Jedi Council Forums - Religious Sanctuary Thread

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Religious Sanctuary Thread
DarthPhelps Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 5/31/02 1:04pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	Chris2, I hope you meant to type "eschew". -----signature----- I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Other times I let her sleep.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Wylding Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 2:32am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	Wicca doesn't preach the worship of demons... Well of course it doesn't silly! -----signature----- Jedi Master
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 4:03am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 5:09am (4 edits total) Edited By: _Darth_Brooks_
	So little time, so many responses. Qui-Rune, I'm really trying to keep this thread away from an evolutionary debate. Doesn't seem to be working. 40 dolphin fossils showing the complete development from 250,000 years ago? Are you sure that's what you saw? I don't think so. And while I can respect you're time in the museum, I also have a close relative who's a biologist, with whom I've spent considerable time discussing this subject. I don't know about the dolphins, but I do know there is no alleged unbroken chain of transitional fossils housed anywhere. I believe that's what you thought you saw, but where I'd place my money is on fibre-glass constructions artificed to resemble someone's personal conception of what might have been the evolution. Right here, I can think of a dozen skeptically valid questions to posit, but instead I'd rather have you read something else. That way, I'll tie this into your statements about men. Is there really evidence that man descended from apes? Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The "missing links" are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind. Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape). Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years. Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay. Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below. Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like. Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below). Currently fashionable ape-men These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature. Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such. Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together. There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). There are no transitional fossils. Now, lets examine you're statement regarding the evolution of men since the founding of the American colonies, and lets settle on a median time frame of 300 years ago. First problem, from what I've been reading many scientists(evolutionists) are fairly much in agreement that man hasn't evolved in the last 6,000 years. This has been touched upon already in earlier posts. Now, you are saying that isn't so. That we've evolved in just the last 300 years, both in longevity of lifespan and height. According to the calculations implicit in your post all human beings should have been midgets 2,000 years ago. Well, is that accurate? No. At the growth rate you've indicated over the last 200-300 years, by imaginatively back engineering we'd be smaller than modern midgets, overall. You also used door knobs and such as an indicator. Is that scientific or reasonable? Could that be fashion trends? Suit lapels were also larger back then than today. Did the suits evolve? I'm being facetious, not sarcastic, so please take no offense. But, I think you get the point. According to you the approximate average life span was 40 years of age. It just so happens that most of the founding fathers, belonging to those colonies you mentioned, such as Benjamin Franklin(died age 84) and George Washington(died age 67) lived much longer than 40 years. Granted that wasn't quite 300 years ago. Now, I can't speak for all people back then, but about a year or so ago, I did a little personal research on the men who were involved in the creation of the Declaration of Independence, so I happen to know a little bit about most of them, and that most lived beyond 43 years of age. But we're utilizing statistics aren't we? Well, this can go two ways, at least. Firstly, you can approximate the oldest age people were kown to live, and you come up with people into the 70's,80's, and 90's. Is that much different than today? Second, you take all people known, even small children dying during infancy, and find the median age to approximate an average, which may well be 40 something. But today, the results would be little different. One discrepancy causing a slight variation would be due to the fact we keep better records now than back in 1776. We have more information tracking things like infant mortality and such. I'm sorry, but what you suggested just hasn't occured as you stated, and isn't a result of evolution. Any change we're experiencing has more to do with chemical additives, steroids, etc., in our food supply, better sanitary conditions, genetics, and so on. What's the average height for a Vietnamese person? Not too tall, generally. So, why aren't they evolving? You know what I think. If I were you, I wouldn't hold onto evolution too tightly. I believe in genetics. I believe if a black bull mates with a white cow, their offspring could be black, white or gray. If the result of the union is another black bull, and it mates with a black cow, their calf will probably be black and no one will know there was ever a white cow in the ancestry. I'm oversimplifying here. I believe that with the onset of the industrial revolution that white moths were eaten by birds being more easily visable, and their population dwindled. That's a type of genocide, not evolution. I believe that the gray moth's population flourished because they were well camouflaged in the soot. That's due to a bird's poor eye-sight in this example, not evolution. The moth's didn't go from what organism to a distinctly different organism. I believe in the Scientific Method. No one once has ever observed an organism transforming into a completely different organism. I was taught in biology that spontaneous generation doesn't occur, and I think this applies to a "Big Bang theory" as well as just rocks. I was taught that something doesn't result from nothing, and that if you see a house you know it has a builder. If you see the design of a spider pattern in a desert you know someone's been there; and when I see the precision of the design innately built into all nature and the universe, I know there is a God. There is an intelligent Cause. Explosions don't result in life, but death, and they don't result in precise designs or perfectly synchronised orbits. If evolution occured their should be some equivalently intelligent species accompanying us; cows would have drivers licenses and sun-glasses. Precisely because it is necessary for their survival. What I see is animals going extinct, not evolving. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Chris2 Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/1/02 7:34am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 8:16am (3 edits total) Edited By: Chris2
	There are no transitional fossils. What of other transitional beings, like Ostelopis(Fish/amphibian) Archaeopteryx(Dino/Bird), Eryops(Amphibian/Lizard), Dimetrodon(Lizard/Mammal) and others? Did God create us and evolve everything else? There also seems to be some traces of evolution in Dinosaurs. The Psiccatosaurus, for instance, possibly evolved into the Ceratopsians and the Pachycelphalosaurs. Also, the plant-eating sauropods appear to have emerged from the prosauropods, which apparentally had a theropod ancestor. The Stegosaurs and duck-billed dinosaurs seem to have evolved from Hyspilodontits. Then again, people design cars that look similar... -----signature----- Vote for me!(A 10!)http://www.gundamshop.com/gallery/models/view.cgi?ID=180
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediofJade Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/1/02 11:18am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	I believe in God, and I always will. Science has agreed with the Bible before, but now, the field of evolution and its surrounding studies has been speculating so much that whatever information it has built up to support the evolutionary theses or ideas, is just unstable territory. Even though science in and of itself calls for observation and speculation, it almost seems like some scientists are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify what they believe to be fact. I can't prove there is a God. Hence, faith. To say that the universe has a designer is logical, but where did God come from? He has no beginning, no end. I've thought about this for a long, long time. if the theory of spontaneous generation has been disproved, how can one say that God created something out of nothing? I can't say. So my belief is, that is something beyond human comprehension. Seriously, there is so much that we don't know, can't handle, can't even imagine with the limited use of our brains. I have faith that there is a God. My personal beliefs about that god are mine, and no theory can disprove what I believe. Faith can not be disproved by science. Man, I feel really insignificant whenever I talk about god. -----signature----- "There...are...four...lights!"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 6/1/02 3:09pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 4:29pm (5 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Darth_Brooks: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind. Some links I think you should read... seriously, Darth_Brooks, before you stick your foot any further down your throat just like the illustrious Dr. Duane Gish, pre-eminent spokesperson for Creation "theory". These first five links and image address the issue of Neanderthal... who was a hominid but not the ancestor of man. No self-respecting scientist today would claim that he was. Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA Humans Not Descended From Neanderthals Comparison of All Skulls Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution Info on Homo Erectus Excerpt quoting Dr. William Goodwin, University of Glasgow: “Neanderthal DNA is distinct from modern humans,” Goodwin says, “and there are no examples of humans having Neanderthal-type DNA.” Macroevolution Transitional Fossils Mitochondrial DNA - demonstrating the evolution of Hominid lineage NASA Finds Clues that Life Began in Deep Space NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep Space-like Environment Are you going to tell me that NASA scientists, astrobiologists, geologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, quantum physicists, geneticists, phlebotomists, botanists, zoologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, seismologists, and all the other scientists of virtually every scientific discipline which has gathered evidence which all points in the same direction... towards the greatest likelihood, evolution theory... are all wrong? Do you know something all these people don't? Or are you just pulling ideas out of your butt? It's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear as a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain If you don't know, ask... If you don't ask, don't presume. Either crap or get off the pot. Give me evidence that disputes the latest research on macroevolution (see links above). Not one person, not even the "esteemed" Dr. Gish himself, has been able to refute the HOX gene and Mitochondrial DNA analyses... What amazing knowledge do you possess that makes you think you can accomplish that which the top Creation theorists haven't been able to? -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 4:42pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 4:56pm (2 edits total) Edited By: _Darth_Brooks_
	Snow-Dog, I'm presenting facts, amigo. Not my own words. And for each of the disciplines you mentioned the are as many counterparts in the same disciplines disputing those assumptions. And, the fact remains, that despite the reevaluation of the data on Neanderthal man, the creature was originally, and for many years, pronounced by scientists to be an early ancestor of humanity. You don't seem to realize, half the time you've actually been strengthening my arguments for me. Hitler and his 1,000 year reich for example. Neanderthal as another example of science having to retract initial assessments. ONE QUOTE OUT OF ONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU PROVIDED: "Therefore, it is extremely difficult to infer the phylogenetic tree of human populations from mtDNA variation. For this reason, a number of authors have emphasised the importance of studying many nuclear genes to resolve this controversy." PARAPHRASE: Do you know something all these people don't? Or are you just pulling ideas out of your butt? It's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear as a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain If you don't know, ask... If you don't ask, don't presume. Either crap or get off the pot. What amazing knowledge do you possess that makes you think you can accomplish that which the top Evolutionist theorists haven't been able to? Now, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, and afford me that same politeness I've thus far extended towards you. While you've railed on Christianity, using absurdities such as Hitler, Koresh, and Torquemada, I've refrained from pointing out the atrocities committed by Hindu's, and particularly what's been emblazoned in Newspaper headlines recently. I don't know, nor do I care to know, where your antagonism stems from, but you need to put it in check. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 4:48pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	Chris2, JediofJade really summed it up. There's quite a lot of imaginative speculation out there, across the lines, on both the parts of the religious and secular regarding the geological history of the Earth. Both sides are endeavoring to answer age old questions. It's a necessary question, as fundamental to us as knowing our mother and father. We only enjoy a mystery if there is umlimately and answer to be given. Science is frought with constant amendments, and has been for as long as it has existed. At one point "bleeding" was scientific, now we've advanced to chemotherapy, a 'cure' almost as terrible as the disease. Every month there's some sort of recall on prescription and over the counter pharmaceuticals, after clinical trials, research, and approvals by the AMA, people are found to be adversely affected, often to the point of death. What am I saying? Well, after all, so much is only guess work buttressed with latin terminology. It, science, doesn't have all the answers, and unless a 'way-back machine' is invented, transporting our modern historians and scientists back into the dim past, we'll only have speculative theories to attempt to provided answers for some questions. It's a worthwhile endeavor, make no mistake from my words. Don't misconstrue my words; I am not against science, no, I'm one of sciences truest advocates, if it is good science. I measure that by the criterion outlined in the scientific method. I also heed some of the best advice given me, being.'listen carefully for catch words, such as speculated, conjectured, theorized', et el. That informs me that we've deviated from the path of fact and entered the realm of personal opinion and imagination. Objectivity is hard to find often, with so much preconceived academic indoctrinational baggage following many into their profession from earliest elementary. Many are only looking for what they want and expect to discover, for what they've already been instructed is to be out there, and such a bias obfuscates the clear truths to be found afield. A pendulum has swung, in some ways the fault of religion. We can certainly point out an illustration using Galileo, and the Roman Catholic Church's narrow-minded view of passages within Scripture, and the misinterpretation. Let us also note that Galileo was a devout man, and one who recognized that Scripture didn't contridict his findings, but rather men in charge of Scripture, just as men throughout the centuries have used the name of Christ to commit atrocities the Bible strictly prohibits. It is not the fault, or found within the the pages, of Sripture, that men have misread or misused the content. The problem has been compounded in the dilution of truth and history by so many other "religions" now known to be mythology. And, the distinctions of Christianity from those myths are lost to the secular. To them the Greco-Roman pantheon of deities and myth is equivalent to Christianity. Because of the failings of many other ancient myths is the get-go assumption that Christianity will be revealed as just one more disappointment by time. Which in many ways has seemed justifiable in the light of many of the heretical perversions men have produced using brand-name Christianity. THE DINOSAUR/BIRD A few comments; The national media have had a tendency to exaggerate the importance of previous fossil finds. For example, it has now been conclusively shown by leading scientists that a previous "proof" of a dinosaur/bird link -- the so called "feathered dinosaur" in China -- was of a reptile that did not have feathers at all! Furthermore, Archaeopteryx, once paraded as a half-reptile/half-bird, has now been rejected as "transitional" by many evolutionists -- modern birds have been found in the fossil record below Archaeopteryx, so it could not have possibly been the ancestor of today's birds. (Let us remember as the "discovery" in China was widely proclaimed, prestigious and respected National Geographic magazine immediately published the "findings" in length, without any staff doing any investigative reporting into the legitimacy of the discovery, and neither the general media. Subsequently, N.G. had to print an apology and retraction when this new creature was revealed to be a fraud perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals.) Similarly, there is also a time problem with Rahona. This so-called "in-between" fossil is dated at supposedly 70 million years, yet fully formed birds have been found in the fossil record and have been dated at 150 million years or more. Some evolutionary scientists are already questioning the validity of the Rahona claim. Larry Martin, a paleontologist at the University of Kansas who was quoted by the Gannet News Service, wants proof that the wings did not come from a different fossil creature nearby. He suspects that the fossil is just a dinosaur with bird's wings attached: "They're going to have to demonstrate they didn't put a bird's wings on a dinosaur's body." ANOTHER EXAMPLE; During the 1980's, as covered by a USA Today article, was another attempted fraud, this one not quite so successful, when a paleontologist excavating in Japan claimed to have found transitional early remains for an ancestor of homo sapien sapien. the remains consisted of two bone fragments found at two different levels in strata almost 5 miles apart. Of one bone shard, as I recall, another expert stated it was so miniscule nothing could be determined, and the other was positively id'd as an remains for an existant creature. It was also ascertainably determined that the attempt to defraud was purposeful. Granted, this was only the underhanded attempt of a single paleontologist, and shouldn't be construed as indicative of every scholar in the discipline; just as the inexcuseable immoral actions of a few priests are not indicative of the vast clergy as a whole. But, it serves as a valid warning, that we must objectively view with a critical eye. Every person entering into the disciplines of science aren't uneqivocally moral, scrupulous, or automatically infused with uncompromising integrity. THE T.REX From early adolescence we are all intrigued by dinosaurs, depicted in children's books with rudimentary commentary, forming preconceptions that will always be within our regard of the subject. Such, that when we see Jurassic Park we are complacently agreeable to the notion T. Rex was a carnivorous sharp-toothed giant beast with a nasty disposition. Our objectivity to other possibilites has been clouded. We've been given a prehistoric time-frame, millions of years ago, and an outline of the functions of T. Rex, and his position in his world. But, objectively, are their other viable possiblities to be constructed from the available data? Is the template established one that matches clues perhaps nature might provide for our conjecture? If we look at the contemporary animal kingdom, are there organisms matching T. rex shape and form? Are they carnivorous? Could there be other equally plausible alternative interpretations to be submitted from the data? If we take T.rex sillouette, is there any animal resembling the streamlined stylization of the creature? The kangaroo's basic structure, albeit tremendously compacted, does feature short forearms, powerful hind legs, a large abdomenal area, and a lengthy broad tail utilized for balance in preambulation. Even with the skulls there is a basic profile similarity. Making observations of modern predators indigenous to terra firma, the lion, the bear, etc., we see creatures with efficiently powerful forearms for intractably grasping prey, contrasted with the spindly upper appendages of T. Rex. If we look to nature for the characteristics of larger land animals, say the Giraffe for example, we see herbivorous tendencies in organisms with the capability to reach the fruits and vegetation amply cached amongst high tree branches' foliage. When observing the long, brittle, knife-like teeth of T. rex, should we ask if other carnivorous land predators have similar dental work? Certainly the alligator, but then there are other herbivorous creatures with sharp brittle needle-like teeth utilized for puncturing and opening fruits with tough husks, peels, rinds, and shells. When pondering the dynastic time period ascribed for T. Rex' rule, are we to ignore the unfossilized bones containing red blood cells that have been excavated? The ramifications should be obvious in their impicit demand we cautiously rethink where we've temporally placed T.Rex. Are some people trying to ignore data that doesn't conform to preconceptions involving existing paradigm models? Using borrowed commentary; Mary Schweitzer, a member of one of the teams unearthing such remains confronted her boss, famous paleontologist 'Dinosaur' Jack Horner, of the Montan state University, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, 'So far, we haven't been able to.' Does that reflect bias or objectivity? What we know about the dynamics of genetic coding is a mere scratch on the surface, and if there is one constant in science it's fluidity, and that today's science will often be tomorrows laughable ignorance. For centuries science adhered to a concept of four basic elemental's from which all, material and ethereal, is constructed(earth, wind, fire, and water), and in the concept of spontaneous generation. Due to the efforts of scientific pioneers such as Leeuvenhoek and Hooke we've disgarded the preposterousness of abiogenesis. And the knowledge of such intellectual watermarks as Aristotle in propounding the elemental building blocks of earth, wind, fire, and water, has been replaced with the periodic table placed into the hands of our children. Many of sciences bullwarks of the past have been revealed illusory, and if there is a status quo it can only be characterized as in flux. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/1/02 4:51pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	"And, the fact remains, that despite the reevaluation of the data on Neanderthal man, the creature was originally, and for many years, pronounced by scientists to be an early ancestor of humanity." And the Christian Church thought hte Earth was flat, what's your point? -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 4:58pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 5:01pm (1 edits total) Edited By: _Darth_Brooks_
	Saint-of-Killers, Give me one quote from the Bible saying the Earth was flat. It ain't in there, and neither is that what I wrote. My point was simply that the facts of the matters are often misidentified and misconstrued by personal misinterpretation due to preconceived personal bias. So, what's your point? -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 5:08pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	SnowDog, I've finished reading most of the linked articles you presented above. They don't seem to say what you think they do. Did you actually read them before posting? -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/1/02 5:14pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	My point is that no one is right 100% of the time. -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 5:23pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	That's precisely what I stated, attempting to give example,yet you seemed to have found fault with. I believe I evenhandedly included "religious and secular" in that post, and am Myself the one who put the flat earth debacle on the table. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
cydonia Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 6/1/02 6:31pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	My point is that no one is right 100% of the time. Speak for yourself, bub. -----signature----- when you're born a lover, you're born to suffer- Like all soul sisters and soul brothers
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/1/02 6:55pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	Snow Dog, I want to get back to your news article on Macroevolution in the words of Jonathon Wells, Ph.D(religious studies, Yale), Ph.D ( developmental biology, University of California at Berkeley), a very qualified and pedigreed scientist, who is a Creationist, and wrote an article addressing the specific content touched upon in the article you provided. Before returning to this later, a few comments on that article; Their saying that the genetic code is there, that it can be manipulated, but the actuator, the catalyst remains unassigned. This is nothing new. It's old news that birth defects can be caused by outside stimuli, that genetic interference results in mutatated creatures. There is nothing here that proves anything. The process is not disputed, but the mechanism's actuating/enabling intelligence is what is in question. What is the controller? What is the 'intelligence', the catalyst that enacts the mutation process described? What pushes the button? What is the activator; we should observe a process of constant mutation in a strictly naturalistic process. But we don't. Because someone is born with congentitol birth defects we don't deem that evolution. In this we are beginning to tread a thin line. What was described wasn't a new discovery authentically. We've known for quite sometime the contents in dna and about genetic manipulation. Which is the process described. Irnoically, I suppose, was the mention of the moths I'd already commented upon. It is not a process of evolution when a species variant is eaten to near extinction. Both gray moths and white moths were simoultaneously existant. There was no new organism that developed. And, in fact, under protected laboratory conditions, the white moth resurfaced and thrived, and it's genetics were not abandoned by nature in solely in favor of the gray moths. Mutations are tricky things, and generally a mutation in one generation doesn't appear in the next. For example, an average sized person may have a child that is a dwarf, but the liklihood is the progeny of the individual affected by dwarfism will be of average height. The affects of radiation upon the victims of the Hiroshima atomic blast are now, generations later, completely muted(not mutated). There is no significant evolutionary change in the Japanese people, and if anything were sufficient catalyst for activating such a process as macroevolution, those blasts should have been it. For an organism to evolve it needs a triggering stimuli, but the fact is such stimuli have destroyed the organism before it could hope to evolve. A fly doesn't recognize a swatter as dangerous until too late, so to speak. That being the case, then we have involountary random changes, changes just as likely to bring about an organisms extinction as equip it to be better suited to its environment. And, such randomness would seldom be beneficial in a purely random naturalistic universe; meaning that the mathematical probability is that there should be far less diversity of life on planet Earth, if any at all, or in the universe. Evolution would therefore be a blind, mindless process. So what are the odds of being blindfolded, with your back to a dart board and manageing millions of direct bullseyes back to back? But even that's not accurate, because you have intelligence and were acting out of purpose, a naturalistic universe hs neither intelligence nor motivation. One question, is according to evolution life emerged, a common amoebic ancestor, from the primordial ooze, so that leaves us with one life form that should have developed unmolested by other life, and thus no real need for diversity or an evolutionary process. No need to adapt; but then we're also talking about abiogenesis, and the whole reasoning becomes circular. But, as I've misinterpreted your stance previously, your being Hindu, allow me to ask, are we discussing evolution from a godless universe, or from a universe model predicated upon a Creator? Because then we are traveling a different path. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »