouge, Sun Zi Sun Tzu, The Roman Empire's (not holy Rome) Conquests, The Viking Hoards, The Saxons, The Normans, The Barbarians etc. etc. etc.)



Well, to begin with, im not singling out christianity here - im talking about all forms of organized religion.  Secondly, nowhere am i saying religion alone is the cause of war - only that it's a major cause of otherwise needless war.

i.e. - The crusades, the arabian empire expanding as far as spain, the inquisition, the french "wars of religion," the thirty years war (which was particularly bloody), etc.




			
				OceanDude said:
			
		

> Also what you attribute to Science is nothing of the sort. Although I concede Science has produced many discoveries (e.g. we had roofs over our heads in the first caves, we have had wild corn and agriculture long before it was cultivated [and were tossed out of the original Garden of Eden ], among the first domesticated animals we had unkosher pigs [but we may have evolved from them?], steam has been blowing around in nature's hot springs and vents for a long time). For the most part all science has been able to do is emulate and approximate what it observes in Nature (although we do now have more abstract predictive mechanisms). In a manner of speaking, a religious person can argue that Science can be viewed as the study of Gods works in Nature and the application of those principals to man's own vision (which has also been a large cause for unintended consequences and misery). Ponder that we have Science to thank for the Holy Atomic Bomb.



Uhh... no.  I'm really hoping this is a joke on your part... or maybe some sort of parody of some previous comments.  Because if it isnt, youre insane.  Trying to call a hot spring the same as a computer is beyond exaggeration, its borderline retardation.  The bible doesnt tell humanity how to improve itself, it says inane and bizarre shit like: "if your brother dies, go bang his wife and have a kid - if you dont, she'll take you in front of the town elders and beat you with your own shoe, then spit on you." (Deuteronomy 25)

When Copernicus was exploring the heavens, he had to wait untill he was on his deathbed to publish his work, because if he had published it sooner, he would have been executed by the inquisition.  Galileo was sentenced to life in prison for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun.  Darwin "approximated what he learned in nature" and was reviled by christianity.

Regardless, your entire premise is typical: "science is the study of gods work."  Well shit, by your definition, there isnt anything thats not a result of god, right?  So we're sort of back to point number one, where i say "evolution exists because of a, b, and c" and you say "no it doesnt god created everything, that too."


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I also caution everyone to not banter about in idle talk of God as if he is some novelty to be debated or mused over. Humanity has been warned repeatedly that God will not be mocked. So speak lightly and reverently as many of the modern visionaries have stated that there is only one thing holding back his arm from striking the earth in divine retribution at this time - and that is the incessant inter-pleading of the woman that bore Jesus to extend the period of mercy and individual's final opportunity for reconciliation.
> 
> They laughed at the time of the Great Flood too...
> 
> OD



God damn, and here i was thinking you were just another WWJD guy.  It's now clear that you are indeed insane.  Isn't there a street corner somewhere in downtown manhattan youre supposed to be preaching from?


----------



## Vieope (Nov 12, 2004)

_Noooooooooooo! _


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> In fact some of the most influential and renown scientists and philosophers and intellectuals of all time were Christians. To name just a few:
> ???	Michael Faraday (Sandemanian)
> ???	John Flamsteed
> ???	Alexander Fleming (Catholic)
> ...



lmfao.  Nice list.  It's cute that Galileo is right near the top.


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I think that there was something profoundly sacred and (possibly prophetic with respect to his relationship with all that are in him or a part of him) when he referred to himself as "I am whom am".
> 
> OD



Hey, wait a sec, i thought we were talking about god, not Popeye?


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 12, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Uhm OD, god is an abstract concept.  Sort of like aliens.  You may not believe in it, but you recognize the idea.  i.e., "I blame god for making old people clog the road in front of churches on sunday."
> * Then you must blame yourself for having to live in this hell?*
> 
> 
> ...



comments embedded.
OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 12, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> God damn, and here i was thinking you were just another WWJD guy.  It's now clear that you are indeed insane.  Isn't there a street corner somewhere in downtown manhattan youre supposed to be preaching from?



*For a guy who thinks of god as an abstract concept you seem to like to capitalize his name in respect at the same time you call down curses from above in his name. You need to be consistent in your views on this or start praying for God to make you sane so you can get back to being normal and calling him a concept again.*

OD


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> *For a guy who thinks of {god} as an abstract concept you seem to like to capitalize his name in respect*



speaking of which, you missed one!


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 12, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> speaking of which, you missed one!


No, I was forced by protocol to use his lower case convention since we had no basis for agreement on the other. It was proper in this case.

OD


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> No, I was forced by protocol to use his lower case convention since we had no basis for agreement on the other. It was proper in this case.
> 
> OD


ahh, got ya.


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> Evolution, by definition, is the mutation of genes to create a better more sophisticated animal. A new species with better capabilities. Life supposedly started in the primordial soup, then single cell things, then multi cell things, then invertabrates, then vertabrates etcetera.
> 
> You have to get from ameoba to man. Thus, you need to be able to add new genes to the gene pool since they did not start there. And you will never breed enough desireable traits into an amoeba to get to a man.
> 
> Breeding horses does not introduce any new genes into the species or world. It only makes more of what was already there. If you only breed black horses and kill all others, eventually, you will only have black horses. You will eliminate all of the other genes. BUT, you still have HORSES.



You seem to be stuck on the idea that "man" was some preplanned idea that could never have come about by fate.  Yet im saying that it was fate which resulted in man.  Humanity appears to be this perfect culmination of intelligent design, yet it appears that way _only because you are what you are_.  If humanity evolved with 3 heads per person, you would think that *that* was the perfect result of intelligent design.  That random amalgamation of aminos and polypeptides resulted in you.

As for the whole definition of evolution thing... here you go (right out of the american heritage dictionary, not made up to fit my ideals):

# A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
#

   1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.

# Biology.

   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

-----

By definition, evolution includes what you just described.

To take the idea further, do you consider a zebra to be "just another horse"?








			
				milliman said:
			
		

> I am lost on your point.
> I think you are saying that we wouldn't know how advanced we had evolved since we are in the middle of evolving, at whatever stage that is.
> 
> Why is this relevant ?
> ...



w t f

This "genetic blueprint" is only important because it led to the creation of "us."  If this blueprint gave us 3 heads, half an arm, and a couple tails, you'd still be calling it a work of genius "too perfect to be random."  Why?  Because you wouldnt know any better.  As it stands, you dont know if there was an accident half way down the genetic blueprint somewhere that gave all of us half the intelligence we could have had.  To us, the blueprint is perfect, because we are as we have always been and as we have always known ourselves to be.

This concept really isn't so terribly abstract.  Just think about it.  Harder.











			
				milliman said:
			
		

> I realize its not as simple as "poof".
> 
> First, this violates the second (and most fundamental) law of thermodynamics which states things will go from a state of order to disorder, and not vice versa. Example, if you have a bunch of smoke in one corner of the room, it will not stay there, it will spread out into the whole room. Building blocks do not miraculously arrange themselves into a castle or something, they need someone to put the thought process together to do that.
> 
> ...



Err, no.  When talking chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics involves atoms and molecules.  Do you know whats spreading all that smoke across the room?  The speed at which all those molecules are smashing into each other and forcing themselves away from each other.

Building blocks do not spontaneously arrange themselves into a castle.  But building blocks also do not speed around the work site at thousands of miles an hour, smashing together and releasing massive amounts of energy.

Think of it this way:  There are millions of compounds that contain less inherent energy than the elements from which they were formed.  In other words, the second law _predicts_ the construction of molecules.  The second law doesnt say there must be a decrease in order, only that energy must "spread out."


Anyway, while i feel the following will be wasted on you, since you failed to grasp earlier concepts, ill give it a shot:

What humanity defines as "life" is based on what we are and what we percieve as such.  It is a human definition for human perception.  Our definition of life - even our consideration of ourselves as life - could be no more than simple chemistry to some third party observer.  We have built up a reality for ourselves that we are some magnificent invention, yet we have no grounds to base that assertion on beyond our own world.  Beyond our own meager understanding of our environment.  From a purely biological aspect, we are chemistry in action.  Everything from our kidneys to our brain can be discussed using terms like "action potential" and "ion gradient."  This "jump" from nucleic acid to life may not be as pronounced as we make it out to be - we are simply a much larger amalgamation of proteins and aminos than we were a few billion years ago.


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> OK. So in your book all religions are evil and you are good?



Nice of you to ignore the line of thought, there, and just throw out your own extreme assertions to try and save face.

No, i never said i'm good and no, i never said all religions are evil.  I made an observation, and im waiting for you to refute it, not just dance around it.




			
				OceanDude said:
			
		

> A computer is an approximation of a computing device. Although I know of no discrete boolean computing devices in nature I can quite imagine that many true social retards use their very powerful neural computing system (e.g. their brain) to work on trivial boolean expression centered on answering yes and no questions over and over again such as: <does it feel good> AND <can I boost my ego>. The insanity of course is in expecting different outcomes each time you run that rudimentary behavior. I have worked with computers all my life and they have made me a lot of money. But they are really nothing to marvel at and quite simple when compared to the average human mind. As for the vulgar reference to Deuteronomy I'd recommend that you get some insight into what you are whining about since you need to understand that the system of law and religion of the Jewish people you reference existed at a point in human history when life was a daily struggle for survival and not a current teaching.



I see... so if the human mind is such a fantastic gift from god, then why cant it do everything a computer can?  It seems as though we used our scientific insight to make up for our own weaknesses.  In other words, making up for where god screwed up, no?

As for deuteronomy... uhm... ok.  So at what point did that law become irrelevant?  Who decided it was stupid and past its time?  What about the endless number of other laws written in the bible that "educated" people no longer heed?  You know, the people who no longer struggle daily for survival because of the industrial revolution, the tractor, and advanced irrigation?


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> The Church will be the first to admit that mistakes were made in the past and in reality the social systems that existed in that day were never part of the Christian vision. Basically you had power hungry humans use religious teachings to hijack the people and build power bases. This is more a measure of human gullibility and human corruption than it is an invalidation of religious concepts. Of course, don't think that just because you do not have a religious society anymore that the same harshness no longer exists. Many intelligent scientists have been relegated to obscurity simply for political expediency or becuase they represented a competing idea to an establish system that had economic clout to silence then. Religions no longer have this kind of opressive power since they are now separated in this country (although the Muslims still do in the middle east).



Why are you so sure that the modern day interpretation of christianity is correct, and it was the church of the rennaisance that was hijacked?  Couldnt it gbe the other way around?


----------



## Monolith (Nov 12, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> *For a guy who thinks of god as an abstract concept you seem to like to capitalize his name in respect at the same time you call down curses from above in his name. You need to be consistent in your views on this or start praying for God to make you sane so you can get back to being normal and calling him a concept again.*
> 
> OD



I capitalized god because it was the first word in the sentence.

Really, could you possibly be grasping for any thinner straws?


----------



## Vieope (Nov 12, 2004)

_I just can´t understand how someone could look to the complexity of life and say that a God is the answer. It is just not logic. _


----------



## perfectbody (Nov 13, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I just can´t understand how someone could look to the complexity of life and say that a God is the answer. It is just not logic. _


belief in God is like giving up to find out yourself. Nevermind it has been just a couple of thousands since religions were introduced to control people. There will be changes in future. Glad I am a devout Atheist.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 13, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Nice of you to ignore the line of thought, there, and just throw out your own extreme assertions to try and save face.
> * I guess I didn't see a line of thought. I'll go back and re-look*
> No, i never said i'm good and no, i never said all religions are evil.  I made an observation, and im waiting for you to refute it, not just dance around it.
> *It just seemed as though you were trying to present yourself as more enlightened than all the religions and I wanted to know how you yourself thought about that assertion so I could get a feel for if you thought you were infallible or not. I think we just established that fact that you believe in good and evil and that you are not good.*
> ...



OD


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 13, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Why are you so sure that the modern day interpretation of christianity is correct, and it was the church of the rennaisance that was hijacked?  Couldnt it gbe the other way around?


Fair question - how do we know? The answer of course is it is not correct because we have so many offshoots of beliefs and people calling themselves Christians doing things that are inconsistent with teachings. We see this phenomenon with a lot of Politicians who call themselves whatever they want simply to get t a vote then operate against those ideals when elected. 

In reality Jesus was adverse to creating a new religion but knew that those who followed him would insist on institutionalizing it. When he spoke to Peter "upon this rock I build my church" he also implied that man was imperfect and would need such stability (and stubbornness?) to hold the teachings all together cohesively. He later spoke of the Paraclete or the Spirit being sent out to his people to guide them (since he knew there would be those that wandered from the flock or would get lost or get confused). There are also the accounts that God would write his laws onto the hearts of men (the conscience tempered with the compassion of the heart) to know what was right and wrong. Jesus had a lot of problems with many of the church leaders of his time and wanted people to have a simple set of rules based on only 2 concepts: 1) Love of God and 2) Love of fellow man. He stated that every other law or doctrine came from that.

I myself find a desire for a return to the purity, the commitment and the serenity of the earlier church expressed in the great musical compositions, the writings, the philosophical works, and the arts of the early Renaissance Church. But in addition to a lot of good in daily life we also had terrible abuses of power in those times at the civic level by men who abused their positions of trust and power. But perhaps the most devout of all where the earlier persecuted church where Christians met in small bands of families and friends in secret caves and homes to escape the persecution of the Romans and others. This was a very simple form of existence and I think this latter case is more what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of "where two or more are gathered in my name I am with you" as a pure form of discipleship. Of course there are deeper theological and spiritual fruits, blessings and teachings to be had through his ordained priests (those true priests that did not betray he teachings or cave into their own vices). 

I have thus far been able to differentiate through "feeling" a good priest from a bad priest or a good Christian from a bad Christian. Of course there are a whole range of people in between who are just "humans" and have some lapses in judgment or temporary failures that do not make them bad. The standards are high and we all are human. That's exactly why we have the need to mature the church and learn from our mistakes and reject the bad when we are able to finally recognize it and grow from it. Think of it as a tree growing in a harsh climate. The growth rings are bold and strong in the good years and weak and thin in the bad years. The concept is growth and reaching higher toward the heavens as we mature and trusting that nature serves a purpose that is more inclined to test us and mature us more so than it is to let us perish for no reason.
OD


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 13, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I just can´t understand how someone could look to the complexity of life and say that a God is the answer. It is just not logic. _


it's usually the people that can't figure out how to work the quote buttons 



			
				perfectbody said:
			
		

> belief in God is like giving up to find out yourself.


This is an interesting opinion.  I like the way you put it.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 13, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> I capitalized god because it was the first word in the sentence.
> 
> Really, could you possibly be grasping for any thinner straws?


Well it was pretty funny to catch you cursing...

OD


----------



## Vieope (Nov 13, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> it's usually the people that can't figure out how to work the quote buttons


_I guess it is because of the behavior and thoughts that were formed at young age. We all know how hard it is to break those values. Doesn´t matter how smart or knowledgeable someone could get as adult, they rarely change. 

Humans suck._


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 13, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I just can´t understand how someone could look to the complexity of life and say that a God is the answer. It is just not logic. _



I just can't understand why it's such a problem.  Everyone has their own beliefs. 



			
				perfectbody said:
			
		

> belief in God is like giving up to find out yourself. Nevermind it has been just a couple of thousands since religions were introduced to control people. There will be changes in future. Glad I am a devout Atheist.



now that is illogical


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 13, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I guess it is because of the behavior and thoughts that were formed at young age. We all know how hard it is to break those values. Doesn´t matter how smart or knowledgeable someone could get as adult, they rarely change.
> 
> Humans suck._



not really. i never really embraced/accepted my faith until two years ago.. at 22 years old.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 13, 2004)

_It is not a problem, everybody can think whatever they want. I just don´t like what sometimes comes from it, wars and so on. I know, less than 1% of religious people are radicals. 
What happened for you to start believing it? Can you share the story?  _


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 13, 2004)

hmm, well two weeks away from graduating college, I buy an engagement ring for my girlfriend who i had been dating for 4 1/2 years. i'm all excited, planning the best way i could pop the question.  I go back to the campus that night & am walking to her apartment to hang out & see her walking arm-in-arm with a freshman. (that's a confidence booseter, eh?)   

three weeks later, a high school friend dies & for the first time, i was in a depression.  I never had it before, and I can't even begin to tell you how terrible i felt. 

anyway, make a long story short, I searched for an answer & that was it.  I quit smoking, drinking, lost 30lbs, work out now, & have a good job...

and i must say, I'm looking forward to seeing the bitch now  (you have to rub this kind of thing in her face  ) 

That's what I'm getting at.  If I'm wrong, there is no God, & we just cease to exist.. what is the worst that happened? I found the comfort I was looking for & it has made me a much better person. I also have *no* fear of death, which I formerly did.  

(of course, I think God is much more than an idea..I'm just saying that because having faith is not such a terrible thing, even if we're wrong)

I definitely believe He got me out of it. 

how dramatic, huh?


----------



## Monolith (Nov 13, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Ask the Jews about this one. I never subscribed to that rule since it predated my existence by well over 2000 years. My point really is that you can not go randomly jumping around in the Bible and looking at writings in a context free manner and expect to get any kind of insight into what is being communicated. It is relevant to know that Deuteronomy, is part of the Pentateuch and the author(s) intent is among other things convey a history of who the earliest Jews were as a people as well as a lesson on the blessing and punishments to be expected for being faithful to or failing God's laws. The Pentateuch is from a literary analysis perspective quite complex and beyond 90% of most religious people's grasp. This is where most people can get by on faith and focus on the New Testament (where Christianity is centered). For the studious or for those that want to debate you must go much deeper. It is in fact a Diatessaron work (a composition of 4 sources of accounts). It is composed in theory according to 4 major traditions of authorship: Priestly Tradition ("P"), the Elohist Tradition ("E"), The Yahwist Tradition ("J" - Jahweh) and The Deuteronomic Tradition ("D"). Some documents are influenced by others and we have various combinations of authorships (e.g. JE, JEP, JEDP, etc.). To comprehend and benefit from even a portion of this book you must take a perspective of eternity (as if you yourself were as immortal and as timeless as God) and see it in the greater context - looking backward in time and looking forward to what is amazingly consistent in the New Testament thousands of years later and penned by men who were not exactly advocating the Jewish position on things. Essentially Religion evolved (like a growing tree) and some got left behind for refusing to see that that it was all consistent with what was foretold. It takes a bit of study and is not something that you can just go look at as you did. Certainly not in a spirit of contempt and say "see it makes not sense to me". This has always been man's weakness since being mortal and impatient he sees Creation in the context of his own limited lifespan and does not take the time to learn greater things that are just waiting in time as if fruit to be picked from a tree from a seeded concept. This is why most men will never be able to conceive of inventions and concepts that are universal in nature and exceed the limits of time and his own mortality.
> But why invent or emulate a thing in Nature anyway if you can just have it directly from Nature by simply knowing how to ask for it? Man has more power available to him than he can currently comprehend he just has not yet learned how to crawl beyond the nursery room.



You make some very interesting observations - ones i wouldnt normally expect from a theist (especially you, considering some of your past comments).  I especially like this: "This has always been man's weakness since being mortal and impatient he sees Creation in the context of his own limited lifespan and does not take the time to learn greater things that are just waiting in time as if fruit to be picked from a tree from a seeded concept. This is why most men will never be able to conceive of inventions and concepts that are universal in nature and exceed the limits of time and his own mortality."  Replace 'Creation' with 'creation' and we're on exactly the same page.

Yet i find it strange that you can believe in such an abstract concept, and at the same time so staunchy support such concretes as "god" and whatever relatively recent prophecies have foretold.  I mean, with statements like this: "Man has more power available to him than he can currently comprehend he just has not yet learned how to crawl beyond the nursery room," how can you honestly believe in god or organized religion in general?  Isn't this organized worship the very "nursery room" youre speaking of?  It's what appeals to nearly all of humanity, as is illustrated by the proliferation of religion.  Wouldnt an example of man using that hidden power of understanding and comprehension _require_ moving beyond 10,000 years of generic religious belief?


----------



## Monolith (Nov 13, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Well it was pretty funny to catch you cursing...
> 
> OD



Yeah, i suppose.  I tend to choose swears on the basis of how offensive they are in a given situation, though.


----------



## Vieope (Nov 13, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> hmm, well two weeks away from graduating college, I buy an engagement ring for my girlfriend who i had been dating for 4 1/2 years. i'm all excited, planning the best way i could pop the question.  I go back to the campus that night & am walking to her apartment to hang out & see her walking arm-in-arm with a freshman. (that's a confidence booseter, eh?)
> 
> three weeks later, a high school friend dies & for the first time, i was in a depression.  I never had it before, and I can't even begin to tell you how terrible i felt.
> 
> ...


_No, not dramatic, nice story actually. You sould believe in revenge, not in God  lol 
Sorry for the delay to read your post, I was eating.  _


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 13, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> You make some very interesting observations - ones i wouldnt normally expect from a theist (especially you, considering some of your past comments).  I especially like this: "This has always been man's weakness since being mortal and impatient he sees Creation in the context of his own limited lifespan and does not take the time to learn greater things that are just waiting in time as if fruit to be picked from a tree from a seeded concept. This is why most men will never be able to conceive of inventions and concepts that are universal in nature and exceed the limits of time and his own mortality."  Replace 'Creation' with 'creation' and we're on exactly the same page.
> 
> Yet i find it strange that you can believe in such an abstract concept, and at the same time so staunchy support such concretes as "god" and whatever relatively recent prophecies have foretold.  I mean, with statements like this: "Man has more power available to him than he can currently comprehend he just has not yet learned how to crawl beyond the nursery room," how can you honestly believe in god or organized religion in general?  Isn't this organized worship the very "nursery room" youre speaking of?  It's what appeals to nearly all of humanity, as is illustrated by the proliferation of religion.  Wouldnt an example of man using that hidden power of understanding and comprehension _require_ moving beyond 10,000 years of generic religious belief?


There is no conflict between what I believe is within man's potential and holding to a belief in God. There is much progress to be made in humankinds evolution and discovery (in all forms - physical, intellectual and spiritual). But the power I am talking about comes mostly from the spiritual dimension. If you can accept the possibility that the fundamental nature of humanity is much more than physical then it it becomes immediatley clear that it is foolish to shrug off things that you can not currently comprehend and relegate as mere conjecture.

"Creation", whether in upper or lower case I deliberately choose to leave ambigous in starting this sentence but hold it self evident that it "Is". All we are arguing about now is what the meaning of the word "is" is. 

OD


----------



## Monolith (Nov 13, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> There is no conflict between what I believe is within man's potential and holding to a belief in God. There is much progress to be made in humankinds evolution and discovery (in all forms - physical, intellectual and spiritual). But the power I am talking about comes mostly from the spiritual dimension. If you can accept the possibility that the fundamental nature of humanity is much more than physical then it it becomes immediatley clear that it is foolish to shrug off things that you can not currently comprehend and relegate as mere conjecture.
> 
> "Creation", whether in upper or lower case I deliberately choose to leave ambigous in starting this sentence but hold it self evident that it "Is". All we are arguing about now is what the meaning of the word "is" is.
> 
> OD



So where does the limit of our potential lie?  Can we conjecture ourselves all the way to equal footing with god?  

Humanity is more than physical as 'physical' is currently defined, for sure - consciousness stands out as a clear example.  But how much of humanity _should_ be classified as physical?  We dont understand the mind, perhaps because we are what we're studying.  Perhaps we're no more than the single celled amoeba we deride, or perhaps we're unwitting gods ourselves - but with that mindset, how can you raise your standard with one factions interpretation and not another?  What evidence has steered you towards christianity vs. some more liberal interpretation of spirituality/creation/existence?


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 13, 2004)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _No, not dramatic, nice story actually. You sould believe in revenge, not in God  lol
> Sorry for the delay to read your post, I was eating.  _



No revenge.. just icing on the cake.


----------



## cman (Nov 14, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> *I have heard that some groups like the thought of a "pre-adamic" race to try merge evolution into the Bible. I would like to see what you have on it.*
> 
> *Questions in bold.*


I believe God created the heaven and earth in tact 15billion years ago. And thru his power created life on Earth, Mars, and possibly a third planet no longer existing in whole but as a meteor beltnow.

The Devil, or Lucifer, Corupted the inhabs of all 3 planets and god destroid the 3rd one wiped life of earth and mars. 

After all he was already fallen when he tempted Eve, he fell by deceiving the nations. What nations were here before them?

This explains the crator that was formed when the dinasours were wiped out.

I believe the UFO sightings today are possibly fallen angels. other wise they would show them selves. 

When the church is gone I believe they will suface and that is the end time dception.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, *if [it were] possible*, they shall deceive the very elect. 

It is not possible because we are not here.

But those left here will surly worship the inhabitants.

Look a the Dogon people. claim 4k years ago half fish half man in saucer visited them and they worship them to this day.
they also described part of the solar system that we could not verify till 1997.
It was as the Dogon said.
They claim the ship inhabitants explained it to them.

Also Noah was spared cause he worshipped God but also cause he was *Perfect in his Geniology.*
*Gen 6*
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 













*Gen 6:2*That the *sons of God* saw the *daughters of men* that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 













*Gen 6:3*And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 













*Gen 6:4**There were giants in the earth in those days*; *and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.* 













*Gen 6:5*And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 













*Gen 6:6*And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 













*Gen 6:7*And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 













*Gen 6:8*But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 













*Gen 6:9*These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God. 

read the book *Alien Encounters: The Secret Behind The Ufo Phenomenon*
By Chuck Missler

Also go to    http://www.khouse.org/conferences/alien/


you can E mail me for more info.
Chuck


----------



## Monolith (Nov 15, 2004)

cman said:
			
		

> I believe God created the heaven and earth in tact 15billion years ago. And thru his power created life on Earth, Mars, and possibly a third planet no longer existing in whole but as a meteor beltnow.
> 
> The Devil, or Lucifer, Corupted the inhabs of all 3 planets and god destroid the 3rd one wiped life of earth and mars.
> 
> ...



Well see now, youre not just a christian, youre _fucking nuts_.

Stick to www.coolaidcults.com, please.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 15, 2004)

Why do these threads always end up becoming sermons? With all that science has uncovered, and the strides weve made, do you really,really think there actually was an Adam,Eve, all naked around the snake? So we just popped out of the ground one day eh?

                        Or do you think that just as a long term strategic plan in case, after you croak, there really is a Hell? Is it actually fear thats the driving force behind Creationism and not logical thought? "Fear" is a very important motivator in religions, most of all if your Christian or Muslim. They beat you over the head with it until your to afraid to pull your pud, half expecting Satan to come crashing thru the floor to drag you to some awful place to burn for about 97 eternities.

                           I guess this is why Im not exactly a right winger. I have nothing against religion but in many ways it hasnt evolved since the middle ages, if it ever did. If Im ever in front of those pearly gates I'll not only tell the man I never commited any hanging offenses but I STILL! want to see proof!...................................Rich


----------



## milliman (Nov 15, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> If Im ever in front of those pearly gates I'll not only tell the man I never commited any hanging offenses but I STILL! want to see proof!...................................Rich


Lets see, Thomas said the same thing. 

This is where we get the term a "doubting Tom".


----------



## milliman (Nov 15, 2004)

*I love it when someone makes my point for me !!!*




			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> As for the whole definition of evolution thing... here you go (right out of the american heritage dictionary, not made up to fit my ideals):
> 
> # A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form *(did you notice it says different or more complex. Not the same with different colors, see below)*. See Synonyms at development.
> #
> ...


Here is an example evolutionists like to use.

In England, they used to have a lot of black & white moths (same species). The moths lived on the side of trees with white bark. White moths were predominate since the black moths would stand out on the trees and get eaten by birds. 

When the industrial revolution occured, there was a lot of polution in the air that settled on the trees. Rain then washed it down on the branches and made them dark colored. When this happened, the black moths became predominate since they blended into the tree color better.

Evolutionists use this to support evolution thru survival of the fittest.
Creationists use this to support genetic adaption, or survival of the fittest. 

The problem for evolution is that you had a moth before and you have a moth afterwards. The same genes are still there, there has been no increase in genes in the gene pool. You just have a predominance of black genes in the population.

For evolution, you *must have new genes coming into the gene pool* or it can not happen. If no new genes were introduced, then we should have the same genes as the first forms of life (under evolution) and that would be amoebas. 

Heck, we don't even have the same genes as the chimpanzee that is supposed to be so closely related to us.

Under Creation, God created animals with genes. Then depending on which part of the world they lived in, the animals with the genes/traits for that climate would do better and the others would die off or move to a diiferent climate. But dogs were still dogs, and horses were still horses. Mybe that had long hair or short hair, stripes or not stripes, but they were still the same animal.




			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> w t f
> 
> This "genetic blueprint" is only important because it led to the creation of "us." If this blueprint gave us 3 heads, half an arm, and a couple tails, you'd still be calling it a work of genius "too perfect to be random." Why? Because you wouldnt know any better. As it stands, you dont know if there was an accident half way down the genetic blueprint somewhere that gave all of us half the intelligence we could have had. To us, the blueprint is perfect, because we are as we have always been and as we have always known ourselves to be.
> 
> This concept really isn't so terribly abstract. Just think about it. Harder.


I thought about it plenty. I was a pre med student.






			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> Err, no. When talking chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics involves atoms and molecules. Do you know whats spreading all that smoke across the room? The speed at which all those molecules are smashing into each other and forcing themselves away from each other.
> 
> Building blocks do not spontaneously arrange themselves into a castle. But building blocks also do not speed around the work site at thousands of miles an hour, smashing together and releasing massive amounts of energy.
> 
> Think of it this way: There are millions of compounds that contain less inherent energy than the elements from which they were formed. In other words, the second law _predicts_ the construction of molecules. The second law doesnt say there must be a decrease in order, only that energy must "spread out." .


Nice speech and a bass ackwards reading of the 2nd law. Now lets get to real life and out of fantasy land.

Based on what you are saying, you should find life appearing all over the place since you think the 2nd law predicts it. So how come we don't find amino acids, proteins and life apprearing in laboratories under controlled circumstances ? 
Modern day scientists should be able to "make life" since it is so easy. But with all of our modern technology and all, we can't make anything. 

Thats is zilch, nada, nothing.





			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> Anyway, while i feel the following will be wasted on you, since you failed to grasp earlier concepts, ill give it a shot:
> 
> What humanity defines as "life" is based on what we are and what we percieve as such. It is a human definition for human perception. Our definition of life - even our consideration of ourselves as life - could be no more than simple chemistry to some third party observer. We have built up a reality for ourselves that we are some magnificent invention, yet we have no grounds to base that assertion on beyond our own world. Beyond our own meager understanding of our environment. From a purely biological aspect, we are chemistry in action. Everything from our kidneys to our brain can be discussed using terms like "action potential" and "ion gradient." This "jump" from nucleic acid to life may not be as pronounced as we make it out to be - we are simply a much larger amalgamation of proteins and aminos than we were a few billion years ago.


Mono, 

Explain how RNA can replicate a strand of DNA due to chemical processes.

Explain how centrioles and cell replication due to chemical processes.

Explain cognitive thought due to chemical processes.

There is more going on than protons and electrons, there is a life force driving it all.


----------



## cman (Nov 15, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Well see now, youre not just a christian, youre _fucking nuts_.
> 
> Stick to www.coolaidcults.com, please.


More or less.

Actually I used to think those guys were fruit cakes and then did some research my self. look into it you will be surprised. I believe a weather ballon crashed at roswell, but there are 5000 year old tombs with perfect pictures of hellecopters. That is something to look into. plus all of the ancient looking landing type sites around the world make a pentagram.

Too much for coinkydink.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 15, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> So where does the limit of our potential lie?  Can we conjecture ourselves all the way to equal footing with god?
> 
> Humanity is more than physical as 'physical' is currently defined, for sure - consciousness stands out as a clear example.  But how much of humanity _should_ be classified as physical?  We dont understand the mind, perhaps because we are what we're studying.  Perhaps we're no more than the single celled amoeba we deride, or perhaps we're unwitting gods ourselves - but with that mindset, how can you raise your standard with one factions interpretation and not another?  What evidence has steered you towards christianity vs. some more liberal interpretation of spirituality/creation/existence?


Why ponder about limits when we can not yet grasp half the extent of the possibilities? Equality with God is nothing to be grasped at and it may be the case that there is the notion of a family or team each with talents and abilities that are orchestrated to divine will.
I would be less focused on being concerned with how much should be classified as physical since the more important concept is to fathom and accept that the real possibility that there are multiple interacting domains of relational existences. This means we are not limited to relate to only things that are but we have the ability of at least some form of relationship with the past and the future through a linkage of relationships and influences therein. As for which standard to raise one self to I would propose that you go with your "instincts" since I suspect that Nature has already programmed into us a pathway toward purpose and success. This is not the same things as destiny but rather being responsive to the call of opportunity and purpose arising from Nature's need and one's own unique talents. The pragmatic problem is being free to hear and respond to the call and not be distracted by the small mundane things in life that come as  noise from the chaos around us.

The important question you ask is what evidence brings me to Christianity? The answer is: This is personal, more an inner "feeling" and I can not answer satisfactorily in the terms that you specify. It is less a matter of evidence than it is a matter of invitation. I accept it as a gift and consider myself to be fortunate beyond all personal ability to repay. I will however attempt to reveal certain things that ratify how I came to believe in my original teaching. This is more in line with what you call  "evidence" (if such a thing is static). There is remarkable consistency in recorded prophecy arrising from different peoples and places for thousands of years. No other religion has this distributed arthurship penned and conveyed over centuries. This requires much research to resolve for one's self and the amount required depends on how deeply one wants to play the devil's advocate and doubt. I doubted greatly and researched greatly. I spent over 1 year in studious solitude and did not date or see a woman or interact with too many people or concern myself with much more than sitting and reading at home. I was as a hermit and judged the stakes so high (immortality vs spiritual death) I was compelled to this task. I finally resolved a fundamental observation. Namely, that much of humanity that was well versed in those prophecies (the ancient Jews) failed to accept the thing they waited centuries for when it came. This could be no man made conspiracy when the designated advocates rejected that which they spawn since it was not in the precise image they envisioned. These were no advocates. In fact they attempted to destroy The Christ physically it in a way that in and of itself was consistent with prophecy and they became unwitting players in the scriptures. Only a few of them recognized that they were "being used" in this hostile role and recognized it (the high priests) as consistent with scriptures and still could not prevent their human vices from continuing the cascade of foretold events. Those responsible, in their disbelief proved themselves to be completely the worst possible advocates of this teaching and in so doing became an instrument for ratifying all the scriptures as "not man made". The linkage between the Old and New Testaments are so profound and consistent that anyone who studies it can have no possible doubt that there is divine will manifest in those accounts. There are many more things I could say but I would be writing for hours and I already run long.

OD


----------



## cman (Nov 15, 2004)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> the whole idea of aliens seeding our planet only pushes the mystery of life somewhere else. where did the aliens come from?


Agree,


----------



## Monolith (Nov 15, 2004)

milliman said:
			
		

> GOAIUGDSAIOGHASOG



Right, well, there's really nothing more i can say.

Get back to me when you look up the words in that definition you dont understand.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 16, 2004)

Look I'm very tolerant of religion. I even bring my cold,dark,insulting,evil heart to church on occasion. I was raised religious and in my opinion the plus's of following the ways of the Bible far,far,far outweigh the minuses. I believe in God, believe Jesus lived, and believe society would be much better off if we followed Gods law.

                        I just don't believe that Adam and Eve shit! I'm a person who thru both training and inclination looks at evidence and makes objective judgments. And evolution is a no-brainer! Ive seen enough of the cruelty and impartiality of nature to accept without question the theory of natural selection and I believe "most" of the questions regarding the creation of the earth and the evolution of life on it has been explained logically using sound science. NOW we are slowly un-raveling the deepest secrets of the universe. BTW I already said Chimps have a 97% DNA match with us, are able to talk to us with sign language, and have retained other shared characteristics. It was 6 million years ago that, what would end up as the Human animal, and what would end up as the chimpanzee, diverged from a common ancestor.

                            Now at the same time it would be very dangerous for humanity to become so entranced with science that our spirituality is destroyed. I'm afraid however that Homo Sapien is an animal. A vicious,tribal,selfish,brilliant, and extremely dangerous animal. But in this darkness is also a spark. And religion, when actually followed, is one of them. As is art, compassion,love,education, and even science. We just have a very difficult time extending such positives past our immediate tribes. Much like a troupe of chimps, Go-rillas, or orangutan's.

                          I accept it all as Gods plan to begin with. And Milliman, again, the Industrial revolution cannot be used as an example of natural selection. Why is that? Because it aint "natural", has happened in 100 years or less, "against what? Billions of years of the earth"? Even tho there might be some of the same results...............................................Rich


----------



## allpro (Nov 16, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no problem with the notion of God through force of divine will and command ordering Creation into existence and setting it in motion with a set of consistent rules, Natural Laws and phenomenon. Therefore I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that the mechanism of Evolution can be in perfect agreement with the fundamental view of Creation since God can chose whatever tools, processes and mechanisms he desires. He can just as easily create man from clay as he can create a genius from a donkey (hey don't look at me that way ), or an ape from an amoeba or a woman from a man's rib.
> 
> It is interesting to note that God did not chose to just "will" that his "word [become spontaneous and instant] flesh" when Jesus came into physical existence on Earth. Rather, for reasons known only to God he had Jesus suffer the humility of being born and grow as a normal human when it was clearly within God's power to directly and immediately manifest him through a simple action of will.
> 
> OD


well said..i agree 100%


----------



## bandaidwoman (Nov 16, 2004)

Will creationists please stop invoking the second law of thermodynamics?  As an ex chemist this is offensive because it shows a basic lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

 If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. 

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a *closed system* (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. 

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials. 

*Thus the error is assuming the earth is a closed system. It isn't, the sun is our external energy source. *

In addition, chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. That is the second misinterpretation of Darwinism. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times. 



As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 16, 2004)

Rich46yo said:
			
		

> Look I'm very tolerant of religion. I even bring my cold,dark,insulting,evil heart to church on occasion. I was raised religious and in my opinion the plus's of following the ways of the Bible far,far,far outweigh the minuses. I believe in God, believe Jesus lived, and believe society would be much better off if we followed Gods law.
> 
> I just don't believe that Adam and Eve shit! I'm a person who thru both training and inclination looks at evidence and makes objective judgments. And evolution is a no-brainer! Ive seen enough of the cruelty and impartiality of nature to accept without question the theory of natural selection and I believe "most" of the questions regarding the creation of the earth and the evolution of life on it has been explained logically using sound science. NOW we are slowly un-raveling the deepest secrets of the universe. BTW I already said Chimps have a 97% DNA match with us, are able to talk to us with sign language, and have retained other shared characteristics. It was 6 million years ago that, what would end up as the Human animal, and what would end up as the chimpanzee, diverged from a common ancestor.
> 
> ...


Rich - I think you are close to something profound here. Consider the possibility that man has the potential to be a lot more than he is and is still undergoing evolutionary struggles to shape and choose his future. Embedded within much of Christianity is the notion of "salvation". This extends from the believe that humanity suffers from spiritual weaknesses (i.e. lack of development and exercise) and is in dire need of redemption and God's grace to save him from the one area that he seems to stubborn and unwilling to adapt to. For myself I see Creation still in profound motion with loud birthing pangs and it is screaming as a mother at humanity to wake up and move along and step up to what our purpose is in things. Some will make it, some will not. But Christianity asserts that the new species born of the Son of Man through God's Grace will prevail and step us to unimaginable joy, fulfillment and unbounded good things.

OD


----------



## Monolith (Nov 16, 2004)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> Will creationists please stop invoking the second law of thermodynamics?  As an ex chemist this is offensive because it shows a basic lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
> 
> If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
> 
> ...




I love you.

Although, i have a strange feeling that milliman still wont understand.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 16, 2004)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> Will creationists please stop invoking the second law of thermodynamics?  As an ex chemist this is offensive because it shows a basic lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
> 
> If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
> 
> ...



Bandaid I thought you were into medicine not engineering ? A "system" depends on where one draws the line. Run a Möbius strip around the bubble of Creation and tell me where the energy is coming from. Stick to medicine .

On medical matters I would like to know though *where* the program resides within the human body that decides which genes to select from the mother and which from the father when natural selection tries to produce the next evolution of humans and how that program knows which gene is superior to others? It all sounds like a card game to me with somone pulling trump and jokers out of the deck. Who's the dealer?

"Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark."
OD


----------



## bandaidwoman (Nov 16, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Bandaid I thought you were into medicine not engineering ? A "system" depends on where one draws the line. Run a Möbius strip around the bubble of Creation and tell me where the energy is coming from. Stick to medicine .






I use to be an organic chemist before medicine.  Remember, evolution does not attempt to explain agenesis, thus,  only what happened to development of life afterwards.  It really doesn't give a flying flip about agenesis of life and is very strictly utilitarian in that sense.  As for the mobius strip, quantum mechanics attempts to reconcile how matter and energy can arise from nothing so I'll let the physicists take over.




> On medical matters I would like to know though *where* the program resides within the human body that decides which genes to select from the mother and which from the father when natural selection tries to produce the next evolution of humans and how that program knows which gene is superior to others? It all sounds like a card game to me with somone pulling trump and jokers out of the deck. Who's the dealer?
> 
> "Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark."
> OD



The genes are dumb.  It doesn't know which is superior.  the environment decides.  Sickle cell disease protects a black man from the ravages of malaria but when he moves to cold climates, it potentially destroys and maims him.


----------



## Rich46yo (Nov 16, 2004)

I may be occasionaly "profound" and a "starving artist" type. But being around Bandaidwoman makes me feel like a dumb fuck!.............Rich


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 16, 2004)

There is cause for hope Rich. Some people extract terrific sexual gratification for just that kind of condition and there is much need and purpose in this role. The trick is in getting such to pay for it or commit to supporting one for life and dealing with the inability to recriprocate the pleasure.  

Just teasing with ya,
OD


----------



## John H. (Nov 16, 2004)

*Evolution - because it happens constantly all the time...*



			
				sweatshopchamp said:
			
		

> Which do you believe in Creation or Evolution? What do you base your belief on?



Hi Sweatshopchamp,

I believe Evolution because there is information to back up the subject that can be proved and it makes sense. And new information comes out all the time adding to the credibility of Evolution. And in Nature things DO evolve naturally so - anyone that has studied biology, plant sciences, etc. knows - I have a farm and see the proof of life everyday and have developed an ever greater appreciation for life honestly speaking. 

Remember, always - religion IS MAN-made - in an effort to "answer the unanswerable" and it is not always very accurate, honest, complete, open-minded, objective, etc. and THAT is the problem with religion. I feel there is a vast void between God (or Whoever you perceive Him to be and whatever you call Him) and religion. Look at the Middle East and its history HONESTLY and see for yourself what religion does to Humanity and how it destroys people "in the Name of...". The Real God would NEVER have a thing to do with all that BS! I do feel God KNOWS human beings and what they are capable of doing - from ALL perspectives - and I am quite sure He would NEVER put human beings "in charge" of His thoughts and desires. I think too many people have been seeing too many "visions" in an effort to control others and profit from human beings' natural fear of the unknown. I believe the answers are really in Nature and the Natural World mostly - God given. 



Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 16, 2004)

jgirl said:
			
		

> Creation, evolution to me is a theory, and it seems like a good one, but more and more people are proving it wrong. I think Creation is the best "theory" and I base my beliefs on Genisis.



Hi Jgirl, 

Remember the Bible WAS WRITTEN by MAN - over a long period of time and about 250 YEARS AFTER the death of Christ. Remember this world is at least MILLIONS of years old and that this world existed LONG before the "happening" we are constantly told about that happened ONLY about 2,000 years ago. Remember that the source of that story is from a region of the world where there is a LOT of heat, humidity, sand blowing everywhere, UNemployment, desolation and not a lot of hope - and a lot of people clammering for power over others and "a free ride" financially speaking. Remember those same people have been killing each other for THOUSANDS of years over whose "god" is the "true god" and whose "religion" is the "true religion" - AND NOW we have that misinformation, hatred, bigotry, power-trips, etc. in this country - something Our Founding Fathers DESPERATELY wanted to PREVENT from happening here. They wanted people to believe in whatever BUT they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want "religion" getting into the affairs and everyday operations of the government and they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT want the government preventing people from practicing their religious beliefs - they wanted EACH TO BE ENTIRELY SEPARATE and that EACH HAVE NO CONTROL OVER EACH OTHER. 

I have no problem with someone "believing" but those beliefs MUST be based on as much information FROM ALL SOURCES ALL THE TIME AND OBJECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE - and HONEST - and NOT SHOVED down the throats of others. 

If God or Christ have something to say, THEY - THEY - will say it THEMSELVES and NEVER put humans in the power to speak FOR Them EVER. Or have humans "say They said" EVER! They KNOW the possibilities and the dangers of human beings...

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 16, 2004)

*Yep!*



			
				maniclion said:
			
		

> I believe in sex.



Hi Maniclion,

I honestly think most people that "know me" would certainly agree with that - I believe most definitely in Sex too. It certainly IS REAL - AND WONDERFUL. AND SACRED.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 16, 2004)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> That would possibly be the original homosexual act.



Hi Kbm,

Maybe so because Homosexuality - as with Heterosexuality and BiSexuality - ARE COMPLETELY NATURAL AND RIGHT and ARE variations of Sexuality. In ALL THINGS IN LIFE - INCLUDING SEXUALITY - there IS VARIETY - VARIATION. PERIOD.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Monolith (Nov 16, 2004)

wtf

 Is John H. Johnny?  They sure talk the same.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 16, 2004)

All I know is I am looking forward to the day that John H. can show some "VARIETY - VARIATION" in his posts. If Nature had wanted man to preach variation I am certain that Nature would have come down and told us that itself.

OD


----------



## maniclion (Nov 16, 2004)

µMinds want to know


----------



## John H. (Nov 17, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> wtf
> 
> Is John H. Johnny?  They sure talk the same.



Hi Monolith,

I AM "John H.".  I do not know who "Johnny" is - he is not me though. Actually I have not read any of his posts yet - I'll look.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 17, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> All I know is I am looking forward to the day that John H. can show some "VARIETY - VARIATION" in his posts. If Nature had wanted man to preach variation I am certain that Nature would have come down and told us that itself.
> 
> OD




Hi OD,

Did you see the post I made with regard to honest working out - Men honestly working out - I did post -  a number of them -  on that "other board" - I was very truthful in what I said and I  got some "hate" replies. ANY MAN that WILL HONESTLY - WORK DAMN HARD - AND WITH PURPOSE - WILL ACHIEVE the VERY BEST HE CAN BE - GUARANTEED - (and there is not too much in life that IS TRULY GUARANTEED!) it IS ALL ABOUT EACH INDIVIDUAL DOING - DOING - THEIR VERY BEST accurately, honestly, completely, and thoroughly - AND YOU WILL BE THE VERY BEST YOU CAN BE. The BEST things in life are truly WORTH WORKING FOR a little harder - the REWARDS are ABSOLUTE. It IS the one gift a MAN can GIVE himself and those that honestly care about him that can never be "taken away" and IS the FOUNDATION of a REAL MAN. EVERY FIBER OF EVERY MUSCLE - and the rewards are TRULY TREMENDOUS!!!! An example I give is having Guys THINK about their cocks when they are extremely hard just before they are about to blow off (BE an ADULT here and THINK CAREFULLY about this example!) - your WHOLE BODY CAN BE THAT HEALTHY ALL OVER and sensitive and very strong IF you REALLY want to BE TOTALLY HEALTHY and that responsive totally. (All Guys have cocks and can appreciate what I am saying since they experience the same feeling there and by way of UNDERSTANDING when I use this example I feel they can UNDERSTAND then what I am saying with regard to the TOTALNESS of their health WITH THEIR ENTIRE BODY not "just their cock"). This might be considered initially by some to be an "extreme"  example but it sure gets to the heart of the subject truthfully and in a manner that all Men can truly UNDERSTAND. The end result WILL BE that those Men who "hear" the "message" WILL WANT FOR THEMSELVES TO BE THEIR VERY BEST - HONESTLY AND COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ALL OVER!

As for variation and variety - an observant person WILL SEE it ALL AROUND them - there are many ways to "speak" - even without "words". Nature does "tell" us everyday about variety and variation in all things INCLUDING Sexuality. You can call it - variety and variation - the true beauty of life and living.

Here is another book you should read: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press). TRULY learning requires everyone to have or develop an open mind and be objective and learn about all things all the time. Variety IS the spice of life.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 17, 2004)

*Doubting Tom*



			
				milliman said:
			
		

> Lets see, Thomas said the same thing.
> 
> This is where we get the term a "doubting Tom".




Hi Milliman,

Here is where I think "religion" has made a HUGE mistake in their quest for control over others and their need for power over others - the story they created of "doubting Thomas". That to "doubt" is "somehow wrong". That is the "red herring" of religion because "they" (the powers that be) HAD to come up with some kind of "explanation" that would "fit" ANY situation "they could not answer" and still "somehow answer" - so how do you DO that - you make or cause people to feel somehow guilty for having questioned and you "damn them" for having done so. "They" just want people to "accept" because they are "told" NOT because there is any truth to what is being said. Just "accept" and "believe" and never "doubt". God - the REAL ONE - would NEVER ask someone He created to NOT want and make the honest effort to KNOW who HE TRULY IS - including the use of doubting - QUESTIONING! 

God (or Whoever you perceive Him to be) gave each of us a brain and I would think by doing so He would want each of us to UTILIZE that brain to the VERY BEST of out abilities. THAT INCLUDES "doubting" BECAUSE to DOUBT IS TO QUESTION the TRUTH AND ACCURACY of anything said - TO QUESTION!!! No one learns unless they QUESTION and EVERYTHING SHOULD BE questioned to be TRULY UNDERSTOOD ACCURATELY and questioning must always BE a part of truly finding truth.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Nov 17, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> You make some very interesting observations - ones i wouldnt normally expect from a theist (especially you, considering some of your past comments).  I especially like this: "This has always been man's weakness since being mortal and impatient he sees Creation in the context of his own limited lifespan and does not take the time to learn greater things that are just waiting in time as if fruit to be picked from a tree from a seeded concept. This is why most men will never be able to conceive of inventions and concepts that are universal in nature and exceed the limits of time and his own mortality."  Replace 'Creation' with 'creation' and we're on exactly the same page.
> 
> Yet i find it strange that you can believe in such an abstract concept, and at the same time so staunchy support such concretes as "god" and whatever relatively recent prophecies have foretold.  I mean, with statements like this: "Man has more power available to him than he can currently comprehend he just has not yet learned how to crawl beyond the nursery room," how can you honestly believe in god or organized religion in general?  Isn't this organized worship the very "nursery room" youre speaking of?  It's what appeals to nearly all of humanity, as is illustrated by the proliferation of religion.  Wouldnt an example of man using that hidden power of understanding and comprehension _require_ moving beyond 10,000 years of generic religious belief?



Hi Monolith,

In order for anyone to truly learn (and it IS life-long) they MUST consider ALL things from ALL sources ALL the time OBJECTIVELY - with a COMPLETELY OPEN MIND. IF they do not have an open mind they MUST develop one. 

In order to TRULY learn people MUST "crawl beyond the nursery room", a place many still find themselves BECAUSE THEY PUT THEMSELVES THERE and NEVER MOVE FOREWARD and become and be adults. Many associated with religion are in the "nursery room" and do not move beyond. They find it "convenient" - honesty and truthfulness never really enter into it at all - they "just accept" because "everyone else" "does"! 

Learning must be an HONEST and COMPLETE and DELIBERATE and AWAYS desire and effort to be ACCURATE. Repeating is where many make a huge mistake - never learning from the past of others and making the honest effort to make things much better than how they found them when they came into this world. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## OceanDude (Nov 17, 2004)

John H. said:
			
		

> Hi OD,
> 
> Did you see the post I made with regard to honest working out - Men honestly working out - I did post -  a number of them -  on that "other board" - I was very truthful in what I said and I  got some "hate" replies. ANY MAN that WILL HONESTLY - WORK DAMN HARD - AND WITH PURPOSE - WILL ACHIEVE the VERY BEST HE CAN BE - GUARANTEED - (and there is not too much in life that IS TRULY GUARANTEED!) it IS ALL ABOUT EACH INDIVIDUAL DOING - DOING - THEIR VERY BEST accurately, honestly, completely, and thoroughly - AND YOU WILL BE THE VERY BEST YOU CAN BE. The BEST things in life are truly WORTH WORKING FOR a little harder - the REWARDS are ABSOLUTE. It IS the one gift a MAN can GIVE himself and those that honestly care about him that can never be "taken away" and IS the FOUNDATION of a REAL MAN. EVERY FIBER OF EVERY MUSCLE - and the rewards are TRULY TREMENDOUS!!!! An example I give is having Guys THINK about their cocks when they are extremely hard just before they are about to blow off (BE an ADULT here and THINK CAREFULLY about this example!) - your WHOLE BODY CAN BE THAT HEALTHY ALL OVER and sensitive and very strong IF you REALLY want to BE TOTALLY HEALTHY and that responsive totally. (All Guys have cocks and can appreciate what I am saying since they experience the same feeling there and by way of UNDERSTANDING when I use this example I feel they can UNDERSTAND then what I am saying with regard to the TOTALNESS of their health WITH THEIR ENTIRE BODY not "just their cock"). This might be considered initially by some to be an "extreme"  example but it sure gets to the heart of the subject truthfully and in a manner that all Men can truly UNDERSTAND. The end result WILL BE that those Men who "hear" the "message" WILL WANT FOR THEMSELVES TO BE THEIR VERY BEST - HONESTLY AND COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ALL OVER!
> 
> ...


Thanks John. I agree that variety seems to be an important principal in body building - hitting the body from different angles. I must admit though that I have a preference for the higher angles over the lower angles. Will look into what you have said.

OD


----------



## John H. (Nov 17, 2004)

OceanDude said:
			
		

> Thanks John. I agree that variety seems to be an important principal in body building - hitting the body from different angles. I must admit though that I have a preference for the higher angles over the lower angles. Will look into what you have said.
> 
> OD



Hi OD,

JUST DO your VERY BEST - TRUST ME - YOU WILL - GUARANTEED - GET what you want and need!! As long as you are completely honest with EVERYTHING and EVERY MOVE you do - DO IT WITH HONESTLY, COMPLETENESS, PURPOSE, MEANING, FOLLOW-THROUGH - AND FOCUS!!!!!!.... It IS the "basement" (the FOUNDATION!!!) of a REAL MAN.... And YOU - more than most people will KNOW and BE - DAMN GLAD!!!!

Take Care, John H.


----------

