[Heath Sherratt]

Evolution=chance+time=increased complexity. That's why regular scientists have to add billions of years to their hypotheses. But physics states that "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos and disorganization." Did any one read the intitial post? Besides Sanjuro. What are the arguments for? To get me to believe I am an accident? That thousands of years ago some monkey had a less hairy, slightly upright child and that another monkey some where really close to him had another of the same and they happened to have the right plumbing to reproduce given the chance they met at all? I am not arguing beliefs. I am stating that there are two. They both should have the right to be taught. That is the american way. Debate that please.

 

[Changleen]

Evolution=chance+time=increased complexity. That's why regular scientists have to add billions of years to their hypotheses. But physics states that "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos and disorganization."

It's not that simple numbnuts. Didn't you read anything we posted?

Did any one read the intitial post? Besides Sanjuro. What are the arguments for? To get me to believe I am an accident? That thousands of years ago some monkey had a less hairy, slightly upright child and that another monkey some where really close to him had another of the same and they happened to have the right plumbing to reproduce given the chance they met at all?

Yes.

I am not arguing beliefs. I am stating that there are two.

No, there is one 'belief' system (religion) and one system of rational logical investigation (science). Science is not a belief structure, no matter how much you want to think it is. If you can't understand that you can't even stand up in this argument.

They both should have the right to be taught. That is the american way. Debate that please.

OK, Here you go: You can teach science in science class and creationism in religious education classes. No problem with that. What you cannot do is try and claim ID or creationism is a part of, or on a par with any kind of science. Do you understand that? That is the problem. People like you are misguidedly trying to push ID/Creationism as 'science' They are not, they are stories with no evidence to support them. They are nothing like science.

 

[GumbaFish]

I agree you arguement using the laws of physics is indeed a misguided use of the law. By evolving we are not becomming less chaotic, the laws you refer to do not apply in this situation. Also its not like a monkey gave birth to a neanderthal by accident one time and woops a neanderthal gave birth to a human. Changes occur slowly over time untill the two forms become different enough to no longer produce viable offspring. I will need to look it up, but there is a nice example of this I believe with salamanders I just cant recall where it occured. Due to geographic isolation resulting in reproductively separate populations an initial population of salamanders became several meta populations and I believe some are now not even able to produce viable offspring. You can also trace the pattern of dispersal of the populations and see the differences. I will have to look through my books and notes to find specifics.

 

[Silver]

I agree you arguement using the laws of physics is indeed a misguided use of the law. By evolving we are not becomming less chaotic, the laws you refer to do not apply in this situation. Also its not like a monkey gave birth to a neanderthal by accident one time and woops a neanderthal gave birth to a human. Changes occur slowly over time untill the two forms become different enough to no longer produce viable offspring. I will need to look it up, but there is a nice example of this I believe with salamanders I just cant recall where it occured. Due to geographic isolation resulting in reproductively separate populations an initial population of salamanders became several meta populations and I believe some are now not even able to produce viable offspring. You can also trace the pattern of dispersal of the populations and see the differences. I will have to look through my books and notes to find specifics.

Ring species.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml

 

[GumbaFish]

Yup that example from cali was exactly what I was thinking of.

 

[Andyman_1970]

As fun as this discussion looks I think I'll only stick my nose in briefly...........there are however some notworthy comments I'd myself like to comment on..............

The second letter of every third word in a Sanskrit translation of the bible it explains all this when read backwards with a mirror while smoking paint chips and handling serpents.

Sanskrit..........no you mean Aramaic...........LOL

 

[Andyman_1970]

Christians are great debators!

Interesting comment, but a telling one.

This is what I tend to find disturbing, Christians debating people of things like the origin of the universe while hundred's of thousands of people are starving in Africa for instance.

When you read things like Matthew 5:17, 1 Peter 3:15-16, you find that Jesus and His early followers didn't debate people into believing. Jesus does say that pagan will come to worship God when we do the "good deeds" a reference to the "mitzvot" (commandments) from the Torah.......not on how well we can debate or argue a topic. Jesus never says the world will know He is real by having a well crafted arguement. He does however say things like "the world will know I am real by your unconditional love for one another"..........which sadly the church tends to ignore as we are the first to "kill our own" when we disagree on things...........like creation for instance.

While I myself tend to lean toward a literal "6 day" creation, Heath I hope you're not asserting that "real Christians" believe in a literal 6 24 hour day creation, and those that don't are not really Christians. There is certainly a bit of Biblical "wiggle room" on that issue esspecially when one starts examining the Hebrew words used there. Also Heath, I think your problem with the "sin" (relative to the concept of evolution) stems from, I assume, holding the doctrine of orginal sin.........which of course is not Hebraic in nature and not something Jesus nor the authors of the Bible would have held.

Anyway, this has been an interesting 3 pages of discussion............

 

[TheMontashu]

Then explain sin. Explain the fall of man. If you believe the torah or the pentateuch then you would see that evolution could not exist because it eliminates the fall of man.

The idea of sin is jest socail taboo nothing more. And as far as the torah goes I do not belive in it in the sense you doo. I use it as a guide on how to try and live my life as a person as well as improve myself and my connection with god. (and god is difrent for evory person so my interpratation of god is difrent than yours) I do not take the torah in the leteral sense that you take the bible.

 

[MtnbikeMike]

Evolution=chance+time=increased complexity. That's why regular scientists have to add billions of years to their hypotheses. But physics states that "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos and disorganization."

Like others have said, the Laws of Thermodynamics are not being applied correctly. The latest definition of life is a "war on entropy." And as far as "Evolution=chance+time=increased complexity" goes, more-derived organisms' DNA is much more complex than that of more ancient species.

 

[jaydee]

Methinks Heath has given up on us heathen. Not that I'm any cosmological threat to Teilhard de Chardin and his intellectual ilk, but I notice Heath didn't even bother to make a disparaging retort to my earlier rebuttal of his obfuscational and misdirected arguments.

 

[sanjuro]

The idea of sin is jest socail taboo nothing more. And as far as the torah goes I do not belive in it in the sense you doo. I use it as a guide on how to try and live my life as a person as well as improve myself and my connection with god. (and god is difrent for evory person so my interpratation of god is difrent than yours) I do not take the torah in the leteral sense that you take the bible.

So I was to kill someone, that is a taboo?

 

[Pau11y]

Evolution=chance+time=increased complexity. That's why regular scientists have to add billions of years to their hypotheses. But physics states that "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos and disorganization." Did any one read the intitial post? Besides Sanjuro. What are the arguments for? To get me to believe I am an accident? That thousands of years ago some monkey had a less hairy, slightly upright child and that another monkey some where really close to him had another of the same and they happened to have the right plumbing to reproduce given the chance they met at all? I am not arguing beliefs. I am stating that there are two. They both should have the right to be taught. That is the american way. Debate that please.

Say WHAT? They, the scientists, just arbitrarily "added" billions of years to their hypotheses? What da...#%mother$&*@?
Ok, here's a little lesson in radioactive decay and dating:
When you take a given amount of an element, let's say Uranium, in the 235 isotope flavor, it is inherently unstable. By this I mean the size of the nucleus is approaching the limits of the strong nuclear force to hold the nucleus together (the strong nuclear force is only effective over VERY short distances - along the distances of Plank's constant: 10^-34 meters). So, in this state, it is inherently unstable - like the rubber band that holds it together is stretched too far. So, U235 will tend to loose an alpha-particle (a pair of protons, and a pair of neutrons - basically a Helium nucleus, which is VERY stable). This is called alpha-emission. If you don't believe the science behind this, then I just dare you to grab yourself a sample of this stuff and wear it around your neck for a month (....hehehe.. there'll be a lot less stupid threads like this...). Anyway, when a nucleus looses a neutron, it effectively changes to a different element (lead in this case). Now, say you originally had 100g of this stuff, the time it takes for 50% of U235 to change into lead is called its Half-Life (great game by the way!). U235s Half-life is 713 million years (MUCH longer than ID believes the earth has been around right?). Ok, so anyway, using this dating method - 713 mil yr for the first 50%, another 713 for the next 50% (now down to 25% of the original amount), and so on... a sample of the Canadian Shield was tested to be well over 3.9 billion years old. Let me repeat: A sample of the Canadian Shield was dated to be well over 3.9 BILLION years old. Another sample of slightly metamorphic gneiss (type of rock) from Iceland, dated to 3.8 billions years old contained a very simple life form fossilized within it. It was bacteria. Now, just FYI, for something to be preserved by rock, it would have to be OLDER than the rocks that it is preserved in - simple logic here, altho with you...
So, if you think scientists just "added" some billions of years to their hypothesis... Ok, here's another one. Do you believe the lunar landing was in a sound stage in the back of the Universal Studios? The reason I ask is Apollo 15 brought back a sample of a moon rock, a very special sample, basically of the young lunar surface that dated to 4.56 billion years old (radioactive dating again). And, just another FYI, the moon was originally a part of this planet that resulted from a collision w/ another large astronomical body. It's this reason the same face of the moon faces Earth constantly since they both shared the same angular velocity at one time. Also other sample from the moon confirmed this. So here’s the $0.02 question: if the moon was originally a part of the Earth, and the Moon tested to 4.56 billions years old, how old is the Earth?
Oh by the way, doesn’t the progression of radioactive decay shoot holes all over your idea that things go from order to chaos, your so-called increase in entropy? Just so you know, the development of life amongst many other things will tend to go from one of disorder to one of more order. Evolution is the development of simple, chaotic systems into more complex and ordered systems. There is however reverse evolution where systems go from complex to simple, but it is rare. It isn’t necessary that Evolution proceed exactly in one direction. Evolution is a response either by the organisms or natural selection to its surrounding, and the direction is dictated by whatever that will make the organism more efficiently use the resources in its environment.
Lastly we can visit Achems Razor concerning ID and evolution: an all-knowing being that no one has ever seen snapped his/her fingers and we popped into existence, or nature, slowly thru time weeded out and fined tuned the life on this planet to best make use of the environment that’s available on it (of which there are fossil records-proof, in general succession from simple to more complex). There’s no pre-disposition here as there’s just NO position for religion and God as there is NO evidence in the least. Ok, so a bunch of farmer way back when shared the same story. So now then can we attribute any truth to alien abductions since all the abductees describe the same “grays” in their encounters or that they all had their asses probed? No, I’m going to take that tail (sorry, had to mis-use the word ) w/ a HUGE grain of salt, the size of a friggin’ house! And as for “intelligent” design… here’s an example of UN-intelligent design: our eyes. Why if there’s an intelligent something or another out there would they design a system where there’s a bunch of blood vessels and nerves running in the center of the eye vs. all this crap on the outside and not creating blind spots. Another one is our appendics. What the hell is it for except to kill us every so often when it explodes? Do you know why we have these traits? It’s because nature, in evolution, re-uses what’s already there. Look at our hands, there are 5 digits, as does apes, as does a whale in the structure of its fins, the wing of a bat, a dogs paw, and a chickens foot.
Use that third eye you so proudly think you have and THINK these things over about “intelligent” design. If it's so intelligent, why the hell would less than efficient organs, structures, whatever be recycled? Maybe he/she is just a lazy sack of sh!t, or maybe it doesn't exist.

Edit: sorry, this is kind of a ranting post

Edit II: if you think the universe, thru time, will become more and more chaotic, read on the topic of the thermal death of the universe.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Then explain sin. Explain the fall of man. If you believe the torah or the pentateuch then you would see that evolution could not exist because it eliminates the fall of man.

Sin and the fall of man are both pretty hateful ideas. Do you really want to believe that all people are inherently wicked? That's what those ideas are based on. All people are inherently bad. What a lovely thing to base your religion on.

 

[The Mad Haderer]

fundamentalism is the coolest!!! I do not question anyones intelligence or attack anyone here but i will point out my favorite little hint about the big man upstairs.
"More people in the recorded history of man have been killed or killed in the name of god than any other reason on earth."
I always pose the question to the right wing, why would this great dude allow this for so long? Talk amongst yaselves(mike myers)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Evolution=chance+time=increased complexity. That's why regular scientists have to add billions of years to their hypotheses. But physics states that "the greater the time span, the greater the chaos and disorganization." Did any one read the intitial post? Besides Sanjuro. What are the arguments for? To get me to believe I am an accident? That thousands of years ago some monkey had a less hairy, slightly upright child and that another monkey some where really close to him had another of the same and they happened to have the right plumbing to reproduce given the chance they met at all? I am not arguing beliefs. I am stating that there are two. They both should have the right to be taught. That is the american way. Debate that please.

I see you completely ignored my earlier post and everyone else's post on the subject of entropy. Then, you have the gall to accuse us (minus Sanjuro) of not reading your initial post?

I am certainly not trying to argue that you are an accident. (Sorry Changleen, but I think you are incorrect in saying, "Yes," to that question.) Evolution does not say that humans are an accident. One is free to believe that god used evolution to create humans, and many people do. That is because our scientific knowledge is quite separate from our beliefs. We are not talking about 2 "beliefs" here. (Also, I feel compelled to point out that you are making yet another false dichotomy. There are many, many creation beliefs out there. To imply that it's either evolution or your 6 day literal creation is completely incorrect. Even within Christianity there are competing creation stories, not to mention all the other world religions out there.) What you are suggesting is as absurd as saying that we should teach that angels hold people to the surface of the Earth so that we don't float away, because gravity is an atheistic concept.

You are also taking a wrong-headed approach to the "American way." The American way is to allow all people to have their own private beliefs, unencumbered by the government. When we start teaching YOUR personal beliefs in school then the government is imposing a specific religious belief on the populace. Which brings me back to the question of what makes YOUR religious beliefs (interpretations) any more valid than anyone else's? Why should we take your interpretations and discard others'?

 

[MudGrrl]

I'm still waiting on Heath's answer to G Funk's first post.....

 

[Andyman_1970]

That's what those ideas are based on. All people are inherently bad. What a lovely thing to base your religion on.

That's the concept of orginal sin for you..........the problem is in Genesis 1 and 2 God says that humans are "good". Even Paul says in Romans 2 that sometimes "pagan" who don't know God, and don't even know the Torah sometimes do what is required because they are, as I like to put it, "hard wired" to do those things. The concept that humanity is inheritly "evil" is a modern Hellenistic doctrine and has not basis in 1st century Judiasm.

 

[DirtyDog]

Science is actually a liberal conspiracy. Sciencey type things like Nukular weapons, integrated circuits, electrical generation and transmission, modern medicine, internal combustion engines, rocket and space type stuff, genetics, radio, television, telephones, cell phones and airplanes are actually miracles, the liberal scientific conspiracy just takes credit for it. Bastards.

When we finally kill eachother off, a primitive future society will find the things we built and come to the only logical conclusion: these things were way to complex for man to build so God must have built them. Hooray for higher intelligence.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's the concept of orginal sin for you..........the problem is in Genesis 1 and 2 God says that humans are "good". Even Paul says in Romans 2 that sometimes "pagan" who don't know God, and don't even know the Torah sometimes do what is required because they are, as I like to put it, "hard wired" to do those things. The concept that humanity is inheritly "evil" is a modern Hellenistic doctrine and has not basis in 1st century Judiasm.

Um, Genesis 1 and 2 happen before the fall.
Romans 2 is about following the law, not about innate goodness.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Um, Genesis 1 and 2 happen before the fall.

Yeah so......that doesn't erase a humans ability to choose to do right or wrong, it didn't make every human afterwards "bad".

Romans 2 is about following the law, not about innate goodness.

The "Law" as you put it, is for a 1st century Jew doing goodness, doing good deeds, in the Hebrew they are referred to as mitzvot - which is also what the commands in the Torah are referred to (hint hint). So by implication Paul (a Jewish rabbi) indicates there is some hardwired "desire" to periodically do good by those who don't know God or have never heard of or read the Torah.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah so......that doesn't erase a humans ability to choose to do right or wrong, it didn't make every human afterwards "bad".

Um, according to Christians, it did. Jesus had to die in order to remove the taint of original sin, which makes all humans sinful just by being born.

The "Law" as you put it, is for a 1st century Jew doing goodness, doing good deeds, in the Hebrew they are referred to as mitzvot - which is also what the commands in the Torah are referred to (hint hint). So by implication Paul (a Jewish rabbi) indicates there is some hardwired "desire" to periodically do good by those who don't know God or have never heard of or read the Torah.

Let's look at Romans, shall we?
In Romans 1, we find this passage:

24Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them.

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (AY)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (AZ)gossips,

30slanderers, (BA)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (BB)disobedient to parents,

31without understanding, untrustworthy, (BC)unloving, unmerciful;

32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (BD)death, they not only do the same, but also (BE)give hearty approval to those who practice them.

This is not only an indictment of all who do not follow "the Lord" but it also states that people in general have a lust in their hearts that is impure.
Romans 2 speaks of "The Law" which I interpret to mean the Judaic Law. You seem to think it is about doing good deeds? Why would they call good deeds "The Law" when there was a specific set of instructions to follow called Law? My interpretation is that this passage is NOT about good deeds (especially when taken with the preceding chapter). If your interpretation varies from mine, how do we resolve this dilemma? Maybe Heath Sherratt can help us out on this one too?

 

[DRB]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176354,00.html

Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."

Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.

University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday said he didn't know all the details about the new course.

"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Um, according to Christians, it did. Jesus had to die in order to remove the taint of original sin, which makes all humans sinful just by being born.

This is the concept of original sin, in which humans right out of the womb are sinners, that essentially they have no choice. The problem with this concept is that it is foreign to 1st century Judaism – and if we are to assume that Jesus was a Torah observant Jew we can safely say He did not attest to this concept either.

Let's look at Romans, shall we?
In Romans 1, we find this passage:

This is not only an indictment of all who do not follow "the Lord" but it also states that people in general have a lust in their hearts that is impure.

While this is true, it doesn’t erase the bits of “goodness” that are hardwired into every human. By seeing people love each other unconditionally (regardless of if they are a Christian), or give sacrificially we get small glimpses of what God is like.

I’m not saying everyone (or anyone for that matter) is “off the hook” as far as sin goes, I believe that sin entered the world with Adam, and that this world, and all of creation is fractured and splintered because of it.

To say that all are indicted at birth is contrary to the Jewish understanding of sin and it’s origins and their understanding of man’s ability to choose.

Romans 2 speaks of "The Law" which I interpret to mean the Judaic Law.

Yes, this is the 613 commands from God in the first 5 books of the Bible.

You seem to think it is about doing good deeds?

The Jewish understanding of observing Torah is doing good deeds………there’s no separation, to observe Torah is to do good deeds.

Why would they call good deeds "The Law" when there was a specific set of instructions to follow called Law?

Referring to Torah as “the Law” is a very Hellenistic/Lutheranistic (if that’s a word) understanding of Torah. Torah was thought of as the way, the truth and the life………sound familiar? The most commonly used reference to Torah by a Jew in Jesus day would have been to refer to it as “the way”. They refer to Exodus 19 & 20 as “God the Lover” that the Creator of the Universe loves humans so much He gave them the best way to live.

My interpretation is that this passage is NOT about good deeds (especially when taken with the preceding chapter). If your interpretation varies from mine, how do we resolve this dilemma? Maybe Heath Sherratt can help us out on this one too?

I would say you’re interpreting that passage in the “traditional” Western/Hellenistic understanding of Torah and Paul instead of the Hebraic/Eastern point of view……….remember Paul is a Jewish rabbi, even years after his conversion in the book of Acts he still refers to himself as “a Pharisee” (not I once was a Pharisee)………..to align oneself with the Pharisee sect implies observance of Torah.

I interpret the New Testament in it’s historical and cultural context which means I frame everything in the Jewish mindset and way of thinking. The New Testament is commentary on the Old Testament, Jesus Himself says very little “new” stuff, but does teach a lot on the Torah and what it means to live it out everyday as part of the Kingdom of God. So this could be one way in which we are arriving at different conclusions………..

 

[Changleen]

Andy I find it very interesting that you apply considerable logic to events, teachings and 'dependancies' of information contained within these various holy books. So I have to ask do you apply the same logic to the more 'fanciful' sections of these writings? Basically do you actually literally believe in the resurection, burning bush and so on? Or do you see them as metaphors?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andy I find it very interesting that you apply considerable logic to events, teachings and 'dependancies' of information contained within these various holy books. So I have to ask do you apply the same logic to the more 'fanciful' sections of these writings? Basically do you actually literally believe in the resurection, burning bush and so on? Or do you see them as metaphors?

Thanks Chang.............

The "fanciful" matters in which you speak of are a matter of faith, which is one reason why I don't spend a huge amount of time trying to "prove" them, something you don't see people in the Bible doing, you don't see them "proving" God much.

That said, there is a strong arguement for symbolism, esspecially in the book of Revelation, which IMO is packed with it - the only "literal" part I take is the return of the Messiah and His restoring Heaven and Earth as one.

It takes some research into the history and cultural aspects of the author in the time in which he wrote to be able to flesh that stuff out.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Thanks Chang.............

The "fanciful" matters in which you speak of are a matter of faith, which is one reason why I don't spend a huge amount of time trying to "prove" them, something you don't see people in the Bible doing, you don't see them "proving" God much.

That said, there is a strong arguement for symbolism, esspecially in the book of Revelation, which IMO is packed with it - the only "literal" part I take is the return of the Messiah and His restoring Heaven and Earth as one.

It takes some research into the history and cultural aspects of the author in the time in which he wrote to be able to flesh that stuff out.

So how is this much different than what the Mormons believe?

 

[DRB]

So how is this much different than what the Mormons believe?

Spaceships man, Spaceships.

 

[Changleen]

But the actual existance of Jeebus is essentially fairly well provable, (whether or not he was divine or whatever) as are many of the other of the 'big picture' type of things in the bible (existance of various rulers etc.) and can be backed up, as you've said with other sources from the time.

This is all fair enough and I still have no problem to think of Jeebus as a smart guy who had some good ideas for people to get on better with each other. However the whole 'faith' in frankly, IMO, ridiculous 'events' which are scattered through these texts just makes the who thing ridiculous to me. These to me are clearly just embelishments to the story for the ignorant to go 'oooh' at.

And to me it is the 'faith' aspect of religion which causes so many of the problems with it. Why can't you just be religious about being a good person? Indeed I realise that that is what it is about for many people, but I think you/they are in the minority these days, at least in terms of your voice in the community.
The addition of ridiculous fairy stories to a book about being nice to others has essentially had the effect of ruining the practice of that essential message.

Encouraging irrational belief is just sooo dumb to me. Look what it does to people like Heath. Why can't you just 'believe' in being nice and forget all that crap? It's a detriment to society and humanity.

 

[Andyman_1970]

So how is this much different than what the Mormons believe?

Go over to that thread and read about it Mr. Smarty Britches.........

 

[Heath Sherratt]

The idea of sin is jest socail taboo nothing more. And as far as the torah goes I do not belive in it in the sense you doo. I use it as a guide on how to try and live my life as a person as well as improve myself and my connection with god. (and god is difrent for evory person so my interpratation of god is difrent than yours) I do not take the torah in the leteral sense that you take the bible.

So then you are not a "Jew" you are Loren Montague and you believe what you believe. It's called relativism and is the Nu age religion.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

I see you completely ignored my earlier post and everyone else's post on the subject of entropy. Then, you have the gall to accuse us (minus Sanjuro) of not reading your initial post?

I am certainly not trying to argue that you are an accident. (Sorry Changleen, but I think you are incorrect in saying, "Yes," to that question.) Evolution does not say that humans are an accident. One is free to believe that god used evolution to create humans, and many people do. That is because our scientific knowledge is quite separate from our beliefs. We are not talking about 2 "beliefs" here. (Also, I feel compelled to point out that you are making yet another false dichotomy. There are many, many creation beliefs out there. To imply that it's either evolution or your 6 day literal creation is completely incorrect. Even within Christianity there are competing creation stories, not to mention all the other world religions out there.) What you are suggesting is as absurd as saying that we should teach that angels hold people to the surface of the Earth so that we don't float away, because gravity is an atheistic concept.

You are also taking a wrong-headed approach to the "American way." The American way is to allow all people to have their own private beliefs, unencumbered by the government. When we start teaching YOUR personal beliefs in school then the government is imposing a specific religious belief on the populace. Which brings me back to the question of what makes YOUR religious beliefs (interpretations) any more valid than anyone else's? Why should we take your interpretations and discard others'?

Actually, I got back to the original reason I started this thread. To debate why one choice is left out of public schools. As much as I would like to debate with the million of you who hate on God, i do have better things to do. But I pose this question to you, why should my child grow up knowing the Lord but have to go to private school to learn more about History just because you don't like his views? You may like eating meat but vegans don't. You may think astronomy is the way but numerologists don't. There are many choices and things like Christopher Colubumbus discovered America have been taught for years. They are lies, to me evolution is a crock and in my studies I have found it to be worthless and a waste of time and tax payers money but we have taxation with representation for a reason. It's one of the reasons we started this country. Now I feel like I have no representation in the public schools and have to enroll my kid in private school for him to get the education I want him to have. That gentlemen, is un-American.

 

[DRB]

They are lies, to me evolution is a crock and in my studies I have found it to be worthless and a waste of time and tax payers money but we have taxation with representation for a reason. It's one of the reasons we started this country. Now I feel like I have no representation in the public schools and have to enroll my kid in private school for him to get the education I want him to have. That gentlemen, is un-American.

So everything that everyone wants gets taught in school? Aren't going to get much done.

 

[fluff]

It's one thing for everyone to be entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. It's quote another to insist that they should be taught to others.

Science should teach science in the same way that English teaches English. Science should not teach religion in the same way that English should not teach geometry.

 

[reflux]

Actually, I got back to the original reason I started this thread. To debate why one choice is left out of public schools. As much as I would like to debate with the million of you who hate on God, i do have better things to do. But I pose this question to you, why should my child grow up knowing the Lord but have to go to private school to learn more about History just because you don't like his views? You may like eating meat but vegans don't. You may think astronomy is the way but numerologists don't. There are many choices and things like Christopher Colubumbus discovered America have been taught for years. They are lies, to me evolution is a crock and in my studies I have found it to be worthless and a waste of time and tax payers money but we have taxation with representation for a reason. It's one of the reasons we started this country. Now I feel like I have no representation in the public schools and have to enroll my kid in private school for him to get the education I want him to have. That gentlemen, is un-American.

Is the Earth also flat?


j/k, but seriously...
As was stated earlier, it would also be un-American to include Christianity but leave out all other religions. Wouldn't that be unfair? How would you feel if your child was required to learn a religion that he didn't believe in? Do you see our point? It's not so much a fact that we don't like Christianity, we just don't believe in it.

 

[DRB]

It's not so much a fact that we don't like Christianity, we just don't believe in it.

Be careful about speaking for others.

 

[reflux]

Be careful about speaking for others.

Ahh, thanks much. I must have been reading too much Changleen this morning...

 

[Heath Sherratt]

But the actual existance of Jeebus is essentially fairly well provable, (whether or not he was divine or whatever) as are many of the other of the 'big picture' type of things in the bible (existance of various rulers etc.) and can be backed up, as you've said with other sources from the time.

This is all fair enough and I still have no problem to think of Jeebus as a smart guy who had some good ideas for people to get on better with each other. However the whole 'faith' in frankly, IMO, ridiculous 'events' which are scattered through these texts just makes the who thing ridiculous to me. These to me are clearly just embelishments to the story for the ignorant to go 'oooh' at.

And to me it is the 'faith' aspect of religion which causes so many of the problems with it. Why can't you just be religious about being a good person? Indeed I realise that that is what it is about for many people, but I think you/they are in the minority these days, at least in terms of your voice in the community.
The addition of ridiculous fairy stories to a book about being nice to others has essentially had the effect of ruining the practice of that essential message.

Encouraging irrational belief is just sooo dumb to me. Look what it does to people like Heath. Why can't you just 'believe' in being nice and forget all that crap? It's a detriment to society and humanity.

Hey Chang, You don't know me. I'm sorry you think I am a detriment to society. The fact is, there are two opinions on the matter-evolution,creation. I believe in taxation with representation. It's constitutional, it's my right. That's my belief. I have realized that no argument on this forum can do anyone any good because we don't really know each other. If you knew me and had earned a place to speak into my life then I would be able to trust your views and truly understand where you are coming from and your intentions and likewise for me. But the fact is we don't know each other and our words have very little meaning to each other so the conversations and debates become null and void. No relationships to work from. I don't see it as doing anyone any good on this thread.
My life has been transformed by this "non existant God" you all deny. I have seen Him and I have a great relationship with him. So every time you tell me He doesn't exist it really doesn't mean anything to me. It's like saying I don't have children or like saying my wife doesn't exist, How silly does that sound? That's that. I love you all and I'm sure you guys will be at races and events throughout the year so if you want to talk then, That would be great. I ride for Cannonadle and can be found at their tent and if not they will know where I am at. So, Transcend, everyone, I'll be at the Sea Otter, Downieville, Tahoe, Northstar, 24 hour events. Come by and say "hi", we'll have a beer or go out to lunch. Then we can have some real talks. Happy Holidays. Heath

 

[Changleen]

Ahh, thanks much. I must have been reading too much Changleen this morning...

Lmao

 

[Changleen]

Hey Chang, You don't know me. I'm sorry you think I am a detriment to society. The fact is, there are two opinions on the matter-evolution,creation. I believe in taxation with representation. It's constitutional, it's my right. That's my belief. I have realized that no argument on this forum can do anyone any good because we don't really know each other. If you knew me and had earned a place to speak into my life then I would be able to trust your views and truly understand where you are coming from and your intentions and likewise for me. But the fact is we don't know each other and our words have very little meaning to each other so the conversations and debates become null and void. No relationships to work from. I don't see it as doing anyone any good on this thread.
My life has been transformed by this "non existant God" you all deny. I have seen Him and I have a great relationship with him. So every time you tell me He doesn't exist it really doesn't mean anything to me. It's like saying I don't have children or like saying my wife doesn't exist, How silly does that sound? That's that. I love you all and I'm sure you guys will be at races and events throughout the year so if you want to talk then, That would be great. I ride for Cannonadle and can be found at their tent and if not they will know where I am at. So, Transcend, everyone, I'll be at the Sea Otter, Downieville, Tahoe, Northstar, 24 hour events. Come by and say "hi", we'll have a beer or go out to lunch. Then we can have some real talks. Happy Holidays. Heath

It's great that you can be civil about this Heath, I think that's cool. I know I am often found at the edges of civility when it comes to religion, but it really bothers me that people really don't see the problem with trying to introduce religious teachings into science.

Like I said earlier, if you want to push for ID/Creationism to be taught in religious education classes, no problem. However can you accept it has no place anywhere near science?

We're not trying to deny your faith (although admittedly me and DRB especially find it weird) or stop you practicing, you have every right to do so, but you seem to want to force your faith-based ideas onto the rest of society and that's what we have a problem with, eh DRB?

 

[TheMontashu]

So then you are not a "Jew" you are Loren Montague and you believe what you believe. It's called relativism and is the Nu age religion.

So because I don't walk around in a black suite praying three times a day I am not a "Jew", and because I do not belive that the torah is a leteral. Because I question god is no reason for me to not be a jew, even moses when reciving the 10 comandments not only questioned god but argued with him/her.