First Human Cloned - What do you think?

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by steampunk
Having faith in a religion is fine if that helps you get through life. But precisely what is that purpose of mangling real science with biased religious views?
The implication of using the word 'biased' only for relgious views is somewhat unfair.

If you look at the history of science there have been large numbers of theories and discoveries that have been knocked down by biased peers that aren't willing to look at things a different way or risk the existance of the theories they believe in.

The example that comes to mind is the heliocentric solar system. It had been a theory since the time of the ancient greeks, but was not widely supported in the scientific community. When Galileo presented the theory, he was not only condemned by the church, as people are always quick to mention. Many of his fellow scientists supported the church in its actions. They had invested great time and effort on the geocentric model creating more and more circles to account for various irregularities and they firmly believed in it. Science is as biased a belief as anything else when considering well established and believed 'facts'.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
If I may, there was a thought I had. Obviously there are going to be people of diffirent religions (seeing as how we've gone onto religion) and beliefs. I have noticed that a lot of people are trying to correct each other on these topics. If I may ask, what does it matter if it's not hurting anyone?
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by TC
The implication of that is somewhat unfair. If you look at the history of science there have been large numbers of theories and discoveries that have been knocked down by biased peers that aren't willing to look at things a different way or risk the existance of the theories they believe in. The example that comes to mind is the heliocentric solar system. It had been a theory since the time of the ancient greeks, but was not widely supported in the scientific community. When Galileo presented the theory, he was not only condemned by the church, as people are always quick to mention. Many of his fellow scientists supported the church in its actions. They had invested great time and effort on the geocentric model creating more and more circles to account for various irregularities and they firmly believed in it. Science is as biased a belief as anything else when considering well established and believed 'facts'.
True, but that was a very long time ago. Nowadays, when proper scientific process is applied, mistakes in commonly held beliefs can be corrected and new theories are more easily accepted. Provided you can provide the neccessary evidence. Unfortunately correct scientific method is not something the general public seems to understand as well as it should. But maybe you can't blame them, Einstien after all never liked the idea of quantum physics, he was a "God doesn't play dice" guy too.

I think proper scientific procedure also explains why scientists are 'biased'. I would have nothing against the Intelligent Design theory if it's supporters could actually dig up convincing evidence. They can't. In fact most of their arguements are half assed and they tend to spend more time attacking scientist rather than science. Evolution on the other hand has everything going for it. The fossil record shows different spiecies of animals and their intermediary forms, continental drift can explain why animals evolved differently and if you want a modern example of natural selection - the process that allows for evolution - watch the documentary "Island of the Vampire Finches". I think that's right. Mean while the best creationist can do is "you find fossils of dinosaurs because they missed the ride on the ark and their bodies fell to the bottom of the ocean and got covered with sediment." Yup, every single one of the dinosuars missed their ride, guess that's what you get when God gives you a golf ball sized brain and a body the length of several buses.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Bobbo1701
Ok I looked it up and my interpretation of it is not "go to church on the Sabbath day." Rather that we should meet and discuss and worship anywhere.
Actually, you are right. It ain't specifically mentioned to "go to Church on Sunday". The early church was not as structured as things are here today. The essential elements of what constituted "church" are what you said. But, as they church grew in numbers, a more organized way of "doing" church had to be instituted. But even today there are groups of believers that are trying to get "back to the way it used to be" in the early church. The concept is known as the "cell church", and they are a lot more informal, meet in people's houses, have a looser schedule, etc. My brother (a minister) has been involved in churches like this.


Originally posted by Bobbo1701
..please, where does it say this. i'd like to be informed on it before I reply to it.
Gen. 1:26 tells about creating mankind in His own image. Gen 3:15 tells how, after the fall, the serpent was told that ever afterwards, there would be enmity between him and the woman; between the serpent's "seed" (descendents) and hers. Finally, he was told " he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.". "He" and "you", as used in this last line, speaks of the woman's/serpent's descendents.This is key because it refers, not to the general fear/enmity between mankind and snakes/reptiles, but rather to that of their ultimate descendants. The ultimate descendent of mankind is the same "Son of Man" that all Christians claim to worship. The ultimate descendent of the serpent is the Devil. And of course, in Revelation we see the utlimate culmination of this prophecy in the victory of good over evil, in Armageddon and its attendant events (Rev. 20). Thus, if one doesn't buy the "made in His image" bit, it is then hypocritical to say that you are a true believer in Christ. To hearken back to my old college philosophy courses, EACH of these conditions is necessary, but neither is in itself sufficient. One must "buy" the whole package in order to claim true faith. If you only "buy" one condition and not the other, you contradict your own claim... Hope that helps.

Originally posted by Bobbo1701... However, becasue we are given free will, and so were the writers, thus they could easily change anythign they wanted. In you're secretary example, let's say that you, while dictating a letter were to use poor grammer. Such as, without thinking about it, saying "gonna" instead of "going to."... He/She may just correct there on the letter and not say anything. Now with the writers of the Biblical verses, God may have told them, through inspirations, to say something about slaves that particular author may not like. So he either changes it or dosen't say it at all. The other thing to remember is that the Old Testement was verbally past down for many centuries before it was commeted to the page. Now add on to that that it has been translated and retranslated hundreds of times since then and discrepencies are bound to appear.
Yes, they *could* change what they wrote, but they didn't (my secretary better not, or she'd lose her job!). If my secretary were to correct me in what she wrote, it would be because she knew that I screwed up in using bad grammar the way I did; in short, she "knew better". Now who's gonna stand up and tell the Creator that they know better than He does? THAT, mi amigo, is the height of human arrogance... And lest you be misled, make no mistake about it that the Creator OFTEN told the prophets to write/do things they didn't wanna do/write, yet in the end, they went ahead and did as they were told (consider the book of Jonah, for example...).The Old Testament wasn't passed down in oral tradition the way you imply. The fact is, it was transmitted orally at the same time/after it was committed to parchment. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible (there was no oral tradition we know about up to his time), and the majority of the rest of the OT books were also written during the authors lifetimes (that is, the authors being witnesses of the events they wrote about). And in the New Testament, it's much the same. In fact, the earliest Gospel was written within 30 years of the Crucifixion, and the last (by the apostle John) was written by John near the end of his life. This is in marked contrast to many other historical texts of antiquity, which were generally written after a far longer time gap than the scriptures. As for what few discrepancies have appeared, as I said elsewhere, they have largely been resolved as of now.

Originally posted by Bobbo1701
...Second, it just occured to me that I could be coming off as an absolute ass with all this. I don't mean to do that. I do consider your opinion vailed and who knows, maybe it will spark me to look nto something deeper to change my mind...
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't get that impression of you at all, so as far as I am concerned, no problem. The passion you spoke of is what indeed fuels me in this subject area as well. I hope you do get "sparked", young Padawan. To quote Mulder: "the truth is out there"; you need only seek in all sincerity to find it.

Hey Bobbo: I'm a bit confused: You said at the end that you're "only 10", and yet elsewhere, you said "since I was about 10" (which implies that you're past 10 years old). So what are you, like 10.5 yrs old, then, or is your last mention of it a typo, or what? Plz clarify. It's cool w/ me if yer only 10, it's just that you sound older by your writing.

Originally posted by Napoleon
...Intelligent design claims, that the complexity and "order" of the natural world, both in the realm of life and in the universe in general, can only have been brought about by a higher being, a god if you will, and thus all of modern biology, physics, astronomy, geology, and basically all of science is wrong.
No, not wrong per se. You must remember that relativity, evolution, etc., are just theories; this means we don't know for sure, they ain't been proven. Aside from a few theories like these that do so, there's nothing in science per se that is incompatible with the idea of a God being behind it. Science per se is simply mute on the subject, since science's job is to explain the reasons for things, not to explain (or even consider) "the Reason behind the reasons". The theist's premise, on the other hand, is that the various sciences and the natural world, not to mention the "laws of science", were created by a Deity.

Originally posted by Napoleon
Im sorry but if god is responsable for life then he is either an idiot or grossly incompetent. Since we are talking about complexity of design engineering may be a good thing to bring up...Life on earth is interdependant, complex, and generally flawed, a better example of jury rigging I have never seen. The "best" most "intelligently designed" system would be one with the least interdependacy, the least complex, and the least flawed.
Okay, so your idea of a better design for human beings would be, what, an intelligent slug (simpler) with tough, leathery skin and opposable thumbs? One who doesn't have a digestive system (thus less flawed because there's no such thing as indigestion or diarrhea) because they create their own energy (less interdependent on their environment) through photosynthesis?...

Originally posted by Napoleon
More improtantly is the human eye. Basically it is wired backwards, the neurons on the retina must obstruct the detection abilitiy of the eye inorder to relay data back to the brain, they reduce our visual accuity. ...however the Eye for the branch that contains the Squid and the Octapus has a properly wired eye...blah blah blah
Excuse me, bub, but "wiring" theories aside, between man's ability to see in 3D (eyes facing forward, no "snout" in between 'em to obscure overlapping visual fields, thus parallax view and depth perception), in color, and raw acuity, we happen to have among the best eyesights on the planet. Sure, Raptors have better vision than us, but not much of any other genus/species does

Originally posted by Napoleon
There is a word for when an engineer or designer uses a design that he knows is subpar that can lead to death and danger and a reduction in efficiency, it is called incompetant, or more often "criminally negligent".
Funny; I thought the name was "Dilbert"... :D

Originally posted by Napoleon
Answer: The laws of physics work well too
Exactly, Just as they were designed to...

Originally posted by Napoleon Those laws of physics must have been created by a designer to work so perfectly.
...This once again is where Occams Razor as a philisophical concept comes into play, all other things being equal take the least complex..
Right again!:The concept of an omnipotent Creator being behind it all simplifies the whole equation considerably. It's been said elsewhere that it takes a whole lot less faith to believe in a God than to believe in all these other, not proven, and in many cases, highly improbable scientific "theories".
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
If I may, there was a thought I had. Obviously there are going to be people of diffirent religions (seeing as how we've gone onto religion) and beliefs. I have noticed that a lot of people are trying to correct each other on these topics. If I may ask, what does it matter if it's not hurting anyone?
I have nothing against people or their religions. Not my place to tell people which God/s to believe in. My point is that mangling science with religion is bad. Mangling science for any reason be it political, personal etc is bad. Carl Sagan even thought it was life threateningly dangerous.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by steampunk
... this is probably where all the Creationist stuff started. Christians trying to merge their "heart" belief with their "head" belief by using their "science" to prove the existance of a creator. ... If anything religions should be amended to reflect what science has discovered.
Actually, the creationist stuff started with...the creation account in Genesis. And Christians don't try to prove there's a God (we know there's no "proving" something in that way); we just try to debunk bad science when it flies in the face of what we know to be true. Speaking of which, there hasn't been one single hard scientific discovery made that has in any way DISproved the existence of Deity. In fact, not one archaelogical discovery yet made in the Middle East/Holy Land has resulted in disproving/debunking any biblical claims about events and historical/biblical figures; Whereas, several discoveries made there (esp. in the last century or so) have forced science to renounce *their* previous disclaimers/skepticism about biblical events... :):Ah, sweet irony:: )
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Preacher

The Old Testament wasn't passed down in oral tradition the way you imply. The fact is, it was transmitted orally at the same time/after it was committed to parchment. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible (there was no oral tradition we know about up to his time), and the majority of the rest of the OT books were also written during the authors lifetimes (that is, the authors being witnesses of the events they wrote about).

What you said is *partially correct*, Moses *wrote* the 5 books that is what the tradition says(there were 2 types the written Torah and the Oral Torah, but you can find some little things in the bible that leads to, at least, some modificarions in the 2 kingdoms age, if you search in Exodus ( i can´t remember the chapter) there are 2 versions of the israelites in Ar Sinai, but if i remember correctly the first one was *described from the Judah Kingdom POV* and the second from the *Israel Kingdom POV*.

The early prophets time books(Josue,Deborah,Gideon,Jefte and some others that i can remember like the one between Josue and Deborah) were written in Ezrah and Nehemias time (they constructed the Second Temple), Samuel, and the Kings books were written partially in times of the *starrings* of each book, and later finished by Ezrah and Nehemias using the oral traditions and other thins, in fact both of them compilled the Tanaj (Torah,Neeviim and Ctuviim) as we know today.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Ghost
What you said is *partially correct*, Moses *wrote* the 5 books that is what the tradition says(there were 2 types the written Torah and the Oral Torah, but you can find some little things in the bible that leads to, at least, some modificarions in the 2 kingdoms age, if you search in Exodus ( i can´t remember the chapter) there are 2 versions of the israelites in Ar Sinai, but if i remember correctly the first one was *described from the Judah Kingdom POV* and the second from the *Israel Kingdom POV*.
Methinks thou art a tad confused. The two kingdoms (Judah and Israel) weren't in Sinai; they didn't exist until well after the Exodus. Or didja mean something else? (Plz Xplain if you did...)

Originally posted by Ghost

The early prophets time books(Josue,Deborah,Gideon,Jefte and some others that i can remember like the one between Josue and Deborah) were written in Ezrah and Nehemias time (they constructed the Second Temple), Samuel, and the Kings books were written partially in times of the *starrings* of each book, and later finished by Ezrah and Nehemias using the oral traditions and other thins, in fact both of them compilled the Tanaj (Torah,Neeviim and Ctuviim) as we know today.
Um, what do you mean by"*starrings* of each book"?...

In any event, what I said was that the majority of the books (not all of 'em) were written within the lifetimes of actual witnesses of the events. The really neat thing is that the whole package was put together out of the writings of 40 some authors, writing over a 1600 year span of time, writing in different countries, in different cultures and languages, and only some of the (human) authors knew one another, and yet it all fits together as a seamless, complete, comprehensive narrative. Amazing. :cool:
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Preacher
Methinks thou art a tad confused. The two kingdoms (Judah and Israel) weren't in Sinai; they didn't exist until well after the Exodus. Or didja mean something else? (Plz Xplain if you did...)
That some things were changed or added in the times of the 2 kingdoms, one of the *Sinai versions* was depicted according the Judah POV and the other version was depicted according Israel POV (of course that both kingdoms didn´t existed in the Sinai time, and why there are different POVs i don´t know, maybe because the Oral tradition (was) changed some things in both Kingdoms )


Originally posted by Preacher

Um, what do you mean by"*starrings* of each book"?...

Samuel,Saul,David,Salomon,etc were the *starrings* of their stories, *protagonistas* is spanish, they didn´t wrote their own books as we know ( i think that Kings I and II were a recopilation made in times of Ezrah, using some facts, info and oral traditions)
 

Bobbo1701

Spaceman
Originally posted by Preacher
Hey Bobbo: I'm a bit confused: You said at the end that you're "only 10", and yet elsewhere, you said "since I was about 10" (which implies that you're past 10 years old). So what are you, like 10.5 yrs old, then, or is your last mention of it a typo, or what? Plz clarify. It's cool w/ me if yer only 10, it's just that you sound older by your writing.
Sorry My bad. I wasn't paying attention to the keyboard. I meant to type 20. lack of sleep and caffeine will do that to you. As for you're earlier sayings regarding what i had said about me beig harsh and, a thank you and appreciate and my search continues. And probabbly will for the rest of my life. I'm cursed with the ability to over think things. Also, as i have enjoyed this, I would like to continue a friendly debate/exchange of ideas with you in a more "appropriate setting" for lack of a better term. I'm always looking for people I can share my ideas with and possibly learn from. What do you say?
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Preacher
No, not wrong per se. You must remember that relativity, evolution, etc., are just theories; this means we don't know for sure, they ain't been proven.
You don't appear to understand the scientific meaning of the word theory. A theory is something that has been proven adequately to be generally accepted, been repeatedly tested and is capable of being used to predict or model events. A theory is the closest thing you'll come to proven in modern science. Physical 'laws' are just theories from before the more modern terminology was adopted.

Right again!:The concept of an omnipotent Creator being behind it all simplifies the whole equation considerably. It's been said elsewhere that it takes a whole lot less faith to believe in a God than to believe in all these other, not proven, and in many cases, highly improbable scientific "theories".
See above... hurrah!
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
Ahem. So, uh, how about them clones, eh? I believe somebody mentioned clones...
What Aries or someone said before. They won't give access to the baby because they fear legal action or some such B.S. So no more DNA testing and no more proving/debunking the claim.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Preacher
Actually, the creationist stuff started with...the creation account in Genesis. And Christians don't try to prove there's a God (we know there's no "proving" something in that way); we just try to debunk bad science when it flies in the face of what we know to be true. Speaking of which, there hasn't been one single hard scientific discovery made that has in any way DISproved the existence of Deity. In fact, not one archaelogical discovery yet made in the Middle East/Holy Land has resulted in disproving/debunking any biblical claims about events and historical/biblical figures; Whereas, several discoveries made there (esp. in the last century or so) have forced science to renounce *their* previous disclaimers/skepticism about biblical events... :):Ah, sweet irony:: )
Actually I was refering to the whole Creation Science thing were Christians have been trying to hawk their beliefs by making it "scientific" but then ignoring all the usual rules regular scientists have to follow. This is a more recent phenomenon.

We can't prove that God doesn't exist because God is like the invisible dragon in Demon Huanted World. For every possible test we come up with, some outlandish reason why the test will fail is given.

Locations and people in the bible have been found I accept that. But that doesn't make the Bible completely right. The equivalent Hindu text is OLDER than the Bible and mentions demons and a Monkey King. recent evidence implies that a city in the text was real. But I bet that isn't going to change your mind about there being multiple gods instead of just one now is it? Even though it is just as religious a text as the Bible and is probably just as true.
 

cff

Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Originally posted by Bobbo1701
before starting, i'll just say here and now that I am a Christian through and through, I however do not go to church simply becasue of my own personal experieances with the hypocrasy of organized religion.
<g> Sounds awfully like my comment about me having something against bigger organisations...

Originally posted by Preacher

-No. Unless a Christian believes in the "in His image" part, there's no basis on which to place one's faith, and the whole machine breaks down, so to speak.
I don't think so. For one you ignore that after all the propagation, and the translations the texts might be quite corrupted. For one we don't even know how to name God. Jahve? Jehova?

Originally posted by Napoleon

More improtantly is the human eye. Basically it is wired backwards, the neurons on the retina must obstruct the detection abilitiy of the eye inorder to relay data back to the brain, they reduce our visual accuity. Now some would claim that this is the only way to makean eye, or the best way that exists, however the Eye for the branch that contains the Squid and the Octapus has a properly wired eye. Why would god have replicated the same bad design in 95% of all vertebrate animals only to use a good design in 5% of the animals. There is a word for when an engineer or designer uses a design that he knows is subpar that can lead to death and danger and a reduction in efficiency, it is called incompetant, or more often "criminally negligent". Your "intelligent designer" is not only incompetent but also should be arrested for his gross negligence.
I am sorry, Napoleon , but while I can agree to most of your arguments, your views (LOL) on the human eye are wrong. It is an intelligent design all along. The reason why simple eyes are properly wired is that they only got the light sensitive cells. Now those can be wired to the back.
Now the human eye uses image enhancing techniques to improve the image via 4 layers of cells located before those light sensitive ones. Yes, this is stupid, as it hinders the light from passing. However the calculated image by far surpasses that small loss.
Now of course you could ask as to why these cells cannot be done behind the retina? Well quite simple: Somewhere the nutrition has to happen as well. Between all the blood vessels there isn't much space. Now of course that image processing could also be done later in the brain. Only problem here is that it has to be done before the nerves are crossed out. Which doesn't leave much space at all.
So the concept of the human eye while maybe not perfect isn't exactly a mistake either. It is kinda inevitable.

Originally posted by TC

The Big Bang doesn't deny the theory of intellegent design. The Big Bang had to come from something.
From the previous big crush? ;-)

Originally posted by TC

The example that comes to mind is the heliocentric solar system. It had been a theory since the time of the ancient greeks, but was not widely supported in the scientific community. When Galileo presented the theory, he was not only condemned by the church, as people are always quick to mention. Many of his fellow scientists supported the church in its actions. They had invested great time and effort on the geocentric model creating more and more circles to account for various irregularities and they firmly believed in it.
One also shouldn't forget that the heliocentric approach wasn't any more accurate then the geocentric (I think that was how it was named) one back then. So it was more a matter of taste which one you wanted to use. They had both been about as complicated and as accurate as each other. So from a scientific point of view this scepsis wasn't that stupid.

Originally posted by steampunk
Evolution on the other hand has everything going for it. The fossil record shows different spiecies of animals and their intermediary forms,
Of course a creationist would tell you that the world is only aboout 10000 years old and that all the fossils we find have been placed (as bones) into the earth by god.
 

cff

Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Originally posted by Preacher
You are deceived, Padawan. We are just beginning to unlock the secrets of the human genome. We are, for example, discovering possible ways to "switch on" previously useless (or so we'd thought) DNA to help us recover from illness/injury. Moreover, having built-in redundancy in a system helps that system to be more fault-tolerant.
Such genes exist, yes. But there is an overhelming bigger number that is never translated into any protein at all. NEVER.
Now I won't go as far as to say these segments are useless. They might have a sue we don't know yet (stabilizing the DNA for example - but then why can a mouse have far less and still have a stable DNA?). But they are definitely not USED.

Originally posted by Preacher

That's why you can survive just fine with only ONE lung/kidney/arm/leg/etc. .
Uhm - that doesn't have anything to do with "junk DNA"

Originally posted by Preacher

Thus, what you call "useless" is simply that which we haven't discovered the purpose for. Even so (as in the examples given), we still have empirical, practical evidence that there is/may well be such a purpose.
No. What I claim as junk DNA is never translated into proteins.
Yes, there are lots of segments that are translated (or at least that are translated sometimes - puberty for example) that we don't know what they do. But there is the really huge number of junk DNA that is never touched.
If I see a car parked I can wonder how fast it goes. But if there isn't even a car then there won't be a show.

Originally posted by Preacher

Why not?... Because you completely sidestepped the other two planes of existence: the macroscopic (the world around you appreciable to the naked eye) and the microscopic (atoms, molecules, cells, living tissue composition, etc.). The likelihood that order and structure of such infinitesimal magnitude "just happened" is nil.
I don't see how stochastic changes whith the scale you apply it to. Mathematics is absolute.

Originally posted by Preacher

Generally, a conscience tends to make us go back and attempt (if possible) to make right what we did wrong. I've never seen a dog (for example) go back, after crapping on its own lawn, and move its "deposit" over to the neighbor's lawn-where it belongs :)D). It would certainly be easy enough to do, but it never happens.
Hehe, LOL. Repair a mistake they did... Hmmm... That is a tough one...
You kinda got me here as I don't know of a good example. I'll give you a bad one:
Childcare. Most animals realize when they picked a bad place for their childs and move to another one. So they see their mistake and correct it...

Originally posted by Preacher

Speaking of dogs, you must never have owned one, because most pet animals (I have the most experience with dogs) DON'T recognize their own reflection in a mirror. At least, not until they've tried to sniff/lick/attack/mate with it a few times first...
So what. A human baby does the same. It first has to learn it.
Sides dogs are stupid. You must have never owned a cat. They don't fall for their mirror image.

Originally posted by Preacher

You miss the point: That man CAN and DOES do these things, and animals (apes) are incapable of it, is the crux of the matter. The fact that not all civilizations do so is irrelevant (If we showed 'em how, and they chose to do so, they could --that, my man, is the point).
Similar animals can do things that we humans cannot. A cat would laugh at your ability to predict earthquakes. Some fish would laugh at your ability to analyze the quality of water. A snake would laugh at your ability to see at night.
So actually those have to be the superior beings, don't they?

Originally posted by Preacher

Countless animal behavioral experiments over the years have pretty well established this fact. For example, if they had a free choice, some would choose NOT to mate when rutting season comes 'round, etc. (allowing for if the animal happens to be ill, or physically incapable, of course...).
So human scientists made mistakes. Until some years ago they claimed cats (or mammals in general I think) cannot dream. Well tell that to mine. I clearly observe all evidence for dreaming for them.

Originally posted by Preacher

To clarify your belief, it follows logically, if you have no free choice, that it's "fated" for you to choose the pink toilet paper (not the basic white) when you go to the store, for example, and you were likewise "destined" to respond in this thread, etc.... Is this honestly what you believe?...
In a sense, yes. I don't believe it relieves you from any decisions however or any morale.

Do you know chaos theory? Deterministic chaos?

So all physical stuff isn't random, but could be calculated.

Now how far is the stretch to extend this to psychological events?
If you are pure scientist (no soul exists) for you a body is just a biological machine. So it is all physics in the end. Assumption proven.
Now if we assume a 'free will' or a soul. Ask yourself something: Under the precise same circumstances would you act the same again. Yes, you would (unless you learned that that act was foolish, but then the circumstances aren't the same after all).
So even in the case of a free will existing the free will would be negated by the environment.
Again I can only say here that this would be better discussed in its own forum/e-mail/IRC discussion as this philosophical viewpoint introduces far more stuff that I don't want to go into detail (for example it also goes into timetravel).

Originally posted by Preacher

Try 3 or 4 CENTURIES, Bub. Besides, the Catholic church ain't exactly the most progressive-thinking institution around. And, who do you think put 'em on notice that it was round? That's right: a HUMAN (Galileo, wasn't it?...)
Sorry pal, but 3-4 years are correct.
Note the word OFFICIALLY.

I don't recall the exact year - must have been 98ish when the Vatican officially admitted that Galileo was right. Honestly. I laughed quite hard when I heared that news.
Regarding humans and inventions... Also animals can invent and teach...
Oh and animals surely knew before the humans that the earth wasn't flat... <g>
 

cff

Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Originally posted by Preacher
Actually, you are right. It ain't specifically mentioned to "go to Church on Sunday".
Actually didn't Jesus say something along these lines: "Wherever people assemble in my name..."
(without doubt you are goint to beat me in a bible discussion, but don't think I'll go down easily ;) )

Originally posted by Preacher

Gen. 1:26 tells about creating mankind in His own image. Gen 3:15 tells how, after the fall, the serpent was told that ever afterwards, there would be enmity between him and the woman; between the serpent's "seed" (descendents) and hers. Finally, he was told " he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.". "He" and "you", as used in this last line, speaks of the woman's/serpent's descendents.This is key because it refers, not to the general fear/enmity between mankind and snakes/reptiles, but rather to that of their ultimate descendants. The ultimate descendent of mankind is the same "Son of Man" that all Christians claim to worship. The ultimate descendent of the serpent is the Devil. And of course, in Revelation we see the utlimate culmination of this prophecy in the victory of good over evil, in Armageddon and its attendant events (Rev. 20). Thus, if one doesn't buy the "made in His image" bit, it is then hypocritical to say that you are a true believer in Christ. To hearken back to my old college philosophy courses, EACH of these conditions is necessary, but neither is in itself sufficient. One must "buy" the whole package in order to claim true faith. If you only "buy" one condition and not the other, you contradict your own claim... Hope that helps.
Fine to all. Now I ask you how old is earth. If I count the bible I get about 10000 years, heck let it be 100000. You believe that as well?

Originally posted by Preacher

Yes, they *could* change what they wrote, but they didn't (my secretary better not, or she'd lose her job!). If my secretary were to correct me in what she wrote, it would be because she knew that I screwed up in using bad grammar the way I did; in short, she "knew better". Now who's gonna stand up and tell the Creator that they know better than He does? THAT, mi amigo, is the height of human arrogance...
And who said that humans aren't arrogant? Of course it is entirely possible that some writers of the holy book twisted the truth to their personal advantage.

Originally posted by Preacher

And lest you be misled, make no mistake about it that the Creator OFTEN told the prophets to write/do things they didn't wanna do/write, yet in the end, they went ahead and did as they were told (consider the book of Jonah, for example...).
It was written they did what they told god ordered them to do. How do we know what god really ordered them to do? You simply cannot prove the bible by its very nature IMHO.

Originally posted by Preacher

No, not wrong per se. You must remember that relativity, evolution, etc., are just theories; this means we don't know for sure, they ain't been proven. Aside from a few theories like these that do so, there's nothing in science per se that is incompatible with the idea of a God being behind it.
One of the seldom occastions I agree with Preacher. As you cannot prove that god exists you cannot do the opposite.
And to take evolution as an example - why would an engeneer like god not use it? Human engineers use evolution like systems (e.g. Genetic Algotithms) to solve their problems as well. So they cannot be that bad to do something useful.

PS: Sorry for the number of posts, but I am hitting word limits here...
 

cff

Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Originally posted by Preacher
The really neat thing is that the whole package was put together out of the writings of 40 some authors, writing over a 1600 year span of time, writing in different countries, in different cultures and languages, and only some of the (human) authors knew one another, and yet it all fits together as a seamless, complete, comprehensive narrative. Amazing. :cool:
I don't find that over amazing. IMHO most of the events described in the bible will be provable. As such I strongly believe that there was some guy that was called Jesus around 30 BC.
I believe there was a really big flood as well and so on.
None of that events have to have anything to do with a god however.

One reporting a flood. *shrug* So somebody got instructions from a god *shrug* People get instructions from god for about every nature catastrophe today. We usually name them mentally ill or being part of a sect.

Similar it could just have been a nutball that called himself Jesus.

As such I accept the bible as historic book (if we ignore the precicse year numbers given, those most likely are wrong). That doesn't bring us one step closer to prove god however.

Note - I am no atheist. I just take everything with a big grain of salt.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by cff
So what. A human baby does the same. It first has to learn it.
Sides dogs are stupid. You must have never owned a cat. They don't fall for their mirror image.
Nope. But they sure do fall for squaky-clean glass, especially when there are pidgeons sitting on the other side :). BTW, if you're going to quote people all the time, please edit the quotes to only include the sentence or two that you're replying to - you'd have less trouble with the word limit that way ;).
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by cff
Fine to all. Now I ask you how old is earth. If I count the bible I get about 10000 years, heck let it be 100000. You believe that as well?


5778 approx. IIRC the jewish calendar :(

Well i remember when i did a question to a Rabi, i told him how the Earth could be only 6000 years old, if there was some Dinosaur bones and other things older than that...millions of years older and he told me: ¨Can be that God made those things (fossils, etc) to look very old, older than they are!¨ ;)
 
Top