OCk, you grossly misunderstand Christianity...and using this nonsense to poke fun at belief and faith in God is frankly getting tiring.

OCk, you grossly misunderstand Christianity...and using this nonsense to poke fun at belief and faith in God is frankly getting tiring.

Well if I've tired you, feel free to bail. I'm not offended. I am saddened however that you see this as mere poking fun. There is a salient point here.

You clearly see the suggestion that the earth is flat as "this nonsense" - your own words. Why is it nonsense? Lots of people believe it's true. They claim tested evidence. They have answers for every naysayer who disputes it that you can't prove is wrong, and there's a good chance that if you took up the challenge at the one possible proof they mention as disproving their theory - flying over the south pole to the other "side" of the earth, many of them would simply say your instruments weren't calibrated correctly, that photographs you took were fake, etc...

I can only imagine, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you might respond something along the lines of "But I've seen pictures with my own eyes." Or "People have sailed around the world." "These are FACTS," you would say. "They are easily testable!" perhaps you would add.

Indeed, they are, and indeed, you're right. But your hypotheses regarding God et al are not testable in the same way as a round earth is, and that has been my point all along. I find it highly probable that if I thought the earth was round back in the day when everyone thought it was flat, I'd be having this same conversation with a "Flat Earther." And I'd be receiving the same exact treatment for it, as well.

The first sign of a genuinely forgiving person is an expansive sense of humor.

well I guess it depends on which side of the cross you're on......

Exactly how I approach my religion, Zoo. We were born with sizable brains, the capacity for rational thought, the ability to apply what is learned, and to project thought into the past and future.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what I'm noticing here is you all, who do not cliam to be Christians, think the Christians are NOT using their God given brains? That's absolutely not true. I mean, maybe some follow blindly, granted, like anything else, but much time and thought has gone into my belief here. In fact years and years. I question absolutely everything. I am not where I am today as a result of blindly following anybody. In fact, I have always been quite good at playing Devil's Advocate myself. I could quite easily have been Doubting Thomas of Jesus' day. I am a huge skeptic about almost everything.

20 years ago you wouldn't even have caught me joining any religious organization after going thru so many in my younger years. I was done. I was fed up with religion. In some areas, I still am. But I have come to a conclusion after much research and time spent in this bible to realize that religion is one thing, God's word and work is quite another. I can separate the two. Religion is man-made for the most part. God doesn't desire us to be religious. He wants us to have a relationship with him and to tell others that he does indeed exist by telling them what he's done for us.

I like what Jeremiah the prophet said so long ago and I believe it to be true. He writing for God wrote:

"Call unto me, and I will answer you and show you great and mighty things which you know not. "

I understand this to be real. I have called out to God many many times and he has answered me. I can't deny this just because the world tells me different. There are many, many out there with testimonies who will tell you the same. We are witnesses. If I told you I experienced something in the physical realm would you believe me? Why not when it comes to the spiritual? Why not? Because you can't see it? Why is that? Is it because we are the blind ones or the closed minded? Or could it be the opposite?

I'm telling you God is real and personable. He cares for each and every one of his creation. It grieves him that we are having a discussion just like this. He warned us that the god of this world has blinded the whole world. Yes, the god of this world doesn't want you to read the words of God because by doing so, your eyes and ears just might be opened to the truth.

I would like to further discuss "who is man" from the standpoint of doing good and evil, but will start a new blog to do so. I've got many thoughts on this. New thoughts that will take us back to man made in the image of God and what that means exactly.

Ock is gracious when presented with fact or rational thought that demonstrates something is not true,

I'll take your word for this, but have to say he doesn't come across as mentioned here. Some of this, I give room for however because I know how hard it can be via internet to get your thoughts across with no personable interaction to go with it.

Or at least...anything that shakes the foundations of your interpretations of the Bible.

~Zoo

To ASaxygirl



Yes, unlikely. You're right. He's into TBI....I call him a brainiac.

He is truly one that thinks outside the box. He's a strong Christian working in a secular Science world. Many times he's questioned his professors even using their own words against them. I asked if this gets him into trouble. He said no. They actually respect him for making them think about what they are saying. He says that students of today drink everything their profs tell them not willing to really do the research themselves. They are more interested in just putting in the time, getting their paper done and getting on with their career. There is very little thinking outside the box.

[/B]

I shared with my son some of what you said here and he said this:

i'm curious to find out why she chose to mention the "california spiny lobster" as something humans aren't related to rather than something more easy to say like
"dog?"

you need to let her know that "conserved among species" only means that those genes in the different species are similar. it doesn't indicate that the species are related in any way because that is untestable and impossible to prove.

But if she "aligns this data with her belief system" then she might be able to force
the interpretation of a conserved gene as meaning evolution.

I guess he's basically saying we can have the same data but our interpretation of said data will differ according to our world view or bias.



So you don't agree with the use of lab animals used in Science because of your religious belief system? I don't mean to offend but would have to say, that seems to go against what a true scientist is all about.



You're "90% vegan?" That sounds like you eat some meat so you're 10%
against your religious belief system of ahimsa? I don't understand how you can be "working everyday to be completely vegan"- its not like trying to quit smoking or something.

And what is all this talk about "ahimsa" and "no harm" anyway? shouldn't you believe in the "survival of the fittest?"

Impossible? Really? Then why is it that we use it to establish relationships among all forms of life these days? The defintion of conserved genes are genes that are quite similar between organisms...i.e. it denotes common ancestory. Read up on Carl Woese and 16s Ribosomal RNA. An entirely new Domain of life was discovered using conserved genes. We have Eukaryotes, which includes everything with organelles, and we have Prokaryotes which was split into two groups- Eubacteria and Archaebacteria and have completely revamped the tree of life because of that. Why? Because of genetic analysis. Conserved genes prove relation...it's like a paternity test.

~Zoo

KFC, Spirituality is never about "belief", its about practice. Even your Jesus practiced and preached ahimsa, for goodness' sake...with the notable exception of losing his cool in the temple. Moreover, survival of the fittest has been grossly distorted by people who have not studied Darwin. From his Descent of Man, we could easily make the case that the fittest is the species that concerns itself with each other, nurtures each other, cartes for each other, rather than which species is better at beating each other over the head with a book.

Be well.

Survival of the fittest denotes which species is most fit. Fit not relating to purely physical traits, rather traits that allow for more reproduction, thereby passing on those desirable traits. These can be selected by mating displays, aggressiveness, morphology, resistance to disease, pretty much anything that might give an organism the edge when it comes to living and reproducing. It does not automatically mean "strong." "Favorable" would be the more appropriate and accurate term.

~Zoo

Sodaiho and Zoo - well spoken. But you'll achieve nothing as long as the Behe sisters think evolution isn't a fact. They've yet to understand that evolution IS a fact, and that the "theory" part in the phrase "theory of evolution" refers to the mechanism by which the evolution [br]did and does[/b] occur.

And of course, whenever science doesn't have an explanation to explain such a fact as evolution, creationists take the "gap mentality" which is to fill in the gaps with a default of God. "You don't know 'how' evolution occurs? Well then God is responsible!" And if science were to establish an intermediary step in that gap, they'd be all the happier, because now they have two gaps to plug god as a default into. Until science explains and predicts with 100% accuracy the movement and behavior of every last particle in the universe, the Behe sisters will attribute to God what isn't yet known.

I take that as a derogatory remark Ock. I don't like Behe. I don't agree with Behe nor do I follow Behe. Got it? Can't speak for Lula but now you know my take on Behe.



IT IS NOT A FACT! Is your wife telling you it is? She's the Scientist. Are you?

See it's like this Ock. You take the information of Science and you put your "interpretation" on it. I do the same. My interpretation is coming from a biblical world view and yours is coming from a humanistic material one. That's about it in a nutshell.

You're going to the world for your answers and I'm going to God and his word for mine.

Chill out KFC.

If I look outside, I see that the world is flat. I can stand on it, it's observable that the Earth is indeed flat. There's evidence to support it, and I've seen it with my own eyes. It's right there, flat as can be.

Except that it's not, according to everyone, because they figured out that it was really spherical. Until then, though, people thought you would fall off the end if you reached it.

What's this have to do with evolution, though?

Well, right now, we can see by looking that evolution does take place, based on this and that and the other thing. But it's only the same 'seeing' as 'seeing' the Earth is flat is. Without seeing the whole picture, you don't really know anything.

soooooo you're saying Jay that they believe in evolution the same way people believed the earth to be flat? Because they see what they can observe only with their eyes? Although the evolution they see is micro not macro.

Yes. I can see that as well. But I'm sure they see this the other way around.

Yeah...except the interpretation is done in a direct way. Observe, experiment, collect data, interpret data. We take direct results and then explain what they mean. It's not the same as an interpretation you might take from a piece of writing. The interpretation should always be the similar. That's the key to science if you can't repeat the observation or experiment, then it's faulty.

Also, the distinction between micro and macro is only a temporal reference...time is the only difference. We can observe gene variation between generations easily. In fact there was an experiment with fruit flies in which two populations were fed different foods in different habitats...after several generations they developed into two unique species which would not breed with each other. WWW Link

Now, just extrapolate that and it's really easy to see that over millions of years these two populations could grow farther apart and diversify in new ways. That's pretty much the root of evolution. Easy to understand, but apparently hard to accept for some.

~Zoo

I take that as a derogatory remark Ock. I don't like Behe. I don't agree with Behe nor do I follow Behe.

Sorry if the association so offended you. I thought you would be pleased at the association.. For me, if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, it's from the anatidae family.

IT IS NOT A FACT! Is your wife telling you it is? She's the Scientist. Are you?

Oh my - all caps. Well that certainly changes my mind. Not. Yes, it is a fact. As I said, it isn't evolution that is in question. It's the mechanism that causes mutations that is still being theorized about. People that think evolution is not a scientific fact are about as common as flat earthers. And most of them don't believe it's a fact because they feel its fact-hood endangers one of their own beliefs. Like you, for example.

I see evolution in far more than just species as well. I see it, to use an example that should be close to home, in the Bible as well. The actual book, "The Bible." Biblegateway.com has 21 different English versions to choose from. This is beyond just translating so English speakers can read it. Many of the words and phrases have changed - I would suggest to increase the survivability of it in a changing world. How many denominations of Christianity are there now? They began with one and branched out - diversified at some point - just like species do. Some are more likely to survive than others. Time will tell which do and which do not. People change, ideas of people change, other species change, all in accordance with the world changing. Climates, habitats, food supplies, presence of other hostile species, presence of other helpful species all play into these changes. It's called evolution, and it's all around you. What survives of the original people, ideas, and non-people species is all a result of natural selection - those people and species best equipped to survive and replicate do so. Those least equipped die off.

You are beginning to seem to me as one who is addicted to religion. You show all the signs of an alcoholic where the trinity/bible/etc... is substituted for the alcohol. Just a hypothesis - not a theory, mind you, and not intended to harm, but to help.

A quote from my son who said:

Even well known evolutionists at prominent medical schools have admitted publicly that there must be something more than just evolution as we know it now and that creationism is a valid hypothesis (even though none of them ever believe in it)..



First off, there are many good translations (those that stay true to the original languages) and then there are those that are not so good to those that are bordering on nothing more than pushing an agenda. I only stick to those translations that are true to the Original Hebrew and Greek. Some are nothing more than paraphrase and don't even hardly resemble the original scriptures but sure sound politically correct.



There are many denominations for many different reasons. Sometimes it's music preferences, some like instruments, some don't. Some like more formaility, some like the casual approach. Some are very legalistic in every area of worship some are much more laid back. Then there are many groups out there that have their "own" truth and have gone their own way. There are different denominations out there that I could feel comfortable in. Some organizations started out well but have drifted and been influenced by the world. When that happens usually there's a split with the conservatives going in one direction and the liberals in another. The message is the same, the adherance to the message is not necessarily there tho.



Not really. There is really nothing new under the sun. There have always been those that follow God and those that follow after their idols. God's word and his people have remained constant throughout the centuries. Yes, there are more religions now but that just adds to the chaos and as you probably can guess I'm pointing my finger towards the evil one as responsible for this disorder.



I'll actually take that as a compliment. At least I'm not lukewarm here. But why would you say so? I mean, this is a religious discussion in a religion forum.

I'd say depending on God instead of alcohol has got to be a good thing.