Theres no appropriate title

BD,

Nice quote =)

Sorry for the caps-I didn't mean to seem like I was yelling, I just didn't want
someone to look over the question because of all the posts. That's all.
I apologize for incorrect typing behavior.

 

Why do you think those drug seekers are seeking drugs? What's missing in their lives? Many suffered torment and abuse or were emotionally deprived as children.

The kid who finally snaps after years of agonizing torment from classmates and shows up to school with a machine gun...who is responsible for those murders?

How many people sitting in prison right now do you think had happy, healthy lives with loving support of family and friends and a good, enriching enviornment throughout their school years?

We created these murderers and drug addicts, then we punish them for being what we turned them into.

Swifty, thank you for bandaging them up the best you can in your clinic. <3

 

That must be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
Thank you for your service =)

 

Evolution

Mani, like I said, if we want to get into the fundamentals of evolution that's another thread. I just want to say a couple things. This planet has been around for hundreds of millions of years. That span of time, is honestly almost impossible for us humans to grasp. No, we don't know everything about science, evolution etc, but we've pretty much proven that man didn't spontaniously appear cerca 5000 years ago. Where are the dinosours in the Bible?

We continue to grow and learn. We used to think the world was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth. We know better now, just like in a hundred years we will have a better understanding of the Earth.

However, ultimately, none of it matters to me because a story about Adam and Eve told in the Bible is not a basis for my faith. And I really hope that nobody's faith is that inflexible. You simply set yourself up to have your world destroyed when something is proven wrong. I believe that faith shouldn't be blind, it should be questioning and seeking. And if you find something that doesn't fit, don't blindly go along with it, examine it and make the judgments yourself and change.

Whether God plopt man down on earth magically a couple thousand years ago, or God cause the Big Bang which created the primoridal ooze from which we came, what does it matter? The essense is the same. Is it simply our pride that makes us need to believe that God independantly made us?

There's too much science and evidence to the contrary for me to believe that everyone decended from two people who magically appeared on earth. But to me, that doesn't make Christianity, or any other faith invalid.

Zabdiel

One correct, logical, answer would be all that is required. But again, I believe you're going about it the wrong way. Because there is not possible way you can present such an argument. As has been pointed out, Faith, comes down to Faith.

In the end it's like the Evolution thing. If your faith is solely tied to mathematical principles and examples, you're just setting yourself up to be knocked down.

But I'm still hoping that you make some sort of an effort to contribute to the discussion, as opposed to just making statements.

There's only one right answer

Faith.

In the end, that is why I don't understand how people can be so one sided in their beliefs. You have this faith, that you believe with the core of your being that helps you grow and live, but you refuse to acknowlege the validity of other people's faith.

So many people have been brought up with the understanding that for their faith to be true, the other's must be false. It's like Mani's building example, if the stairs and jumping were the only way's down, fine. However, this is something infinately more complex, it is God. People need means to identify with God, different people, different means. There are literally thousands of ways to get off the top of a building. And there are millions of ways to identify with God.

Hinduism is a very interesting religion. They say they have 1 God, 3 Gods, 33 Gods, and 33,000 Gods. Many people think it is a polythiestic religion. But in the end, it's a religion based on personally identifying with God on an internal level. Regardless of the symbol or mechanism you use, you are identifying with the same 1 God, just through one of the infinate forms that God can take.

I just simply think it is the greatest sin man has ever committed to assume that he is "right" about God and everyone who doesn't believe that way is wrong. No matter what religion you are, the majority of the the world, believes something else. So you are always the minority. Over the thousands of years of faith and humanity, that you are right where all others were wrong. In an infinate universe, Earth is the only place the God chose to send the "single correct" means of worship, and you were lucky enough to pick the right one. If that is not huberis, I don't know what is.

 

Rayzer, good post. Let me add to that and clarify my position a little.

"...but we've pretty much proven that man didn't spontaniously appear cerca 5000 years ago. Where are the dinosours in the Bible?"
No, we haven't proven that at all. There is plenty of scientific evidence that calls the long ages into question. Nobody can say for sure because nobody was there when it happened. We simply have to take the facts as they are now and test them and see which axioms best fit the answers observational science can confirm for us. To put it in a nutshell there are two basic axioms in this case:

• In the beginning atoms
• In the beginning God

We have already established that matter cannot produce information and codes (like DNA) always come from an intelligence (Dr. Werner Gitt). So what we do is strive to give the best answer for the questions that we face based on observational science. But since we can't prove it because we weren't there we must rely on this process and apply faith as well - but not a blind faith. A reasoned, intelligent faith.

"I believe that faith shouldn't be blind, it should be questioning and seeking. And if you find something that doesn't fit, don't blindly go along with it, examine it and make the judgments yourself and change."
Exactly.

As for the dinosaurs, there are mention of them in the Bible. Job 40:15-24 is what many think is a description of a dinosaur. The actual word for dinosaur was not invented until the 1800s. Some think the word used for the creatures known as dinosaurs before that word came along was dragon. There are many references to dragons in the Bible and throughout man's history. Were the dragons really dinosaurs? I think so.

"Whether God plopt man down on earth magically a couple thousand years ago, or God cause the Big Bang which created the primoridal ooze from which we came, what does it matter?"
I think it does because from my perspective it calls into question the actual history of the Bible concerning Adam and Eve. If evolution is true, then what the Bible teaches about them and their fall is illegitimate. If that is true, why believe anything else in it? I must believe it from the beginning, or not believe it at all.

"There's too much bad science and evidence to the contrary for me to believe that everyone decended from two people who magically appeared on earth. But to me, that doesn't make Christianity, or any other faith invalid."
What science is contrary to God creating two people originally? If there is too much, it won't be hard to give an example. They don't magically appear, they were created specifically by God for Him. If this is true, then it does make some faiths invalid while validating true Biblical Christianity because then the other claims of the Bible must be accepted as true. Jesus Himself believed in the creation of Adam and Eve from the beginning. He also said He is the only way, the only truth, the only life - that kind of eliminates any other faith, doesn't it? This is why I was working towards establishing an objective truth, so that we would have a framework with which to begin.

I am not here to preach at anyone, I am simply enjoying the debate!

But one thing that is true that you said Rayzer and I agree completely: it takes faith. What I would submit to you is that we should make sure we place our faith in the right person. Intelligent, reasoned faith - in my opinion - points to a Biblical Person who really existed and was who He said he was. This is truth.

Thanks for the wonderful debate my friend! I have truly enjoyed it!

 

Mani, that is easily rationalized. Adam and Eve is a story, meant to teach a lesson, not to be interpreted literally. Like much of the Bible, we are meant to learn about life and how to live. I don't believe it is all supposed to be literal.

There's the story of Jesus giving a talk on the shore, when the diciples come to him and say there is not enough food for the crowd. So Jesus takes the basket of 5 fish and 2 loaves of bread and proceeds to hand food out to the entire crowd and everyone ate their fill.

There's the literal understanding of that, the Mirical. Which is great and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy cause Jesus had some kick ass magic. But there's also a more scolarly interpretation. People were coming to here Jesus preach, they knew they would be there all day listening to him. If you were going to an even, wouldn't you take a bit of something to eat with you? The diciples were worried that there was not enough food to go around, so Jesus took the food that he had, and he shared it with others. In this act of compassion, others followed his example, took out the food they had, and shared it with others. When all was said and done, there was more than enough food for everyone, because everyone was willing to share what they had.

To suggest that the story wasn't a demonstration of Jesus' power is sacralige(sp sorry) to many. But to me, thinking of it the other way, is actually more meaningful. A Mirical is simply that, a mirical, something impossible happening. It doesn't teach you anything about yourself. But for Jesus to change the hearts of a crowd, show them compassion and generocity, and have them learn from his example. That to me teaches us something.

The Evloutionary points are moot. Christianity has become very good at giving "scientific" explinations. Everything I know and understand about life on this planet, and about science, I don't believe that we mysteriously appeared. How do you explain the different homo species. In the end though, it doesn't matter, my faith, is not that fickle. It is not soley dependend on one story and if that story is proved false, my faith falls apart.

No, actually it doesn't. First, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, what we have is an interpretation of what he said, a few hundred years after he was alive. Written in Greek. Jesus, did not speak Greek. We have hundreds of version of the hand written Greek Bible. None of them are exactly the same, none.

The man that I understand Jesus to have been, even the Son of God if you will, was not the type of man to condem people simply for choosing a different path. I believe Jesus is crying right now to see how we have corrupted his teachings.

I take from the Bible and the Life of Jesus his love, compassion, and forgiveness. I leave behind all the bigotry and intolerance that has been interjected into the stories but the men who penned them and manipulated them to suit their needs at the time. I do not believe they are meant to be part of the "message".

Why? Because I would rather believe no God exists, than believe the God you descibe exists. And yes, I would rather burn in whatever hell there is supposed to be than be in a heaven of the God you describe. Because the God you describe, is an asshole.

But I do believe in something greater. And I believe there are infinate paths to the exploration of what that means in our lives. And I don't believe my God cares if you are a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or a simple person just doing your best with the faith you have. In the end, we get to the same thing, just through different paths.

And yes, it was a good discussion. Thank you.

 

I'm going to touch on the creation vs. evolution part of the discussion here -- I've taken enough college biology courses, I might as well use them for something.

I think I see the disconnect here -- it's just a hangup with terms and definitions. What you are defining as "Natural Selection" here is exactly what biologists call "Evolution". To be fair, the definition of Natural Selection is only subtly different. A good way to look at it is that natural selection is the adaption of organisms to their environment from one generation to the one after, and that evolution is nothing more than repeated natural selection.

What you term "Evolution" is what biologists call "Abiogenesis", or the generation of life from non-living matter. You are absolutely correct in stating that it is not proven fact -- any honest biologist will tell you that at this point science has accumulated only hypotheses on the subject. I gather that you may have some thoughts on this -- I'd be interested to hear them.

I think the origin of the disconnect may actually be Darwin's poorly-titled "The Origin of Species". The book doesn't discuss the origin of life at all -- in fact nor does the modern study of evolution and natural selection.

You are also completely correct in stating that evolution (what you called natural selection) doesn't introduce any new information into successive generations of offspring -- new combinations, certainly, but in the end it's all just combinations of four nucleotides: cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine. The same basic chemicals exist in the simplest bacterium that exist in you and I.

Absolutely -- most mutations are not beneficial. They aren't actually generally harmful, most of them are basically useless -- they confer no benefit or harm. A small percentage are harmful, another small percentage are beneficial. One of my favorite illustrative examples of a harmful mutation's interaction with natural selection is a very rare (only a handful of cases have been recorded) genetic disorder that afflicts our own species: some people are born without working pain receptors. This is so rare that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet bothered to give the condition a name beyond "congenital insensitivity to pain". This disorder stays rare simply because children born with it rarely live to reproductive age. You need your pain receptors because they prompt you to subtly shift your position periodically so that blood flow is maintained to all of your vital organs. Children without pain receptors usually die in their sleep in the first few years of their lives because they laid in a manner in which bloodflow was cut off to some vital organ and their brain didn't receive a signal to shift position. The problematic genes aren't passed on to any offspring (natural selection in action), and so the condition stays rare across the human population (evolution in action).

That's all it is -- evolution has no grand theory about the origins of life.

Actually, this is somewhat important to the discussion of an overarching, objective truth: if we are to agree on one, we first need to agree on the meanings of the words that comprise it. Intelligent discourse, which we are having here, is a step in the right direction.

 

Nice Symen! Unfortunately I am not a biology student and really haven't taken any classes on it other than the basic ones for college. But I have studied this independantly for years as a personal interest. I love the study, it is fantastic!

"Abiogenesis -- I gather that you may have some thoughts on this -- I'd be interested to hear them."
I do actually and it is a very cool study as well. I don't subscribe to the abiogenesis theory simply because it takes more faith for me to believe that than a special creation. Now, don't get me wrong, because I originally started my journey in this area of study as an evolutionist, or following the naturalistic framework. I remember the Miller-Urey experiment from grade school and how that was touted to prove that life could spring from non-living matter. Since that time the experiment has largely lost its support and most agree it had little real success in proving abiogenesis. From what I have been able to read on this subject is that for the primeval soup to be conducive to life it would have to meet some real stringent conditions. Not saying it couldn't happen, as with observational science we can't prove it completely, but we can see what seems to be confirmed better by what we can observe today.

I have some references to this handy, if you would like me to link them in a PM. I would love for you to read them and see what you think.

 

I'd love to see them.

 

not really a need to bring it to another thread because this is my basic question that i have regarding abortion...it seems that the reason many people oppose it is because of their religion...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

you are correct that it does not state separation of church and state....that phrase is not used...but from my perception and understanding i believe the underlined phrase does indeed imply seperation of church and state...i do not study law...too much information for me to swallow...so i cannot sit and breakdown every little bit of our constitution to support or refute any ones claims on any particular subject...i just know what i read...and what i research on my own...


In the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson wrote "The First Amendment ensures that if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,"

just pulled from some random web site...im at work so i have only a limitited amout of time...so im gathering that it is more of a moral issue on abortion then...?

 

Methinks Mani has read 'The Case for a Creator'.

 

"As for the very popular question about Cain's wife - he either married his sister or a close cousin."

From what I understand, Cain was one of Adam and Eve's first children.....where the hell would he get a cousin from let alone a close one????

I hadn't realized Adam and Eve had pbrothers or sisters who either married each other, or some other people and had kids.

And weren't Cain and Able in early adulthood when the bloodletting occured, then the First Couple had more children? So if Cain took his sister as wife...after he was banished for at least like 13 years, wouldn't she be kinda young?

What this story tends to make one believe is that YES, there ARE alien beings watching the Earth....they're probably the ones who set up this whole god thing, just to see how we react. I'm sure they are getting a chuckle out of it!!

 

Oh, and Discover Magazine last month has an interesting article.

http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/

You have to register to read the article, but very interesting.

Wait, try this page to register for free. At least they say it is free.

https://www.discover.com/restricted

 

I agree Chuk. That whole Adam and Eve thing makes no sense at all. If it was all true, then we're all incestive bastards.

Besides, If everyone is descendants from Adam and Eve and Children, where do all these different races and colors of humans come from?

Why do people speak different languages? Wouldn't everyone speak the same thing if we all came from the same two people? How did people just "make up" a new way to talk to eachother and know what it means?

Bunch of bunk if you ask me. So you better not

 

easy

 

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.





So you're telling me, God punted humans to different places in the world? Right, That's totally likely to happen. That's just retarded that some Big Invisible Guy moved people from one place and that's why people speak differently? I hate to laugh at the Bible, but Yes, I am laughing at the Bible.

Now Answer the question about different colors and see if it makes me laugh as hard. Were black people left in the oven too long when God created them? Did God sun-bake Latinos? Make more sense than a dropkick to humanity and then everyone got confused and didn't understand eachother.

 

Here is a small excerpt for you to ponder guys:


Man’s wish for God to exist proves that God does not exist-is basically what you just said.

My wishing has no affect on whether things exist or not.
Just because I wish that things do not exist doesn’t keep them from existing.