Religion

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 26 2006, 11:03 AM) [snapback]245489[/snapback]</div>

what we cannot explain we point to science until an explanation can be found..

 

yes. it's all one big conspiracy, priusguy04. we're all dedicating our lives to lying to the world.

if i wanted to do that i would have studied poli sci and run for president.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 26 2006, 09:53 AM) [snapback]245456[/snapback]</div>

No, I'm sorry to disagree with you Daniel, but that is not how ALL religion works. If you really have talked to Jehovah's Witnesses before, you must have realized that we have come out of many other religions. But, our goal upon studying the Bible was not to prove or hold on to established beliefs, but to discern if our worship really was "pure and unadulterated" as God asks. Upon much study, we found out we actually had to get rid of many long held beliefs or traditions, as they had no basis in the Bible, and may have been displeasing to God. For instance, I already mentioned the Hellfire doctrine in other threads. We once believed it too, but found that it was introduced into the Catholic church hundreds of years after Christ, upon influence of the current Greek philosophies at the time. The same goes for the Trinity Doctrine. We allow the Bible to speak for itself. If it truly is the Word of God, it can't contradict itself, so it shouldn't be necessary to twist any scriptures to fit a preconceived belief. This has meant that we have often refined our thinking on some doctrines, which many other faiths quickly point out, considering this to be a weakness, when in fact this simply shows that we desire to "worship God in spirit and TRUTH". The Bible itself tells us that in "the Last Days" God would reveal the meaning of many more prophecies, and that "the true knowledge would become abundant", so it shouldn't surprise us that our beliefs are constantly being refined. This should not at all be construed to indicate that we waffle on important doctrinal issues, as all of that was cleared up many years ago. Here are a few more examples of doctines or traditions that were discarded because they couldn't be supported by the Bible, or were so obviously contaminated with pagan doctrine:
1) We used to celebrate Christmas. But, December 25th certainly isn't Christ's birthday, but springs from a Roman holiday celebrating the reborn SUN, and most of the customs associated with it are of pagan origins. Many people mistakenly think we don't believe in Jesus because of this, but it is actually our high regard for him that doesn't allow us to participate.
2) We found that the Trinity Doctrine, as defined in the Athenasian Creed hundreds of years after Christ, is not found in the Bible. Christ was the SON of God, a created being, and always showed that he recognized his father as greater, not equal to him.
3) The use of God's name, Jehovah. It became evident that Bible translators had obviously removed the name of God 7,210 times in their translations. The King James version left it at only 4 verses, but even those 4 were removed in the past couple decades. (I wonder how they got King James's approval for that?)Yet, God makes it clear in the Bible that he wants us to use his name, just as we would any other good friend. We choose to use Bible translations that have rightly restored that name, and have taken his name onto ourselves.
4) The use of the Cross. Through our studies, we found that Jesus in fact was probably not hung on a cross, but on a simple upright post. The use of the "T" in worship actually dates back thousands of years in pagan worship, and again was later melded into Christianity centuries after Christ. The "Tau" can be found in ancient Egyptian carvings, and even further back to ancient Babylon, the root of false worship.
5) Belief in an immortal soul. God told Adam very simply that if he sinned, he would DIE. He never mentioned a part of man that would fly off, and be tormented forever for his sins. Adam was also never told that after a short stint on earth, God would take him to be with him in heaven. Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into Adam the breath of life, and HE BECAME a living soul. The soul is the person with life, and even the animals ARE souls. The Bible also says that the "soul that is sinning, it itself will DIE ."
6) All good people go to Heaven. At one time, we believed this way, as most churches do. But, upon further study it became apparent that the earth is man's home, and God has repeatedly held to his purpose to have the earth populated by good people. Those that have been chosen by him to go to heaven are called the "firstfruits", indicating they were simply the first ones chosen, from the death of Christ on, but there would be a limited number. Revelation says that these ones are to be "kings and priests", indicating that they are to be very involved in the process of helping and guiding mankind here on earth to fulfill God's purpose for it. Jesus said "I have other sheep, who are not of this fold", indicating two separate groups, with separate hopes. In Revelation, John saw a "great crown, that no man was able to number", who have "come out of the great tribulation". So, there will be untold millions who survive through that period of time on earth, to live in the "new earth" the Bible has promised.
7) We don't believe that Sunday is a "sabbath". Actually, being Jewish, you probably know already that the Sabbath was from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday anyway. But, Jesus made it clear that he fullfilled the law covenant, which required the sabbath, along with hundreds of other things, including animal sacrifices. This was further clarified by his apostles, after his death, who made it clear that we are no longer under the obligations of the Jewish law covenant, and that anyone who wants to continue observing it is not only denying the importance of Christ's sacrifice, but is obligating himself to carry out the WHOLE law.
8) Christian neutrality. This is an important one. Christ made it clear that his Kingdom was "no part of this world". So, while we remain completely obedient to whatever government we are under, we will not serve in the armed forces. For this, tens of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses were imprisoned by Hitler, in the same concentration camps as the Jews, but you probably haven't heard much about that. Thousands of them died at Nazi hands for refusal to support the regime, while at the same time Witnesses in other countries, like the US and Canada, were imprisoned, mobbed, beaten, or tarred-and-feathered for their neutrality. Even to this day in many countries, my brothers are forced to serve long jail terms for refusing to serve in the military. I have several friends who spent years in jail during the Vietnam era.
There are many more, but I think you get the point Daniel. There IS a religion that does not hold on to beliefs that aren't supported by the Bible, and does not have to twist the meanings of scriptures to fit the mold. We also believe that "ALL scripture is inspired of God", so we don't ignore certain Bible writers, or feel that their words can be disregarded as uninspired or their own personal view.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 25 2006, 08:02 PM) [snapback]245191[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it is quite clear that their are safegurds built into our DNA, so that any harmful or unwanted mutations do not survive, or even begin. Can a cat and dog procreate? Why not? Why is the offspring of a horse and donkey sterile? In their attempts to prove that life evolved by mutations, some scientists have tried to artificially induce mutations in fruit flies. But, the mutations “usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. . . . Many mutations are, in fact, lethal to their possessors."
Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].â€
When the Bible says that each animal reproduces "according to its kind", it means it. The DNA always tries to pull the animal back towards a "mean", an averaging so to speak.

And, why would you have me believe that it IS? You see, your belief also requires FAITH, because we are looking at such a tiny piece of the puzzle, for a tiny sliver of time. And yet, you would have me extrapolate that minute amount of data, over millions of years, to fit your conclusion? How scientific is that?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.â€
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.â€â€”(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.â€â€”Natural History
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.â€â€”Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.â€
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.â€

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 18 2006, 01:21 PM) [snapback]241662[/snapback]</div>

Yea, scriptures can be pretty intolerant.... don't you hate that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 18 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]241672[/snapback]</div>

Agreed... either the religion is true and perfect at its foundational state or its null and void.

What is this anyway?...make it up as you go?

There is a scripture that says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, but people work it out without the fear and trembling.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 18 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]241679[/snapback]</div>

(Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(Mat 21:43 KJV) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
(Mat 21:44 KJV) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Either you fall on Jesus and be broken, or his words fall on you and will grind you to powder... yea, thats pretty intolerant.... to bad you can't have your cake and eat it too... but you can have "his"cake and eat it too... its better anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 26 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]245543[/snapback]</div>

cat and dog procreation does not fit the example of a mutation.

harmful or unwanted mutations can't be passed on? okay, how about parkinson's which does not onset until you've lived most of your life and passed on your genes? Down syndrome or any of the variety of cognitive dysfunctions? how about being predisposed to cancer, but not getting it until you're 50? multiple sclerosis? or heart arrhythmias? i've got a good background in human genetics. i can keep going but i think the point is clear. harmful mutations are passed on all the time. many of them die in utero, but you see a large majority of them in the people you pass by on the street.

not that this is relevant, again, but fyi there are over 60 documented accounts of foals being born to female donkeys. mostly sterile, but not completely.

the attempts you're describing are mainly to determine the function of a certain gene. where do you come up with the idea that people are mutating flies to create other organisms? you render the gene nonfunctional and characterize the product. many genes have been characterized that way and... gasp! translated to human medicine! it's a huge ongoing project

drosophila is a fantastic model organism for genetics. as is yeast, and even nematodes.

i'd like to read the whole article there. what volume number and pages, please? and is this an original research report or a discussion column?

i love how you just put words into my mouth there. did i way it was a conclusion? i did not say "and based upon our current observations, we can conclude that this phenomenon is part of a larger sweeping motion of evolutionary change." i said "how do you know it's not?"

not all fossils are going to be found unless of course we dig up the whole planet. i don't think we will find step by step evidence. in addition, i'm sure not everything fossilized. but i'm no geologist. i can talk your ear off about DNA, RNA, proteins, signal transduction, and manipulation of these systems to our advantage. but fossils aren't my thing. i look at living systems.

science is constantly changing. 1975? how many things can we have found since then? 1981? how old is that center quote?

you can't prove either way, really. so does the bible say that god created dinosaurs and let them roam around for a while before he created humans? in that book, it sounds as though man and all animals were created at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 18 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]241817[/snapback]</div>

Your right, because Jesus came not to condemn but to save....
But Jesus is the only way to the Father.... have you read much about what his Father has done?

Jesus is the tender side of God that mediates to the Father for us... but the Father is still what its all about or there would be no need for mediation to the Father of Jesus on our behalf.

(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

The Holy Spirit gets you to Jesus, Jesus gets you to the Father.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 19 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]242353[/snapback]</div>

Truth from above fits any generation, any circumstance and any challenge.

Mans truth only fits the present need and changes to fit the new need.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 19 2006, 07:32 PM) [snapback]242437[/snapback]</div>

Accepting Jesus removes the curse of sin to impute judgement against you. You are then under "grace".

But as you live and make mistakes, the sins are not imputed against you "as long as" you remain under grace.

the big disagreement between many churches is whether "once saved, always saved".

I personally believe you can walk out from under grace and it not up to a man to determine when that happens...
God says how can you judge another mans servant?
Meaning.. he is the Lord of his own servants and he will manage them.

(Rom 6:12 KJV) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
(Rom 6:13 KJV) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
(Rom 6:14 KJV) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
(Rom 6:15 KJV) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
(Rom 6:16 KJV) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?



Where many really miss it, is denying the need of the power of the Holy Spirit to walk this walk.
They all think they have the spirit... but does the spirit have them is the real question?

Flesh will never never please God.. so flesh is crucified and the spirit is made alive, thus reversing what was done in the garden when sin entered.

Without getting complicated in a crazy bible study.. suffice enough to say.. its about relationship... the same as a loving Father has with is son... the son messes up alot, but its part of the learning process and the Father still loves, protects, and encourages. When the son leaves home rebelliously, the Father still loves, but the son leaves behind his inheritance. This is where it gets sticky.

(Rom 11:20 KJV) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
(Rom 11:21 KJV) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

There are tons of scriptures which support and imply against once saved always saved. But its not so black and white either....

Its not so much who you think you have.. its "whos" are you?
What Family are you a part of? Whos your Father?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(harrv @ Apr 25 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]244919[/snapback]</div>

Taking any religion you want is ok until you need one that has power over death and maybe even the disease you struggle with... there on only one name or power that has authority over diseases and devils.

Just because mankind has invented many social clubs that do good works does not mean they are of God.

Therein is the great deception.... the good works... what about the power of God... wheres that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 25 2006, 05:03 PM) [snapback]245192[/snapback]</div>

It appears so because religion talks about absolutes from another world to come and the invisible world around us that science cannot monitor with instruments to confirm.

But Science has never disproven the bible.... only confirmed it... when it did think it disproved it, after more science got smarter, they had to retract.

Science will never fully tap into what all the bible speaks of and reveals.

Chariots at the bottom of the red sea were only recently confirmed. Noah's ark, City of Sodom etc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 26 2006, 09:01 AM) [snapback]245527[/snapback]</div>

Actually, it only references animals having spirits.. but no souls to my knowledge..

It talks about the spirit of a beast.

(Eccl 3:20 KJV) All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
(Eccl 3:21 KJV) Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

I believe the "soul" is the part that is created when the breath of God enters..... "He became a living soul"

Of course.. I could be wrong?

 

Windstrings avatar is taking on more and more of an active role in the way I picture him/her...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 26 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]245580[/snapback]</div>

You asked me about GENETIC SAFEGUARDS. I just gave a couple examples of how I feel our DNA safeguards us and all other life. Stay on topic.

You're getting off topic here. I was purely talking about genetic safeguards in the DNA, pulling the creature back towards an "average", not the passing-on of genetic defects. I'm not sure if you could even classify parkinson's or down's syndrome as a "mutation", its a disease.

You were inferring that it was upon my back to refute the theory, when, instead, it is upon SCIENCE'S back to supply proof for the theory. You are denying that this is what you were inferring? :blink: Don't ask me to DISPROVE YOUR THEORIES. You keep telling us how science is *supposed* to work, but then you turn it back around and say its up to us to DISPROVE it instead.

I always love that excuse, "we just haven't dug enough". We have hundreds of millions of fossils, all catalogued and identified, but "we need to just keep on digging, because we know those missing links must be there." When evolutionists can't find the proof they need, they just throw up their hands, tell us they WILL have it, if we can just keep digging, or make up a new theory to explain WHY they can't find the missing pieces. I've always considered myself to be a very scientific minded person, but that doesn't sound like a sound scientific process to me. You are doing the very thing you disparage the creationists for: you've already got the conclusion, so you ignore any evidence that contradicts it.

Oh, yes, my data is SOOO old. Science has changed so much in 25-30 years. Not. Sorry, weak arguement.

In what book? Are you referring to the Bible? If so, I think you need to reread some of my posts. The Genesis account was never intended to detail the origins of the earth, or describe everything that God had to do in preparation for man's habitation of the earth. There is no reason to be dogmatic as to the length of the creative days, as the word "day" in Hebrew had several meanings, just as our word "day" does. I know you want to "throw the baby out with the bath water", but what you are describing is a narrow view held by few Christians, and should not be used to discredit my beliefs in creation. I believe that the earth, and our physical universe, have existed for countless billions of years, and God started preparing the earth many eons ago, at a time that is not stated in the Bible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 26 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]245611[/snapback]</div>

Genesis 1:20 - And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls"
Genesis 1:21 - And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about
Genesis 1:24 - And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast"
Leviticus 24:17,18 - ‘And in case a man strikes any soul of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul" (Exact same Hebrew word "nephesh" used for both)
Revelation 16:3 - And the second one poured out his bowl into the sea. And it became blood as of a dead man, and every living soul died, [yes,] the things in the sea.
Again though, this point may be obscured in your King James translation, as they may have used "creature", "beast", or "thing" in place of "soul". But, I assure you that the Bible writers used the same, exact word to describe human "souls" as the "animal souls".
You even quoted Eccl 3, but you neglected verse 19: "For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity."
"Spirit" is an entirely different Hebrew word, and it applies to the spirit or life force that animates, or keeps alive every living thing. The Bible is rather consistant in its use of the two words: a body WITH the life force (spirit) IS a living SOUL. A body that has lost that "breath of life" is dead. We all have but the same life force from God.
The belief in an immortal soul was not a teaching/belief in the early Christian church, but developed hundreds of years later as a product of Neoplatonism/Greek philosophy. It was infused into Christianity by Origin and St Augustine. Actually though, it can be traced even further back to Sumerian/Babylonian thinking that death was merely the passage on to another realm of existance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 26 2006, 11:50 AM) [snapback]245636[/snapback]</div>

If the spirit of God dwells in you.. you are an eternal soul. If not, I"m not sure what will happen to others for eternity. But I suspect we being a soul will live for eternity somewhere. But the description of the second death is not pleasant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 26 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]245625[/snapback]</div>

you said "mutations"

i was giving you examples of unwanted mutations that are indeed passed on for which there are no genetic safeguards.

i thought you said
"so that any harmful or unwanted mutations do not survive, or even begin"

i am not off topic based on your previous post. you're talking about genetic safeguards against mutation and to repeat myself, there are plenty of mutations that make it through with NO safeguards. the people affected in these cases are pulled way off base of "average" by such mutations.

parkinson's is a disease caused by genetic mutation- amyloid plaques form in response to a defective protein degradation pathway, causing death of melanin-producing dopaminergic motor neurons in the substantia nigra and consequently movement disorders.
down's is a trisomy 23 disorder, the increased expression of all those genes causes the symptoms.
mutations are the root of many, many non-infectious diseases.

however, individual differences develop by mutation that, as you pointed out, are in most cases not harmful enough to be detrimental to the organism. butterfly wing color, hair color in animals, stature, weight, other dimensions, feather color in birds, all sorts of things. the way i see it these things can pile up and cause genetic drift that can lead to a new species that is unable to interbreed with the previous species. new species= evolution.

all i said was "how do you know?" you were fully within your rights to reciprocate the question because that's also a good question on our side. instead you get all offended for reading into something that was not inferred.

and how is this my personal theory anyway? science is collecting evidence all the time and analyzing it. i never said it was up to you to disprove evolution.

however, if you're so insistent that the world was created by a creator, you should be able to come up with some evidence to say so. science is not the only field that requires evidence to back them up, you know.

no need to get all stirred up. take a deep breath. calm in, frustration out.

geez. again, there is no conclusion here. there is a theory. theory is subject to constant revision. it describes a pattern that is recognizable and fits the current data. data changes, theory is revised. but for every opinion you cite against evolution, there is an equal and opposing opinion supporting it.

no need to be childish.

entire new fields have been started in recent years. there are still so many things for us to learn. the particular signaling system i work on was only officially characterized around 10 years ago and controls a whole lot of things that we are just now beginning to understand.

lots of data can be found in 25 years you know. that's why they update science and medical books every couple of years. just over 50 years ago we had no idea what the genetic material was. the field of molecular biology did not exist. what kind of new hospital techniques have come out of scientific discoveries in the last 25 years? knowing what we have today, i wouldn't want to go back 25 years.

first. i was never trying to discredit your beliefs. i thought i was engaging you in a lively and intelligent discussion of two sets of beliefs that many consider to be mutually exclusive. if you took it that way i sincerely apologize. i feel everyone should believe whatever works for them. as we've discussed in other threads, i'm up in the air about everything. i feel at this point that evolution explains quite a bit especially considering my experience, however, i'm not going to die for that cause. i'm always looking for the best answer on my own terms for my own personal questions.

if the bible was never intended to detail the earth's origin, why is the origin of the earth such a point of contention in this debate anyway? :huh: that's one thing creationists use against evolution- but you guys can't prove anything either. so what's the point of all this arguing until we know more?

like i said earlier. the fossil record doesn't mean much to me. i'm no geologist and unless i have the specialization to understand the ins and outs of what all the fossils mean, i'm not going to base any of my own thoughts on it. they've got a framework of fossils. i take it this way. as in my field we have so much more to learn about the human body, so they have more to learn about the earth. but the dna evidence speaks very clearly to me as a molecular biologist. the duplication of proteins and acquisition of divergent functions speaks to me as a biochemist. the phylogenetic tree based upon genome sequences also sways me to evolution. :shrug:

i'm out of this one. i've got plenty else i should be doing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 25 2006, 07:06 PM) [snapback]245143[/snapback]</div>

Where does the Bible command that children be killed. See my point? You cannot understand becaue it is the same as me speaking German and you speaking Swahili. And I cannot teach you German, nor you teach me Swahili. I "demand" nothing. Oh, BTW, I did not mean the most Dangerous "person" (that was an error), I meant to say most Dangerous BOOK!.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 25 2006, 07:53 PM) [snapback]245181[/snapback]</div>

Your definition....does not make it so.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 25 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]245262[/snapback]</div>

Yes, in the old testament...before Jesus and the Age of grace...punishment for "sin" was brutal. It was not commanding killing of children for "misbehaving" or "talking back". It was punishment for sin. Isn't it wonderful that now we no longer have to deal with that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 26 2006, 09:53 AM) [snapback]245456[/snapback]</div>

I have never said that you can IGNORE. I said that the rules changed during the age of grace and the Jews were dealt with in a different way than Gentiles. I don't need to IGNORE a rule (or law) if it does not apply to me, it simply does not apply...it is not a matter of ignoring. That isn't a really hard concept.

Part of the problem here is the non-believers want to make it soooo complicated. It is really quite simple.

The Apostle Paul said "all things are lawful unto me, yet they are not all expedient" The ONLY rule I am REQUIRED to follow is to believe in God, believe Jesus is my saviour, and worship Him. All else I do because it is the will of God that I should and makes me closer to my God. Simple, simple, simple.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 26 2006, 08:03 AM) [snapback]245489[/snapback]</div>

Isn't it more correct to say that study of the physical world dictates that you look for physical causes? I do like your analogy about Gods stomping for natural phenomena if we didn't have the discipline to search for the natural mechanism for everything.

Isn't it interesting that modern science is borne of western culture, steeped in Christianity?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 26 2006, 10:18 AM) [snapback]245580[/snapback]</div>

Have you seen the discussion of the way mutations in DNA can be slight but have dramatic effect on the morphology of the creature? See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04..._make_a_bat.php
(it was referenced from PandasThumb.org, a site I'm learning to love).

A quote from the full article:

The cambrian explosion was the one thing sticking in my mind back in the 1970s when I was a creationist. But Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis could explain it, and I saw the progression of first denial, then consideration, and then acceptance of his theory within the scientific community. That was eye-opening; I thought they just had it in for Christianity. Now, 30 years later, study of DNA shows that Gould's hypothesis ... criticized by creationists as a "hopeful monster" theory ... is entirely possible. And yes, we can reproduce the mechanism in an experiment.

 

On the business of genetic safeguards: When DNA is replicated there are many errors. I wish I could remember the numbers. (That stuff was covered near the beginning of the biology lecture series.) But it's a lot. There are then protiens whose function it is to search out and correct these errors. There are several stages in this process, which reduce the errors to an extremely small number. But the process is not perfect, and errors remain. These errors which creep through, (along with mutations from other causes) provide the substrate on which both natural selection and genetic drift function.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 26 2006, 07:52 PM) [snapback]245898[/snapback]</div>

You haven't, but other fundies do. Note that I said in my post that I have not seen this argument here on PC, but I have known people who make this argument with a straight face.

On the other hand, if you have a bank account you are ignoring Jesus's edict not to save up for tomorrow; when you support war you are ignoring Jesus's edict to turn the other cheek; and even by having a job you are ignoring his edict to "be as the lilies of the field" who do not work and who take no thought for the morrow.

And by condemning terrorists you are violating Jesus's edict to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and you are making it pretty clear that you do not trust god to be the judge.

(Parenthetically, I'm glad I don't believe any of this stuff. But you say you believe in it, but then you pick and choose what to follow and what to ignore. You seem mostly to follow the intolerant and vengeful stuff, and ignore all the peace and love stuff.) Of course, you've done all the mental gymnastics to twist the words of your Bible to fit with how you want to live your life.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 26 2006, 09:01 AM) [snapback]245527[/snapback]</div>

I have already said, and I will repeat it now, that I like Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't believe any of that stuff they preach, but I respect them for being more true to their professed beliefs than most other flavors of christians. I am very well aware that they were imprisoned by the Nazis in concentration camps and murdered in the same genocidal plan as were the Jews. I am also well aware that they are one of the principal groups imprisoned by the U.S. for their consciencious objection to war. I respect them tremendously for these things.

(Parenthetically, a friend of my parents' was a CO in prison during WW II, and got so annoyed by the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists constantly praying for his soul, that he asked for a transfer to a higher-security-level prison, to get away from them.)

My comments about the hypocrisy of fundies was not directed at you. But in an increasingly intolerant religion, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the few exceptions. I apologize for any confusion that my blanket statements may have caused. And I repeat once more that I respect you. But I still think you guys are a bunch of nut cases. (I mean that in a nice way, not intended as a flame. Most of my friends regard me as a nut case for my acts of civil disobedience against nuclear weapons, and many of my friends are nut cases.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 27 2006, 11:43 AM) [snapback]246111[/snapback]</div>

gah. i said i'd get out of this but it is my lunch break... anyway just a couple facts to jump start daniel's memory. no argument or opinion intended here.

depending on which subtype of polymerase, ~1 mistake per 10k bases. however, keep in mind that some codons have redundant tRNAs which keep minor mutations harmless, but they do wobble in their attachment site. the wobble pretty much negates any possible protection the redundancy maintains.

proofreading can change that number, again depending on the subtype of polymerase, to around 1 in a billion. there are polymerases that are worse at transcribing and proofreading. this is assuming that it is a fully functional and active protein, free of mutations itself. there are around 3 billion basepairs in the human genome.

now, even so, think of how many billion cell divisions go on during embryogenesis, and how many billion cells are dividing every day in your gut and other endothelial areas. one mutation per cell. each mutation is passed along to the next generation.

oh yes. and all the mutagens that you can be exposed to in utero and postnatally, many courtesy of the industrial revolution.