Religion

[Doorman]

Originally posted by Sadako@Jul 28 2004, 06:51 AM
Example: Inmarriage/inbreeding is valid as Adam and Eves kids must have done it to keep the generations going. It doesn't contradict the bible hence it is true.

Ooo, I like that! /me waits for riposte.  

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Sadako+Jul 28 2004, 07:51 AM-->

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater+Jul 27 2004, 11:01 PM-->

[Whitey]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater+Jul 27 2004, 05:03 PM-->

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

I haven’t got time today to answer lots but:

Example: Inmarriage/inbreeding is valid as Adam and Eves kids must have done it to keep the generations going. It doesn't contradict the bible hence it is true.

Yes we have the problem regarding Adam and Eve and in breeding, but not as big a problem as an evolutionist who to simplify it down believes every living organism comes from a primordial soup.  Now there’s inbreeding for you!

It seems clear that Adam and Eves children would have reproduced together, but you are talking then of less genetic irregularities as time progresses this changes and to prevent the problems caused by inbreeding, in Leviticus 18 God speaks to Moses and lays down a law to prevent brother and sister/close relatives sleeping with each other. Hence the bible does outlaw incest.

 

...and this is why discussions about religion are a waste of time. What a lovely open minded approach "If it contradicts the bible then it isn't true!"

I believe in moral absolutes and I am open about it.  My stance also is that if I am going to believe in God then I must believe in His self-revelation, over men’s theories.  This doesn’t mean that I and others would not study seemingly opposing data, because I believe that by studying the facts it will be revealed to not contradict the truth although it may take some understanding and digging to discover.  Yes I am sure you will say but you come with preconceptions.  Yes we all have our world view, I come with my Christian world view, the evolutionist comes with his.

Whitey: I am sorry about that, and can I explain why they suffered? No.  But I know this as believers they are reaping a reward in paradise today, where there is no more pain or suffering.

[Dr Sadako]

Originally posted by DonkeyCheeseGrater@Jul 28 2004, 02:19 PM

Yes we have the problem regarding Adam and Eve and in breeding, but not as big a problem as an evolutionist who to simplify it down believes every living organism comes from a primordial soup. Now there’s inbreeding for you!

It seems clear that Adam and Eves children would have reproduced together, but you are talking then of less genetic irregularities as time progresses this changes and to prevent the problems caused by inbreeding, in Leviticus 18 God speaks to Moses and lays down a law to prevent brother and sister/close relatives sleeping with each other. Hence the bible does outlaw incest.

You obviously don't know much about genetics. If you have in breeding with the basis of only 2 subjects to start off with you will have immense problem down the line only 3-4 genereations away. It will not become better with more people to choose from as you state:

but you are talking then of less genetic irregularities as time progresses this changes and to prevent the problems caused by inbreeding, in

Actually it will only become worse as you only have 2 subjects from the start. If there were 2 Adams and 2 Eves then you would have minimised the in breeding but there are still some in breeding down the line.

If we look at the primordial soup there you have billions of organism that evolved in different environments at different places throughout the earth. Instead of starting with 2 subjects there were millions of subjects and inbreeding were not a problem. These organism evolved over millions and millions of years and the inbreeding (if there were any) would have been so diluted after all these years I don't think we would even notice. According to your views you have only had 6000 years to dilute the gene bank, which isn't much. If we take into account that all but say 100 people (if we only count the people on the Ark then it is even less) died in the Flood, then the genebank will have taken an even more severe hit and you have even less years to dilute the genebank.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Niel@Jul 27 2004, 10:48 PM
I have as much proof that the "Jolly Green Frog of Pluto" exists.......worship him !!!

Aha, So the word is spreading


......I have some JGFP artefacts and memorabilia at a good price if your'e interested?............ before they go on eBay <_<

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

Originally posted by Niel@Jul 27 2004, 10:48 PM
Show me your God............or any actual proof that he exists/has ever existed.

I have as much proof that the "Jolly Green Frog of Pluto" exists.......worship him !!!

Here is why the issue of Evolution verses Creation is such an important one.

A quote from the book of Romans chapter 1 v18 - 20       New Testement

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.
19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts.
20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.


Another interesting couple of quotes
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

[DonkeyCheeseGrater]

Originally posted by Sadako+Jul 28 2004, 01:42 PM-->

[Dingo]

Originally posted by smilodon@Jul 27 2004, 11:56 PM
Religion isn't based on proof it's based on faith. You either have faith or you don't.  No one is ever going to prove the existence of God, it's actually one of the cornerstones of the Christian Faith. With all the will in the world a Christian believer is never going to prove to anyone that God exists, and I don't think they would want to either. Helping someone to come to believe (or have faith) in God is however something Christians hope to achieve.

It's the distinction between proof and belief that's important. Theological arguements, while interesting aren't going to be won or lost.

Science ultimately is a method of predicting observed effects. These observed effects are then extrapolated into theories to explain them, but many of them cannot be proved. None of this is proof for the existance of god (especially if we're talking the Christian god, rather than a more general term referring to a superior being). What science cannot do is prove that god doesn't exist, certainly not at this stage, because (whatever some people will have you believe) we can't prove our scientific theories are valid, only that our theories fit the observerd data.

A classic example would be gravity, we have the equations, we know that if you drop something on earth, it'll fall with an acceleration of 10ms^-2. That's a fact. We have equations to model the effect of different size bodies and their gravity, and we know these equations work. However, what we can't prove is whether gravity is a natural effect of weight, or whether it's tiny fairies moving a magnet like item that attracts all matter, and the number of these fairies increases with weight. Observing from the outside, the effect is EXACTLY the same, same observations, same equations. That's where science hits it's limits.

Saying we can view the effects something gives is not the same as saying we know how it works, we can theorise how things work based on our observations, and at a large scale level (for example simple newtonian physics) we can prove that they work, but when you start really going into the details, it becomes far more difficult, especially when you reach quantum sciences where the results change depending on whether you're observing them or not......

To say that god is proven by things science doesn't explain fully, or that science can disprove the existance of god are both bold statements that you can only make on faith. The simple fact is that neither statement can be proven to be true, it's a belief.

Maybe one day we'll be able to fully explain everything in this world, personally I have my doubts. Not everything in this world is repeatable and consistantly measurable, and anything that doesn't provide repeatable, consistant data can't be studied via a scientific measure. This is the problem with 6th sense, ghosts, ESP and so on research. Just because it doesn't work exactly the same every single time doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that a staunch scientist who HAS to have things 'proven' by current scientific measurements won't believe in it, because effects you can measure one day won't be there the next.

The problem is limiting our horizons, strong beliefs in a book written 2000 years ago will do that, and so will a strong belief in the ability of science to prove everything and answer every question. It's interesting to see how popular scientists are viewed in this country, almost like the prophets of old....

[Jamoe]

My personal beliefs arnt that important. I respect religions for the values they try to teach. I dont follow any kind of religion myself. I have my own which i try to live by.

But i do sometimes wonder. For life to exist at all certain conditions need to be met. I dont mean water and oxygen etc. i mean like atomic forces. Take the weak hydrogen bond for example. if that force was a little stronger/weaker the chances are, life wouldnt be possible.

Why does the "stuff" thats makes everything up act the way it does and why is it so perfect to allow for life.

I remeber at school my science teacher believed in god, because he couldnt believe that all "this" could happen by chance. I still wonder now.


I do also wonder why ppl choose to believe in religion, where does there faith come from. Maybe its just a simple choice,

1. born live die.  (no religion needed)
2. Born live die --> Heaven Or Hell   (did u believe and did u behave)

If it was the first option all along then what did u lose. (apart from aload of time, but hey maybe it was enjoyable) if it was the second option then ur laughing).

[Benny]

Originally posted by Jamoe@Jul 28 2004, 03:32 PM
But i do sometimes wonder. For life to exist at all certain conditions need to be met. I dont mean water and oxygen etc. i mean like atomic forces. Take the weak hydrogen bond for example. if that force was a little stronger/weaker the chances are, life wouldnt be possible.
 

But with the time scales involved and the amount of times that it didn't work (IMHO) is that really a point?

[Dr Sadako]

Originally posted by Dingo+Jul 28 2004, 03:11 PM-->

[Jamoe]

Originally posted by Benny+Jul 28 2004, 02:57 PM-->

[Thulsa Doom]

Did anyone ever see the Inbreeding Episode of the X-Files?
Come to Mommy !!
Kinda freaked me out!

God exists in peoples heads and that is what they want to believe, so that's fine.
He doesn't exist in mine,:nope: and thats what I believe so that iss also fine.

When you look back at how powerful Churches were, and how much land they owned (and still do), it does suggest that £££/power is at the bottom of it.

Do I believe it Extra-Terrestrials?  Only since I met Whitey