Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy; or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
vcti...@sbcglobal.net
or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
Where are we going? Do we still need
Jesus Christ and is family history really
about the preparation for Temple work,
to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
http://darwiniana.org/intro1.htm
"It is now common practice in science to
prove the genealogical relationships existing
between species of animals and plants. The
same rigorous methodologies required by courts
of law are employed, offering us the same high
degree of confidence that the resulting evidence
is worthy of being accepted as factual truth."
What is "truth"?
Compare "Users can easily connect with and
discover lost or unknown relatives within a
few generations, as well as gain insight into
where their families originated thousands of
years ago.", with a statement from the President
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Apostle
Boyd K. Packer:
[No lesson is more manifest in nature than
that all living things do as the Lord commanded
in the Creation. They reproduce "after their
own kind." (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow
the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows
that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird
will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal
will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather ...
figs of thistles." (Matt. 7:16.)
In the countless billions of opportunities in the
reproduction of living things, one kind does not
beget another. If a species ever does cross,
the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for
all life is the pattern of the parentage.
This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways,
even an ordinary mind should understand it.
Surely no one with reverence for God could
believe that His children evolved from slime
or from reptiles. (Although one can easily
imagine that those who accept the theory of
evolution don't show much enthusiasm for
genealogical research!) The theory of
evolution, and it is a theory, will have
an entirely different dimension when the
workings of God in creation are fully revealed.]
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition[54th]through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
Family Genealogy & History
Internet Education Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Ernest Major
"vcti...@sbcglobal.net" <vcti...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>
>In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of
>living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does
>cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the
>pattern of the parentage.
>
observed in the wild, under domestication, and in the laboratory.
--
alias Ernest Major
Grandbank
wrote:
> A bird
> will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal
> will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather ...
> figs of thistles." (Matt. 7:16.)
>
Good. We're all in agreement then. Things are just as the TOE
predicts.
KP
Usenet Nym
wrote:
> They reproduce "after their
> own kind." (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow
> the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows
> that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird
> will not become an animal nor a fish.
But its beak size will vary!
VoiceOfReason
vcti...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>
> Where are we going? Do we still need
> Jesus Christ and is family history really
> about the preparation for Temple work,
> to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>
> Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
It is a common misconception that Christianity and evolutionary
biology are incompatible. This incorrect assumption makes the rest of
your post pointless.
Only biblical literalists fear evolution. Most Christians have no
problem reconciling their faith with science.
Usenet Nym
> vctin...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>
> > Where are we going? Do we still need
> > Jesus Christ and is family history really
> > about the preparation for Temple work,
> > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>
> > Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
>
> It is a common misconception that Christianity and evolutionary
> biology are incompatible.
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs2.htm
Anglican/Episcopalian - "Original sin standeth not in the following of
Adam ... but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every
man." 39 Articles Anglican Communion
Assembly of God - "Man was created good and upright; for God said,
"Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." However, man
by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical
death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God." AG.org
Baptist - "In the beginning man was innocent of sin ... By his free
choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race.
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God,
and inherited a nature and an environment inclined toward sin." SBC
Lutheran - "Sin came into the world by the fall of the first man ...
By this Fall not only he himself, but also his natural offspring have
lost the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and thus all
men are sinners already by birth..." LCMS
Methodist - "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as
the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature
of every man." UMC
Presbyterian - "Presbyterians believe the Bible when it says that "all
have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)"
PCUSA
Roman Catholic - "... Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this
sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a
fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to
all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived
of original holiness and justice." Catechism - 404
http://www.roadjunky.com/guide/1076/guide-to-christian-beliefs-jesus-the-gospel-and-original-sin
"Different sects disagree over the details but here are some of the
main concepts.
Thanks to Adam and Eve we all have Original Sin. Jesus came along to
change all that by taking our sins on his shoulders."
snex
what is "christianity" as you use the term? what are its core
assumptions, rules of inference, and conclusions? how do these
intersect with evolutionary biology (if at all)?
skyeyes
> On Jun 20, 6:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > vctin...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> > > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>
> > > Where are we going? Do we still need
> > > Jesus Christ and is family history really
> > > about the preparation for Temple work,
> > > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>
> > > Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
>
> > It is a common misconception that Christianity and evolutionary
> > biology are incompatible.
>
>
> "Different sects disagree over the details but here are some of the
> main concepts.
>
> Thanks to Adam and Eve we all have Original Sin. Jesus came along to
> change all that by taking our sins on his shoulders."
The only problem with that scenario is that if you believe the Genesis
story, Adam and Eve did *not* have free will. They were created
*lacking the knowledge of good and evil," i.e., innocent. If you
don't know the difference between good and evil/right and wrong, then
the concept of "obedience" is meaningless.
The only way to literally interpret the Genesis story is to believe
that the biblical god set Adam and Eve up to fail because he *wanted*
uncounted millions of souls to torture everlastingly (since he
purported knew all along that few would acquire the correct belief
set).
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeeys at dakotacom dot net
Usenet Nym
I am simply stating what christianity believes.
This is the fundamental christian belief - the atonement of
jesus christ:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone1.htm
"Much of traditional Christian theology is based upon the belief that
sin can be transferred from one or more guilty parties to one or more
innocent parties. The concept of the atonement is based upon the
belief that the following three events happened in ancient times:
Adam and Eve disobeyed God's direct instruction by eating of the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil circa 4000 BCE. Apparently
they had no concept of good and evil when they were created by God.
They only developed a moral sense after eating the fruit. They seem to
have then realized that they had committed a sin. But by then it was
too late; the deed was done. This transgression in the Garden of Eden
created a massive gulf between God and the first humans.
The sin of Adam and Eve was imputed (i.e. transferred) to their
children, grandchildren, and to all subsequent descendents. Today,
this original sin is still inherited by all humans today at or before
before birth.
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines original sin as "...a consequence
of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on
account of our origin or descent from Adam." 10
A common Protestant interpretation of texts in Genesis and Romans is
found in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary: "...that Adam and Eve did not
sin for themselves alone, but, from their privileged position as the
first, originally sinless couple, act as representatives for the human
race. Since then sin, sinfulness, and the consequences of sin have
marred all. Every child of Adam enters a race marked by sin,
condemnation, and death." 11
The atonement was achieved when Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) was
executed by crucifixion circa 30 CE. The potential exists to restore
the relationship between God and mankind which was broken in the
Garden of Eden. The most common theories teach that this healing
occurs through the transfer of the sins of saved humans to the truly
innocent god-man Jesus -- the only person who is believed to have
lived his life on earth without sin. "
Cemtech
vcti...@sbcglobal.net says...
/delusional deletia
> Everyone knows
> that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird
> will not become an animal nor a fish.
A bird will not become an animal. I'm very glad you are here to correct
things. Ok guys! We need to change a major branch on the tree. So
birds are plants from here on.
--
Creationist Math:
Solve x^2 + 2x - 15 = 0
A miracle happens!
X = 1
Creationist Trig: Draw curve then plot points
snex
> In article <1182371429.946809.255...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> vctin...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> /delusional deletia
>
> > Everyone knows
> > that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird
> > will not become an animal nor a fish.
>
> A bird will not become an animal. I'm very glad you are here to correct
> things. Ok guys! We need to change a major branch on the tree. So
> birds are plants from here on.
ive always considered them archaeobacteria... isnt that why it was
called archaeopteryx?
Cemtech
Usen...@gmail.com says...
So you don't refute that it is a common misconception that Christianity
and evolutionary biology are incompatible. Good for you.
Btw, what was that all about?
--
Creationist taxonomy:
"A bird will not become an animal nor a fish." - Tom Tinney, Sr.
Rick Merrill
Hybrids are mostly sterile, but there are now nth generation ligers and
tigons and there are species of crickets that can interbreed
successfully if forced (by induced temperature changes) to do so.
Rick Merrill
Have you ever heard of a human design that improves itself and
reproduces itself?!
Rick Merrill
Right, because small variations are less fatal that large variations.
VoiceOfReason
Usenet Nym wrote:
> On Jun 20, 6:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > vctin...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> > > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
> >
> > > Where are we going? Do we still need
> > > Jesus Christ and is family history really
> > > about the preparation for Temple work,
> > > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
> >
> > > Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
> >
> > It is a common misconception that Christianity and evolutionary
> > biology are incompatible.
>
> http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs2.htm
Thanks for the regurgitation of random text, but nothing you pasted
even addressed the topic.
Most Christians are capable of reconciling their faith with science.
The Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic and Methodist churches
are among those that have publicly endorsed the teaching of biological
evolution.
Here's 10,000+ Christian Clergy who agree:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Again, most Christians have no problem reconciling their faith with
science. Only biblical literalists fear evolution.
<snip>
VoiceOfReason
Wikipedia has a fair overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
> how do these
> intersect with evolutionary biology (if at all)?
For that you'll have to look up the details for each sect.
Enjoy. :-)
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
No -- have you?
snex
> snex wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 5:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > vctin...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > > > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> > > > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>
> > > > Where are we going? Do we still need
> > > > Jesus Christ and is family history really
> > > > about the preparation for Temple work,
> > > > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>
> > > > Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
>
> > > It is a common misconception that Christianity and evolutionary
> > > biology are incompatible. This incorrect assumption makes the rest of
> > > your post pointless.
>
> > > Only biblical literalists fear evolution. Most Christians have no
> > > problem reconciling their faith with science.
>
> > what is "christianity" as you use the term? what are its core
> > assumptions, rules of inference, and conclusions?
>
> Wikipedia has a fair overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
from the link: "The core Christian belief is that, through the death
and resurrection of Jesus, the perfect Son of God, mankind is
reconciled to God and thereby attains salvation by grace and the
promise of eternal life to all who trust in Christ. The need for
salvation was caused by original sin."
what is "original sin?" how did it come about? how does this intersect
VoiceOfReason
John Wilkins
Hybrids are not mostly sterile - in fact I don't think we have
sufficient evidence to say that. There is an incredible amount of
introgression in various groups, and often serial hybrids are mutually
interfertile. There's a nice paper on it here:
Mallet, J. (2007). "Hybrid speciation." Nature 446(7133): 279-283.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
snex
do you even read these articles before you link them?
from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".
This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be
the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
what does evolutionary biology tell us about the existence of adam and
eve, or serpents that can talk?
Bodega
wrote:
[snip]
> Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
It's about worldly pride and evolution. Now go back to your cave.
Vend
wrote:
<snip>
> Everyone knows
> that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird
> will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal
> will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather ...
> figs of thistles." (Matt. 7:16.)
Every three-year-old knows that a bird IS and animal.
VoiceOfReason
You asked a question. You got an answer. Why the pissy attitude?
> from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
> sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
> succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".
>
> This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be
> the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
>
> what does evolutionary biology tell us about the existence of adam and
> eve, or serpents that can talk?
Evolutionary biology doesn't address religious beliefs.
Usenet Nym
> On Jun 20, 11:39 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > > > > It is a common misconception that Christianity and evolutionary
> > > > > > biology are incompatible. This incorrect assumption makes the rest of
> > > > > > your post pointless.
>
> > > > > > Only biblical literalists fear evolution. Most Christians have no
> > > > > > problem reconciling their faith with science.
>
> > > > > what is "christianity" as you use the term? what are its core
> > > > > assumptions, rules of inference, and conclusions?
>
> > > > Wikipedia has a fair overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
>
> > > from the link: "The core Christian belief is that, through the death
> > > and resurrection of Jesus, the perfect Son of God, mankind is
> > > reconciled to God and thereby attains salvation by grace and the
> > > promise of eternal life to all who trust in Christ. The need for
> > > salvation was caused by original sin."
>
> > > what is "original sin?" how did it come about? how does this intersect
> > > with evolutionary biology (if at all)?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
>
> do you even read these articles before you link them?
>
> from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
> sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
> succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".
>
> This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be
> the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
Historic christian beliefs are incompatible with
the theory of evolution because of the above.
Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
to be crucified, thus christianity would be
a hoax or con.
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
I don't see the connection
> Where are we going? Do we still need
> Jesus Christ and
> is family history really
> about the preparation for Temple work,
> to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
could you repost in english?
What is "temple work"?
> Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?http://darwiniana.org/intro1.htm
family history is about worldly pride? Whaat?
family history is about evolution??
> "It is now common practice in science to
> prove the genealogical relationships existing
> between species of animals and plants. The
> same rigorous methodologies required by courts
> of law are employed, offering us the same high
> degree of confidence that the resulting evidence
> is worthy of being accepted as factual truth."
> What is "truth"?
something that is true? A fact.
> Compare "Users can easily connect with and
> discover lost or unknown relatives within a
> few generations, as well as gain insight into
> where their families originated thousands of
> years ago.", with a statement from the President
> of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church
> of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Apostle
> Boyd K. Packer:
do you have a problem with that?
> [No lesson is more manifest in nature than
> that all living things do as the Lord commanded
> in the Creation. They reproduce "after their
> own kind." (See Moses 2:12, 24.)
define "kind"
> They follow
> the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows
> that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird
> will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal
> will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather ...
> figs of thistles." (Matt. 7:16.)
I find nothing to disagree with in the above.
But how do you feel about "birds evolved from (hence are
descendents of) dinosaurs"
[yes I *know* birds are dinosaurs and whales are fish.
I using "folk" classifications not cladist]
> In the countless billions of opportunities in the
> reproduction of living things, one kind does not
> beget another.
define "kind"
> If a species ever does cross,
> the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for
> all life is the pattern of the parentage.
and different branches can diverge. Are you suggesting
the DNA evidence you mention above is mistaken or
faked?
> This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways,
> even an ordinary mind should understand it.
you on the other hand appear to be extra-ordinary
> Surely no one with reverence for God could
> believe that His children evolved from slime
> or from reptiles.
but apparently many people manage it.
> (Although one can easily
> imagine that those who accept the theory of
> evolution don't show much enthusiasm for
> genealogical research!)
do you have any evidence for this claim?
> The theory of
> evolution, and it is a theory,
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
-- Stephen Jay Gould
> will have
> an entirely different dimension when the
> workings of God in creation are fully revealed.]
whatever
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
Rick Merrill
> Rick Merrill <rick0....@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>> In message <1182371429.9...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "vcti...@sbcglobal.net" <vcti...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>>>> In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of
>>>> living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever
>>>> does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life
>>>> is the pattern of the parentage.
>>>>
>>> This is false. Fertile hybrids are not uncommon. Speciation has been
>>> observed in the wild, under domestication, and in the laboratory.
>> Hybrids are mostly sterile, but there are now nth generation ligers and
>> tigons and there are species of crickets that can interbreed
>> successfully if forced (by induced temperature changes) to do so.
>
> Hybrids are not mostly sterile - in fact I don't think we have
> sufficient evidence to say that. There is an incredible amount of
> introgression in various groups, and often serial hybrids are mutually
> interfertile. There's a nice paper on it here:
>
> Mallet, J. (2007). "Hybrid speciation." Nature 446(7133): 279-283.
>
Perhaps we'd agree if I said "present day hybrids" such as horse and
donkey. Certainly we agree that new species arose from successful
hybrids, but modern examples are rare.
VoiceOfReason
Carefully note the word "historic." Religions evolve too (e.g., not
many people are burned at the stake these days). As I have already
indicated to you in other parts of this thread, most Christians today
have no problem reconciling their faith with
science.
> Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> a hoax or con.
Based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, that would be true.
The majority of Christians do not hold to a literalist interpretation
the way YECs do. Hence, they do not fear evolution as YECs do.
Usenet Nym
By science, I assume you mean the theory of
evolution.
If true, it may be because they were
brainwashed in school to accept it
as an undisputed fact, and perhaps
they are ignorant of the basic tenets
of traditional christianity.
>
> > Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> > to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> > a hoax or con.
>
> Based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, that would be true.
> The majority of Christians do not hold to a literalist interpretation
> the way YECs do.
Number 1, I don't see a date listed in the bible.
Number 2, there is no way to reconcile traditional,
basic, fundamental beliefs of christianity with
the theory that man and chimp were the same
species in the past.
VoiceOfReason
It includes biological evolution, geology, astronomy, physics and all
the other scientific disciplines that provide evidence for the age of
the earth and universe.
> If true, it may be because they were
> brainwashed in school to accept it
> as an undisputed fact,
The only people I'm familiar with who are brainwashed are those
unfortunate enough to belong to YEC sects, like many evangelicals.
(Not surprisingly, children from evangelical families are leaving the
church in droves.)
> and perhaps
> they are ignorant of the basic tenets
> of traditional christianity.
Do you seriously believe that the 10,000+ Christian Clergy who've
endorsed the teaching of evolution are "ignorant of the basic tenets
of traditional christianity"?
As you were apparently unaware that most Christians today have no
problem reconciling their faith with science, it appears *you're* the
one who is ignorant of modern Christian beliefs.
> > > Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> > > to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> > > a hoax or con.
> >
> > Based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, that would be true.
> > The majority of Christians do not hold to a literalist interpretation
> > the way YECs do.
>
> Number 1, I don't see a date listed in the bible.
> Number 2, there is no way to reconcile traditional,
> basic, fundamental beliefs of christianity with
> the theory that man and chimp were the same
> species in the past.
That's absurd. Millions, perhaps billions of Christians are perfectly
capable of reconciling their faith with science, regardless of whether
or not you want to believe it. If you are not able to do the same,
that's your problem.
Martin Hutton
By George! I think he's got it. Christianity, in all
of its multiplicity of denominations, sects, and cults,
is indeed a massive con*...one of many (think Marx, masses
and opiate).
*No Adam & Eve, no Original Sin, no need for "redemption"
(indeed, no redemption to be had), no after life, and,
best of all, no "caring, personal" God**.
**Who, as the myths go, creates mankind with no ability
to tell right from wrong, gets mightily pissed off when
they disobey him (like repeatedly kicking an unhousetrained
puppy for piddling on the carpet), decides to punish his
creation forever. A few thousand years later he puts on
a human suit, preaches, gets executed, gets better and
ascends to his old haunt just so he can forgive humans
for the "sins" they commit against him or send them to
a place where they burn in agony forever. But he loves
you...
And some people believe this!
--
Martin Hutton
Usenet Nym
I am just talking about evolution and christianity
being incompatible.
> > If true, it may be because they were
> > brainwashed in school to accept it
> > as an undisputed fact,
>
> The only people I'm familiar with who are brainwashed are those
> unfortunate enough to belong to YEC sects, like many evangelicals.
> (Not surprisingly, children from evangelical families are leaving the
> church in droves.)
>
> > and perhaps
> > they are ignorant of the basic tenets
> > of traditional christianity.
>
> Do you seriously believe that the 10,000+ Christian Clergy who've
> endorsed the teaching of evolution are "ignorant of the basic tenets
> of traditional christianity"?
I don't know that 10,000 people have.
>
> As you were apparently unaware that most Christians today have no
> problem reconciling their faith with science, it appears *you're* the
> one who is ignorant of modern Christian beliefs.
Christian beliefs haven't drifted as much as you claim.
I don't think too many christians would outright reject
the need for the sacrifice of jesus and reason behind
it. That would discard the entire religion wholesale.
>
> > > > Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> > > > to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> > > > a hoax or con.
>
> > > Based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, that would be true.
> > > The majority of Christians do not hold to a literalist interpretation
> > > the way YECs do.
>
> > Number 1, I don't see a date listed in the bible.
> > Number 2, there is no way to reconcile traditional,
> > basic, fundamental beliefs of christianity with
> > the theory that man and chimp were the same
> > species in the past.
>
> That's absurd. Millions, perhaps billions of Christians are perfectly
> capable of reconciling their faith with science, regardless of whether
> or not you want to believe it.
The christian faith with the atonement of christ at
its center is incapable of being reconciled to evolution
without abondoning the faith altogether.
> If you are not able to do the same,
> that's your problem.
I am not a christian.
snex
you didnt give an answer. you just posted a link to an article that
you didnt actually read.
>
> > from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
> > sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
> > succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".
>
> > This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be
> > the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
>
> > what does evolutionary biology tell us about the existence of adam and
> > eve, or serpents that can talk?
>
> Evolutionary biology doesn't address religious beliefs.
evolutionary biology does address the idea of a pair of original human
beings and the idea of a talking snake. what does evolutionary biology
say about these ideas?
snex
but do they do so in a way that their beliefs are all consistent?
>
> > Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> > to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> > a hoax or con.
>
> Based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, that would be true.
> The majority of Christians do not hold to a literalist interpretation
> the way YECs do. Hence, they do not fear evolution as YECs do.
then what interpretation do they hold? if the events didnt literally
happen, what is original sin and how did it get here? dont bother
linking to wikipedia, it doesnt address that question.
mel turner
news:1182371429.9...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> http://darwiniana.org/intro1.htm
Looks like an interesting link. Thanks.
> "It is now common practice in science to
> prove the genealogical relationships existing
> between species of animals and plants. The
> same rigorous methodologies required by courts
> of law are employed, offering us the same high
> degree of confidence that the resulting evidence
> is worthy of being accepted as factual truth."
> What is "truth"?
"That which creationists can't handle"?
> Compare "Users can easily connect with and
> discover lost or unknown relatives within a
> few generations, as well as gain insight into
> where their families originated thousands of
> years ago.", with a statement from the President
> of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church
> of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Apostle
> Boyd K. Packer:
Not too equivalent. What's your point?
> [No lesson is more manifest in nature than
> that all living things do as the Lord commanded
> in the Creation. They reproduce "after their
> own kind."
Does it say "and _only_ after their own kind"? Are you sure it
requires that no new "kinds" can ever arise as descendants of earlier
"kinds"? It doesn't actually ever say that, does it?
By the way, can you tell us how to objectively and consistently
recognize "created kinds" and their boundaries? How do we tell if
two organisms are in the same "kind" or in different "kinds" just by
studying them? Creationist "kind" believers never seem to be able to
give us a good answer.
>(See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow
> the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows
> that; every four-year-old knows that!
And evolution an common ancestry involves nothing that need
violate that.
>A bird
> will not become an animal nor a fish.
Birds _are_ animals, and nobody argues for birds giving rise
to fish.
>A mammal
> will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather ...
> figs of thistles." (Matt. 7:16.)
Neither claim is relevant to evolution.
> In the countless billions of opportunities in the
> reproduction of living things, one kind does not
> beget another.
But then evolution isn't about one kind "begetting" another. Besides,
you undoubtedly have no idea at all what is and isn't observed in
nature or in the laboratory, so your assertions on the subject are
pretty much worthless.
>If a species ever does cross,
> the offspring cannot reproduce.
Not that that matters much to evolution and common descent, but you're
still wrong. Inter-species hybrids are often fertile. Perhaps you'd
like to change that to a claim that hybrids between "kinds" always
being sterile. Even that claim seems unnecessary; surely an omnipotent
creator could make separately-created kinds that were able to
interbreed if he so chose.
Some species-level change does involve hybridization among species,
but that's not the most important way new species arise.
>The pattern for
> all life is the pattern of the parentage.
Which would still be fine for most of evolution as we know it to occur.
Lots of small changes gradually accumulate to become large changes. No
parent generation ever has to any "beget" offspring of a totally
different "kind". They're all always "still whatevers", just very
slightly different "whatevers".
> This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways,
> even an ordinary mind should understand it.
And aren't you attacking a misconceived strawman about what evolution
requires?
> Surely no one with reverence for God could
> believe that His children evolved from slime
> or from reptiles.
You sure that isn't just human arrogance and pride talking? Why is our
evolving from earlier common ancestors shared with the rest of life on
earth any problem for "reverence for God "? Is it really so preferable
to believe that the first humans were created directly out of dirt?
(Although one can easily
> imagine that those who accept the theory of
> evolution don't show much enthusiasm for
> genealogical research!)
Non sequitur. Or, do you really imagine that your "genealogical
research" actually documents your own descent from "Adam & Eve"?
>The theory of
> evolution, and it is a theory,
And a theory is as good as it gets in science. It is also a theory
that microorganisms can cause diseases, and a theory that atoms exist,
and a theory that gravitational attraction controls planetary orbits.
>will have
> an entirely different dimension when the
> workings of God in creation are fully revealed.]
That implies that you yourself know the full "workings of God in
creation". Seems a tad presumptuous.
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm
Okay, that's... different.
> Respectfully yours,
> Tom Tinney, Sr.
> Who's Who in America,
> Millennium Edition[54th]through 2004
> Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
> [both editions]
> Family Genealogy & History
> Internet Education Directory
> http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
Is all that sig necesary? It could make you seem a bit full of
yourself.
cheers
VoiceOfReason
Pay attention. I provided you that link once already. Did you choose
to ignore it? http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
> > As you were apparently unaware that most Christians today have no
> > problem reconciling their faith with science, it appears *you're* the
> > one who is ignorant of modern Christian beliefs.
>
> Christian beliefs haven't drifted as much as you claim.
> I don't think too many christians would outright reject
> the need for the sacrifice of jesus and reason behind
> it. That would discard the entire religion wholesale.
I never made that claim. Let's not invent things, shall we?
> > > > > Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> > > > > to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> > > > > a hoax or con.
> >
> > > > Based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis, that would be true.
> > > > The majority of Christians do not hold to a literalist interpretation
> > > > the way YECs do.
> >
> > > Number 1, I don't see a date listed in the bible.
> > > Number 2, there is no way to reconcile traditional,
> > > basic, fundamental beliefs of christianity with
> > > the theory that man and chimp were the same
> > > species in the past.
> >
> > That's absurd. Millions, perhaps billions of Christians are perfectly
> > capable of reconciling their faith with science, regardless of whether
> > or not you want to believe it.
>
> The christian faith with the atonement of christ at
> its center is incapable of being reconciled to evolution
> without abondoning the faith altogether.
Are you determined to remain ignorant? You're dead wrong, as I have
shown. Here's a few more examples, in case you want to understand the
concept.
http://www.progressivetheology.org/principles/Science-Bible.html
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/pdf/Hartlove%20essay.doc
> > If you are not able to do the same,
> > that's your problem.
>
> I am not a christian.
They why do you waste time spouting archaic Christian ideas?
VoiceOfReason
You asked a question. You got an answer. If you want to be bottle-
fed, find a nurse.
... Or are you back to playing that silly-ass game of claiming that
people didn't answer your question?
> > > from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
> > > sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
> > > succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".
> >
> > > This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be
> > > the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
> >
> > > what does evolutionary biology tell us about the existence of adam and
> > > eve, or serpents that can talk?
> >
> > Evolutionary biology doesn't address religious beliefs.
>
> evolutionary biology does address the idea of a pair of original human
> beings and the idea of a talking snake. what does evolutionary biology
> say about these ideas?
Do you read your own posts?
You just claimed that "evolutionary biology does address the idea of a
pair of original human beings and the idea of a talking snake." So
let's hear your explanation (with references, please).
VoiceOfReason
It does if you bother to read it. Since you can't be bothered, why
should I waste my time?
Desertphile
> Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
"Still?"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
AC
You are aware, I trust, that the notion of "species" is an artificial one,
and that nature does not always have the same nice clean lines between
genetically-related populations that taxonomical classification does.
One only has to look at the Canid complex to see that things are not
as simple or clearcut as a nice textbook case like horses and donkeys.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Historic Christian beliefs tended to be guided by the principles laid out
by St. Augustine, and Christian thinkers did not go around insisting that
observations were false when compared with idiosyncratic interpretations
of Genesis.
The Christian universe, historical and extant, is far bigger than your
historically shallow Creationist beliefs.
>
> Without original sin, there is no need for jesus
> to be crucified, thus christianity would be
> a hoax or con.
How precisely is original sin falsified by evolution? And even if it
were, that, I am afraid, is Christianity's problem, just as learning
that lightning can be explained by natural forces would cause a problem
for worshippers of Thor.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
snex
your answer doesnt support your original claim that christianity is
compatible with evolution, which is why i think you didnt actually
read the articles.
>
> ... Or are you back to playing that silly-ass game of claiming that
> people didn't answer your question?
>
> > > > from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
> > > > sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
> > > > succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as "the Fall".
>
> > > > This first sin ("the original sin") is traditionally understood to be
> > > > the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
>
> > > > what does evolutionary biology tell us about the existence of adam and
> > > > eve, or serpents that can talk?
>
> > > Evolutionary biology doesn't address religious beliefs.
>
> > evolutionary biology does address the idea of a pair of original human
> > beings and the idea of a talking snake. what does evolutionary biology
> > say about these ideas?
>
> Do you read your own posts?
>
> You just claimed that "evolutionary biology does address the idea of a
> pair of original human beings and the idea of a talking snake." So
> let's hear your explanation (with references, please).
evolutionary biololgy denies the idea that there was ever an original
pair of humans from which all modern humans descend. from what we know
about how evolution works, there is no identifiable point at which one
could call two beings "human" where their parents and siblings would
not also be called as such. we also know that there is no genetic
bottleneck of humans down to an original breeding pair *anywhere* in
our history. so, either all living humans are not descendents of adam
and eve - in which case not all of us have original sin and need no
redemption from jesus, OR adam and eve never existed, and there is no
such thing as original sin as defined by your own source, wikipedia.
both possibilities are against christianity as defined by your own
source, wikipedia.
evolutionary biology denies the possibility that talking snakes exist.
a talking snake would falsify evolutionary biology.
snex
i did read it. it clearly states that original sin came about because
adam and eve sinned in the garden of eden and passed this along to
their descendents. if this isnt literally true, then where did
original sin come from?
snex
correction: "so, either not all living humans are descendents of adam
and eve..."
Usenet Nym
I already read it.
I still don't know that the 10,000 priests sent in
a reply, or if there were 10,000 replies that they
are actual priests in the ministry.
It doesn't matter though. Christianity is
the worlds largest religion, and even with
10,000 priests defecting isn't enough
to convince me anyway.
Robert Grumbine
vcti...@sbcglobal.net <vcti...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
>or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
Except that they never mention Christ, nor question any need
for Him. Nor are they providing a DNA genealogy. Rather,
a matching service against the samples they have (via a
different company).
It's funny that you come in just at a time when I'm
looking into my genealogy. One of the things I encounter
is a degree of ... let's call it wishful genealogy.
Folks would like to be connected to a certain famous
person and up comes some new child of that person unknown
to anyone else. This new youngest daughter (seems usually
to be youngest daughters, even if mom would have had to
be giving birth at 60) then provides that person's connection
to the famous person.
Now, to oppose that whole vanity press approach to
genealogy, there are some serious genealogists. They
are very careful about data, sources, references, and
citation -- all things that you display here to have
no notion of whatever.
Fortunately neither your name nor Gustave Anjou
(bystanders see http://personal.linkline.com/xymox/fraud/fraud.htm)
show up as sources in my research for my ancestors.
>Tom Tinney, Sr.
Ok, reference to avoid.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
VoiceOfReason
Obviously you didn't read very far.
> It doesn't matter though. Christianity is
> the worlds largest religion, and even with
> 10,000 priests defecting isn't enough
> to convince me anyway.
Christianity is not a single religion. Beliefs differ from sect to
sect. And there's no need for anybody to "defect" if scientific
knowledge doesn't threaten their beliefs in the first place.
I notice you dodged the rest of the post. That speaks volumes.
VoiceOfReason
You asked about original sin. You got an answer. QED
> > ... Or are you back to playing that silly-ass game of claiming that
> > people didn't answer your question?
Yup. :-)
Sucks to be a Biblical literalist, dunnit? Of course, if you'd read
the entire Wikipedia article, you'd already know that...
> evolutionary biology denies the possibility that talking snakes exist.
> a talking snake would falsify evolutionary biology.
Pity. They'd be a hoot at parties. :-)
VoiceOfReason
Thanks for proving my point.
Vend
As far as I know, most Christians don't consider the story of Adam and
Eve to be litteral but rather consider it to be symbolic.
It can be argued that the the story of Adam and Eve alreay makes
little sense in it's litteral form, and taking a symbolical
interpetation further obscures the meaning, if any.
But that's Christianity.
VoiceOfReason
Lightning? Natural forces??? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!! :-o
snex
even the scientific knowledge that jesus never rose from the dead?
science tells us that dead men stay dead.
macaddicted
> On Jun 21, 1:53 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Catholic Answers is a rather, um, "conservative" organization.
>
> "The Catholic Position
From one Catholics perspective...
>
> What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in
> evolution?
> The question may never be finally settled,
Now there's an understatement.
> but there are definite
> parameters
> to what is acceptable Catholic belief...
Of which they left some out...
>
> While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
> developmental creation
> on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in
> atheistic evolution. "
Mostly this has to do with the creation of the soul. Their other
"options" leave no room for free will outside of the "intellectual"
order of creation (read:humanity).
Oh, and I am a more moderate to liberal Catholic, in case you cared.
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
VoiceOfReason
Nature is so untidy at times.
> One only has to look at the Canid complex to see that things are not
> as simple or clearcut as a nice textbook case like horses and donkeys.
Canid complex? An overwhelming desire to chase the mailman?
snex
then what is original sin? how did it get here? voice of unreason just
keeps mindlessly parrotting a link to wikipedia, which clearly
attributes original sin to adam and eve, whom he admits never existed.
VoiceOfReason
Your unsupported assertions do not qualify as science.
> science tells us that dead men stay dead.
Science has no position on the life cycle of deities.
snex
then science cannot claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,
because a deity could have made it exactly as described in the bible.
science cannot take a position on anything at all that we cannot
directly observe, because a deity could be fudging things up. you have
no justification to apply the deity card to jesus but nothing else.
John Wilkins
Yes, nature is untidy. Yes, species are not cleanly separated most of
the time. No, species is not an artificial concept. Do not confuse the
classifications with the things calssified. Species are real phenomena
in the biological world that we do our level best to identify and
diagnose. Sometimes it is easier than at other times, sometimes because
of our cognitive limitations and sometimes because the things are
vaguely bordered, but they remain real phenomena.
>
> > One only has to look at the Canid complex to see that things are not
> > as simple or clearcut as a nice textbook case like horses and donkeys.
>
> Canid complex? An overwhelming desire to chase the mailman?
Horses and donkeys are not simple either, and I have a lovely series of
photocopies ranging from Buffon's entry on the Mule in 1745, to an item
from ther Westminster Review in 1856, in which people note that
sometimes mules and hinnies are fertile. It's *very* old news.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Wakboth
You know, snex reminds me of an atheist mirror-image version of
backspace; both have the same incredibly pedantic, closed-minded and
obnoxious style where they demand answers (usually to questions no-one
but themselves asks or sees as meaningful); then, when they are
answered, they ignore the answer and keep on yammering.
-- Wakboth
Ernest Major
<sn...@comcast.net> writes
>On Jun 21, 6:27 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 21 Giu, 21:16, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 1:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > snex wrote:
>> > > > On Jun 21, 6:00 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > > > snex wrote:
>> > > > > > On Jun 20, 11:39 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > snex wrote:
>> > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 7:57 pm, VoiceOfReason
>> > > > > > > ><papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > snex wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 5:01 pm, VoiceOfReason
>> > > > > > > > > ><papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > vctin...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
>> > > > > > > > > > > > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Where are we going? Do we still need
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus Christ and is family history really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > about the preparation for Temple work,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Or is it about worldly pride and Evolution?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > It is a common misconception that Christianity
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >assumption makes the rest of
>> > > > > > > > > > > your post pointless.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Only biblical literalists fear evolution. Most
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > what is "christianity" as you use the term? what
>> > > > > > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Wikipedia has a fair overview:
>> > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
>>
>> > > > > > > > from the link: "The core Christian belief is that,
>> > > > > > > >through the death
>> > > > > > > > and resurrection of Jesus, the perfect Son of God, mankind is
>> > > > > > > > reconciled to God and thereby attains salvation by
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >need for
>> > > > > > > > salvation was caused by original sin."
>>
>> > > > > > > > what is "original sin?" how did it come about? how does
>> > > > > > > >this intersect
>> > > > > > > > with evolutionary biology (if at all)?
>>
>> > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
>>
>> > > > > > do you even read these articles before you link them?
>>
>> > > > > You asked a question. You got an answer. Why the pissy attitude?
>>
>> > > > you didnt give an answer. you just posted a link to an article that
>> > > > you didnt actually read.
>>
>> > > You asked a question. You got an answer. If you want to be bottle-
>> > > fed, find a nurse.
>>
>> > your answer doesnt support your original claim that christianity is
>> > compatible with evolution, which is why i think you didnt actually
>> > read the articles.
>>
>> > > ... Or are you back to playing that silly-ass game of claiming that
>> > > people didn't answer your question?
>>
>> > > > > > from the article: "Used with the definite article ("the original
>> > > > > > sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve
>> > > > > > succumbed to the serpent's temptation, commonly known as
>> > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > >understood to be
>> > > > > > the cause of "original sin" (the fallen state of humanity)."
>>
>> > > > > > what does evolutionary biology tell us about the existence
>> > > > > >
that humanity is inherently "sinful". (Whether this counts as the
existence of Original Sin may be an issue of terminology, not an issue
of fact.) It got here by evolution - in humanity cooperation is
advantageous, but in a population of cooperators cheating ("sin") is
also advantageous, and there's the situation stabilises with less than
perfect cooperation.
--
alias Ernest Major
Vend
> Yes, nature is untidy. Yes, species are not cleanly separated most of
> the time. No, species is not an artificial concept. Do not confuse the
> classifications with the things calssified. Species are real phenomena
> in the biological world that we do our level best to identify and
> diagnose. Sometimes it is easier than at other times, sometimes because
> of our cognitive limitations and sometimes because the things are
> vaguely bordered, but they remain real phenomena.
For some definition of 'real'.
I think it that it's a rather pointless exercise to try to discern
which categories are real and which are artificial.
It's probably better to consider 'scientific' those categories which
can be used in falsifiable and parsimonious scientific theories,
always keeping in mind that those categories are just a model we try
to fit on the observable world.
For what concerns the concept of species, it's already poorly defined
for sexual organisms (reproductive compatibility is not a true-or-
false property, and different pairs of individuals of a population can
have different degrees of compatibility, without necessarly obeying a
transitivity relation). For asexual organism the concept of species is
even more arbitrary, something like "those organisms look similar to
each other and different from the other ones".
This doesn't mean that it's an useless concept, but we should be aware
that it's just a model we fit on a world in which each individual is
unique.
(and even the concept of 'individual' can be subject to criticism, but
then we risk running away into eliminativism).
(Note, I apologize for before, in case you haven't read).
Vend
> In message <1182479372.062874.302...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, snex
> <s...@comcast.net> writes
Therefore God must be a Communist :D
(actually this isn't a new claim, I've heard from several Communists
that Jesus was, in some aspects, one of them).
Vend
> then science cannot claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,
> because a deity could have made it exactly as described in the bible.
> science cannot take a position on anything at all that we cannot
> directly observe, because a deity could be fudging things up. you have
> no justification to apply the deity card to jesus but nothing else.
I don't think that VoiceOfReason, or any other non-fundie Christian,
thinks that his belif in the resurrection of Jesus is scientific, or
wants it to be taught in public schools.
People can belive that the Earth was created 6000 years ago or last
thusday, if it pleases them. The point is making clear what is science
and what is faith. I don't think VoR is confused on that.
JennyB
wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 21:30, "vctin...@sbcglobal.net" <vctin...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>
>
> > Where are we going? Do we still need
> > Jesus Christ and
> > is family history really
> > about the preparation for Temple work,
> > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>
> What is "temple work"?
>
This is to do with the specifically LDS doctrine of Baptism for the
Dead, which is not held by mainstream Christians.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/ritesrituals/baptismdead.shtml
This is why Mormons are so prominent in geneolgical work.
I don't quite see the connection either, but maybe the thinking is -
if evolution is true, how far back should you baptise your ancestors?
Vend
> On Jun 21, 2:17 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 20 Jun, 21:30, "vctin...@sbcglobal.net" <vctin...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ancestry.com to offer DNA Genealogy;
> > > or, Do we still need Jesus Christ?
>
> > I don't see the connection
>
> > > Where are we going? Do we still need
> > > Jesus Christ and
> > > is family history really
> > > about the preparation for Temple work,
> > > to seal links back to Adam and Eve?
>
> > could you repost in english?
> > What is "temple work"?
>
> This is to do with the specifically LDS doctrine of Baptism for the
> Dead, which is not held by mainstream Christians.
>
>
> This is why Mormons are so prominent in geneolgical work.
>
> I don't quite see the connection either, but maybe the thinking is -
> if evolution is true, how far back should you baptise your ancestors?
If baptism removes the original sin, they just have to baptize the
last universal common ancestor and the earth will return in a garden
of Eden state, right?
Usenet Nym
wrote:
I didn't provide the link.
>
>
> > "The Catholic Position
>
> From one Catholics perspective...
>
>
>
> > What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in
> > evolution?
> > The question may never be finally settled,
>
> Now there's an understatement.
>
> > but there are definite
> > parameters
> > to what is acceptable Catholic belief...
>
> Of which they left some out...
>
>
>
> > While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
> > developmental creation
> > on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in
> > atheistic evolution. "
>
> Mostly this has to do with the creation of the soul. Their other
> "options" leave no room for free will outside of the "intellectual"
> order of creation (read:humanity).
>
> Oh, and I am a more moderate to liberal Catholic, in case you cared.
More from the link:
"Adam and Eve: Real People
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and
the fall (Gen. 2-3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this
context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of
two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early
human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is
question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the
children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the
faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after
Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their
origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents
of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled
that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the
teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin
which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in
which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his
own" (Humani Generis 37).
The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not
written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The
Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took
place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the
certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the
original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). "
Usenet Nym
LDS doesn't believe in original sin.
VoiceOfReason
There you go again, making things up as you go along. Obviously you
didn't even read the article, or you wouldn't be asking such inane
questions.
VoiceOfReason
Add to that the practice of stamping his feet when he doesn't get the
answer he wants -- then claiming the question wasn't answered. Yawn.
VoiceOfReason
Yet science does all these things regardless of your claims.
> you have
> no justification to apply the deity card to jesus but nothing else.
I can "apply the deity card" to anything I want (you know, that
freedom of religion thing). I can believe that Thor's minions inhabit
clouds and spy on us if I want to. But that's religion -- not science.
VoiceOfReason
Heh... my point was to show that there are several possible
interpretations of the whole "original sin thing" between different
sects of Christianity. As you indicate, there are different
interpretations even within one particular sect.
The fact remains that Christianity is not (necessarily) incompatible
with biological evolution.
> > "The Catholic Position
>
> From one Catholics perspective...
>
> > What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in
> > evolution?
> > The question may never be finally settled,
>
> Now there's an understatement.
LOL
<...>
Friggin Google... I can see your post, but not the post you're
replying to. Razzle frazzle...
Usenet Nym
> macaddicted wrote:
>From your link:
"While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances
permits belief in atheistic evolution...
>
> > > "The Catholic Position
>
> > From one Catholics perspective...
>
> > > What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in
> > > evolution?
> > > The question may never be finally settled,
>
> > Now there's an understatement.
>
> LOL
>
> <...>
>
> Friggin Google... I can see your post, but not the post you're
> replying to. Razzle frazzle...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
snex
what is original sin? how did it get here? your article says its from
adam and eve. i already knew that answer. thats the answer
creationists give. i want to hear *your* answer, since you think adam
and eve were not real people. when are you going to start thinking and
speaking for yourself?
snex
> In message <1182479372.062874.302...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, snex
your definition of original sin does not match up with christian
theology. if it is inherent human nature as derived from evolution,
then 1) saying a few magic words and eating a wafer cannot make it go
away, and 2) god, not man, is at fault for us having it.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
snex
damn right it does. science also addresses the matter of jesus'
resurrection. it doesnt matter how much you scream and cry and howl
that science isnt in your favor on the matter. you are no different
from a creationist when you take the word of "faith" over the word of
science on the matter of jesus' resurrection. science says that dead
men stay dead. either be consistent and apply science to *all* claims
about the natural world (like jesus' interaction with it), or stop
pretending to be on the side of science.
>
> > you have
> > no justification to apply the deity card to jesus but nothing else.
>
> I can "apply the deity card" to anything I want (you know, that
> freedom of religion thing). I can believe that Thor's minions inhabit
> clouds and spy on us if I want to. But that's religion -- not science.
you can also choose to drink bleach, but youd still be a moron for
doing so.
snex
perhaps you can show me where voice of unreason actually answered my
question. all i saw was a link to a wikipedia article that told me
original sin comes from exactly where creationists say it comes from.
i already knew that answer. i was wondering where non-creationists
think it comes from, but apparently voice of unreason doesnt know
whether or not he is a creationist.
go on, if its in the article, just quote the relevant portion. i
honestly couldnt find it.
>
> -- Wakboth
VoiceOfReason
Thank you for proving _yet again_ that you didn't even read the
article.
> i want to hear *your* answer, since you think adam
> and eve were not real people. when are you going to start thinking and
> speaking for yourself?
No, you want someone to discuss their religious beliefs so you can
make fun of them. Sorry, but I'm not interested in your juvenile
games.
snex
all you have to do is quote the relevant portion. why is that such an
impossible task for you? i told you several times that i cannot find
it in there. maybe richard dawkins came in and edited out. wikipedia
is fickle that way.
>
> > i want to hear *your* answer, since you think adam
> > and eve were not real people. when are you going to start thinking and
> > speaking for yourself?
>
> No, you want someone to discuss their religious beliefs so you can
> make fun of them. Sorry, but I'm not interested in your juvenile
> games.
now you sound like mccoy. if your answer were consistent and made any
sense whatsoever, thered be nothing to make fun of.
you may think im doing this to make you look like a moron (when in
reality, you make yourself look like a moron), but what i am doing is
pointing out why religion and science are incompatible. that you
cannot have a rational discussion on the matter just goes to further
prove that they arent. every time somebody challenges your assertions
you run away and hide behind links to wikipedia that do not support
you. that is not going to convince anybody that science and religion
are compatible. neither will screaming at the top of your lungs that
they are compatible, despite all evidence to the contrary.
if you want to show us that they are compatible, then SHOW US. stop
bitching that we dont believe you when you offer absolutely no reason
for anybody to do so.
snex
what he is confused on is the idea that they are somehow compatible.
science is under no obligation to respect the beliefs of people who
think the earth is 6000 years old, nor is it under any obligation to
respect the beliefs of people who think dead men can get up and fly
away. science denies both of these possibilities equally. somebody who
thinks science denies the former, but makes no comment on the latter
is deeply confused.
VoiceOfReason
It's easy to find it if you look. I gave you a simple test to see if
you really wanted to understand the material. You failed miserably.
Color me surprised. :-)
> > > i want to hear *your* answer, since you think adam
> > > and eve were not real people. when are you going to start thinking and
> > > speaking for yourself?
> >
> > No, you want someone to discuss their religious beliefs so you can
> > make fun of them. Sorry, but I'm not interested in your juvenile
> > games.
>
> now you sound like mccoy. if your answer were consistent and made any
> sense whatsoever, thered be nothing to make fun of.
>
> you may think im doing this to make you look like a moron (when in
> reality, you make yourself look like a moron), but what i am doing is
> pointing out why religion and science are incompatible.
It's obvious that for a great many theists, religion and science are
quite compatible. That you insist on denying easily-verified facts
makes you far more like McMoron than you know.
> that you
> cannot have a rational discussion on the matter just goes to further
> prove that they arent. every time somebody challenges your assertions
> you run away and hide behind links to wikipedia that do not support
> you. that is not going to convince anybody that science and religion
> are compatible. neither will screaming at the top of your lungs that
> they are compatible, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Living in denial does not support your position. Neither does
projection. Neither does stamping your feet when you're proved wrong.
> if you want to show us that they are compatible, then SHOW US. stop
> bitching that we dont believe you when you offer absolutely no reason
> for anybody to do so.
Show "us?" You and your tapeworm? :-D
VoiceOfReason
snex
if its so easy to find, then it should be so easy for you to quote it.
i am trying to understand, but you are refusing to do anything but
point at links that i cannot find your claims in. is this how you
would teach a child about your religion and how it is compatible with
science? i dont understand how they are compatible. show me how they
are. dont throw links at me and then complain when i cant find what
you are talking about. just spit it out. show me the compatibility.
>
> > > > i want to hear *your* answer, since you think adam
> > > > and eve were not real people. when are you going to start thinking and
> > > > speaking for yourself?
>
> > > No, you want someone to discuss their religious beliefs so you can
> > > make fun of them. Sorry, but I'm not interested in your juvenile
> > > games.
>
> > now you sound like mccoy. if your answer were consistent and made any
> > sense whatsoever, thered be nothing to make fun of.
>
> > you may think im doing this to make you look like a moron (when in
> > reality, you make yourself look like a moron), but what i am doing is
> > pointing out why religion and science are incompatible.
>
> It's obvious that for a great many theists, religion and science are
> quite compatible. That you insist on denying easily-verified facts
> makes you far more like McMoron than you know.
whats obvious is that they *claim* a compatibility, but they are just
as impotent as you when trying to *demonstrate* it. the fact that
people hold contradictory beliefs at the same time does not indicate
that those beliefs are compatible, it indicates that the human mind is
a strange thing.
>
> > that you
> > cannot have a rational discussion on the matter just goes to further
> > prove that they arent. every time somebody challenges your assertions
> > you run away and hide behind links to wikipedia that do not support
> > you. that is not going to convince anybody that science and religion
> > are compatible. neither will screaming at the top of your lungs that
> > they are compatible, despite all evidence to the contrary.
>
> Living in denial does not support your position. Neither does
> projection. Neither does stamping your feet when you're proved wrong.
you havent proven anything. you posted a link that states that
original sin comes from where *creationists* say it comes from. are
you a creationist?
>
> > if you want to show us that they are compatible, then SHOW US. stop
> > bitching that we dont believe you when you offer absolutely no reason
> > for anybody to do so.
>
> Show "us?" You and your tapeworm? :-D
me and PZ myers, and everybody else who doubts the idea that religion
and science are compatible.
do you think you are more intelligent than dr myers?
snex
removing context is rather dishonest, dont you think? remember, it was
*you* who asserted that science doesnt address matters of faith. i
merely took your claim to its logical conclusion. you then came back
with the correct answer: "of course science addresses matters of
faith!" - but you still refuse to accept that it addresses the natural
world in galilee circa 33 AD.
Cory Albrecht
> You know, snex reminds me of an atheist mirror-image version of
> backspace; both have the same incredibly pedantic, closed-minded and
> obnoxious style where they demand answers (usually to questions no-one
> but themselves asks or sees as meaningful); then, when they are
> answered, they ignore the answer and keep on yammering.
I'd be a little kinder to snex, but not by much. I have seen in t.o.
that snex has the ability to use reasoning & critical thinking in
scientific topics where he can be a decent debate partner. In religion,
however, snex is, as you say, rather pedantic & closed-minded. Even
though he claims himself to be an atheist, he has the same idea as
creationists that a Christian has to be a biblical literalist. Indeed,
he has on more than one called people like Dana Tweedy and myself
hypocrites because we do not take the Bible literally. snex seems to
have the exact same difficulty as Ray Martinez in understanding this
concept of non-literal reading of and interpreting the Bible.
However, faced with a choice between Ray or snex, snex still wins hands
down because he isn't a lying asshole like Ray.
Cory Albrecht
> then what is original sin? how did it get here? voice of unreason just
> keeps mindlessly parrotting a link to wikipedia, which clearly
> attributes original sin to adam and eve, whom he admits never existed.
You know, I would have though that the first two paragraphs in that
Wikipedia article make it abundantly clear the difference between "the
original sin", the definite article indicating an actual, specific
instance of sinning which was carried out by Adam and Eve, and "original
sin" (no article) as the "general condition of sinfulness (lack of
holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from any actual
sins that a person may or may not commit later."
With that distinction, Adam and Eve can be pure allegory, never having
needed to literally exist as specific individuals, without invalidating
the concept.
I suggest you go back to that article again and try reading it again. I,
too, have my doubts that you even read it the first time, given that
said distinction is clearly made.
snex
just quote below where the article states original sin came from, if
not adam and eve. if the article says it, you can quote it.
snex
i understand perfectly well that one cant take the bible literally.
but you and tweedy arbitrarily choose which parts to take literally
and which parts not to, with little rhyme or reason as to why. you
both take the resurrection literally, when science states that
resurrections do not happen. why do you refuse to abandon science when
it deals with evolution, but leave it at the doorstep when it deals
with events in galilee circa 33AD?
Ferrous Patella
Removing the context is one of the Rules of Chez Watt!
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
snex
> news:1182532395.5...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.comby snex:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 12:03 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >> "You're damned right I'm wrong!"
>
> >> > > > then science cannot claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years
> >> > > > old, because a deity could have made it exactly as described in
> >> > > > the bible. science cannot take a position on anything at all
> >> > > > that we cannot directly observe, because a deity could be
> >> > > > fudging things up.
>
> >> > > Yet science does all these things regardless of your claims.
>
> >> > damn right it does.
>
> > removing context is rather dishonest, dont you think? remember, it was
> > *you* who asserted that science doesnt address matters of faith. i
> > merely took your claim to its logical conclusion. you then came back
> > with the correct answer: "of course science addresses matters of
> > faith!" - but you still refuse to accept that it addresses the natural
> > world in galilee circa 33 AD.
>
> Removing the context is one of the Rules of Chez Watt!
so you are promoting ripping quotes out of their context in order to
make fun of people? gee, i thought the point was to showcase stupid or
funny things people say on their own, not to force-fit things in order
to avoid addressing valid points.
i guess SJ Gould deserves a thousand chez watts for saying
transitional forms dont exist.
Ferrous Patella
> so you are promoting ripping quotes out of their context in order to
> make fun of people?
No. That is why names are removed from Chez Watts.
VoiceOfReason
Cory Albrecht wrote:
> Wakboth wrote, On 2007/06/22 03:09:
> > You know, snex reminds me of an atheist mirror-image version of
> > backspace; both have the same incredibly pedantic, closed-minded and
> > obnoxious style where they demand answers (usually to questions no-one
> > but themselves asks or sees as meaningful); then, when they are
> > answered, they ignore the answer and keep on yammering.
>
>
> I'd be a little kinder to snex, but not by much. I have seen in t.o.
> that snex has the ability to use reasoning & critical thinking in
> scientific topics where he can be a decent debate partner. In religion,
> however, snex is, as you say, rather pedantic & closed-minded. Even
> though he claims himself to be an atheist,
Interjecting here... On the surface, he appears to try to convince
_other_ people that religion is worthless. But I often get the
impression that subconsciously, he's really trying to convince
himself. Not that there's anything wrong with atheism per se, but
there seem to be a couple unresolved conflicts rolling around in
there.
VoiceOfReason
> snex wrote, On 2007/06/21 22:29:
>
> > then what is original sin? how did it get here? voice of unreason just
> > keeps mindlessly parrotting a link to wikipedia, which clearly
> > attributes original sin to adam and eve, whom he admits never existed.
>
> You know, I would have though that the first two paragraphs in that
> Wikipedia article make it abundantly clear the difference between "the
> original sin", the definite article indicating an actual, specific
> instance of sinning which was carried out by Adam and Eve, and "original
> sin" (no article) as the "general condition of sinfulness (lack of
> holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from any actual
> sins that a person may or may not commit later."
It's abundantly clear if you're honest about wanting to understand it.
> With that distinction, Adam and Eve can be pure allegory, never having
> needed to literally exist as specific individuals, without invalidating
> the concept.
>
> I suggest you go back to that article again and try reading it again. I,
> too, have my doubts that you even read it the first time, given that
> said distinction is clearly made.
You can lead a horse to water...