Hi ddink. Thank you for your follow up. You said; "Hebrews 10:25: "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching." The term "let us" is subjunctive, which indicates a command." I'm very familiar with Heb. 10:25. The verse does not speak to church service specifically. Rather, it speaks to the natural "fellowship" that exists between believers. While this can potentially occur in a church service, often enough it does not. Jesus Himself made this point distinctly clear in Matt. 18:20. There he say's;
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Here, Christ is clearly demonstrating that even when "two people" gather together in His name, they are already "in church" with the LORD Himself among them.
Additionally and very significantly, Heb. 10:25 is not posed as a "command." Rather, it is given as an exhortation or encouragement for believers to gather together; and as Jesus demonstrates in the above mentioned verse, this can be accomplished with as few as two Christians gathering together at the local Starbucks.
Finally, the Ten Commandments (always a good reference point) as well as the rest of the Bible is silent on compelled church service issues entirely. This is probably because formal church services, though potentially nice, are often nothing more than pomp and circumstance rituals that tend to puff up it's participants with a false sense of religiosity; which can and does lull many into a distorted view of their own and others actual salvation. Thanks be to GOD that we have the Bible to clarify such questions. Thank you for the follow ddink. matteproof
"Foundingfather: In our society today, everything offends someone. The Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, the national anthem--there are people who find all of the above to be offensive. Wasn't it recently that the national coinage committee (whatever the official name is) rejected commemerative designs as being too patriotic? If "In God We Trust" was tearing apart our country, that would be different. But don't you think this atheist fellow wasn't offended by the motto. All of the sudden he loses his Pledge of Allegiance case and now he's offended by IGWT--naturally it couldn't have anything to do with missing the limelight! Work offended Bartleby the Scribner. Should we thus abolish EVERYTHING in society for fear of offending some? Where does it stop, anyway?"
Ddink, whatever you do, make sure you don't lump me in with the "overly politically correct" crowd, or the "overly liberal" crowd that works to neutralize or change everything that might offend someone. I share your sentiments about how ridiculous so much of that is. I even I really dislike watering down standards or requirements so that everyone can qualify for a job. In any case, my response to you is basically this: I find some things unprincipled, and some things are principled. I find some things overdoing it, and some things appropriate. Like with most everything, a line is drawn somewhere. It's merely my personal judgement that the reasons for wanting to remove the "In God We Trust motto are legitimate and I conclude that it shouldn't have been added -- similar to how the "Under God" should not have been added. There are good reasons the originals of these items purposefully did not include religious material. I think those reasons are valid and important. I don't think something religiously divisive should be on our money OR in our Pledge. Government shouldn't make believe we are all supposed to subscribe or condone monotheism to be either patriotic or use money -- by inference at least. While I understand the reasons people like the "In God We Trust" motto, I don't use what most people like as the standard for judging what Government should be able to do or what is appropriate for all Americans. I go by the principles of freedom and put a value on unnecessarily putting an obviously divisive component on our money.
I, like millions of other Americans, do not want Government issuing "Trust And Believe In One God" billboards on principle. Not because we are going to faint or be converted or something, but because we value the principles of freedom people have died for, and understand that part of the vigilant guard all citizens are supposed to engage in sometimes means defending principles for things that may be small at the time, or in the spirit of preventing precedent to protect future generations. In regard to the "In God We Trust" motto, I think, for the reasons I gave in previous posts, that the bottom line is it's not necessary, and it's not in the spirit of being inclusive and keeping Government out of the presumption with religion business.
So, yes, you are right -- many things should NOT be modified to make people feel better. Keep in mind, though, that this is why the motto was ADDED AFTER the fact. It wasn't added with great thought on principle during the time the Founders created the first national mint and set precedent. If anyone could have gotten away with it, it was them, but like the Pledge, good reasonsing prevailed not to include such references.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i> We still have those animals with us today. Strange isnt it? >>
Not strange at all. Animals evolve to fill an ecological niche, almost always by the splitting of a population into two populations. If the previous niche still exists there is no reason for the initial population to die out and both species will continue to exist, each occuping their own environment.
More to the point, "Apes" are a family, which incorporate several species, including chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutangs, and humans. The modern theory of evolution says that they all have evolved from a common ancestor. Humans, chimps, and bonobos, in particular, have a very recent ancestor (chimps and bonobos DNA is closer to human DNA than to gorilla or orangutang). Humans have not evolved from any of the modern apes - we just share a common ancestor.
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>More to the point, "Apes" are a family, which incorporate several species, including chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutangs, and humans. The modern theory of evolution says that they all have evolved from a common ancestor. Humans, chimps, and bonobos, in particular, have a very recent ancestor (chimps and bonobos DNA is closer to human DNA than to gorilla or orangutang). Humans have not evolved from any of the modern apes - we just share a common ancestor. >>
Has the theory always been "common ancestor" versus direct evolution, or is that a recent change? While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. So one day a fish developed both legs AND lungs at the same time, and then for some reason decided to walk up onto dry land? The biggest problem with evolution is the source of it all: the big bang. So this infinitely dense mass of matter existed, then for some reason (during Planck's time) it decided to defy all the laws of physics and blow up for absolutely no reason at all. Be that as it may, where did this "cosmic egg" come from?
Matteproof:
<< <i>this can be accomplished with as few as two Christians gathering together at the local Starbucks. >>
I agree with that.
<< <i>This is probably because formal church services, though potentially nice, are often nothing more than pomp and circumstance rituals that tend to puff up it's participants with a false sense of religiosity; which can and does lull many into a distorted view of their own and others actual salvation >>
True, with a stress on the word "often." This is not universal; a GREAT many churches are not like that at all. I attend an independent Christian church (part of the Restoration Movement) and there are no rituals or elaborate rites or anything. Just some singing to praise God, Communion, prayer, offering, and a message.
<< <i>Additionally and very significantly, Heb. 10:25 is not posed as a "command." Rather, it is given as an exhortation or encouragement for believers to gather together >>
Be careful, you're coming close to splitting hairs here. Whether command or exhortation, it's clear that it's God's intention for us to gather together (as you point out, the building is meaningless, it's the people that matter).
<< <i>Finally, the Ten Commandments (always a good reference point) as well as the rest of the Bible is silent on compelled church service issues entirely. >>
Naturally the Ten Commandments are silent about church services, since there were no such things. The Hebrews of that era (B.C.) lived under the old covenant. They worshipped in the temple.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
It's interesting to see how uncommon, common knowledge is, but I assumed everyone outside of Kansas knew there have been a number of extinct humans on Earth.
Though you may have heard of them, you probably have never seen a Cro-Magnum or Neanderthal standing in line at the supermarket check-out, or driving down the freeway. But they did in fact exist and they dominated on Earth for far longer than modern man has.
A. Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern B. Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My C. Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My D. Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My E. H. habilis, OH24 , 1.8 My F. H. ergaster (H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My G. H. heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300-125ky H. Homo neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70ky I. H. neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Sts, 60ky J. H. neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45ky K. Homo sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30ky L. Homo sapiens, modern
<< <i>Has the theory always been "common ancestor" versus direct evolution, or is that a recent change? While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. So one day a fish developed both legs AND lungs at the same time, and then for some reason decided to walk up onto dry land? The biggest problem with evolution is the source of it all: the big bang. >>
The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang. I know the basics of Evolution, but nothing of modern Cosmology. It's a fiendishly complicated area and quite frankly, one needs at least a PhD (in physics and/or math) to start to be conversant. Otherwise one risks misunderstanding the very basics.
The theory has always been one of a common ancestor, but there is always one further ancestor. The changes are always gradual, and each most direct ancestor is so similar to the indicidual following and the one preceding that they are effectively the same species. But continue that for hundreds of generations, and the two branches might have diverged so much that they have become different species - they can't reproduce. This is being observed in real time in nature nowadays. For examples, there's a place somewhere where 2 species of salamanders cohabit. They look different, and they can't reproduce, but they are similar enough to look somewhat related. But scientists were able to show that if you follow a wide cercle in a certain direction, you find a continuous link of unbroken cousin species, each of them able to reproduce with its direct neighbors. Where the cercle meets its ow origin, the salamanders are so different that they are 2 different species. All you would need now is some event breaking the chain for a few generations, and you would completely loose this chain of cousin species.
It's never been argued that "one day a fish developed both legs AND lungs at the same time". Instead, you have fishes that have developed *some* capacity to crawl on dry land and live out of water. It has become an advantage for them (e.g., they can go from one body of water to another, or they can catch preys on the ground, etc). There are several totally unrelated species of fishes that do that now. So they become better and better at it, and spend more and more of their time on the ground, till one day they basically live outside water and only go back to water to give birth, say. That's what salamanders and toads do. Then, a few thousands generations later, they don't need to do that anymore, etc, etc.
if you're interested, I recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable", by Richard Dawkins. It's fascinating, and very, very interesting. He explains how evolution lead to many different versions of the eye, versions that sometimes rely on very different physical principles. He also explains how some species are "stuck" using some principles that are fundamentally unoptimal. It all depends on their starting points.
<< <i>The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang. I know the basics of Evolution, but nothing of modern Cosmology. It's a fiendishly complicated area and quite frankly, one needs at least a PhD (in physics and/or math) to start to be conversant. Otherwise one risks misunderstanding the very basics. >>
That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). While evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang, you do rely on the theory of a Big Bang to set the stage for evolution (it wouldn't make much sense to believe that God created planets, etc., but then never got around to creating life).
We all have a great decision to make in this life. We can use theories that we don't understand (or rather, theories we do understand that are predicated on theories we don't understand, such as the Big Bang) in order to explain our origins and thus explain away God, or we can accept Him. It's quite an important decision, because if Christians are correct, the decision will affect our situation for eternity. In order to decide whether to believe in God or not, you must decide how humans came to exist. If you prefer a "scientific" explanation to a religious explanation, is it not of utmost importance to understand the scientific explanation fully? After all, if you wish to invest a sizable amount of money, do you just do what your broker tells you to do, or do you try and understand, yourself, everything you need to know? If you are so careful with your money, why not with your soul?
The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). While evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang, you do rely on the theory of a Big Bang to set the stage for evolution (it wouldn't make much sense to believe that God created planets, etc., but then never got around to creating life). >>
This is becoming even more off topic, but I disagree. There are many theories as to the creation of the universe. In any case, it is a different , much less mature (and arguably much more difficult) scientific field.
Several billions of years passed between the creation of the universe, and the emerging of life on earth. Evolution only starts there.
<< <i>However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. >>
Not so sure: Miller Experiment. Take the Miller experiment, and add a billion years, and who knows?
"The greatest productive force is human selfishness." Robert A. Heinlein
Hi ddink. Thank you for the thoughts. You said; "...a GREAT many churches are not like that at all. I attend an independent Christian church (part of the Restoration Movement) and there are no rituals or elaborate rites or anything. Just some singing to praise God, Communion, prayer, offering, and a message..." This sounds fine. It is good when everyone fellowships in a manner that best fits their personalities and likes. For me, the simpler the better.
You said; "Whether command or exhortation, it's clear that it's God's intention for us to gather together (as you point out, the building is meaningless, it's the people that matter)." Yes, I agree.
You said; "Naturally the Ten Commandments are silent about church services, since there were no such things. The Hebrews of that era (B.C.) lived under the old covenant..." I hear your point. However, in the deeper sense, the "church" always existed from the beginning of time (Matt. 25: 34, Heb. 4: 3) and was later revealed in the fullness of time (1 Pet. 1: 20). Jesus repeatedly applied OT principles, including the Ten Commandments, to new covenant truths. For example, although He amended some of them, Jesus underscored the continuation of the Ten Commandments throughout the NT era (Mark 10: 19), the 5th & 6th commandment (Mark 3: 4), the 7th commandment (Matt. 5: 27-28), etc. He also confirmed the accuracy of other OT accounts. For example; He confirmed the literal Noahic flood account (Luke 17: 27), Daniel the prophet (Matt. 24: 15), and many more. Thank you again for the thoughts ddink. matteproof
All of that doesn't matter -- all that matters is whether or not it respects the principles of freedom, such as Government neutrality with religious dissemination, to have "Trust One God" or "Believe in Monotheism" billboards on public money.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). >>
That is true we can't explain where it came from. Which puts us on the exact same footing as the religous folks who can't explain where God came from. They will usually say "he has just always been there" Well we can use the same explaination for the primordial cosmic mass as well. It has always been there. We're tied up until one of us can explain where theirs came from.
<< <i> If you prefer a "scientific" explanation to a religious explanation, is it not of utmost importance to understand the scientific explanation fully? After all, if you wish to invest a sizable amount of money, do you just do what your broker tells you to do, or do you try and understand, yourself, everything you need to know? If you are so careful with your money, why not with your soul? >>
I think your analogy is flawed unless your think proper investing is to just listen to your broker and not try to understand things. That is the principle tenent behind all religions Have Faith! Don't try to figure things out or to "understand", just listen to what your broker, priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, says and BELIEVE!!! He will guide you. He will tell you what the "sacred texts" mean. And you will have faith and believe in the word!
I will agree with FoundingFather though, this is getting along way from the topic of the constitutionality of religous billbords on our money.
Could someone explain to me why IGWT should be removed? I am not talking about what is said and what is not said in the constitution or anything the government has......I just want to know why?
Great transaction with: Relaxn, Collectorcoins, OKCC
<< <i>Could someone explain to me why IGWT should be removed? I am not talking about what is said and what is not said in the constitution or anything the government has......I just want to know why? >>
Only because it is a lie. It misrepresents America. Some live and believe that way and others don't, and not just atheists. The original mottos were sufficient, defensible 100% and the United States in a nutshell. By keeping it on or removing it, the level of trust is not going to change significantly.
Please download this app to help fight cancer at 0 cost. At no extra cost to you purchases from Amazon and other participating retailers will benefit research!
<< <i>the motto might also offend polytheists and any-
Removing the motto offends me. How about that? >>
Oh, no, no, Wolf359 - I see where you're mistaken, though. Liberals are only concerned about offensive actions if those actions offend them - the liberals. If the actions offend a conservative, then the conservative is being offensive by being offended by that action. Follow the logic?
Don't worry, all we must do is lower our shields and escort the liberals to sector zero-zero-one. Resistance is futile.
Personally I am neither offended nor enamored by having IGWT on our money. Frankly mah dear I don't give a chit. If anyone else is offended then let them write checks or use debit cards. To me its a non-issue.
<< <i>If Congress didn't pass the law that IGWT has to appear on all US coins and currency, we wouldn't have Motto/No Motto varieties. There is a lot about US history right there shown in our coins. But will we have them again in modern coinage once this case gets through the legal system? I'm not sure if IGWT on coins is a government attempt to establish a religion, but with the Government requiring the word God to appear on money, there certainly appears to be a link between Government and religion. The Governments position has always been that it's a "generic" God they're talking about. But, what if in the future Muslims were in the majority in the US, would you feel the same if Congress passed a law requiring "Allah-o-Akbar" (Allah/God is Great) to appear on money, or would that be found to be unconstitutional? (AP) UPDATED: 6:22 pm PST November 13, 2005 SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools said he'll file a new lawsuit this week. Michael Newdow plans to ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U.S. coins and currency. He said it violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science." The church's "three suggestions" are "question, be honest and do what's right." Newdow said it wouldn't be right to take up a collection when the money says "In God We Trust." Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed Newdow's lawsuit over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because he doesn't have custody of his daughter, in whose name the lawsuit was filed. Newdow has resurrected that case by filing an identical lawsuit on behalf of two families. Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. >>
And what does this putz want - "All Others Pay Cash" - instead? People like Mr. Newdow are probably members of the Communist Party as well, but you have to wonder. My theory on why IGWT was put on our money is this - we all need a little faith, and our grand republic could use more of it right now.
DORAN COINS - On Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), & www.dorancoins.net - UPCOMING SHOWS (tentative dates)- 10/8/2023 - Fairfield, IL, 11/5/2023 - Urbana, IL., 12/3/2023 - Mattoon, IL.
<< <i>And what does this putz want - "All Others Pay Cash" - instead? People like Mr. Newdow are probably members of the Communist Party as well, but you have to wonder. My theory on why IGWT was put on our money is this - we all need a little faith, and our grand republic could use more of it right now. >>
And what is wrong with belonging to the Communist Party? Are you saying we should dictate the political opinions that other people may hold? In theory the idea of Communism is an attractive ideal. But in practice it is unworkable. The same can be said for Democracy. In theory it might sound good but a true Democracy would be paralizing and/or unstable. If everyone is constantly voting to make the decisions nothing gets done. And the rule of the majority means you constantly run the risk of being trampled if your opinion. That is why this country was set up as a Republic. So that the people can express their view, but the rights of the minority may also be protected. (After all don't we all hold a minority view on something?)
Why IGWT was but on our money? Because during a time of emotional upheavel a religious advocate found a sympathic ear or ears in power. Although his isn't a "Christian Nation" the majority of the citizen do believe or follow Judao-Christian beliefs or teachings and were ripe for for the placing of a statement of THEIR faith on the coinage. (Irregardless of what the Suprme Court says, reading the documents that lead to the placement of the motto on the coins clearly shows that it was intended to be a statement of belief in the Christian God and not a secular statement.)
I don't fault the Reverend, he was clearly acting as his faith and chosen occupation directed him to. The fault lay with the government employees who allowed their own beliefs to override their obligations to insure that all citizens were treated equally and no one group is selected for special treatment.
But even that is understandable since ones religion it typically impressed on them when they are very young children and incapable of making reasoned decisions. Such brainwashing from the earliest age is usually difficult if not impossible to overcome. I feel this is why even though the Founding Fathers clearly believed that the government should be compleely neutral with respect to religion they still could not refrain from references to God or a Creator in their "official" writings. It was, and is, simply too ingrained into them and our society.
<< <i>The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang. I know the basics of Evolution, but nothing of modern Cosmology. It's a fiendishly complicated area and quite frankly, one needs at least a PhD (in physics and/or math) to start to be conversant. Otherwise one risks misunderstanding the very basics. >>
That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). While evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang, you do rely on the theory of a Big Bang to set the stage for evolution (it wouldn't make much sense to believe that God created planets, etc., but then never got around to creating life).
We all have a great decision to make in this life. We can use theories that we don't understand (or rather, theories we do understand that are predicated on theories we don't understand, such as the Big Bang) in order to explain our origins and thus explain away God, or we can accept Him. It's quite an important decision, because if Christians are correct, the decision will affect our situation for eternity. In order to decide whether to believe in God or not, you must decide how humans came to exist. If you prefer a "scientific" explanation to a religious explanation, is it not of utmost importance to understand the scientific explanation fully? After all, if you wish to invest a sizable amount of money, do you just do what your broker tells you to do, or do you try and understand, yourself, everything you need to know? If you are so careful with your money, why not with your soul?
The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
<< <i>My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. Why? What evidence can you show that proves that it is impossible?
If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
<< <i>The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
I am only going to address the scientific aspects of your argument. I believe that evolution is the most plausible theory available. “Intelligent Design” is not even a theory in my opinion; it can hold no ground against evolution. Evolution is far more complicated than just odds as in a lottery. There is even recent evidence of evolution occurring in currently living animals due to geographic barriers. I feel that many people have a misunderstanding of evolution, particularly the mechanisms of evolution.
“Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time.”
It is a matter of time, but time is not what will cause change. There needs to be a change in the environment which will favor an organism with certain genes over other organisms of the same species. The natural selection will only occur if one genotype or set of genotypes has an advantage which allows them to survive in the environment. If the environment does not change, then such changes are unnecessary. The only changes that would continue to occur are those that favor organisms that are able to better procure food and protect themselves, enhancing their biological success. For example, in Africa malaria is quite common. The trait for sickle cell is a recessive gene, represented by a small r. The trait for normal blood cells is a dominant gene, represented by a large R. An individual with RR will have normal blood and be susceptible to catching malaria. An individual with rr will have sickle cell and probably die from it. An individual with Rr has normal blood, but also has a heterozygous advantage. The Rr individual will be resistant to malaria. As a result, the frequency of the sickle cell gene will increase in an area with a high occurrence of malaria. The gene pool changes due to the advantages gained by having an Rr genotype. This shows how those who are best suited for the environment will flourish and have greater reproductive success.
I believe that it is entirely possible for organisms to result from organic compounds. However, I am not as knowledgeable in this area (or I just forgot most of it) so I will not offer any additional explanations as I did for evolution. What I never understand is why some people can’t just accept that God may have chosen to create life THROUGH evolution and the big bang. As far as the big bang goes, why does there even need to be a reason for the energy to exist in the first place? Who says that there should be nothing rather than something? The fact that there is something that exists does not necessarily imply that there absolutely has to be something that created it, unless you believe in some sort of Thomas Aquinas ideology. I consider such a train of thought rather weak. For example, Aquinas believes that all things move because there was a Prime Mover, God. However, I might simply ask, why can it not be that all things moved simply due to the absence of a Prime Stopper? I just don’t like this type of thinking, it doesn’t really make a good argument.
Feel free to ask for some clarifications, but I may not necessarily be able to answer everything. I am not a biologist (Thankfully!!), but I have received a few years of instruction in biology.
Please download this app to help fight cancer at 0 cost. At no extra cost to you purchases from Amazon and other participating retailers will benefit research!
It really disheartens me to read postings from people on this board that now seem glad to know who they would trust or do business with based on a religious affiliation. Why is there always this assumption of a direct association between religion and morals? Its not possible to be a moral and good person but not religious? I grew up in a community where I was part of the overwhelming "majority" religion. After years of feeling like an outsider because I didn't base my friendships and associations on whether someone was one of "us" but rather on their character and actions....I moved away. It was just unbelievable to me how people were treated who weren't part of the majority. In the end it drove me away from organized religion completely. I guess for some of you this now makes me an untrustworthy person. So be it. I respect anyones beliefs and would not want to impose mine...unfortunately there seem to be a lot of people in this country that wouldn't extend to me the same courtesy. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way whether IGWT remains on this countrys coinage. Our actions as a country and as individuals define who we are and where our moral compass points.
<< <i>My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. Why? What evidence can you show that proves that it is impossible?
If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
Don't count on it, monkeys may evolve close by. >>
There's another problem. A long-lived monkey would need far more than a few trillion years unless it got extremely lucky. It requires more than 4.2 x 10 ^807,000 years if each attempt takes a year.
A secondary problem is that he may have less than 7 billion years before the universe collapses or grows cold. Other than for the herculean work that lies in front of him, this would be one very lucky monkey.
<< <i>[As far as the big bang goes, why does there even need to be a reason for the energy to exist in the first place? Who says that there should be nothing rather than something? The fact that there is something that exists does not necessarily imply that there absolutely has to be something that created it, unless you believe in some sort of Thomas Aquinas ideology. I consider such a train of thought rather week. >>
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world.
<< <i>There's another problem. A long-lived monkey would need far more than a few trillion years unless it got extremely lucky. It requires more than 4.2 x 10 ^807,000 years if each attempt takes a year.
A secondary problem is that he may have less than 7 billion years before the universe collapses or grows cold. Other than for the herculean work that lies in front of him, this would be one very lucky monkey. >>
Unless the monkeys continue to evolve and their intelligence grows. After all, man wrote great novels before the typewriter and it didn't take 4.2 X 10^807,000 years.
<< <i>You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for. >>
I don't see any non-scientific non-factual speculation inhis statement. Just a reminder that we may not have considered all possibilities, or may have stated with an erroneous assumption.
<< <i>It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else. >>
Why is this arrogance? (Of course frist there has to actually be a God to outthink or outguess. If there isn't then there is no arrogance. And even if there is, how is trying to figure things out arrogance?) You call the formulas ridiculous. I take it God has come along, had a chat with you and confided with you that those formulas don't describe things properly at all? No? Assuming there is a God, could these formula actually describe the way he did it?
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world. >>
These ridiculous formulas have also given man the ability to feed six billion people, cure disease, and provide enough leisure time as to collect coins or debate what they should look like. It's true that there is probably not much truth to be found in science but there isn't much competition for solving man's problems or advancing our reach.
Did not the bible say that man is to go forth and multiply. Well, we have, and added division and statistical analysis.
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world. >>
These ridiculous formulas have also given man the ability to feed six billion people, cure disease, and provide enough leisure time as to collect coins or debate what they should look like. It's true that there is probably not much truth to be found in science but there isn't much competition for solving man's problems or advancing our reach.
Did not the bible say that man is to go forth and multiply. Well, we have, and added division and statistical analysis. >>
I think there are a lot more truths to be learned from science than from religion. As an example, I point the the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo. The Church's doctrine was that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around the Earth. Galileo challenged that, showing how the Earth orbited the Sun, etc. As a result, the Church imprisioned Galileo for the remainder of his life.
It is Man's duty to expand his knowledge and continually question everything in the universe. If you had a son, would you want him to grow up stupid and living with mommy at age 44 ? Or would you want him to grow up even smarter than you so that he could successfully go out on his own ? If God exists, do you think God want's man to learn nothing new and to rely on God for everything ? Or do you think God would want man to grow, learn, and become self sufficient and stop worshiping/pandering to God all the time ?
Religion lays down the theories according to it's doctrine (faith), and that is that. Their theories about the Universe are static. The theories (like the Bible, for example) do not ever change.
Science comes up with theories all the time, but they are dynamic. Some theories are shown to be true, while others false. False theories are abandoned, unlike religion where there is only one basic theory and if abandoned, the religion would have nothing left. So the theory is never questioned or the entire premise of the religion might collapse. Science keeps probing from different angles to get at the truth. Scientists review each other's work (peer review) to improve the validity of their work. In this manner, scientists with opposing views cooperate. In contrast, different religions do not cooperate - they conflict.
Science will continue to uncover truths, while religion will remain static.
Religion is a dead end. Science is the true path to enlightenment.
<< <i>[As far as the big bang goes, why does there even need to be a reason for the energy to exist in the first place? Who says that there should be nothing rather than something? The fact that there is something that exists does not necessarily imply that there absolutely has to be something that created it, unless you believe in some sort of Thomas Aquinas ideology. I consider such a train of thought rather week. >>
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world. >>
If you notice, I didn't state these as my views. I said I considered this type of thought very weak, meaning that I disapprove of it being used regardless of what side it is used for. I was simply using the opposite of the previous argument to show how weak such reasoning is. And where the hell did I condemn religion and faith? You are simply making things up in order to insult me! Fortunately, I take no insult from such things; in fact, I feel that you are insulting yourself by displaying such immaturity.
Please download this app to help fight cancer at 0 cost. At no extra cost to you purchases from Amazon and other participating retailers will benefit research!
I think there are a lot more truths to be learned from science than from religion. As an example, I point the the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo. The Church's doctrine was that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around the Earth. Galileo challenged that, showing how the Earth orbited the Sun, etc. As a result, the Church imprisioned Galileo for the remainder of his life.
It is Man's duty to expand his knowledge and continually question everything in the universe. If you had a son, would you want him to grow up stupid and living with mommy at age 44 ? Or would you want him to grow up even smarter than you so that he could successfully go out on his own ? If God exists, do you think God want's man to learn nothing new and to rely on God for everything ? Or do you think God would want man to grow, learn, and become self sufficient and stop worshiping/pandering to God all the time ?
Religion lays down the theories according to it's doctrine (faith), and that is that. Their theories about the Universe are static. The theories (like the Bible, for example) do not ever change.
Science comes up with theories all the time, but they are dynamic. Some theories are shown to be true, while others false. False theories are abandoned, unlike religion where there is only one basic theory and if abandoned, the religion would have nothing left. So the theory is never questioned or the entire premise of the religion might collapse. Science keeps probing from different angles to get at the truth. Scientists review each other's work (peer review) to improve the validity of their work. In this manner, scientists with opposing views cooperate. In contrast, different religions do not cooperate - they conflict.
Science will continue to uncover truths, while religion will remain static.
Religion is a dead end. Science is the true path to enlightenment. >>
Perhaps, but it should be noted that the more most individuals learn about science the stronger becomes their belief in a higher power.
Religion may be mostly a dead end for putting food on the table but many find it necessary and sufficient to make life worthwhile.
<< <i>Science comes up with theories all the time, but they are dynamic. Some theories are shown to be true, while others false. False theories are abandoned, unlike religion where there is only one basic theory and if abandoned, the religion would have nothing left. So the theory is never questioned or the entire premise of the religion might collapse. Science keeps probing from different angles to get at the truth. Scientists review each other's work (peer review) to improve the validity of their work. In this manner, scientists with opposing views cooperate. In contrast, different religions do not cooperate - they conflict.
Science will continue to uncover truths, while religion will remain static.
Religion is a dead end. Science is the true path to enlightenment. >>
Science has its place certainly, but the true path to enlightenment? I don't think so.
False theories indeed...................even some of Einstein's theories are being severely challenged now by other 'enlightened' scientists. And around and around we go. Scientific truth forged in steel. Right!!
As for me, I am awating the second 'big bang.' This one brought to us by other 'enlightened' scientists; the atomic destruction of an American city by some terrorist group. Thank you science!
<< <i> Science has its place certainly, but the true path to enlightenment? I don't think so.
False theories indeed...................even some of Einstein's theories are being severely challenged now by other 'enlightened' scientists. And around and around we go. Scientific truth forged in steel. Right!!
As for me, I am awating the second 'big bang.' This one brought to us by other 'enlightened' scientists; the atomic destruction of an American city by some terrorist group. Thank you science! >>
Did you mean to make a pun? Hehehehe. If you didn't get it, the enlightment was a social/philosophical revolution that questioned previously accepted church doctrine. It did all this through the use of reason and science. Enlighted means understanding, so I would say that it was apt to say that science leads to enlightment. As far as "true" enlightment goes in the spiritual sense, it is up to the individual. It is impossible for more than one person to hold the exact same set of beliefs, so it is impossible for any two people to have the same faith. This is something I feel many people fail to consider.
It is news to me that Einstein is being challenged, can you post a reputable link to corroborate this statement? Last thing I heard about Einstein is that NASA recently proved his theory of relativity to be truer than ever. They only recently had the technology to prove that frame dragging actually occurs, which is quite an interesting subject! The Earth actually warps the space time fabric of the universe! Thank you science indeed! Without science, life would be extremely dull. We would all be living an agrarian lifestyle where we would face many hardships and higher mortality rates. I guess even an agrarian lifestyle would be employing some methods of science; I suppose the only science free path would be to revert to being hunters and gatherers, using strictly our bare hands. So I guess we have nothing to thank science for.
Please download this app to help fight cancer at 0 cost. At no extra cost to you purchases from Amazon and other participating retailers will benefit research!
1956half you are so correct. Lets think about it this way people. I lve in NY and here alot of stores do not use the words MERRY CHRISTMAS, because certain religous groups become offended. Now we say happu holidays. If this becomes real as far as taking in god we trust off money, then what is the sense of swearing on a bible in a court room????? Then what??? Think that over!!
<< <i>False theories indeed...................even some of Einstein's theories are being severely challenged now by other 'enlightened' scientists. And around and around we go. Scientific truth forged in steel. Right!! >>
The questioning of theories leads to testing of those theories. So the questioning IS that steel. It is the stength that leads to greater understanding an the refinement of the theories so they work even better.
<< <i>As for me, I am awating the second 'big bang.' This one brought to us by other 'enlightened' scientists; the atomic destruction of an American city by some terrorist group. Thank you science! >>
You mean by one of those RELIGIOUS terrorist groups that want to kill everyone who don't have the same "faith" that they do? Don't blame science if someone choses to mis-use the tools that science gives us.
<< <i>then what is the sense of swearing on a bible in a court room????? Then what??? Think that over!! >>
So what is the sense? As far I am concerned swearing on a stack of Penthouses has as much meaning. And we might get somefeedbak from the lawyers here but I've been in courst a few times before and I've seen a couple dozen people sworn in, but I've never seen anyone sworn in on a bible.
<< <i> While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. >>
Having a background in evolution and evolutionary theory, I thought I'd correct a few misconceptions.
1. Scientists neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution. "Belief" is not a word or concept that has any place in science. Belief implies uncritical acceptance of a proposition in the absence of evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. In science there is only "acceptance". Depending on the quality of the data and the logical consistency of the arguments that tie that data together, acceptance may be tentative, provisional, confident, or absolute.
2. Macroevolution is not an abstraction. There is abundant evidence for it that is observable, demonstrable, and incontrovertible. In the fossil record paleontologists have recorded the gradual transition from one species to another and one genus to another in groups like primates, archaic ungulates, and horses. We also have numerous transitional forms that, morphologically, span the gap between major adaptive peaks. We have terrestrial running whales, amphibious whales, and a diversity of aquatic whales. We have amphibious sirenians (manatees, dugongs, etc.) with four sturdy limbs. We have almost every morphological stage between fully aquatic lobe-finned fish and fully terestrial tetrapods. Among hominids we see a gradual transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens over a million-year time span.
I have no wish to weigh in on the suitability of IGWT on our coins. I only wish to correct misconceptions regarding the nature of science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence bearing on the history of life.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
A few more misconceptions need to be addressed here.
1. Lungs and legs did not develop simultaneously in tetrapods (limbed vertebrates). Lungs long predate the evolution of limbs. Lungs are a feature that extend deep into the sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) lineage. Much of evolution is incremental.
2. Speciation and major morphological change do not require eons of time. It can be quite rapid. A new species of apple maggot fly developed in eastern North America within 200 years after the introduction of apples into this continent. It took only 10,000 years for 300 maximally diverse species of cichlid fishes to evolve in Lake Victoria in Africa. Natural selection can work quite quickly in certain circumstances.
3. Evolution is not the random cobbling together of random mutations (the monkeys at the typewriter scenario). While genetic mutations ARE random, their fixation in a population is far from random. Natural selection is a filter that permits only those mutations that are favorable to pass through.
4. Natural selection does not address the origin of life. There are only weak hypotheses that answer that ultimate question. No scientist has an answer...yet. But that's all the more reason to keep seeking an answer. Natural selection only addresses what happened AFTER life appeared.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i> While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. >>
Having a background in evolution and evolutionary theory, I thought I'd correct a few misconceptions.
1. Scientists neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution. "Belief" is not a word or concept that has any place in science. Belief implies uncritical acceptance of a proposition in the absence of evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. In science there is only "acceptance". Depending on the quality of the data and the logical consistency of the arguments that tie that data together, acceptance may be tentative, provisional, confident, or absolute.
2. Macroevolution is not an abstraction. There is abundant evidence for it that is observable, demonstrable, and incontrovertible. In the fossil record paleontologists have recorded the gradual transition from one species to another and one genus to another in groups like primates, archaic ungulates, and horses. We also have numerous transitional forms that, morphologically, span the gap between major adaptive peaks. We have terrestrial running whales, amphibious whales, and a diversity of aquatic whales. We have amphibious sirenians (manatees, dugongs, etc.) with four sturdy limbs. We have almost every morphological stage between fully aquatic lobe-finned fish and fully terestrial tetrapods. Among hominids we see a gradual transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens over a million-year time span.
I have no wish to weigh in on the suitability of IGWT on our coins. I only wish to correct misconceptions regarding the nature of science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence bearing on the history of life. >>
Its refreshing to see somebody finally say that a theory is neither true nor false.
<< <i>The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
A few more misconceptions need to be addressed here.
1. Lungs and legs did not develop simultaneously in tetrapods (limbed vertebrates). Lungs long predate the evolution of limbs. Lungs are a feature that extend deep into the sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) lineage. Much of evolution is incremental.
2. Speciation and major morphological change do not require eons of time. It can be quite rapid. A new species of apple maggot fly developed in eastern North America within 200 years after the introduction of apples into this continent. It took only 10,000 years for 300 maximally diverse species of cichlid fishes to evolve in Lake Victoria in Africa. Natural selection can work quite quickly in certain circumstances.
3. Evolution is not the random cobbling together of random mutations (the monkeys at the typewriter scenario). While genetic mutations ARE random, their fixation in a population is far from random. Natural selection is a filter that permits only those mutations that are favorable to pass through.
4. Natural selection does not address the origin of life. There are only weak hypotheses that answer that ultimate question. No scientist has an answer...yet. But that's all the more reason to keep seeking an answer. Natural selection only addresses what happened AFTER life appeared. >>
Articulate, concise and well phrased! Explains science as science and keeps the option of God the almighty creator right in the picture.
Consider that God can do what he wants, whenever he wants, including setting up red herrings all along mankinds path to test the faith of man which is, after all, the bottom line reason everything exists in the first place.
Comments
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Here, Christ is clearly demonstrating that even when "two people" gather together in His name, they are already "in church" with the LORD Himself among them.
Additionally and very significantly, Heb. 10:25 is not posed as a "command." Rather, it is given as an exhortation or encouragement for believers to gather together; and as Jesus demonstrates in the above mentioned verse, this can be accomplished with as few as two Christians gathering together at the local Starbucks.
Finally, the Ten Commandments (always a good reference point) as well as the rest of the Bible is silent on compelled church service issues entirely. This is probably because formal church services, though potentially nice, are often nothing more than pomp and circumstance rituals that tend to puff up it's participants with a false sense of religiosity; which can and does lull many into a distorted view of their own and others actual salvation. Thanks be to GOD that we have the Bible to clarify such questions. Thank you for the follow ddink.
"Foundingfather: In our society today, everything offends someone. The Pledge of Allegiance, the American flag, the national anthem--there are people who find all of the above to be offensive. Wasn't it recently that the national coinage committee (whatever the official name is) rejected commemerative designs as being too patriotic? If "In God We Trust" was tearing apart our country, that would be different. But don't you think this atheist fellow wasn't offended by the motto. All of the sudden he loses his Pledge of Allegiance case and now he's offended by IGWT--naturally it couldn't have anything to do with missing the limelight! Work offended Bartleby the Scribner. Should we thus abolish EVERYTHING in society for fear of offending some? Where does it stop, anyway?"
Ddink, whatever you do, make sure you don't lump me in with the "overly politically correct" crowd, or the "overly liberal" crowd that works to neutralize or change everything that might offend someone. I share your sentiments about how ridiculous so much of that is. I even I really dislike watering down standards or requirements so that everyone can qualify for a job. In any case, my response to you is basically this: I find some things unprincipled, and some things are principled. I find some things overdoing it, and some things appropriate. Like with most everything, a line is drawn somewhere. It's merely my personal judgement that the reasons for wanting to remove the "In God We Trust motto are legitimate and I conclude that it shouldn't have been added -- similar to how the "Under God" should not have been added. There are good reasons the originals of these items purposefully did not include religious material. I think those reasons are valid and important. I don't think something religiously divisive should be on our money OR in our Pledge. Government shouldn't make believe we are all supposed to subscribe or condone monotheism to be either patriotic or use money -- by inference at least. While I understand the reasons people like the "In God We Trust" motto, I don't use what most people like as the standard for judging what Government should be able to do or what is appropriate for all Americans. I go by the principles of freedom and put a value on unnecessarily putting an obviously divisive component on our money.
I, like millions of other Americans, do not want Government issuing "Trust And Believe In One God" billboards on principle. Not because we are going to faint or be converted or something, but because we value the principles of freedom people have died for, and understand that part of the vigilant guard all citizens are supposed to engage in sometimes means defending principles for things that may be small at the time, or in the spirit of preventing precedent to protect future generations. In regard to the "In God We Trust" motto, I think, for the reasons I gave in previous posts, that the bottom line is it's not necessary, and it's not in the spirit of being inclusive and keeping Government out of the presumption with religion business.
So, yes, you are right -- many things should NOT be modified to make people feel better. Keep in mind, though, that this is why the motto was ADDED AFTER the fact. It wasn't added with great thought on principle during the time the Founders created the first national mint and set precedent. If anyone could have gotten away with it, it was them, but like the Pledge, good reasonsing prevailed not to include such references.
<< <i> We still have those animals with us today. Strange isnt it? >>
Not strange at all. Animals evolve to fill an ecological niche, almost always by the splitting of a population into two populations. If the previous niche still exists there is no reason for the initial population to die out and both species will continue to exist, each occuping their own environment.
Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>More to the point, "Apes" are a family, which incorporate several species, including chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutangs, and humans. The modern theory of evolution says that they all have evolved from a common ancestor. Humans, chimps, and bonobos, in particular, have a very recent ancestor (chimps and bonobos DNA is closer to human DNA than to gorilla or orangutang). Humans have not evolved from any of the modern apes - we just share a common ancestor. >>
Has the theory always been "common ancestor" versus direct evolution, or is that a recent change? While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. So one day a fish developed both legs AND lungs at the same time, and then for some reason decided to walk up onto dry land? The biggest problem with evolution is the source of it all: the big bang. So this infinitely dense mass of matter existed, then for some reason (during Planck's time) it decided to defy all the laws of physics and blow up for absolutely no reason at all. Be that as it may, where did this "cosmic egg" come from?
Matteproof:
<< <i>this can be accomplished with as few as two Christians gathering together at the local Starbucks. >>
I agree with that.
<< <i>This is probably because formal church services, though potentially nice, are often nothing more than pomp and circumstance rituals that tend to puff up it's participants with a false sense of religiosity; which can and does lull many into a distorted view of their own and others actual salvation >>
True, with a stress on the word "often." This is not universal; a GREAT many churches are not like that at all. I attend an independent Christian church (part of the Restoration Movement) and there are no rituals or elaborate rites or anything. Just some singing to praise God, Communion, prayer, offering, and a message.
<< <i>Additionally and very significantly, Heb. 10:25 is not posed as a "command." Rather, it is given as an exhortation or encouragement for believers to gather together >>
Be careful, you're coming close to splitting hairs here. Whether command or exhortation, it's clear that it's God's intention for us to gather together (as you point out, the building is meaningless, it's the people that matter).
<< <i>Finally, the Ten Commandments (always a good reference point) as well as the rest of the Bible is silent on compelled church service issues entirely. >>
Naturally the Ten Commandments are silent about church services, since there were no such things. The Hebrews of that era (B.C.) lived under the old covenant. They worshipped in the temple.
It's interesting to see how uncommon, common knowledge is, but I assumed everyone outside of Kansas knew there have been a number of extinct humans on Earth.
Though you may have heard of them, you probably have never seen a Cro-Magnum or Neanderthal standing in line at the supermarket check-out, or driving down the freeway. But they did in fact exist and they dominated on Earth for far longer than modern man has.
A. Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B. Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C. Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D. Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E. H. habilis, OH24 , 1.8 My
F. H. ergaster (H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
G. H. heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300-125ky
H. Homo neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70ky
I. H. neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Sts, 60ky
J. H. neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45ky
K. Homo sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30ky
L. Homo sapiens, modern
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>Has the theory always been "common ancestor" versus direct evolution, or is that a recent change? While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. So one day a fish developed both legs AND lungs at the same time, and then for some reason decided to walk up onto dry land? The biggest problem with evolution is the source of it all: the big bang. >>
The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang. I know the basics of Evolution, but nothing of modern Cosmology. It's a fiendishly complicated area and quite frankly, one needs at least a PhD (in physics and/or math) to start to be conversant. Otherwise one risks misunderstanding the very basics.
The theory has always been one of a common ancestor, but there is always one further ancestor. The changes are always gradual, and each most direct ancestor is so similar to the indicidual following and the one preceding that they are effectively the same species. But continue that for hundreds of generations, and the two branches might have diverged so much that they have become different species - they can't reproduce. This is being observed in real time in nature nowadays. For examples, there's a place somewhere where 2 species of salamanders cohabit. They look different, and they can't reproduce, but they are similar enough to look somewhat related. But scientists were able to show that if you follow a wide cercle in a certain direction, you find a continuous link of unbroken cousin species, each of them able to reproduce with its direct neighbors. Where the cercle meets its ow origin, the salamanders are so different that they are 2 different species. All you would need now is some event breaking the chain for a few generations, and you would completely loose this chain of cousin species.
It's never been argued that "one day a fish developed both legs AND lungs at the same time". Instead, you have fishes that have developed *some* capacity to crawl on dry land and live out of water. It has become an advantage for them (e.g., they can go from one body of water to another, or they can catch preys on the ground, etc). There are several totally unrelated species of fishes that do that now. So they become better and better at it, and spend more and more of their time on the ground, till one day they basically live outside water and only go back to water to give birth, say. That's what salamanders and toads do. Then, a few thousands generations later, they don't need to do that anymore, etc, etc.
if you're interested, I recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable", by Richard Dawkins. It's fascinating, and very, very interesting. He explains how evolution lead to many different versions of the eye, versions that sometimes rely on very different physical principles. He also explains how some species are "stuck" using some principles that are fundamentally unoptimal. It all depends on their starting points.
Climbing Mount Improbable
Robert A. Heinlein
<< <i>The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang. I know the basics of Evolution, but nothing of modern Cosmology. It's a fiendishly complicated area and quite frankly, one needs at least a PhD (in physics and/or math) to start to be conversant. Otherwise one risks misunderstanding the very basics. >>
That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). While evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang, you do rely on the theory of a Big Bang to set the stage for evolution (it wouldn't make much sense to believe that God created planets, etc., but then never got around to creating life).
We all have a great decision to make in this life. We can use theories that we don't understand (or rather, theories we do understand that are predicated on theories we don't understand, such as the Big Bang) in order to explain our origins and thus explain away God, or we can accept Him. It's quite an important decision, because if Christians are correct, the decision will affect our situation for eternity. In order to decide whether to believe in God or not, you must decide how humans came to exist. If you prefer a "scientific" explanation to a religious explanation, is it not of utmost importance to understand the scientific explanation fully? After all, if you wish to invest a sizable amount of money, do you just do what your broker tells you to do, or do you try and understand, yourself, everything you need to know? If you are so careful with your money, why not with your soul?
The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace.
<< <i>That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). While evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang, you do rely on the theory of a Big Bang to set the stage for evolution (it wouldn't make much sense to believe that God created planets, etc., but then never got around to creating life). >>
This is becoming even more off topic, but I disagree. There are many theories as to the creation of the universe. In any case, it is a different , much less mature (and arguably much more difficult) scientific field.
Several billions of years passed between the creation of the universe, and the emerging of life on earth. Evolution only starts there.
<< <i>However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. >>
Not so sure: Miller Experiment. Take the Miller experiment, and add a billion years, and who knows?
Robert A. Heinlein
You said; "Whether command or exhortation, it's clear that it's God's intention for us to gather together (as you point out, the building is meaningless, it's the people that matter)." Yes, I agree.
You said; "Naturally the Ten Commandments are silent about church services, since there were no such things. The Hebrews of that era (B.C.) lived under the old covenant..." I hear your point. However, in the deeper sense, the "church" always existed from the beginning of time (Matt. 25: 34, Heb. 4: 3) and was later revealed in the fullness of time (1 Pet. 1: 20). Jesus repeatedly applied OT principles, including the Ten Commandments, to new covenant truths. For example, although He amended some of them, Jesus underscored the continuation of the Ten Commandments throughout the NT era (Mark 10: 19), the 5th & 6th commandment (Mark 3: 4), the 7th commandment (Matt. 5: 27-28), etc. He also confirmed the accuracy of other OT accounts. For example; He confirmed the literal Noahic flood account (Luke 17: 27), Daniel the prophet (Matt. 24: 15), and many more. Thank you again for the thoughts ddink.
<< <i>That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). >>
That is true we can't explain where it came from. Which puts us on the exact same footing as the religous folks who can't explain where God came from. They will usually say "he has just always been there" Well we can use the same explaination for the primordial cosmic mass as well. It has always been there. We're tied up until one of us can explain where theirs came from.
<< <i> If you prefer a "scientific" explanation to a religious explanation, is it not of utmost importance to understand the scientific explanation fully? After all, if you wish to invest a sizable amount of money, do you just do what your broker tells you to do, or do you try and understand, yourself, everything you need to know? If you are so careful with your money, why not with your soul? >>
I think your analogy is flawed unless your think proper investing is to just listen to your broker and not try to understand things. That is the principle tenent behind all religions Have Faith! Don't try to figure things out or to "understand", just listen to what your broker, priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, says and BELIEVE!!! He will guide you. He will tell you what the "sacred texts" mean. And you will have faith and believe in the word!
I will agree with FoundingFather though, this is getting along way from the topic of the constitutionality of religous billbords on our money.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Could someone explain to me why IGWT should be removed? I am not talking about what is said and what is not said in the constitution or anything the government has......I just want to know why? >>
Only because it is a lie. It misrepresents America. Some live and believe that way and others don't, and not just atheists. The original mottos were sufficient, defensible 100% and the United States in a nutshell. By keeping it on or removing it, the level of trust is not going to change significantly.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
The Nyquist/Lemon tests.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
<< <i>the motto might also offend polytheists and any-
Removing the motto offends me. How about that? >>
Oh, no, no, Wolf359 - I see where you're mistaken, though. Liberals are only concerned about offensive actions if those actions offend them - the liberals. If the actions offend a conservative, then the conservative is being offensive by being offended by that action. Follow the logic?
Don't worry, all we must do is lower our shields and escort the liberals to sector zero-zero-one. Resistance is futile.
<< <i>If Congress didn't pass the law that IGWT has to appear on all US coins and currency, we wouldn't have Motto/No Motto varieties. There is a lot about US history right there shown in our coins. But will we have them again in modern coinage once this case gets through the legal system? I'm not sure if IGWT on coins is a government attempt to establish a religion, but with the Government requiring the word God to appear on money, there certainly appears to be a link between Government and religion. The Governments position has always been that it's a "generic" God they're talking about. But, what if in the future Muslims were in the majority in the US, would you feel the same if Congress passed a law requiring "Allah-o-Akbar" (Allah/God is Great) to appear on money, or would that be found to be unconstitutional?
(AP) UPDATED: 6:22 pm PST November 13, 2005 SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools said he'll file a new lawsuit this week. Michael Newdow plans to ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U.S. coins and currency. He said it violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science." The church's "three suggestions" are "question, be honest and do what's right." Newdow said it wouldn't be right to take up a collection when the money says "In God We Trust." Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed Newdow's lawsuit over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because he doesn't have custody of his daughter, in whose name the lawsuit was filed. Newdow has resurrected that case by filing an identical lawsuit on behalf of two families.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. >>
And what does this putz want - "All Others Pay Cash" - instead? People like Mr. Newdow are probably members of the Communist Party as well, but you have to wonder. My theory on why IGWT was put on our money is this - we all need a little faith, and our grand republic could use more of it right now.
<< <i>And what does this putz want - "All Others Pay Cash" - instead? People like Mr. Newdow are probably members of the Communist Party as well, but you have to wonder. My theory on why IGWT was put on our money is this - we all need a little faith, and our grand republic could use more of it right now. >>
And what is wrong with belonging to the Communist Party? Are you saying we should dictate the political opinions that other people may hold? In theory the idea of Communism is an attractive ideal. But in practice it is unworkable. The same can be said for Democracy. In theory it might sound good but a true Democracy would be paralizing and/or unstable. If everyone is constantly voting to make the decisions nothing gets done. And the rule of the majority means you constantly run the risk of being trampled if your opinion. That is why this country was set up as a Republic. So that the people can express their view, but the rights of the minority may also be protected. (After all don't we all hold a minority view on something?)
Why IGWT was but on our money? Because during a time of emotional upheavel a religious advocate found a sympathic ear or ears in power. Although his isn't a "Christian Nation" the majority of the citizen do believe or follow Judao-Christian beliefs or teachings and were ripe for for the placing of a statement of THEIR faith on the coinage. (Irregardless of what the Suprme Court says, reading the documents that lead to the placement of the motto on the coins clearly shows that it was intended to be a statement of belief in the Christian God and not a secular statement.)
I don't fault the Reverend, he was clearly acting as his faith and chosen occupation directed him to. The fault lay with the government employees who allowed their own beliefs to override their obligations to insure that all citizens were treated equally and no one group is selected for special treatment.
But even that is understandable since ones religion it typically impressed on them when they are very young children and incapable of making reasoned decisions. Such brainwashing from the earliest age is usually difficult if not impossible to overcome. I feel this is why even though the Founding Fathers clearly believed that the government should be compleely neutral with respect to religion they still could not refrain from references to God or a Creator in their "official" writings. It was, and is, simply too ingrained into them and our society.
<< <i>
<< <i>The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang. I know the basics of Evolution, but nothing of modern Cosmology. It's a fiendishly complicated area and quite frankly, one needs at least a PhD (in physics and/or math) to start to be conversant. Otherwise one risks misunderstanding the very basics. >>
That's the crux of it. Unless you believe in theistic evolution (God created the world and a few basic life forms and things evolved from there)--which I assume you don't, that means you must rely on the Big Bang to explain how things got to the point where evolution could take over. Unfortunately, you don't understand the Big Bang (nor do I, not, I expect, could any doctors in physics explain the origins of the "original" cosmic mass). While evolution has nothing to say about the Big Bang, you do rely on the theory of a Big Bang to set the stage for evolution (it wouldn't make much sense to believe that God created planets, etc., but then never got around to creating life).
We all have a great decision to make in this life. We can use theories that we don't understand (or rather, theories we do understand that are predicated on theories we don't understand, such as the Big Bang) in order to explain our origins and thus explain away God, or we can accept Him. It's quite an important decision, because if Christians are correct, the decision will affect our situation for eternity. In order to decide whether to believe in God or not, you must decide how humans came to exist. If you prefer a "scientific" explanation to a religious explanation, is it not of utmost importance to understand the scientific explanation fully? After all, if you wish to invest a sizable amount of money, do you just do what your broker tells you to do, or do you try and understand, yourself, everything you need to know? If you are so careful with your money, why not with your soul?
The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
OH MY! So very well put!!! Thank you!!!
<< <i>My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop.
Why? What evidence can you show that proves that it is impossible?
If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
Don't count on it, monkeys may evolve close by.
<< <i>The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
I am only going to address the scientific aspects of your argument. I believe that evolution is the most plausible theory available. “Intelligent Design” is not even a theory in my opinion; it can hold no ground against evolution. Evolution is far more complicated than just odds as in a lottery. There is even recent evidence of evolution occurring in currently living animals due to geographic barriers. I feel that many people have a misunderstanding of evolution, particularly the mechanisms of evolution.
“Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time.”
It is a matter of time, but time is not what will cause change. There needs to be a change in the environment which will favor an organism with certain genes over other organisms of the same species. The natural selection will only occur if one genotype or set of genotypes has an advantage which allows them to survive in the environment. If the environment does not change, then such changes are unnecessary. The only changes that would continue to occur are those that favor organisms that are able to better procure food and protect themselves, enhancing their biological success. For example, in Africa malaria is quite common. The trait for sickle cell is a recessive gene, represented by a small r. The trait for normal blood cells is a dominant gene, represented by a large R. An individual with RR will have normal blood and be susceptible to catching malaria. An individual with rr will have sickle cell and probably die from it. An individual with Rr has normal blood, but also has a heterozygous advantage. The Rr individual will be resistant to malaria. As a result, the frequency of the sickle cell gene will increase in an area with a high occurrence of malaria. The gene pool changes due to the advantages gained by having an Rr genotype. This shows how those who are best suited for the environment will flourish and have greater reproductive success.
I believe that it is entirely possible for organisms to result from organic compounds. However, I am not as knowledgeable in this area (or I just forgot most of it) so I will not offer any additional explanations as I did for evolution. What I never understand is why some people can’t just accept that God may have chosen to create life THROUGH evolution and the big bang. As far as the big bang goes, why does there even need to be a reason for the energy to exist in the first place? Who says that there should be nothing rather than something? The fact that there is something that exists does not necessarily imply that there absolutely has to be something that created it, unless you believe in some sort of Thomas Aquinas ideology. I consider such a train of thought rather weak. For example, Aquinas believes that all things move because there was a Prime Mover, God. However, I might simply ask, why can it not be that all things moved simply due to the absence of a Prime Stopper? I just don’t like this type of thinking, it doesn’t really make a good argument.
Feel free to ask for some clarifications, but I may not necessarily be able to answer everything. I am not a biologist (Thankfully!!), but I have received a few years of instruction in biology.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
<< <i>
<< <i>My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop.
Why? What evidence can you show that proves that it is impossible?
If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
Don't count on it, monkeys may evolve close by.
There's another problem. A long-lived monkey would need far more than a few trillion years
unless it got extremely lucky. It requires more than 4.2 x 10 ^807,000 years if each attempt
takes a year.
A secondary problem is that he may have less than 7 billion years before the universe collapses
or grows cold. Other than for the herculean work that lies in front of him, this would be one very
lucky monkey.
<< <i>[As far as the big bang goes, why does there even need to be a reason for the energy to exist in the first place? Who says that there should be nothing rather than something? The fact that there is something that exists does not necessarily imply that there absolutely has to be something that created it, unless you believe in some sort of Thomas Aquinas ideology. I consider such a train of thought rather week. >>
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world.
<< <i>There's another problem. A long-lived monkey would need far more than a few trillion years
unless it got extremely lucky. It requires more than 4.2 x 10 ^807,000 years if each attempt
takes a year.
A secondary problem is that he may have less than 7 billion years before the universe collapses
or grows cold. Other than for the herculean work that lies in front of him, this would be one very
lucky monkey. >>
Unless the monkeys continue to evolve and their intelligence grows. After all, man wrote great novels before the typewriter and it didn't take 4.2 X 10^807,000 years.
<< <i>You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for. >>
I don't see any non-scientific non-factual speculation inhis statement. Just a reminder that we may not have considered all possibilities, or may have stated with an erroneous assumption.
<< <i>It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else. >>
Why is this arrogance? (Of course frist there has to actually be a God to outthink or outguess. If there isn't then there is no arrogance. And even if there is, how is trying to figure things out arrogance?) You call the formulas ridiculous. I take it God has come along, had a chat with you and confided with you that those formulas don't describe things properly at all? No? Assuming there is a God, could these formula actually describe the way he did it?
<< <i>
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world. >>
These ridiculous formulas have also given man the ability to feed six billion people,
cure disease, and provide enough leisure time as to collect coins or debate what
they should look like. It's true that there is probably not much truth to be found in
science but there isn't much competition for solving man's problems or advancing
our reach.
Did not the bible say that man is to go forth and multiply. Well, we have, and added
division and statistical analysis.
<< <i>
<< <i>
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world. >>
These ridiculous formulas have also given man the ability to feed six billion people,
cure disease, and provide enough leisure time as to collect coins or debate what
they should look like. It's true that there is probably not much truth to be found in
science but there isn't much competition for solving man's problems or advancing
our reach.
Did not the bible say that man is to go forth and multiply. Well, we have, and added
division and statistical analysis.
I think there are a lot more truths to be learned from science than from religion. As an example, I point the the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo. The Church's doctrine was that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around the Earth. Galileo challenged that, showing how the Earth orbited the Sun, etc. As a result, the Church imprisioned Galileo for the remainder of his life.
It is Man's duty to expand his knowledge and continually question everything in the universe. If you had a son, would you want him to grow up stupid and living with mommy at age 44 ? Or would you want him to grow up even smarter than you so that he could successfully go out on his own ? If God exists, do you think God want's man to learn nothing new and to rely on God for everything ? Or do you think God would want man to grow, learn, and become self sufficient and stop worshiping/pandering to God all the time ?
Religion lays down the theories according to it's doctrine (faith), and that is that. Their theories about the Universe are static. The theories (like the Bible, for example) do not ever change.
Science comes up with theories all the time, but they are dynamic. Some theories are shown to be true, while others false. False theories are abandoned, unlike religion where there is only one basic theory and if abandoned, the religion would have nothing left. So the theory is never questioned or the entire premise of the religion might collapse. Science keeps probing from different angles to get at the truth. Scientists review each other's work (peer review) to improve the validity of their work. In this manner, scientists with opposing views cooperate. In contrast, different religions do not cooperate - they conflict.
Science will continue to uncover truths, while religion will remain static.
Religion is a dead end. Science is the true path to enlightenment.
<< <i>But then again anything to tick off the zealot religious right gets my vote.
Exactly why it should stay. Religious bigotry is not a reason for removal. >>
Religious bigotry is the sole reason for it to stay.
<< <i>
<< <i>[As far as the big bang goes, why does there even need to be a reason for the energy to exist in the first place? Who says that there should be nothing rather than something? The fact that there is something that exists does not necessarily imply that there absolutely has to be something that created it, unless you believe in some sort of Thomas Aquinas ideology. I consider such a train of thought rather week. >>
You postulate with facts regarding evolution, and that is fine. But then this! Exactly the kind of the non-scientific, non-factual speculation that you condemn religion and faith for.
I'll take my faith every time over vapid guesswork! It just baffles me the arrogance of man in beliving it can outthink and outguess God himself, even coming up with ridiculous formulas, all speculative, to prove the beginning of time and matter and everything else.
That is why I am so passionate that IN GOD WE TRUST remain on United States coinage. Can't depend on the rest of the world. >>
If you notice, I didn't state these as my views. I said I considered this type of thought very weak, meaning that I disapprove of it being used regardless of what side it is used for. I was simply using the opposite of the previous argument to show how weak such reasoning is. And where the hell did I condemn religion and faith? You are simply making things up in order to insult me! Fortunately, I take no insult from such things; in fact, I feel that you are insulting yourself by displaying such immaturity.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
You people are going to make the baby Jesus cry
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>
I think there are a lot more truths to be learned from science than from religion. As an example, I point the the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo. The Church's doctrine was that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around the Earth. Galileo challenged that, showing how the Earth orbited the Sun, etc. As a result, the Church imprisioned Galileo for the remainder of his life.
It is Man's duty to expand his knowledge and continually question everything in the universe. If you had a son, would you want him to grow up stupid and living with mommy at age 44 ? Or would you want him to grow up even smarter than you so that he could successfully go out on his own ? If God exists, do you think God want's man to learn nothing new and to rely on God for everything ? Or do you think God would want man to grow, learn, and become self sufficient and stop worshiping/pandering to God all the time ?
Religion lays down the theories according to it's doctrine (faith), and that is that. Their theories about the Universe are static. The theories (like the Bible, for example) do not ever change.
Science comes up with theories all the time, but they are dynamic. Some theories are shown to be true, while others false. False theories are abandoned, unlike religion where there is only one basic theory and if abandoned, the religion would have nothing left. So the theory is never questioned or the entire premise of the religion might collapse. Science keeps probing from different angles to get at the truth. Scientists review each other's work (peer review) to improve the validity of their work. In this manner, scientists with opposing views cooperate. In contrast, different religions do not cooperate - they conflict.
Science will continue to uncover truths, while religion will remain static.
Religion is a dead end. Science is the true path to enlightenment. >>
Perhaps, but it should be noted that the more most individuals learn about science the stronger becomes their belief in a higher power.
Religion may be mostly a dead end for putting food on the table but many find it necessary and sufficient to make life worthwhile.
<< <i>Science comes up with theories all the time, but they are dynamic. Some theories are shown to be true, while others false. False theories are abandoned, unlike religion where there is only one basic theory and if abandoned, the religion would have nothing left. So the theory is never questioned or the entire premise of the religion might collapse. Science keeps probing from different angles to get at the truth. Scientists review each other's work (peer review) to improve the validity of their work. In this manner, scientists with opposing views cooperate. In contrast, different religions do not cooperate - they conflict.
Science will continue to uncover truths, while religion will remain static.
Religion is a dead end. Science is the true path to enlightenment. >>
Science has its place certainly, but the true path to enlightenment? I don't think so.
False theories indeed...................even some of Einstein's theories are being severely challenged now by other 'enlightened' scientists. And around and around we go. Scientific truth forged in steel. Right!!
As for me, I am awating the second 'big bang.' This one brought to us by other 'enlightened' scientists; the atomic destruction of an American city by some terrorist group. Thank you science!
<< <i>
Science has its place certainly, but the true path to enlightenment? I don't think so.
False theories indeed...................even some of Einstein's theories are being severely challenged now by other 'enlightened' scientists. And around and around we go. Scientific truth forged in steel. Right!!
As for me, I am awating the second 'big bang.' This one brought to us by other 'enlightened' scientists; the atomic destruction of an American city by some terrorist group. Thank you science! >>
Did you mean to make a pun? Hehehehe. If you didn't get it, the enlightment was a social/philosophical revolution that questioned previously accepted church doctrine. It did all this through the use of reason and science. Enlighted means understanding, so I would say that it was apt to say that science leads to enlightment. As far as "true" enlightment goes in the spiritual sense, it is up to the individual. It is impossible for more than one person to hold the exact same set of beliefs, so it is impossible for any two people to have the same faith. This is something I feel many people fail to consider.
It is news to me that Einstein is being challenged, can you post a reputable link to corroborate this statement? Last thing I heard about Einstein is that NASA recently proved his theory of relativity to be truer than ever. They only recently had the technology to prove that frame dragging actually occurs, which is quite an interesting subject! The Earth actually warps the space time fabric of the universe! Thank you science indeed! Without science, life would be extremely dull. We would all be living an agrarian lifestyle where we would face many hardships and higher mortality rates. I guess even an agrarian lifestyle would be employing some methods of science; I suppose the only science free path would be to revert to being hunters and gatherers, using strictly our bare hands. So I guess we have nothing to thank science for.
http://my.affinity.is/cancer-research?referral_code=MjI4Nzgz
<< <i>False theories indeed...................even some of Einstein's theories are being severely challenged now by other 'enlightened' scientists. And around and around we go. Scientific truth forged in steel. Right!! >>
The questioning of theories leads to testing of those theories. So the questioning IS that steel. It is the stength that leads to greater understanding an the refinement of the theories so they work even better.
<< <i>As for me, I am awating the second 'big bang.' This one brought to us by other 'enlightened' scientists; the atomic destruction of an American city by some terrorist group. Thank you science! >>
You mean by one of those RELIGIOUS terrorist groups that want to kill everyone who don't have the same "faith" that they do? Don't blame science if someone choses to mis-use the tools that science gives us.
<< <i>then what is the sense of swearing on a bible in a court room????? Then what??? Think that over!! >>
So what is the sense? As far I am concerned swearing on a stack of Penthouses has as much meaning. And we might get somefeedbak from the lawyers here but I've been in courst a few times before and I've seen a couple dozen people sworn in, but I've never seen anyone sworn in on a bible.
<< <i>how soon people forget: rember the world trade center >>
Which was done by people too hung up on thier religion and who think that everyone else should follow their faith as well.
<< <i>your in a hole in the ground with a M1 and 6 tanks are rolling at you thats all you have is GOD. >>
Must have been Fortuna, the God of Luck and good fortune.
<< <i>your in a hole in the ground with a M1 and 6 tanks are rolling at you thats all you have is GOD. >>
Must have been Fortuna, the God of Luck and good fortune. >>
With all due respect, and I do mean this, unless you have been there or done that, I assure you, its not Fortuna.
<< <i> While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. >>
Having a background in evolution and evolutionary theory, I thought I'd correct a few misconceptions.
1. Scientists neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution. "Belief" is not a word or concept that has any place in science. Belief implies uncritical acceptance of a proposition in the absence of evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. In science there is only "acceptance". Depending on the quality of the data and the logical consistency of the arguments that tie that data together, acceptance may be tentative, provisional, confident, or absolute.
2. Macroevolution is not an abstraction. There is abundant evidence for it that is observable, demonstrable, and incontrovertible. In the fossil record paleontologists have recorded the gradual transition from one species to another and one genus to another in groups like primates, archaic ungulates, and horses. We also have numerous transitional forms that, morphologically, span the gap between major adaptive peaks. We have terrestrial running whales, amphibious whales, and a diversity of aquatic whales. We have amphibious sirenians (manatees, dugongs, etc.) with four sturdy limbs. We have almost every morphological stage between fully aquatic lobe-finned fish and fully terestrial tetrapods. Among hominids we see a gradual transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens over a million-year time span.
I have no wish to weigh in on the suitability of IGWT on our coins. I only wish to correct misconceptions regarding the nature of science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence bearing on the history of life.
<< <i>The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
A few more misconceptions need to be addressed here.
1. Lungs and legs did not develop simultaneously in tetrapods (limbed vertebrates). Lungs long predate the evolution of limbs. Lungs are a feature that extend deep into the sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) lineage. Much of evolution is incremental.
2. Speciation and major morphological change do not require eons of time. It can be quite rapid. A new species of apple maggot fly developed in eastern North America within 200 years after the introduction of apples into this continent. It took only 10,000 years for 300 maximally diverse species of cichlid fishes to evolve in Lake Victoria in Africa. Natural selection can work quite quickly in certain circumstances.
3. Evolution is not the random cobbling together of random mutations (the monkeys at the typewriter scenario). While genetic mutations ARE random, their fixation in a population is far from random. Natural selection is a filter that permits only those mutations that are favorable to pass through.
4. Natural selection does not address the origin of life. There are only weak hypotheses that answer that ultimate question. No scientist has an answer...yet. But that's all the more reason to keep seeking an answer. Natural selection only addresses what happened AFTER life appeared.
<< <i>
<< <i> While I do believe in micro-evolution (natural selection makes a great deal of sense), macro-evolution is simply too far-fetched. >>
Having a background in evolution and evolutionary theory, I thought I'd correct a few misconceptions.
1. Scientists neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution. "Belief" is not a word or concept that has any place in science. Belief implies uncritical acceptance of a proposition in the absence of evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. In science there is only "acceptance". Depending on the quality of the data and the logical consistency of the arguments that tie that data together, acceptance may be tentative, provisional, confident, or absolute.
2. Macroevolution is not an abstraction. There is abundant evidence for it that is observable, demonstrable, and incontrovertible. In the fossil record paleontologists have recorded the gradual transition from one species to another and one genus to another in groups like primates, archaic ungulates, and horses. We also have numerous transitional forms that, morphologically, span the gap between major adaptive peaks. We have terrestrial running whales, amphibious whales, and a diversity of aquatic whales. We have amphibious sirenians (manatees, dugongs, etc.) with four sturdy limbs. We have almost every morphological stage between fully aquatic lobe-finned fish and fully terestrial tetrapods. Among hominids we see a gradual transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens over a million-year time span.
I have no wish to weigh in on the suitability of IGWT on our coins. I only wish to correct misconceptions regarding the nature of science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence bearing on the history of life. >>
Its refreshing to see somebody finally say that a theory is neither true nor false.
<< <i>
<< <i>The basic premise of evolution is brilliant: it is unbelievably unlikely that a fish would concurrently develop both legs to support itself outside of the water, and lungs to breathe. However, if you have a trillion or two years to play with, it becomes more probable. After all, me winning the powerball is unlikely, but if I buy a billion tickets, the odds are certainly on my side! Eventually, the scientist assumes, even the most unlikely thing (such as macro-evolutionary changes) can occur, given enough time. However, some things, such as the development of single-celled organisms from an amino-acid conglomeration, are impossible. It is not possible for life to develop from inanimate objects and chemicals, no matter how much time you have to play with.
My argument is that, given enough time and a basic form of life, it MIGHT be possible for macro-evolutionary changes to occur. But given a non-living mass of chemicals, it is impossible for life to spontaneously develop. If you have an unlimited supply of ink and paper, and put a monkey in front of a typewriter for a few trillion years, it will probably eventually create, by pure accident, a coherent book. However, if you dispense with the monkey, and simply leave a typewriter ribbon and a typewriter sitting on the ground for a few trillion years, you'll never end up with a copy of War and Peace. >>
A few more misconceptions need to be addressed here.
1. Lungs and legs did not develop simultaneously in tetrapods (limbed vertebrates). Lungs long predate the evolution of limbs. Lungs are a feature that extend deep into the sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) lineage. Much of evolution is incremental.
2. Speciation and major morphological change do not require eons of time. It can be quite rapid. A new species of apple maggot fly developed in eastern North America within 200 years after the introduction of apples into this continent. It took only 10,000 years for 300 maximally diverse species of cichlid fishes to evolve in Lake Victoria in Africa. Natural selection can work quite quickly in certain circumstances.
3. Evolution is not the random cobbling together of random mutations (the monkeys at the typewriter scenario). While genetic mutations ARE random, their fixation in a population is far from random. Natural selection is a filter that permits only those mutations that are favorable to pass through.
4. Natural selection does not address the origin of life. There are only weak hypotheses that answer that ultimate question. No scientist has an answer...yet. But that's all the more reason to keep seeking an answer. Natural selection only addresses what happened AFTER life appeared. >>
Articulate, concise and well phrased! Explains science as science and keeps the option of God the almighty creator right in the picture.
Consider that God can do what he wants, whenever he wants, including setting up red herrings all along mankinds path to test the faith of man which is, after all, the bottom line reason everything exists in the first place.
<< <i>Consider that God can do what he wants, whenever he wants >>
Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it?