A formal Introduction
Pastor John
introduce myself.
My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
I have run the gamut. When I first entered the ministry I was very
liberal. My years in seminary reinforced this liberalism.
However, I was most challenged and owe a great deal to a seminary
professor from England who challenged me to accept the faith and see the
depth of truth in scripture.
I have grown over the years largely through some very loving and patient
lay persons. I am now an Evangelical and believe deeply in the truth of
the scripture. My life has proven that truth to me over and over.
I want to formally apologize for my "first introduction" to this group.
It has become apparent to me that I was reading the cross-posted thread
and was drawing conclusions from persons who don't even formally belong
to this group. I apologize to each of you for that.
That having been said - I am not a man of few words - as you can tell.
:-)
I limit my posting because of my work schedule. However, I will try to
post regularly and be involved with the online community here.
Thank you for welcoming me.
Pastor John
AntiSocial
Always need a few more punching bags and chew-toys.
The Steel Wolf
<pasto...@charter.net> scripsit:
>My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
>decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
It's nice to (formally) meet you. You've probably already gotten a
brief introduction to many of the regulars and semi-regulars from
Steve's website, so I won't say much more about myself at the moment.
Besides, the best way to get to know people is by being around them :)
>I have run the gamut. When I first entered the ministry I was very
>liberal. My years in seminary reinforced this liberalism.
>However, I was most challenged and owe a great deal to a seminary
>professor from England who challenged me to accept the faith and see the
>depth of truth in scripture.
I started out pretty liberal as well, though I think I've become
rather more liberal over time--or at least liberal in a different sort
of way. It's rather hard to explain. You'll probably see what I mean
in time.
I also find a great depth of truth in scripture. However, the truth
that I find in scripture is probably different from the truth that you
see there. In my opinion, though, the diversity of belief here is one
of the things that makes this newsgroup such a neat place to be. Some
of us have personality conflicts with some others at times, but we
generally tend to be pretty respectful of each other's beliefs (even
when we are steadfast in our own).
>I want to formally apologize for my "first introduction" to this group.
>It has become apparent to me that I was reading the cross-posted thread
>and was drawing conclusions from persons who don't even formally belong
>to this group. I apologize to each of you for that.
I don't really see any need to apologise to me, but the sentiment is
appreciated at any rate :) Really, it's a very easy mistake to make.
It's can be pretty hard to tell when a thread is being crossposted if
you're not familiar with the usual faces around here (and even then I
find it a bit difficult at times). Even then, if you aren't familiar
with the inhabitants of the newsgroups involved it's pretty much
guesswork as to who comes from which group.
>That having been said - I am not a man of few words - as you can tell.
>:-)
As you'll probably find, I tend to identify with a quote that I often
use in my .sig file (which I'll start again when I get my quote
manager reinstalled one of these days): "In my house, anyone who uses
one word when they could have used ten just isn't trying hard."
(President Bartlet, "The West Wing"). I tend to be a rather verbose
person more often than not :)
>I limit my posting because of my work schedule. However, I will try to
>post regularly and be involved with the online community here.
I look forward to hearing more from you in the future. It'll be nice
to have an additional viewpoint in our conversations.
Steven Schrader
> Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> introduce myself.
>
> My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
<snip>
Glad you've decided to stick around. :)
Later,
---
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Juggernaut
<MPG.175238671...@news.charter.net>:
Good to have you John. As a fellow Christian, I praise your work and
service for Christ.
Just curious though, isn't UM denomination somewhat liberal, at least
socially? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>Pastor John
>
Rawley
> Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> introduce myself.
>
> My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
>
Bienvenidos, Juan!
Have a shpadoinkle day!
-Rawley a.a #2029
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived."
- Asimov
"Cows are cognitive."
- CobaltFjord 09 Apr 2002 04:59:16 GMT
2 Kings 2:23-24 -- God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for
making fun of Elisha's bald head.
Renita Leichty
news:MPG.175238671...@news.charter.net...
> Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> introduce myself.
>
> My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
Hi John. :) Obviously we've run into each other... I'm 21, a senior in
college, a pastor's kid for 18 years (dad while still licensed is not
currently ordained anywhere for various reasons) a liberal Mennonite stuck
in small-town Indiana for the summer.
I'm realizing that in my interactions in the infant baptism thread at least,
especially with Jugg, I may be coming off as stubborn and unwilling to admit
when I'm wrong. Stubborn, I am. But I'm also generally open to new ideas,
new interpretations, etc. Jugg and I just constantly butt heads, and that
thread in particular I never should have started. At least not the way I
did. Sigh.
You mentioned the homosexuality issue as one likely to tear a church apart.
I see that happening in the Mennonite denomination as well. I'm curious just
for the record what your thoughts are? (I'd rather not get into a long
discussion on it, at least not in this thread, but I'm curious)
Renita
AntiSocial
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <3CE88AC1...@hotmail.com>, antipal...@hotmail.com
> says...
> >
> > Always need a few more punching bags and chew-toys.
> >
> Hey wait - my dog's bigger than your dog! :-)
You have a dog bigger than a 200+ lb. mastiff hybrid?
Jonathan Downie
few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
JD
Pastor John <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.175238671...@news.charter.net>...
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205201225470.43276-100000
> @shell-3.enteract.com>, digi...@enteract.com says...
> > On Sun, 19 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
> >
> > > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> > > introduce myself.
> > >
> > > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> > > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
> > <snip>
> >
> > Glad you've decided to stick around. :)
<snip>
> Thanks Steven,
>
> By the way, could you post the homepage again? I forgot to bookmark it.
> Thanks!
Sure thing. :) It's at:
The Omniscient Blade
> introduce myself.
>
> My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
>
> I have run the gamut. When I first entered the ministry I was very
> liberal. My years in seminary reinforced this liberalism.
>
> However, I was most challenged and owe a great deal to a seminary
> professor from England who challenged me to accept the faith and see the
> depth of truth in scripture.
You're not one of these people who believes a literal interpretation of
genesis are you?
>
> I have grown over the years largely through some very loving and patient
> lay persons. I am now an Evangelical and believe deeply in the truth of
> the scripture. My life has proven that truth to me over and over.
>
> I want to formally apologize for my "first introduction" to this group.
> It has become apparent to me that I was reading the cross-posted thread
> and was drawing conclusions from persons who don't even formally belong
> to this group. I apologize to each of you for that.
>
> That having been said - I am not a man of few words - as you can tell.
> :-)
>
> I limit my posting because of my work schedule. However, I will try to
> post regularly and be involved with the online community here.
>
> Thank you for welcoming me.
Yeah, like ya know, whatever.
--
Blade ICQ#27537648
Why do people insist on trying to compare me to others? Don't they realise
no one can compare to me?
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
Suzi
Glad to see you're sticking around. Welcome to the world of
arc-t...once you enter, you can never turn back...
>Pastor John
Suzi
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive:yes In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205201225470.43276-100000
>> @shell-3.enteract.com>, digi...@enteract.com says...
>> > On Sun, 19 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
>> >
>> > > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
>> > > introduce myself.
>> > >
>> > > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
>> > > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Glad you've decided to stick around. :)
><snip>
>> Thanks Steven,
>>
>> By the way, could you post the homepage again? I forgot to bookmark it.
>> Thanks!
>
>Sure thing. :) It's at:
>
>http://arc-t.hurtingalex.com
Question: what's the whole hurting alex thing???
Steven Schrader
> On Tue, 21 May 2002 11:46:11 -0500, Steven Schrader
> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
> >
> >> x-no-archive:yes In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205201225470.43276-100000
> >> @shell-3.enteract.com>, digi...@enteract.com says...
> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> >> > > introduce myself.
> >> > >
> >> > > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> >> > > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > Glad you've decided to stick around. :)
> ><snip>
> >> Thanks Steven,
> >>
> >> By the way, could you post the homepage again? I forgot to bookmark it.
> >> Thanks!
> >
> >Sure thing. :) It's at:
> >
> >http://arc-t.hurtingalex.com
>
> Question: what's the whole hurting alex thing???
It's the name of one of my music projects.
Suzi
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2002, Suzi wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2002 11:46:11 -0500, Steven Schrader
>> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 20 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
>> >
>> >> x-no-archive:yes In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205201225470.43276-100000
>> >> @shell-3.enteract.com>, digi...@enteract.com says...
>> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
>> >> > > introduce myself.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
>> >> > > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> > Glad you've decided to stick around. :)
>> ><snip>
>> >> Thanks Steven,
>> >>
>> >> By the way, could you post the homepage again? I forgot to bookmark it.
>> >> Thanks!
>> >
>> >Sure thing. :) It's at:
>> >
>> >http://arc-t.hurtingalex.com
>>
>> Question: what's the whole hurting alex thing???
>
>It's the name of one of my music projects.
aw, okay! so alex was your only audience member? ;-)
Renita Leichty
news:3ceb040e...@news.charter.net...
it's true. it sucks you in. you can never leave. mwhahahaha...
renita
Renita Leichty
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <accmht$og89h$2...@ID-82782.news.dfncis.de>,
> mousewit...@hotmail.com says...
> > Hi John. :) Obviously we've run into each other... I'm 21, a senior in
> > college, a pastor's kid for 18 years (dad while still licensed is not
> > currently ordained anywhere for various reasons) a liberal Mennonite
stuck
> > in small-town Indiana for the summer.
>
> college. Are you graduating this spring?
nope, i'm out for the summer, senior in the fall.
> My daughter has often told me of the "joy" of being a pk - you have my
> sympathy and respect - I know you blessed your father's work as much as
> she has mine.
hehe... thanks. i hope so. :)
> Well as a liberal Mennonite I suspect we will agree on many things and
> have fun discussing many others. :-)
i do love a good discussion. usually. :)
-snip-
> > You mentioned the homosexuality issue as one likely to tear a church
apart.
> > I see that happening in the Mennonite denomination as well. I'm curious
just
> > for the record what your thoughts are? (I'd rather not get into a long
> > discussion on it, at least not in this thread, but I'm curious)
>
> I also would rather not get into a long discussion on it. Therefore, I
> will not debate it on the newsgroups. People's minds are very set on
> this topic and it isn't something we have been able to "rationally"
> discuss. For the first and only time on the newsgroups:
-snip-
thanks for the honesty. i just find it helpful to know where a person
stands. all i'll say is that while i don't necessarily agree with you, i
find your approach more levelheaded than a lot of peoples' i know.
renita
nitroburn
yourself are not equal to everything. Are we not fed by everything, do we
not feed everything. The world is balanced, its only when offset by
misunderstanding does the circle change and cause problems. You see, your
god fearing religions make you blind to the truth. If god was here to help,
etc... would he not be so greedy as to want all the acknowledgement? Also
you said, "My life couldn't be richer..." Why the word 'Richer'? I notice
you are using the language of capitalism in defence of your religion. Maybe
next we should 'Invest' in our childrens futures or maybe you could tell me
the 'Bottom Line' of this all. You see, your religion is a tool of the
government. It allows for control of the weak, the ones that might give up,
the ones that need hope to survive... I mean how many times have you heard
those sad little, 'then i found god' stories?
Bah Humbug. Almost 2 Full readings of the bible, and I saw the truth. How
could the holy book that a religion is based on contain so many mistakes?
For example in Deuteronomy 6:4 we learn that, "The Lord our God is one
Lord." but in Genesis 1:26 we see "And God said, Let us make man in our
image." US? OUR? WHAT!? those sound plural to me! and again Genesis 3:22
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know
good and evil." Still I see US. So those are just some of the confusions I
have felt. Can the writers of the Bible also not tell time (yeah i know its
B.C. but still). Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified
him." vs. John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the
Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him." I have
received numerous replies from Christians who think that these
contradictions are either trivial or easily explained. Yet not a single
"explanation" has been convincing. Most of them do little homework,
inventing off-the-cuff defenses of what the bible "could have meant," or
devising creative explanations that actually make the problem worse. For
example, one Christian, agreeing with Eusebius, explained that "Thou shalt
not bear false witness" does not prohibit lies, and that God actually wants
us to tell falsehoods if it will further the kingdom of heaven.
So Father, which I'm not suppost to call anyone but god, may you find true
peace in your heart and realize that you don't need help from god, you are a
wonderful creature and you can find it within.
"Pastor John" <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1754d3057...@news.charter.net...
: x-no-archive:yes
:
: In article <GvkG8.111203$GG6.9...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,
: nitr...@shaw.ca says...
: > Congrats on being a man of the cloth. Maybe its time to take that cloth
away
: > from your eyes. its making you blind to the truth.
:
: Thank you, nitroburn. However, long ago I took the blinds off my eyes. I
: have seen the light of Jesus and will love and serve him always. My life
: couldn't be richer or more fulfilling since Christ has entered my life.
:
: Pastor John
:
Jonathan Downie
> On Tue, 21 May 2002 21:57:30 -0500, Steven Schrader
> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 May 2002, Suzi wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2002 11:46:11 -0500, Steven Schrader
> >> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 20 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> x-no-archive:yes In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205201225470.43276-100000
> >> >> @shell-3.enteract.com>, digi...@enteract.com says...
> >> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2002, Pastor John wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> >> >> > > introduce myself.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> >> >> > > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
> >> >> > <snip>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Glad you've decided to stick around. :)
> <snip>
> >> >> Thanks Steven,
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, could you post the homepage again? I forgot to bookmark it.
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >
> >> >Sure thing. :) It's at:
> >> >
> >> >http://arc-t.hurtingalex.com
> >>
> >> Question: what's the whole hurting alex thing???
> >
> >It's the name of one of my music projects.
>
> aw, okay! so alex was your only audience member? ;-)
no, no alex was his dog!
Roger Pearse
> For
> example, one Christian, agreeing with Eusebius, explained that "Thou shalt
> not bear false witness" does not prohibit lies,
The statement about Eusebius is itself a falsehood, I'm afraid,
originally invented by Gibbon. Details
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Suzi
(Jonathan Downie) wrote:
are you joking or being serious? who's alex???
AntiSocial
> Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons and a
> few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
> auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
May your future marriage plans crumble in quaking show of adultery and deceit. And if that's not enough, I'll
help.
Steven Schrader
Heh, actually, alex is me. :P I typed up an explanation here a while
back... Aah, here it is:
nitroburn
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.02052...@posting.google.com...
: "nitroburn" <nitr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
AntiSocial
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <3CEA2DB4...@hotmail.com>, antipal...@hotmail.com
> says...
> > > Hey wait - my dog's bigger than your dog! :-)
> >
> > You have a dog bigger than a 200+ lb. mastiff hybrid?
>
> Ok your dog is bigger but mine can jump higher. :-) Besides my Samoyed
> was bred to hunt polar bears.
As what, bait? My tiger hunter will take him easy.
AntiSocial
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <7c541ff4.0205...@posting.google.com>,
> gro...@downieland.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons and a
> > few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
> > auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
> >
> > JD
> Thank you JD. I will keep my eyes open and yes - it had noted the deep
> appreciation between juggs and auntie even through their differences of
> opinion. :-)
I give all newbies a warning when the cross the line... You just shit all
over it. Prepare for war.
Suzi
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
oooh
gracias, *just read it*
Roger Pearse
"nitroburn" <nitr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<PBUG8.31400$Ka.23...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes In article <3CEB4BBC...@hotmail.com>,
> antipal...@hotmail.com says...
> To new to know whether you are serious or not. If you are then I
> apologize.
I wouldn't worry about Auntie too much. He likes to play tough, but we
all know he's as sfot as can be on the inside. :)
> I was not sure who "auntie" was - now I am guessing it is a
> reference to the "anti-" in your name.
*nod* It's a nickname of sorts.
<snip>
Suzi
<pasto...@charter.net> wrote:
>x-no-archive:yes In article <3CEB4BBC...@hotmail.com>,
>antipal...@hotmail.com says...
>To new to know whether you are serious or not. If you are then I
>apologize. I was not sure who "auntie" was - now I am guessing it is a
>reference to the "anti-" in your name. I was simply commenting that I
>had noticed that there was a strong friendship among the people in this
>group. Whenever you are discussing "church" there tend to be strong
>feelings. No harm intended and again I am sorry if I unintentionally
>"stepped on a toe".
lol you're talking to Teddy Bear; he gets pissed at everyone. he
goes by Auntie, but i call him Teddy Bear, b/c he's the complete
opposite of what i associate w/ a teddy bear. don't let Teddy bother
you. :-)
>Pastor John
The Steel Wolf
<pasto...@charter.net> scripsit:
>x-no-archive:yes In article <3CEB4BBC...@hotmail.com>,
>antipal...@hotmail.com says...
>> I give all newbies a warning when the cross the line... You just shit all
>> over it. Prepare for war.
>To new to know whether you are serious or not.
Nah, don't take him seriously. Nobody else does ;)
Steven Schrader
> Congrats on being a man of the cloth. Maybe its time to take that cloth away
> from your eyes. its making you blind to the truth.
What do you think the "truth" is?
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: U Ba Than - Sein Che Yaung (Diamond of Radiant Color)
Steven Schrader
*wonders what Auntie is trying to compensate for that he needs to have such a
large dog*
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Primus - John The Fisherman (Sausage Demo)
Steven Schrader
>
> "Pastor John" <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.175238671...@news.charter.net...
> > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> > introduce myself.
> >
> > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
> >
> > I have run the gamut. When I first entered the ministry I was very
> > liberal. My years in seminary reinforced this liberalism.
> >
> > However, I was most challenged and owe a great deal to a seminary
> > professor from England who challenged me to accept the faith and see the
> > depth of truth in scripture.
>
> You're not one of these people who believes a literal interpretation of
> genesis are you?
You're really itching for an evolution debate, aren't you? :)
Steven Schrader
Ain't that the truth....
Steven Schrader
I know, so impressive...
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=Pine.NEB.3.96.1001127021507.88537F-100000%40shell-1.enteract.com
>
> gracias, *just read it*
Congrats on your ability to read. :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Shinohara Tomoe - Hello Steven
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> 2.enteract.com>, digi...@enteract.com says...> Thanks Steven, I have it bookmarked now.
*cheers*
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
> >
> > You're not one of these people who believes a literal interpretation of
> > genesis are you?
>
> book. It has no interest in talking about all things and dates. It is a
> book of Theology - God dealing his redemptive story through the lives of
> people just like you and I.
What Blade is likely getting at, is do you think that Genesis is a literal
telling of the world's origins, and if so how do you reconcile this with
evolution?
This is Blade's favorite debate, so if you disagree with him... Good luck.
:)
Steven Schrader
Heehee. :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Fly Me To The Moon (Acid Bossa Version)
Suzi
<pasto...@charter.net> wrote:
>x-no-archive:yes In article <3ced51c...@news.charter.net>,
>supers...@samisadrunk.com says...
>Ok Suzi - Thanks
welcome
>Pastor John
Suzi
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
:)
>> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=Pine.NEB.3.96.1001127021507.88537F-100000%40shell-1.enteract.com
>>
>> gracias, *just read it*
>
>Congrats on your ability to read. :)
i'm very proud of myself, too :-)
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> digi...@enteract.com says...
> > > > You're not one of these people who believes a literal interpretation of
> > > > genesis are you?
> > >
> > > Ah but sadly I am - with the understanding that Genesis is not a history
> > > book. It has no interest in talking about all things and dates. It is a
> > > book of Theology - God dealing his redemptive story through the lives of
> > > people just like you and I.
> >
> > What Blade is likely getting at, is do you think that Genesis is a literal
> > telling of the world's origins, and if so how do you reconcile this with
> > evolution?
> >
> > This is Blade's favorite debate, so if you disagree with him... Good luck.
> > :)
He's really quite nice so long as you bow to his superior knowledge of
science :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"The chicken realised that if it were on the other side of the
road, the side that it was already on would become "the other
side". Hence it had already crossed without crossing and clucked
leisurely down the street." - Okamura
Winamp says: Tenchi Muyo -- Police Magic
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> digi...@enteract.com says...
> > > > This is Blade's favorite debate, so if you disagree with him... Good luck.
> > > > :)
> > > I kind of figured that which is why I answered as I did. :-)
> >
> > He's really quite nice so long as you bow to his superior knowledge of
> > science :)
>
That'll help, but not for long. Blade's a biochem student IIRC. :)
All kidding aside, if you ever find the time, you should give it a go. A
grounding in Biology on both sides could make for an interesting debate
(assuming you're really on a side "opposite" Blade, which you haven't really
said).
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"The chicken realised that if it were on the other side of the
road, the side that it was already on would become "the other
side". Hence it had already crossed without crossing and clucked
leisurely down the street." - Okamura
Winamp says: The Locust - Well Ill Be A Monkeys Uncle (K
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> digi...@enteract.com says...
>
> > > Uh...oh, I have a degree in Biology - does that count?
> >
> > That'll help, but not for long. Blade's a biochem student IIRC. :)
> >
> > All kidding aside, if you ever find the time, you should give it a go. A
> > grounding in Biology on both sides could make for an interesting debate
> > (assuming you're really on a side "opposite" Blade, which you haven't really
> > said).
>
> too busy for me. :-)
I'm not even sure how much Blade is around these days - last I heard he was
scampering about in Thailand. But debates here can span over quite some
time, so I don't think there's any real rush...
> For the record - evolution is a theory
Evolution is both fact and theory actually.
> and some scientists are raising questions about it. Since I'm out of the
> field now that I'm in the ministry - I don't know how valid their arguments are.
Not knowing which scientists you're referring to, I can't really comment.
Certainly there are questions in regards to evolution, particularly when it
comes to the mechanisms behind it, but nothing that challenges its validity
as a scientific theory.
> I have no problem with most of evolution.
Bah, you're no fun. ;)
> It is simply beyond my comprehension that a fish crawled out of the
> ocean and eventually became a man with the intelligence to create the
> society and technological advancements of today. It makes more sense to
> me that a God chose to create a man of wisdom and intelligence. That the
> man grew in intelligence and wisdom is beyond any doubt.
I don't really understand this point of view. I mean, I don't comprehend
how buildings are made, but I don't think that invalidates the school of
engineering.
> It is also seldom discussed but needs to be remembered that Darwin
> rejected his theory before his death.
Actually, according to Darwin's daughter, Lady Hope never saw him at any
point during his illness. At best, the story can be considered highly
unlikely. Here's a good link about it I found at a Christian Apologists
site: http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm
But even if Darwin had recanted, it wouldn't matter. Science doesn't rest
on the shoulders of men, but on the evidence. Also, evolution has come
quite a ways since Darwin, and most of his ideas have since been refined or
replaced.
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"Those who know do not talk
Those who talk do not know." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives - That's okay
The Steel Wolf
<pasto...@charter.net> scripsit:
>It is also seldom discussed but needs to be remembered that Darwin
>rejected his theory before his death.
Actually, he didn't. That's a myth.
J Chang
> It makes more sense to
> me that a God chose to create a man of wisdom and intelligence. That the
> man grew in intelligence and wisdom is beyond any doubt.
To be honest, I don't know if humans have really grown in wisdom or
intelligence as a whole. They seem to be a very confused, foolish and
ignorant lot, for the most part.
> Pastor John
jc
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> digi...@enteract.com says...
> > > For the record - evolution is a theory
> >
> > Evolution is both fact and theory actually.
>
> addressed as the theory of evolution. No real differences here though.
The occurance of evolution is considered a scientific fact. The theory of
evolution addresses the mechanisms behind it.
And it should be noted that calling something a scientific theory is not the
same as calling something a theory in day-to-day life. After all, gravity
is a theory also. :)
<snip a bit>
> However, I have read articles in magazines that have suggested that some
> scientists are questioning the validity of some research in the field.
> My qualification should have been that they are predominantly religious
> magazines. It has not been important enough to me to check it further
> and I will acknowledge it would be a very small number.
Don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to post sources or anything. :)
There are folks out there who challence evolution - but from what I've seen
they don't do it in a way that lends much credence to their arguments.
Mostly bad science and things like arguments from incredulity and the like.
If any names spring to mind though, feel free to share...
<snip a bit>
> I was simply suggesting that for me to assume that a one in a million
> chance that just the right combination of gases was in just the right
> place at just the right time and ignited at just the right moment is
> less credible than to assume that a living God was behind the events.
What are the odds of a God existing?
Actually, put that one aside - I find playing around with odds after the
fact doesn't really help much. For example: If you calculate the odds of
any particular outcome of a game of Go, they're astronomical. By your
reasoning, any particular game of Go should never reach a conclusion.
> I remember when I was in Medical School the doctors teaching that the
> appendix was an evolutionary event. That it had once been a functional
> organ that was no longer needed in modern man. He suggested that in
> another thousand years there would be no remnant of the appendix. This
> seems reasonable by Darwin's conclusions. But it also points to the very
> slow process of evolution over milleniums.
*nod*
Med School? Pastor wasn't your first career choice? :)
> I simply do not accept that a monkey in a relatively short period of
> time in relation to the whole of evolution went from monkey to modern
> man. For me personally it is easier to accept that God created man and
> women. That there have been significant changes in man identified in
> fossil history is certainly very real.
I'm not really able to respond to an argument from incredulity... On the
same token, I'm not expecting you to formulate a scientific argument against
the possibilites of such a thing occuring. So I suppose we'll just leave
this one as is. :)
I will disagree with the idea of a God simplifying things though, because
once you add God into the equation, you open up a _lot_ more questions that
would need to be answered. Certainly a monkey becoming a man (which is a
bit off by the way, we actually came from a common ancestor) is less complex
then a God would be?
<snip>
> > Actually, according to Darwin's daughter, Lady Hope never saw him at any
> > point during his illness. At best, the story can be considered highly
> > unlikely. Here's a good link about it I found at a Christian Apologists
> > site: http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm
>
> Actually the website led me to conclude that the daughter was mistaken
> or trying to protect the family image. Did I miss something there?
The daughter was only one part of the puzzle (although I guess I didn't get
the same impression, but I was accounting for some bias on the part of the
site).
> > But even if Darwin had recanted, it wouldn't matter. Science doesn't rest
> > on the shoulders of men, but on the evidence. Also, evolution has come
> > quite a ways since Darwin, and most of his ideas have since been refined or
> > replaced.
>
> I agree. It certainly wasn't a necessary point in the discussion. I just
> wonder if near the end of his life, Darwin may have concluded that there
> was much truth in his work - but that God had much to do with the
> creation of man.
*shrug* We'll likely never know. It's not really all that relevant though.
Plenty of scientists have, and still do, believe in God in some form. But
arguments from authority don't go very far without evidence to support them.
> Also, at the risk of starting another debate :-) some of the professors
> I talk with suggest that the deeper they delve into things like the atom
> the more they begin to question whether there isn't an intentional and
> creative God behind such order and beauty.
Maybe.
Asking questions about the world around us isn't the sort of thing I find a
need to debate. :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Mountain Goats - Baboon
The Steel Wolf
<digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>What are the odds of a God existing?
And just how do you propose to calculate these odds? ;)
Steven Schrader
Good question. :P I _did_ say n'mind ya know. :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"See simplicity in the complicated
Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Tori Amos - Hungarian Wedding Song
Suzi
i think he better use a calculator...
Steven Schrader
I can't. It's solar powered and right now it's night where I am. *sob*
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"Those who know do not talk
Those who talk do not know." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: The Birthday Party - Six Strings That Drew Blood
Suzi
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:36:14 GMT, Suzi wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:27:48 GMT, stee...@mmcable.com (The Steel
>> Wolf) wrote:
>>
>> >anno Domini Fri, 24 May 2002 23:23:28 -0500, Steven Schrader
>> ><digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>> >
>> >>What are the odds of a God existing?
>> >
>> >And just how do you propose to calculate these odds? ;)
>>
>> i think he better use a calculator...
>
>I can't. It's solar powered and right now it's night where I am. *sob*
it's early morning where i am well, 3 in the morning, anyway :-)
Steven Schrader
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 01:40:31 -0500, Steven Schrader
> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:36:14 GMT, Suzi wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:27:48 GMT, stee...@mmcable.com (The Steel
> >> Wolf) wrote:
> >>
> >> >anno Domini Fri, 24 May 2002 23:23:28 -0500, Steven Schrader
> >> ><digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
> >> >
> >> >>What are the odds of a God existing?
> >> >
> >> >And just how do you propose to calculate these odds? ;)
> >>
> >> i think he better use a calculator...
> >
> >I can't. It's solar powered and right now it's night where I am. *sob*
>
> it's early morning where i am well, 3 in the morning, anyway :-)
1:50 over here. :)
Okay, you can tell you're tired when discussing what time it is seems like a
good idea....
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"Those who know do not talk
Those who talk do not know." - Lao Tsu
Winamp says: Chris Rock - No Sex
Suzi
<digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:45:54 GMT, Suzi wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2002 01:40:31 -0500, Steven Schrader
>> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:36:14 GMT, Suzi wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:27:48 GMT, stee...@mmcable.com (The Steel
>> >> Wolf) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >anno Domini Fri, 24 May 2002 23:23:28 -0500, Steven Schrader
>> >> ><digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>> >> >
>> >> >>What are the odds of a God existing?
>> >> >
>> >> >And just how do you propose to calculate these odds? ;)
>> >>
>> >> i think he better use a calculator...
>> >
>> >I can't. It's solar powered and right now it's night where I am. *sob*
>>
>> it's early morning where i am well, 3 in the morning, anyway :-)
>
>1:50 over here. :)
>
>Okay, you can tell you're tired when discussing what time it is seems like a
>good idea....
LoL well, i'm talking to nick (steelwolf) on AIM and having him turn
songs in to La's and have me guess what they are...i'm not doing too
well, and i don't think that made sense :-)
Steven Schrader
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 01:50:29 -0500, Steven Schrader
> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:45:54 GMT, Suzi wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 May 2002 01:40:31 -0500, Steven Schrader
> >> <digi...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:36:14 GMT, Suzi wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 25 May 2002 06:27:48 GMT, stee...@mmcable.com (The Steel
> >> >> Wolf) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >anno Domini Fri, 24 May 2002 23:23:28 -0500, Steven Schrader
> >> >> ><digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>What are the odds of a God existing?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And just how do you propose to calculate these odds? ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> i think he better use a calculator...
> >> >
> >> >I can't. It's solar powered and right now it's night where I am. *sob*
> >>
> >> it's early morning where i am well, 3 in the morning, anyway :-)
> >
> >1:50 over here. :)
> >
> >Okay, you can tell you're tired when discussing what time it is seems like a
> >good idea....
>
> LoL well, i'm talking to nick (steelwolf) on AIM and having him turn
> songs in to La's and have me guess what they are...i'm not doing too
> well, and i don't think that made sense :-)
Sadly, it made perfect sense. And I don't even have the excuse anymore of
it being the middle of the night. :P
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think
I have ended up where I intended to be." - Douglas Adams
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> stee...@mmcable.com says...
> 100%
Well, applying that to our discussion - the chances of our existing in the
form we do and having arrived here in the manner we did also happens to be
100%. So how about that? :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"Pooh knew what he meant, but,
being a Bear of Very Little Brain,
couldn't think of the words."
- A.A. Milne, "The House at Pooh Corner"
Suzi
nitroburn
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.02052...@posting.google.com...
: 'Fraid not.
:
: "nitroburn" <nitr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<PBUG8.31400$Ka.23...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
: > actually. it was disproven that he was disproven.
: >
: > "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:3a88eeea.02052...@posting.google.com...
: > : "nitroburn" <nitr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
: > news:<ReFG8.26173$Ka.21...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
: > : > For
: > : > example, one Christian, agreeing with Eusebius, explained that "Thou
: > shalt
: > : > not bear false witness" does not prohibit lies,
: > :
: > : The statement about Eusebius is itself a falsehood, I'm afraid,
: > : originally invented by Gibbon. Details
: > : http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius.
: > :
: > : All the best,
: > :
: > : Roger Pearse
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> digi...@enteract.com says...
> > > > Evolution is both fact and theory actually.
> > >
> > > Yes, there are facts in evolution. Yet, I believe it is still officially
> > > addressed as the theory of evolution. No real differences here though.
> >
> > The occurance of evolution is considered a scientific fact. The theory of
> > evolution addresses the mechanisms behind it.
>
What fun is that? ;)
> > And it should be noted that calling something a scientific theory is not the
> > same as calling something a theory in day-to-day life. After all, gravity
> > is a theory also. :)
>
> Gravity - what's that! :-)
Try sitting under an apple tree sometime - it'll come to you...
> > Don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to post sources or anything. :)
>
> Thanks - wasn't worrying about that. I just wanted to clarify.
Same here.
<snip>
> > Actually, put that one aside - I find playing around with odds after the
> > fact doesn't really help much. For example: If you calculate the odds of
> > any particular outcome of a game of Go, they're astronomical. By your
> > reasoning, any particular game of Go should never reach a conclusion.
>
> What's "Go"?
*gasp* Go is a terrificly fun game played on a gridded board with white and
black stones. There's a decent introduction to it here:
http://www.well.com/user/mmcadams/gointro.html
> > Med School? Pastor wasn't your first career choice? :)
>
> Pastor was actually my third "career". I had a chem teacher in high
> school who told me I was too stupid to graduate from college. So I
> thought of my grandfather and how simple it was to farm and I entered
> the college of agriculture.
>
> A year later, I decided to do something simpler - so I entered pre-med.
> I graduated with a B.S. in Biology in the top 10% of my class and Phi
> Beta Kappa (That chem teacher really knew what he was talking about :-)
> ) I then entered medical school and then graduated from seminary.
Cool. :)
One of my brothers is undergrad right now but planning on going to Lutheran
Seminary.
> > I will disagree with the idea of a God simplifying things though, because
> > once you add God into the equation, you open up a _lot_ more questions that
> > would need to be answered. Certainly a monkey becoming a man (which is a
> > bit off by the way, we actually came from a common ancestor) is less complex
> > then a God would be?
>
> I know - except that it has always troubled me that that so-called
> missing link has no fossil evidence or records of existance.
I don't know that that's necessarily true, but I haven't studied up on it
too much. We have fossil specimens classified within the Homo genus that
show earlier stages of development certainly.
I've gotten the feeling that the "missing link" idea is a bit of an
oversimplification really that got snatched up and misused by popular
science (well, media types to be more specific).
> Certainly God's presence in creation raises many more questions - I
> agree.
*nod*
> However, the evolution question raises too many questions for me. For
> example, the longest domination by a species was the dinosaurs (if I
> remember correctly) Yet, the most intelligent of them never came near to
> the intelligence of mankind. Forgetting the lack of adaptibility of the
> dinosaur for a moment - why in a far greater expanse of time did they
> never develop the intelligence of mankind? Species like the sturgeon
> that are pre-historic have never developed the intelligence of a man.
I think the question you'd have to answer here would actually be - what
reason would they have to develop that intelligence? Time isn't the only
factor, and isn't necessarily even the most important one really (assuming
you have enough time for changes to take place). I think selection
pressures and available niches would play a larger part.
> For that matter why did the apes not develop that native intelligence
> that is inherent to man? If Darwin's theory can explain the evolution of
> mankind in such a "short" period of time - I would have expected to see
> some greater development in other species.
Well, for starters, you're assuming that intelligence is actually a
desirable trait. Certainly we think so, given our perspective on the
subject, but then we're not nature. :)
It's also possible that it's quite simply a very difficult trait to acquire.
> I am not really seeking answers - just thinking aloud I guess. :-)
That's cool - they're at least interesting questions. You could be one of
those folks who blathers on and on about moon dust. :)
> > > Actually the website led me to conclude that the daughter was mistaken
> > > or trying to protect the family image. Did I miss something there?
> >
> > The daughter was only one part of the puzzle (although I guess I didn't get
> > the same impression, but I was accounting for some bias on the part of the
> > site).
>
> What? Christians are never biased! ;-)
Indeed!
> I thought the article went to a great deal of trouble to be fair to both
> sides.
*nod* That's why I used that link. It was as much my own interpretation as
it was any bias I got from it.
> Perhaps it's my "worldview" thing again. But, in that day and age, I can
> easily see Darwin coming to Christ before he died. I can also see his
> family wanting to deny it or cover it up. Not viciously - just not
> wanting some "bad thinking" when he was sick to weaken a life time of
> research and study.
I guess I don't see why there would be any need to cover it up. His own
religous convictions wouldn't have had any bearing on his theory.
> > Asking questions about the world around us isn't the sort of thing I find a
> > need to debate. :)
>
> Ah yes - but there is the center of my need to debate! :-)
You'll do fine around here then. :D
> By the way - you warned me about Blade - what happened to warning me
> about you? :-)
Whatever could be wrong with lil' ol' me? :)
> Seriously, it has been a good debate, but my view of the world has been
> changed forever by my experience with God. Never again will I be able to
> see the world as I once did.
*shrug* I ask a lot of questions and I pipe up when I have my own views or
handy information that I've read, but it's not my intention to sway you in
your beliefs or anything like that. Like I've said elsewhere, I've been
here for going on four years now. The debates aren't really the interesting
part for me anymore, it's learning about the people I'm debating with. And
you can't learn much about someone if all you're doing is trying to cram
your own views down their throat. :P
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a
lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
- DOuglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Winamp says: Pansy Division - The Cocksucker Club
nitroburn
right to write such blasphemy?
A: The right is usually called "freedom of speech." Many men and women
fought for that right, some died for it. Christianity, on the other hand,
historically fought against that right - with Inquisition, torture and
murder - up until it lost the political power to barbeque its critics.
Blasphemy means insulting God. The Bible insults God and tells lies about
God, too. It says God murdered the entire world in a great flood. Is God
history's greatest murderer? Of course not, even if the Bible says he is.
And the Bible falsely quotes God as saying:
a.. Go through the midst of the city, . . . and smite: let not your eye
spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and
little children, and women . . . (Ezekiel 9:4-6)
b.. Utterly destroy all that breathes. (Joshua 10:40)
c.. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and
spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling . . .
(Samuel 15:3)
The Bible would have us believe that God commanded the murder of little
infants. Now, that's blasphemy - straight from the Bible.
Q: The study of ancient Hebrew and Greek language and culture is a large
field. Perhaps if you had some knowledge of this field, as I do, you
wouldn't see any contradictions in the Bible.
A: For any English Bible, it's probable that the team of scholars who
produced it have a much larger total knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek
than do you. I take their English translations as a starting point, and find
contradictions, nonsense, absurdities and outright lies about God. Are the
ancient lanuage texts so hopelessly muddled that accurate English
translations are impossible? If so, then how could God have written or
inspired them? P.S. If you ever produce your own translation, let me know. I
expect I'll find many of the same contradictions and absurdities - because
they are in the Hebrew and Greek, too.
"Steven Schrader" <digi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.175764ebd...@news.enteract.com...
: On Tue, 21 May 2002 05:00:22 GMT, nitroburn wrote:
: > Congrats on being a man of the cloth. Maybe its time to take that cloth
away
: > from your eyes. its making you blind to the truth.
:
: What do you think the "truth" is?
:
: Later,
: --
: Steven Schrader
: The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
: "See simplicity in the complicated
: Achieve greatness in little things." - Lao Tsu
:
: Winamp says: U Ba Than - Sein Che Yaung (Diamond of Radiant Color)
AntiSocial
do you tard boy?
The Steel Wolf
<nitr...@shaw.ca> scripsit:
>"Steven Schrader" <digi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.175764ebd...@news.enteract.com...
>: On Tue, 21 May 2002 05:00:22 GMT, nitroburn wrote:
>: > Congrats on being a man of the cloth. Maybe its time to take that cloth
>: > away from your eyes. its making you blind to the truth.
>: What do you think the "truth" is?
<snip mini-Q&A session>
Well, that was a non-answer.
The Steel Wolf
<pasto...@charter.net> scripsit:
[On evolution and "missing links"]
>I agree that it is an oversimplification. Yet the theory rests on that
>"common" sequence. I believe that the lack of evidence that this is true
>continues to support the claim that human origin is divine.
I believe you're unintentionally making an argumentum ad ignorantiam
fallacy here. Lack of evidence for a given hypothesis can't provide
evidence for any alternative; it simply doesn't speak *against* those
alternatives.
Jonathan Downie
> Jonathan Downie wrote:
>
> > Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons and a
> > few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
> > auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
>
> help.
Thank you but curses like that are pretty much just a show of your own
jealousy. May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
my head.
JD
>
> >
> >
> > JD
> >
> > Pastor John <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.175238671...@news.charter.net>...
> > > Well, since I am apparently going to stay, I thought I had better
> > > introduce myself.
> > >
> > > My name is John and I am a United Methodist Pastor. I worked for a
> > > decade as a youth pastor and lately have been a "pastor in charge".
> > >
> > > I have run the gamut. When I first entered the ministry I was very
> > > liberal. My years in seminary reinforced this liberalism.
> > >
> > > However, I was most challenged and owe a great deal to a seminary
> > > professor from England who challenged me to accept the faith and see the
> > > depth of truth in scripture.
> > >
> > > I have grown over the years largely through some very loving and patient
> > > lay persons. I am now an Evangelical and believe deeply in the truth of
> > > the scripture. My life has proven that truth to me over and over.
> > >
> > > I want to formally apologize for my "first introduction" to this group.
> > > It has become apparent to me that I was reading the cross-posted thread
> > > and was drawing conclusions from persons who don't even formally belong
> > > to this group. I apologize to each of you for that.
> > >
> > > That having been said - I am not a man of few words - as you can tell.
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > I limit my posting because of my work schedule. However, I will try to
> > > post regularly and be involved with the online community here.
> > >
> > > Thank you for welcoming me.
> > >
> > > Pastor John
Jonathan Downie
> On Thu, 23 May 2002 23:38:36 GMT, The Steel Wolf wrote:
> > anno Domini Thu, 23 May 2002 11:27:29 -0500, Pastor John
> > <pasto...@charter.net> scripsit:
> >
> > >> over it. Prepare for war.
>
> > >To new to know whether you are serious or not.
> >
>
> Heehee. :)
He actually secretly dances around trees in the summer and loves the
whole world. Especially newbies.
JD
>
> Later,
The Omniscient Blade
> >
> > Evolution is both fact and theory actually.
>
> addressed as the theory of evolution. No real differences here though.
That it occurs and is responsible for the generation of all known
biodiversity is accepted as being a fact by the majority of the scientific
community as there is no evidence that I am familiar with at least that even
comes close to discrediting even part of it. The theory is exactly how it
happens and what happened at pecific points in evolutionary history to
generate certain features.
>
> > > and some scientists are raising questions about it. Since I'm out of
the
> > > field now that I'm in the ministry - I don't know how valid their
arguments are.
> >
> > Not knowing which scientists you're referring to, I can't really
comment.
> > Certainly there are questions in regards to evolution, particularly when
it
> > comes to the mechanisms behind it, but nothing that challenges its
validity
> > as a scientific theory.
>
> I probably should have said that better.
>
> I have been out of college for a number of years and obviously don't
> keep up with current biological research as I have enough to keep up on
> theology.
>
> However, I have read articles in magazines that have suggested that some
> scientists are questioning the validity of some research in the field.
> My qualification should have been that they are predominantly religious
> magazines. It has not been important enough to me to check it further
> and I will acknowledge it would be a very small number.
This is more the result of people not being able to reconcile their beliefs
with their profession IMO rather than any real flaw in evolutionary theory.
>
> > > It is simply beyond my comprehension that a fish crawled out of the
> > > ocean and eventually became a man with the intelligence to create the
> > > society and technological advancements of today. It makes more sense
to
> > > me that a God chose to create a man of wisdom and intelligence. That
the
> > > man grew in intelligence and wisdom is beyond any doubt.
> >
> > I don't really understand this point of view. I mean, I don't
comprehend
> > how buildings are made, but I don't think that invalidates the school of
> > engineering.
>
> I have not made myself clear. Darwin's original research talked about
> differences developing in a series of birds whose genetic pool was
> isolated by natural conditions. His observations are certainly credible
> and his conclusions valid.
>
> I don't see any real discrepancy between Genesis and evolution. That is,
> Genesis says that however the chain of events happened that God was the
> author of life and the power behind the events.
>
> I was simply suggesting that for me to assume that a one in a million
> chance that just the right combination of gases was in just the right
> place at just the right time and ignited at just the right moment is
> less credible than to assume that a living God was behind the events.
It took several thousand years for the chemistry to hit the right point and
become self replicating and evolving. However this deals with biogenesis,
not evolution. Evolution is what happens once you have a basic lifeform when
as it reproduces it gains information from the environment as a result of
survival feedback onto random changes.
>
> I remember when I was in Medical School the doctors teaching that the
> appendix was an evolutionary event. That it had once been a functional
> organ that was no longer needed in modern man. He suggested that in
> another thousand years there would be no remnant of the appendix. This
> seems reasonable by Darwin's conclusions. But it also points to the very
> slow process of evolution over milleniums.
A thousand years is nothing in evolutionary timescales. Given the earth has
existed for around 4.8 billion years and has had life on it for arround 3.5
billion years (plenty of time to get going too).
>
> I simply do not accept that a monkey in a relatively short period of
> time in relation to the whole of evolution went from monkey to modern
> man. For me personally it is easier to accept that God created man and
> women. That there have been significant changes in man identified in
> fossil history is certainly very real.
The time scale is over around 600,000 years IIRC from something that was
more like one of the great apes to what we are now. The genetic changes
needed to facillitate such a drastic morphological and phyiological change
are rather modest actually. Mainly it is the timing and pattern of
expression of major developmental genes in the body plan and nervous system
development that has changed rather than the genes that do those actions
themselves. Our ability to digest milk into adulthood (for those who can
do...not all populations can) stems from a change in gene expression pattern
rather than the gene that allows us to in the first place changing. This is
why we can have around 90% identicle genome structure with chimpanzees and
yet be nothing like them. We use the same genes, but just use the genes
differently.
>
> > > It is also seldom discussed but needs to be remembered that Darwin
> > > rejected his theory before his death.
> >
> > Actually, according to Darwin's daughter, Lady Hope never saw him at any
> > point during his illness. At best, the story can be considered highly
> > unlikely. Here's a good link about it I found at a Christian Apologists
> > site: http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm
>
> Actually the website led me to conclude that the daughter was mistaken
> or trying to protect the family image. Did I miss something there?
>
> > But even if Darwin had recanted, it wouldn't matter. Science doesn't
rest
> > on the shoulders of men, but on the evidence. Also, evolution has come
> > quite a ways since Darwin, and most of his ideas have since been refined
or
> > replaced.
>
> I agree. It certainly wasn't a necessary point in the discussion. I just
> wonder if near the end of his life, Darwin may have concluded that there
> was much truth in his work - but that God had much to do with the
> creation of man.
Thats his perrogative to believe, but it doesn't make it true. IMO humans
are far too complex with seemingly arbitrary redundancies to have been
designed by any intelligence.
>
> Also, at the risk of starting another debate :-) some of the professors
> I talk with suggest that the deeper they delve into things like the atom
> the more they begin to question whether there isn't an intentional and
> creative God behind such order and beauty.
Atoms ordered? If anything, the closer you look at matter, the more chaotic
and disorganised it appears with virtually no way to predict with accuracy
what will happen at any given moment. The universe is built on disorder, not
order. As for beauty...that's subjective :p
As for my whereabouts...I've been back in the UK since Christmas, but I've
seen little discussion here to interest me enough for large post quotas.
--
Blade ICQ#27537648
Why do people insist on trying to compare me to others? Don't they realise
no one can compare to me?
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
The Omniscient Blade
<snip>
> > I will disagree with the idea of a God simplifying things though,
because
> > once you add God into the equation, you open up a _lot_ more questions
that
> > would need to be answered. Certainly a monkey becoming a man (which is
a
> > bit off by the way, we actually came from a common ancestor) is less
complex
> > then a God would be?
>
> missing link has no fossil evidence or records of existance.
The problem with missing links is that if you find one, you then have to
look for two more either side of that species...every species is a link in
an evolutionary chain...or is the end of one if it can't adapt when things
change.
>
> Certainly God's presence in creation raises many more questions - I
> agree.
>
> However, the evolution question raises too many questions for me. For
> example, the longest domination by a species was the dinosaurs (if I
> remember correctly) Yet, the most intelligent of them never came near to
> the intelligence of mankind. Forgetting the lack of adaptibility of the
> dinosaur for a moment - why in a far greater expanse of time did they
> never develop the intelligence of mankind? Species like the sturgeon
> that are pre-historic have never developed the intelligence of a man.
For a start, the dinosaurs were not a species...the name is a collective
term for the large reptiles that made up most of the mega fauna through the
Jurrasic period IIRC...they were multiple species of reptiles, none of which
lasted the entire "reign" of the dinosaurs. Also, the ancestors of the
reptiles are also our ancestors...infact one reptile was the ancestor of
mammals and anotehr than ancestor of birds...reptiles are not something that
classifies things apart from mammals...it really includes all mammals and
birds as well because it is so ancient (a problem with the classification of
reptiles really). For the sturgeon, they have remained the same...any
lineages that evolved into other things aren't called sturgeon are they? We
haven't evolved based on a timescale of a few hundred thousand years...the
evolutionayr forces that caused dinosaurs to develop also caused our
ancestors to develop...yet our ancestors survived to evolve and the other
animals didn't...now which lineage is more sucessful...that that led to us,
or that that led to dinosaurs?
>
> For that matter why did the apes not develop that native intelligence
> that is inherent to man? If Darwin's theory can explain the evolution of
> mankind in such a "short" period of time - I would have expected to see
> some greater development in other species.
We ARE the greater development from the ape lineage...our existence pretty
much limits the development of others because we can outcompete them in the
same niche.
> > Asking questions about the world around us isn't the sort of thing I
find a
> > need to debate. :)
>
> Ah yes - but there is the center of my need to debate! :-)
>
> By the way - you warned me about Blade - what happened to warning me
> about you? :-)
My apprentice Steve? "You have been well trained my apprentice. The
creationists will be no match for you".
AntiSocial
> AntiSocial <antipal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3CEAFF13...@hotmail.com>...
> > Jonathan Downie wrote:
> >
> > > Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons and a
> > > few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
> > > auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
> >
> > May your future marriage plans crumble in quaking show of adultery and deceit. And if that's not enough, I'll
> > help.
>
> Thank you but curses like that are pretty much just a show of your own
> jealousy.
Ha, you give yourself too much credit bucko.
BTW I was getting back for the Jugg comment, I really don't care about your marital plans.
> May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
> my head.
Sorry, curses only work that way if you believe in the tired idea of the rule of three.
Steven Schrader
>
> "Pastor John" <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> >
> > about you? :-)
>
> My apprentice Steve? "You have been well trained my apprentice. The
> creationists will be no match for you".
:D Thanks? :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"Time seems to be standing still.
I want to eat some cotton candy."
- Kobo Abe, "Kangaroo Notebook"
Winamp says: Chemlab -- Vera Blue
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> digi...@enteract.com says...
> > > What's "Go"?
> >
> > *gasp* Go is a terrificly fun game played on a gridded board with white and
> > black stones. There's a decent introduction to it here:
> >
> > http://www.well.com/user/mmcadams/gointro.html
>
It is. :) If only I could find more people that knew how to play...
> > One of my brothers is undergrad right now but planning on going to Lutheran
> > Seminary.
>
> I wish him the best. It is a great ministry - but at a "troubled" time.
Mmm? How so? I'm not asking because I disagree and I'm looking to pick a
fight, I'm asking because I have no clue what you're referring to. :)
> > I've gotten the feeling that the "missing link" idea is a bit of an
> > oversimplification really that got snatched up and misused by popular
> > science (well, media types to be more specific).
>
> I agree that it is an oversimplification. Yet the theory rests on that
> "common" sequence. I believe that the lack of evidence that this is true
> continues to support the claim that human origin is divine.
You've gotten a number of responses from other folks so I'm going to try not
to repeat points since I agree with what I've read so far.
<snip>
> > I think the question you'd have to answer here would actually be - what
> > reason would they have to develop that intelligence? Time isn't the only
> > factor, and isn't necessarily even the most important one really (assuming
> > you have enough time for changes to take place). I think selection
> > pressures and available niches would play a larger part.
>
> I agree. Yet there is no question that the ability to think has played a
> significant part in our survival. It has enabled us to make shelters for
> protect us from the elements - to develop systems in which the "search"
> for food diminished in importance. Why is only man "gifted" with this
> special ability and been able to use it in a way that has changed the
> world for better or worse?
You're assuming that our "gift" would be an advantage for other species.
Blade covered this as well.
Changing the world for better/worse is a subjective thing really. We've
certainly made the world worse/better for ourselves and our own survival,
but nature doesn't "think" in that way - rather it takes advantage of niches
that are created and responds to ones that disappear.
<snip>
> > It's also possible that it's quite simply a very difficult trait to acquire.
>
> True - but, still why only man?
Why more then man?
Our gifts might seem good to us, but what are the costs and are there more
practical methods of survival available? Insects exist in far greater
numbers then man because they have simpler, faster means of perpetuating
their genes. For them, what benefit would intelligence really bring?
<snip about Darwin>
> > I guess I don't see why there would be any need to cover it up. His own
> > religous convictions wouldn't have had any bearing on his theory.
>
> Yes, but his family was clearly agnostic. It may have been uncomfortable
> for them to deal with their father's deserting the agnostic viewpoint.
> I'm thinking of Madeline Murray O'Hare's dismissing her son's conversion
> to Christianity.
Maybe, I'm not discounting the possiblity, it just doesn't strike me as
being all that likely.
> > > > Asking questions about the world around us isn't the sort of thing I find a
> > > > need to debate. :)
> > >
> > > Ah yes - but there is the center of my need to debate! :-)
> >
> > You'll do fine around here then. :D
>
> I'm beginning to see that. :-)
:)
> > > Seriously, it has been a good debate, but my view of the world has been
> > > changed forever by my experience with God. Never again will I be able to
> > > see the world as I once did.
> >
> > *shrug* I ask a lot of questions and I pipe up when I have my own views or
> > handy information that I've read, but it's not my intention to sway you in
> > your beliefs or anything like that. Like I've said elsewhere, I've been
> > here for going on four years now. The debates aren't really the interesting
> > part for me anymore, it's learning about the people I'm debating with. And
> > you can't learn much about someone if all you're doing is trying to cram
> > your own views down their throat. :P
>
> I appreciate it - It has also been good getting to know you. I will have
> to leave it here though. I am working on a difficult funeral and
> preparing for my family's departure to Finland for three weeks. They
> leave tomorrow and my daughter is waiting to visit with me. :-)
That's cool - post is here when/if you find time to respond, and otherwise
I'm sure we'll find reason to chat later. :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"The whole interior of the room was flooded with the sweet scent
of the white roses he'd brought. It occured to me that if the
scent lasted until night, I might be able to fall asleep without
drinking so much." - Banana Yoshimoto, "Asleep"
Winamp says: Zankoku na Tenshi no These (Long Version)
The Steel Wolf
<digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:18:03 -0500, Pastor John wrote:
>> x-no-archive:yes
>> In article <MPG.175baa64d...@news.enteract.com>,
>> digi...@enteract.com says...
>> > > What's "Go"?
>> > *gasp* Go is a terrificly fun game played on a gridded board with white and
>> > black stones. There's a decent introduction to it here:
>> > http://www.well.com/user/mmcadams/gointro.html
>> Thanks for the information - sounds like fun.
>It is. :) If only I could find more people that knew how to play...
I'll have to play you sometime. Yahoo! has a good Java-based game of
Go on a part of their site.
Jonathan Downie
> Jonathan Downie wrote:
>
> > AntiSocial <antipal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3CEAFF13...@hotmail.com>...
> > > Jonathan Downie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons and a
> > > > few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
> > > > auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
> > >
> > > May your future marriage plans crumble in quaking show of adultery and deceit. And if that's not enough, I'll
> > > help.
> >
> > Thank you but curses like that are pretty much just a show of your own
> > jealousy.
>
> Ha, you give yourself too much credit bucko.
I prefer debit.
> BTW I was getting back for the Jugg comment, I really don't care about your marital plans.
Fine then.
You just won't get an invite!
>
> > May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
> > my head.
>
> Sorry, curses only work that way if you believe in the tired idea of the rule of three.
Rule of what? I prefer the rule of the blood of the lamb.
JD
The Steel Wolf
gro...@downieland.freeserve.co.uk (Jonathan Downie) scripsit:
>Rule of what?
The belief that any harmful magic you attempt to inflict upon another
person will turn against the worker of such magic with thrice the
intended severity.
AntiSocial
> AntiSocial <antipal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3CF59A04...@hotmail.com>...
> > Jonathan Downie wrote:
> >
> > > AntiSocial <antipal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3CEAFF13...@hotmail.com>...
> > > > Jonathan Downie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons and a
> > > > > few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs and
> > > > > auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
> > > >
> > > > May your future marriage plans crumble in quaking show of adultery and deceit. And if that's not enough, I'll
> > > > help.
> > >
> > > Thank you but curses like that are pretty much just a show of your own
> > > jealousy.
> >
> > Ha, you give yourself too much credit bucko.
>
> I prefer debit.
*double snare tap, cymbal crash*
> > BTW I was getting back for the Jugg comment, I really don't care about your marital plans.
>
> Fine then.
> You just won't get an invite!
Oh damn, I am so disappointed.
> >
> > > May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
> > > my head.
> >
> > Sorry, curses only work that way if you believe in the tired idea of the rule of three.
>
> Rule of what? I prefer the rule of the blood of the lamb.
So you've gone to the Dark One now?
Jonathan Downie
The Steel Wolf <stee...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:3cf8c48c....@news-server.mmcable.com...
Ah okay then. I prefer the principle of being abkle to break curses as a
bloodwashed Christian
Jonathan Downie
> Jonathan Downie wrote:
>
> > AntiSocial <antipal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3CF59A04...@hotmail.com>...
> > > Jonathan Downie wrote:
> > >
> > > > AntiSocial <antipal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3CEAFF13...@hotmail.com>...
> > > > > Jonathan Downie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Welcome to the snake-pit, John. Watch out for the loose cannons
and a
> > > > > > few loose methodists as well. Most of all, be careful of juggs
and
> > > > > > auntie, they really love each other but they prefer to fight.
> > > > >
> > > > > May your future marriage plans crumble in quaking show of adultery
and deceit. And if that's not enough, I'll
> > > > > help.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you but curses like that are pretty much just a show of your
own
> > > > jealousy.
> > >
> > > Ha, you give yourself too much credit bucko.
> >
> > I prefer debit.
>
> *double snare tap, cymbal crash*
*bows* Thank you, thank you. You have been a great audience.
>
> > > BTW I was getting back for the Jugg comment, I really don't care about
your marital plans.
> >
> > Fine then.
> > You just won't get an invite!
>
> Oh damn, I am so disappointed.
You look it.
There will be soem cute chicks there.
>
> > >
> > > > May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
> > > > my head.
> > >
> > > Sorry, curses only work that way if you believe in the tired idea of
the rule of three.
> >
> > Rule of what? I prefer the rule of the blood of the lamb.
>
> So you've gone to the Dark One now?
No, I have gone to God. The Bible says that the blood of Jesus shed on the
cross has the power to break curses. Sicne Christ became a curse for us.
Okay the curse referred to there was the law but there are ohter
scriptures...
JD
>
Steven Schrader
The nice thing about the rule of three is that aside from preventing people
from doing harm to you (without paying the consequences anyway), it also
prevents you from doing harm to others.
On the other hand, I don't feel much comfort when you tell me that you're a
bloodwashed Christian. If anything, the imagery is a bit creepy. ;)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"The chicken realised that if it were on the other side
of the road, the side that it was already on would become
'the other side'. Hence it had already crossed without
crossing and clucked leisurely down the street." - Okamura
Winamp says: Nightwish - Crownlless
The Omniscient Blade
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <1022712101.132.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I know - except that it has always troubled me that that so-called
> > > missing link has no fossil evidence or records of existance.
> >
> > The problem with missing links is that if you find one, you then have to
> > look for two more either side of that species...every species is a link
in
> > an evolutionary chain...or is the end of one if it can't adapt when
things
> > change.
>
> more questions.
>
> Yet without that "link" in the chain you have an independent development
> of mankind - which is scriptural.
Mankinds evolutionary path is actually quite well understood and documented.
There are numberous fossils that are known to be genuine and form links to
other primate phyla (With our Phylum being hominidae IIRC and us being the
only surviving member).
>
> <snip>
>
> > For a start, the dinosaurs were not a species...the name is a collective
> > term for the large reptiles that made up most of the mega fauna through
the
> > Jurrasic period
>
> Ok, Ok...See my note in answer to your other post about forgetting how
> "technical" you scientists are. :-P
>
> <snip good science lesson>
>
> > evolutionayr forces that caused dinosaurs to develop also caused our
> > ancestors to develop...yet our ancestors survived to evolve and the
other
> > animals didn't...now which lineage is more sucessful...that that led to
us,
> > or that that led to dinosaurs?
>
> You know I have seen these arguments. I just have trouble with the
> definition of ancestor. I read a National Geographic recently that
> showed our ancestors. In the absence of a "missing" link they rely on
> decisions they make.
>
> As an example, I have seen scientists talking about habits and colors of
> a particular dinosaur. Yet, we have only "bones" and fossils. I think we
> are on dangerous ground when we begin to discuss much about their
> personal lives. We can speak of their existence - the fossil records are
> pretty clear. We can also speak of certain habits (nests of fossilized
> eggs as an example)
>
> If a particular scientist looks at an ape and says I see characteristics
> of man in this animal - fine that is a conclusion that he draws - and he
> has that right. However, that that primitive ape creature gave birth to
> an intelligent rational species of man is not a fair conclusion in my
> mind.
We are not the only species capable of rational intelligent thought, several
great apes display similar behavioural abilities and so do dolphins. Our
version of the same behavioural patterns are simply more complicated and are
also serviced by our differences in physiology which most likely evolved
first and drove further intellectual development into complexity. Our
differences from the other great apes and even from all other mammals are
exceptionally minimal and required very little genetic change...change that
happens very easily as well. We KNOW that an organism will change to factors
that are affecting survival to gain an optimum physiology and behaviour to
survive such factors, this can be seen in lab experiments on very rapidly
procreating organisms. You seem to suggest that there are limits to what
such a process can accomplish but there is no justification to suggest there
are limits because there is very little limit to what can change in the
genome of organisms.
>
> Wherever there is a "difference" we are forced to draw a conclusion. It
> changed into the new "thing" on the block. Perhaps that is correct -
> perhaps it never changed into anything and just died off. Perhaps a new
> species appeared - I simply don't accept that mankind came from a "bug"
> that developed and crawled onto earth.
However given the complexity of organisms, it is not energetically
favourable for such processes to occur nor is it efficient to use brute
force intelligence to attempt to design one in the first place. Even if
something was trying to engineer an organism that was like us, it would be
much easier in terms of resource useage to force selection preassures onto
an organism and let a natural selection process deal with the actual
complicated design procedures to arrive at something that behaves as was
envisaged. It makes no sense that something wanting to make us would wait
several billion years and then make us, evolution (either guided or
otherwise) is what evidence shows happened to generate all known
biodiversity. If you want to say a god guided the process in a progressing
attempt to make us, fair enough, you are entitled to think that since it
doesn't contradict the evidence we have. There isn't anything to suggest
that happened over an undirected version of the same process and it would be
impossible to distinguish the results of directed and undirected (both of
which could concieveable happen) though.
>
> > > For that matter why did the apes not develop that native intelligence
> > > that is inherent to man? If Darwin's theory can explain the evolution
of
> > > mankind in such a "short" period of time - I would have expected to
see
> > > some greater development in other species.
> >
> > We ARE the greater development from the ape lineage...our existence
pretty
> > much limits the development of others because we can outcompete them in
the
> > same niche.
>
> Yes, in our modern form - by your beliefs. However, the "monkey" that
> National Geographic called early man didn't differ that much from the
> apes. What made him different? Why didn't the other apes adapt at that
> point to compete?
Where the population was and the forces that impacted upon survival that it
faced...this is all the seperated our direct ancestors to the direct
ancestors of the chimps because at one point, both lineages were one.
>
> > > By the way - you warned me about Blade - what happened to warning me
> > > about you? :-)
> >
> > My apprentice Steve? "You have been well trained my apprentice. The
> > creationists will be no match for you".
>
> That may be - however I am not a "creationist" nor am I an
> "evolutionist" - I simply know that God is the power behind it all! :-)
The comment was a sarcastic joke you know based on a line from starters ep1
:p
The Omniscient Blade
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <1022710344.29019....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
>
> I hope you enjoyed your holidays in the United Kingdom. Welcome back and
> did you rush back just to fight with me? :-)
I live in the UK, I was travelling in SE asia for a few months after
graduation. I've been back for several months also.
>
> > > Yes, there are facts in evolution. Yet, I believe it is still
officially
> > > addressed as the theory of evolution. No real differences here though.
> >
> > That it occurs and is responsible for the generation of all known
> > biodiversity is accepted as being a fact by the majority of the
scientific
> > community as there is no evidence that I am familiar with at least that
even
> > comes close to discrediting even part of it. The theory is exactly how
it
> > happens and what happened at pecific points in evolutionary history to
> > generate certain features.
>
> I don't disagree with what you are saying. As I said earlier - my faith
> isn't going to change one way or the other by the theory of evolution.
>
> I would only say that you are speaking through the filter of a
> "believer". The theory may or may not be exactly how it happened. When I
> was in college - We were taught the "certain" theory for the physics of
> the universe. Now a completely different theory is being taught.
We know that the universe came into being just as we know evolution
generated (and continues to generate) biodiversity...exactly how the
universe came into being and how evolution generated biodiversity? Well
thats the theory.
>
> New scientific evidence or discoveries may or may not continue to
> support evolution or an alternate theory. For now, I will concur that it
> appears to explain a lot of the development of life. :-)
It explains most known biodiversity phenomena and those it doesn't have a
concrete explaination for don't have any features that suggest evolution
didn't generate them. BTW, there currently is no alternative theory to
evolution, evolution is an all encompassing theory that doesn't have any
breaking phenomena, unlike say quantum physics or relativity which are both
in their current forms wrong as they break when applied to certain known
phenomena (or innaccurate as a better way of describing them).
<snip>
> > > However, I have read articles in magazines that have suggested that
some
> > > scientists are questioning the validity of some research in the field.
> > > My qualification should have been that they are predominantly
religious
> > > magazines. It has not been important enough to me to check it further
> > > and I will acknowledge it would be a very small number.
> >
> > This is more the result of people not being able to reconcile their
beliefs
> > with their profession IMO rather than any real flaw in evolutionary
theory.
>
> I'm not so sure. Even in college while being taught the theory of
> evolution I had no trouble reconciling the two in my mind.
That is you...others might not find it so easy.
>
> I think it may have to do with the fact that no matter how far we delve
> into life on the planet - it gets more complex and more questions are
> raised. Some scientists are simply suggesting that it is getting harder
> to conceive of the order and mystery of this universe without looking at
> a Creator.
But then that adds an exceptional increase in the load of complexity...its
far easier for simple life systems to arise by undirected events than some
intelligent all powerful entity. The universe itself fullfills virtually all
the supposed features of a god except for intelligence that for some
arrogant reason many humans feel is nessesary to make something complex. The
fact is the more complex something is the LESS likely that something
intelligent was totally responsible for its design and construction and the
more likely that some semi random "evolution" type process was used instead.
You think a car or aircraft is complex? They are actually embarassingly
simple compared to just about everything that occurs in the natural world.
Some of the most advanced things we have designed are inspired by
understanding of more complex biological systems and others still have been
designed using "evolving" designs using genetic algorithms.
<snip>
> > It took several thousand years for the chemistry to hit the right point
and
> > become self replicating and evolving. However this deals with
biogenesis,
> > not evolution. Evolution is what happens once you have a basic lifeform
when
> > as it reproduces it gains information from the environment as a result
of
> > survival feedback onto random changes.
>
> That's not my point. I am simply saying that I have studied the theories
> and don't accept them as such. Knowing all we do today and with all the
> research advancement that we have know - we cannot "create" the
> chemistry needed to accomplish this.
Then parhaps knowledge and intelligence is NOT what is needed to accomplish
the feat? Just because you can look at something and when your understanding
of the system reaches a certain point you can replicate its behaviour under
a rationally controlled behaviour that makes set results does not mean that
the process itself needs intelligent imput to reach a conclusion.
>
> It is inconceivable to me that God was not the creative power behind the
> formation of the universe. I don't really care how he did it. When I was
> in Biology I would argue with the best (on your side then) :-)But I'm
> not in Biology anymore.
It is inconcievable to me that something more complex has to exist to create
something less complex...it would lead to an infinite regress of causality
which would seem a very inefficient way for all existence to exist. God
cannot exist for no reason by the same logic you apply to us not existing
for no reason.
>
> The "how" - whether biogenesis or evolution isn't important or
> significant to me. The "who" is - the "who" can't be answered by science
> - only by theology.
Of course who could be answered by science. If indeed some entity (be it as
powerul as your god or little more advanced than us) is responsible for our
existence in some way, then a trail that leads right to them will exist and
science will pick up on that trail eventually. However I don't believe there
will be a trail to any entity other than the inherent behaviour of things in
the universe...the who will be nobody.
>
> <snip>
>
> > But it also points to the very slow process of evolution over
milleniums.
> >
> > A thousand years is nothing in evolutionary timescales. Given the earth
has
> > existed for around 4.8 billion years and has had life on it for arround
3.5
> > billion years (plenty of time to get going too).
>
> I don't see any conflict - we both seem to have agreed it is a slow
> process. :-)
In evolutionary time scales (not our flicker of existence that gives nothing
but a snapshot of time) a few millenia is very fast. Slow and fast are
realative terms and using our lifespan as the reference is somewhat silly.
Star lifetimes are more appropriate since that dictates how long a planetary
eco system has to develop life and reach a point where some of it can leave
before the star dies and takes life on that planet with it.
<snip>
> > The time scale is over around 600,000 years IIRC from something that was
> > more like one of the great apes to what we are now.
>
> Which is a very short period is the history of life on earth.
i.e. a very fast process.
>
> > The genetic changes needed to facillitate such a drastic morphological
> > and phyiological change are rather modest actually. Mainly it is the
> > timing and pattern of expression of major developmental genes in the
> > body plan and nervous system development that has changed rather than
> > the genes that do those actions themselves. Our ability to digest milk
> > into adulthood (for those who can do...not all populations can) stems
> > from a change in gene expression pattern rather than the gene that
> > allows us to in the first place changing. This is why we can have around
> > 90% identicle genome structure with chimpanzees and yet be nothing like
> > them. We use the same genes, but just use the genes differently.
>
> And yet in the same period of time, the great apes have not crossed that
> threshhold. Yes, I understand that chimps have a basic level of
> communication, intelligence, etc. Yet, in the same time span no ape has
> crossed this threshhold. This amazes me.
Err, again WE did cross the "threshold". Of course it isn't really a
threashold, but a gradient of change. It just happens that the less capable
were swept aside as this current form of ours swept across the globe around
60,000 years ago. The other lineages that didn't become homonids (and thus
give rise to us)evolved in different ways to become the chimps, gorrillas
and other great apes. You assume there is room for more than one highly
intelligent and adaptable lifeform on earth capable of molding the
environment as they see fit. Our species interactions with other highly
intelligent and adaptable lifeforms (the other homonids that were VERY
closely related to our species that preceeded oure colonisation of all the
earths continents) suggests instead the most intelligent and most adaptable
species takes EVERYTHING preventing other species from doing the same and
only a more intelligent and adaptable species that evolves without
interaction can displace them.
>
> Yes, I understand that you may well have some scientific theory that
> explains it. Yet as a theologian and philosopher I have to ask - why
> man? and why has no ape or other animal ever crossed that bounday?
Why not? Our existence now precludes the possibility of others evolving
similarly because they will be stifled by us who are already evolved to this
point. The chain of events that led to us was over 3.5 billion years
long...perhaps if some events hadn't happened, an equivalent species of
different lineage would be here debating this instead and sooner, but that
is not the case. There is no why to why its us that are here, we just ARE
the ones that are here...if we didn't evolve because of some event, then
later a different lineage would have probably experienced the same selection
preassures and done the same things. If the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out
then perhaps one of their lineage would be here with similar abilities to us
instead of us.
>
> I also understand that there isn't significant difference between most
> any mammal and man in the genome? I read this in reference to some who
> were claiming greater respect for all animals and our close kinship to
> them.
Well I do think it lets us use other animals more effectively to understand
ourselves...greater respect for other organisms? I think we should learn to
respect all of our own species as being the same first.
>
> > > I agree. It certainly wasn't a necessary point in the discussion. I
just
> > > wonder if near the end of his life, Darwin may have concluded that
there
> > > was much truth in his work - but that God had much to do with the
> > > creation of man.
> >
> > Thats his perrogative to believe, but it doesn't make it true. IMO
humans
> > are far too complex with seemingly arbitrary redundancies to have been
> > designed by any intelligence.
>
> Well I certainly can't argue that Darwin's believing it makes it true.
> :-)
>
> Here I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - I can't conceive of the
> complexities of man apart from a God.
Why not?
>
> > > Also, at the risk of starting another debate :-) some of the
professors
> > > I talk with suggest that the deeper they delve into things like the
atom
> > > the more they begin to question whether there isn't an intentional and
> > > creative God behind such order and beauty.
> >
> > Atoms ordered? If anything, the closer you look at matter, the more
chaotic
> > and disorganised it appears with virtually no way to predict with
accuracy
> > what will happen at any given moment. The universe is built on disorder,
not
> > order. As for beauty...that's subjective :p
>
> You know, I had forgotten how "precise" scientists are. :-) I guess I
> should not have used the word order. I think it would be more correct to
> say that everytime they think they "have the answers" suddenly they
> discover a new level of truth. In the discovery they have gained a
> personal belief in a God whose complexity and beauty led to creation.
>
> Besides, beauty can't be subjective - God like it! :-P
That's gods subjective POV then...I don't have to agree with him :D Those
who see complexity and think of a god obviously IMO have some preconception
that complexity requires intelligence. This is just unfounded though.
AntiSocial
That's what you think....
AntiSocial
Only reason they're sitting through your act is to see Sam dive off a ladder
into a glass of water.
> > > > BTW I was getting back for the Jugg comment, I really don't care about
> your marital plans.
> > >
> > > Fine then.
> > > You just won't get an invite!
> >
> > Oh damn, I am so disappointed.
>
> You look it.
> There will be soem cute chicks there.
Only as long as there's none of those ugly british chicks there.
> > > >
> > > > > May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
> > > > > my head.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, curses only work that way if you believe in the tired idea of
> the rule of three.
> > >
> > > Rule of what? I prefer the rule of the blood of the lamb.
> >
> > So you've gone to the Dark One now?
>
> No, I have gone to God. The Bible says that the blood of Jesus shed on the
> cross has the power to break curses. Sicne Christ became a curse for us.
> Okay the curse referred to there was the law but there are ohter
> scriptures...
There are many curses that have been visited upon mankind since before Christ
was even an idea. Curses have also been evolving into new and better forms of
their prior incarnations. Think of it like bio-warfare. You got an immunization,
but we're always coming up with new little bugs for you to catch.
Jonathan Downie
As in washed in the cleansing blood of Jesus. it is figurative!
The Omniscient Blade
<snip>
> bear out some of these conclusions.
>
> Yes, dolphins are intelligent and I am aware that there is a level of
> intelligence in primates. I even see a basic level of intelligence in my
> dog who has an uncanny ability to be three steps ahead of me at times.
> :-)
>
> Yet the level of intelligence outside lab conditions - untouched in the
> wild does not show the intelligence that has created, for better or
> worse, the society in which we live.
Most humans in the wild don't show vastly greater intellectual ability
unless there are resources abundant enough that a few members of a
population group can do things other than look for food constantly. Likewise
chimps and other apes will do more creative things (though not on the same
level as humans because they are not as intelligent as adult humans) if they
don't have to constantly look for food. They form hierachical societies just
like we do and display considerable strategic planning when hunting. You
also have to remember that the apes are limited by physiology too...their
hands are needed for moving through their environment and not just for tool
manipulation which ours are dedicated to now because they evolved and still
live in forest areas while the last common ancestor split into a plain
living ape that evolved into us where hands weren't really needed for
locomotion.
>
> As for the physiological differences - they were not significantly
> different in the first ape-man and the first ape. Yet man alone
> developed the intelligence to form our modern society.
Other homonids followed similar early development to our direct ancestors
with similar levels of intelligence. They only died out because our
ancestors spread so widely and in some undetermined way had a slight edge in
inventiveness or intelligence that allowed them to displace all other
homonids and lead to their extinction.
>
> By the way, if you wanted to argue that the apes actually showed the
> greater intelligence because they DIDN'T form our modern society, I
> might be inclined to agree. :-)
Very amusing :/
> Fair enough.
<snip>
The Omniscient Blade
> > > I hope you enjoyed your holidays in the United Kingdom. Welcome back
and
> > > did you rush back just to fight with me? :-)
> >
> > I live in the UK, I was travelling in SE asia for a few months after
> > graduation. I've been back for several months also.
>
> Forgive my ignorance but did you graduate from college or graduate
> school?
University...which is somewhat equivalent to the US college system IIRC.
<snip
> > > The "how" - whether biogenesis or evolution isn't important or
> > > significant to me. The "who" is - the "who" can't be answered by
science
> > > - only by theology.
> >
> > Of course who could be answered by science. If indeed some entity (be it
as
> > powerul as your god or little more advanced than us) is responsible for
our
> > existence in some way, then a trail that leads right to them will exist
and
> > science will pick up on that trail eventually. However I don't believe
there
> > will be a trail to any entity other than the inherent behaviour of
things in
> > the universe...the who will be nobody.
>
> No science cannot answer the question of "who" - here we will simply
> have to disagree. God is spirit and he lives within a spiritual world
> that is not of this universe. From his own being he created that which
> was "physical". Science cannot cross the boundary of physical to see the
> roots of the Creator.
For something to interact (as is nessesary for creating things in a physical
form), some component of your god has to exist in a physical
context...infact all of him has to be really based on definition.
Nessesarily we would be able to detect your god and any other "spirit"
entities. There really is no boundary as anything that exists (relative to
us...i.e. has some interaction with us either directly or by mediation
though other things that then interact with us) that science can't cross.
Any interaction causes reactions that can be followed back to the source.
> > > I don't see any conflict - we both seem to have agreed it is a slow
> > > process. :-)
> >
> > In evolutionary time scales (not our flicker of existence that gives
nothing
> > but a snapshot of time) a few millenia is very fast. Slow and fast are
> > realative terms and using our lifespan as the reference is somewhat
silly.
> > Star lifetimes are more appropriate since that dictates how long a
planetary
> > eco system has to develop life and reach a point where some of it can
leave
> > before the star dies and takes life on that planet with it.
>
> Now why when we just seemed to agree on something did you have to go and
> spoil it? :-)
>
> <snip>
> > > > The time scale is over around 600,000 years IIRC from something that
was
> > > > more like one of the great apes to what we are now.
> > >
> > > Which is a very short period is the history of life on earth.
> >
> > i.e. a very fast process.
>
> Yes, but we are discussing two very different things.
In what way?
<snip>
> > Err, again WE did cross the "threshold". Of course it isn't really a
> > threashold, but a gradient of change. It just happens that the less
capable
> > were swept aside as this current form of ours swept across the globe
around
> > 60,000 years ago. The other lineages that didn't become homonids (and
thus
> > give rise to us)evolved in different ways to become the chimps,
gorrillas
> > and other great apes. You assume there is room for more than one highly
> > intelligent and adaptable lifeform on earth capable of molding the
> > environment as they see fit. Our species interactions with other highly
> > intelligent and adaptable lifeforms (the other homonids that were VERY
> > closely related to our species that preceeded oure colonisation of all
the
> > earths continents) suggests instead the most intelligent and most
adaptable
> > species takes EVERYTHING preventing other species from doing the same
and
> > only a more intelligent and adaptable species that evolves without
> > interaction can displace them.
>
> And you assume there is not room for more than one intelligent species.
> The behavior that you have described is just as easily explained by a
> God who has made mankind and given them dominion over the other
> lifeforms on the planet.
We don't have dominion...infact many lifeforms have existed in their current
form far longer than we have. Of the few that haven't existed longer than
us, we have actually being responsible for their creation by directing
evolution to meet our demands. In a straight contest for a given niche, we
can't outcompete most organisms...we can only "win" by using tools and
tricks concieved by our intelligence. Also, there is good evidence that
there isn't room for more than one intelligent species by looking out the
interactions our direct ancestors had with other homonids, all of which had
intelligence that far exceeded any other organism on the planet today except
us. The result was we kicked them into extinction as we sequestered the
majority of the good hunting grounds and resource rich areas needed to allow
and promote our own intellectual development (none of which required any
genetic changes at all).
>
> > > Yes, I understand that you may well have some scientific theory that
> > > explains it. Yet as a theologian and philosopher I have to ask - why
> > > man? and why has no ape or other animal ever crossed that bounday?
> >
> > Why not? Our existence now precludes the possibility of others evolving
> > similarly because they will be stifled by us who are already evolved to
this
> > point. The chain of events that led to us was over 3.5 billion years
> > long...perhaps if some events hadn't happened, an equivalent species of
> > different lineage would be here debating this instead and sooner, but
that
> > is not the case. There is no why to why its us that are here, we just
ARE
> > the ones that are here...if we didn't evolve because of some event, then
> > later a different lineage would have probably experienced the same
selection
> > preassures and done the same things. If the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped
out
> > then perhaps one of their lineage would be here with similar abilities
to us
> > instead of us.
>
> Here we again disagree. You assume that there is no why - I assume there
> is. You say that no lifeform can gain intelligence without our stifling
> it. Certainly you are correct - yet that conclusion is just as easily
> answered by scripture.
>
> What still remains unanswered is why. Perhaps you are correct and we are
> just a "mistake" of the universe. Something that didn't happen plunged
> us to dominance. However, it is just as likely that a God made us and
> choose to live "in his image" in this world.
No, it is not as likely that god made us...if anything its far less likely
just because of the increased overhead of complexity needed to accomodate a
god in the sequence of events. Also, I don't say we are a mistake of the
universe...we are a result of the way the universe works. Would it really
matter if there were no special reason of importance why we exist as we do?
No, we would still be hear doing what we do now. We give ourselves goals to
strive for based on what we look for and what we consider ideal.
> > > Here I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - I can't conceive of the
> > > complexities of man apart from a God.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because I have stood in the presence of God and felt his awesome power
> and holiness. Because I have seen his power in my life - the changes he
> has made and the blessing he has given me. Because all that I have seen
> and experienced have made God a great reality than the world in which I
> live. I choose in faith to believe him - that he created mankind in his
> image.
Others have "stood" in the presence of other deities and "felt" their
powers...yet other people have contacted a spirit world where a multitude of
spirits influence our existence. All of these things can also be explained
as delusions caused by any number of known phenomena. Another thing to
consider is that only one can be correct and all the others nessesarily ARE
some kind of delusion.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You know, I had forgotten how "precise" scientists are. :-) I guess I
> > > should not have used the word order. I think it would be more correct
to
> > > say that everytime they think they "have the answers" suddenly they
> > > discover a new level of truth. In the discovery they have gained a
> > > personal belief in a God whose complexity and beauty led to creation.
> > >
> > > Besides, beauty can't be subjective - God like it! :-P
> >
> > That's gods subjective POV then...I don't have to agree with him :D
Those
> > who see complexity and think of a god obviously IMO have some
preconception
> > that complexity requires intelligence. This is just unfounded though.
>
> I accept that you don't have to agree. It is unfounded - I agree_ that
> is what faith is all about. :-)
Fair enough then :p
Jonathan Downie
That's why i put up with my act.
>
> > > > > BTW I was getting back for the Jugg comment, I really don't care
about
> > your marital plans.
> > > >
> > > > Fine then.
> > > > You just won't get an invite!
> > >
> > > Oh damn, I am so disappointed.
> >
> > You look it.
> > There will be soem cute chicks there.
>
> Only as long as there's none of those ugly british chicks there.
Oi, British chicks are the best! They are better than yankee bimbos any
day. No offence, girls.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > May that curse revisit you if you meant it to coem down on
> > > > > > my head.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, curses only work that way if you believe in the tired idea
of
> > the rule of three.
> > > >
> > > > Rule of what? I prefer the rule of the blood of the lamb.
> > >
> > > So you've gone to the Dark One now?
> >
> > No, I have gone to God. The Bible says that the blood of Jesus shed on
the
> > cross has the power to break curses. Sicne Christ became a curse for
us.
> > Okay the curse referred to there was the law but there are ohter
> > scriptures...
>
> There are many curses that have been visited upon mankind since before
Christ
> was even an idea. Curses have also been evolving into new and better forms
of
> their prior incarnations. Think of it like bio-warfare. You got an
immunization,
> but we're always coming up with new little bugs for you to catch.
But God was around before curses. In fact, the first curse was put on Adam
and Eve in the garden due to their disobedience. Now Chirst has freed us
from all curses by his death and ressurection. It is just we are not
enforcing our freedom yet.
JD
>
The Omniscient Blade
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <1023373566.20686....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
> <major snip>
> made that jump and they didn't. You believe that has to do with a
> "random" act that caused an "ape" to stand and begin an evolutionary
> chain. I believe it began with God mandating the creation of the human
> species. Both theories in my opinion are "unprovable". That is my theory
> cannot be proven because it is a faith issue. Your theory cannot be
> proven because it ultimately involves speculation from animal remains.
> The proof may be fine for you. For me, it still leaves too many
> unanswered questions.
Its not just speculation though...there is growing genetic evidence of
direct relationships to chimp and once we know exactly what genes are
different and in what way, you can say beyond doubt that known genetic
change events definately could have caused the changes between the last
common ancestor and us and chimps. You could probably reconstruct an
approximate genome of the last common ancestor too. Then it all comes down
to a probability test as to which of the theories dealing with human
emergence (one that has hard evidence that it can happen, the other having
no evidence). Unless you can demonstrate the existence of your god (which
for him to have fashioned us it is nessesarily possible to do) to even give
credence to the possibility of your "theory" having happened, evolution is
the only known possible way for it to have happened and when you eliminate
the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable is the truth.
>
> > > As for the physiological differences - they were not significantly
> > > different in the first ape-man and the first ape. Yet man alone
> > > developed the intelligence to form our modern society.
> >
> > Other homonids followed similar early development to our direct
ancestors
> > with similar levels of intelligence. They only died out because our
> > ancestors spread so widely and in some undetermined way had a slight
edge in
> > inventiveness or intelligence that allowed them to displace all other
> > homonids and lead to their extinction.
>
> Yes, but why. Why didn't the "Planet of the Apes" form? Why didn't the
> other hominids gain the upper hands. You acknowledge that the
> physiological differences weren't that great. Why us and not them?
Our adapatability was superior and in many cases its possible that the other
homonids were simply absorbed if they could interbreed and their genes have
been diluted to the point they can't be detected as being distinct from what
our genes are. You won't get the planet of the apes, because you would have
competition between species, not the cooperation you see in the film. Any
slight advantage no matter how trivial will cause a shift in numbers over a
few generations and lead one species to extinction.
The Omniscient Blade
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <1023375376.21718....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Thus your comment that nothing had drawn your interest in posting. :-)
> > > Forgive my ignorance but did you graduate from college or graduate
> > > school?
> >
> > University...which is somewhat equivalent to the US college system IIRC.
>
> degree. If so, good luck we need devoted and intelligent people like
> yourself in biochemical work
I've chosen not to actually... lab work doesn't appeal to me although I
enjoy understanding the subject matter, I get bored too easily when doing
stuff over and over again in the lab to get results. I'm currently looking
for a reasonable job so I can save up some reserve cash and I'm considering
teacher training next year.
<snip>
> > > No science cannot answer the question of "who" - here we will simply
> > > have to disagree. God is spirit and he lives within a spiritual world
> > > that is not of this universe. From his own being he created that which
> > > was "physical". Science cannot cross the boundary of physical to see
the
> > > roots of the Creator.
> >
> > For something to interact (as is nessesary for creating things in a
physical
> > form), some component of your god has to exist in a physical
> > context...infact all of him has to be really based on definition.
> > Nessesarily we would be able to detect your god and any other "spirit"
> > entities. There really is no boundary as anything that exists (relative
to
> > us...i.e. has some interaction with us either directly or by mediation
> > though other things that then interact with us) that science can't
cross.
> > Any interaction causes reactions that can be followed back to the
source.
>
> Ah now here is where the scientist finds his limit! :-) Certainly within
> our world only something that is a part of our world could "create"
> within our world. However, the One who created this world is not and
> will never be of this world. He only became a part of this world when he
> entered it through a baby to become the man we know as Jesus.
Not so, in order to fashion the components of the world, he must interact in
the same way that the bits interact with each other. If he can't interact,
he can't have put the pieces together. Its not that he isn't of this world,
its that this world would be an extension of his own and information has to
be exchanged between them giving the potential for evidence of such a beings
existence to be detected and quantified.
>
> The theological concept of God's creating is not understandable with
> scientific logic. The one who created science is beyond its principles,
> rules and understanding.
The rules that govern interactions may not have being concieved by a
"creator" though, simply used by them to fashion this reality. See, you
think of a creator as having to have been beyond the limits of rules, but
that doesn't really make sense. In order to know and understand things,
there need to be rules that are above the creator in order to allow
information to be processed within them for instance. This is a major reason
I don't think the god as concieved by religion can be possible. I would
argue that if anything, our universe could have been created in another
universe by beings not much more advanced than us (it has already been
theorised that we ourselves could trigger the existence of a new universe,
though what control we would have over its behaviour I don't know). That
causes the same infinite regress of causality again though as with your god
(who created god?...no one?...well why can't the universe and us exist
without a creator then?).
<snip>
> > > Yes, but we are discussing two very different things.
> >
> > In what way?
>
> I believe that when we began the discussion I was talking in terms of
> life on this earth. Thus humans have lived a very short time in terms of
> life on earth.
>
> I believe that you are now talking in terms of the time involved in
> total creation. However, I am not sure since it has been a while since I
> read this and I am regretting a "snip" :-)
You contend that evolution would be a slow process, while I contended that
relative to the time life has existed for its quite fast. BTW, life on earth
has existed for ~ 1/3 of the total time the universe has existed IIRC. Slow
or fast are relative terms though so it depends on the POV you are looking
at the problem from.
<snip>
> > > And you assume there is not room for more than one intelligent
species.
> > > The behavior that you have described is just as easily explained by a
> > > God who has made mankind and given them dominion over the other
> > > lifeforms on the planet.
> >
> > We don't have dominion...infact many lifeforms have existed in their
current
> > form far longer than we have. Of the few that haven't existed longer
than
> > us, we have actually being responsible for their creation by directing
> > evolution to meet our demands. In a straight contest for a given niche,
we
> > can't outcompete most organisms...we can only "win" by using tools and
> > tricks concieved by our intelligence. Also, there is good evidence that
>
> Agreed - however, isn't that part of our uniqueness. The very fact that
> we have the intelligence needed to "win" by using tools and tricks IS a
> part of who we are - and thus - a part of our dominance.
I still don't agree we dominate the planet...we dominate virtually all the
mild to moderate land environments, but places like deserts, oceans and
arctic regions and jungles are practically offlimits to us and have a very
low population density. even then, we only dominate the moderate areas
because we have engineered organisms that help along side us (most livestock
and crop plants are modified versions of their wild counterparts...if the
wild version even exists anymore) to allow us to generate vast amounts of
food for comparatively low levels of man power (also allows development of
stratified societies needed for complex technological development...thats
why euro-asian populations have largely dominated the world, because they
developed food production crops and livestock first).
>
> > there isn't room for more than one intelligent species by looking out
the
> > interactions our direct ancestors had with other homonids, all of which
had
> > intelligence that far exceeded any other organism on the planet today
except
> > us. The result was we kicked them into extinction as we sequestered the
> > majority of the good hunting grounds and resource rich areas needed to
allow
> > and promote our own intellectual development (none of which required any
> > genetic changes at all).
>
> Well, without specifics which aren't conducive to a newsgroup - I can't
> really adequately discuss this. It seems to me that how we describe
> intelligence and how an animal shows and uses intelligence is hard to
> describe from ancestral records. When I watch the shows on television
> about discovery of mummified people - they draw many conclusions. Some
> of those are logical and well supported. Others appear to be "good
> guesses" to me. Ultimately a lot of scientific study of the past comes
> down to "good guesses".
Depends on how closely you look. Good guesses can be tested by further finds
and by trying to replicate a find by trying it now.
<snip>
> > > Here we again disagree. You assume that there is no why - I assume
there
> > > is. You say that no lifeform can gain intelligence without our
stifling
> > > it. Certainly you are correct - yet that conclusion is just as easily
> > > answered by scripture.
> > >
> > > What still remains unanswered is why. Perhaps you are correct and we
are
> > > just a "mistake" of the universeSomething that didn't happen plunged
> > > us to dominance. However, it is just as likely that a God made us and
> > > choose to live "in his image" in this world.
> >
> > No, it is not as likely that god made us...if anything its far less
likely
> > just because of the increased overhead of complexity needed to
accomodate a
> > god in the sequence of events. Also, I don't say we are a mistake of the
> > universe...we are a result of the way the universe works. Would it
really
> > matter if there were no special reason of importance why we exist as we
do?
> > No, we would still be hear doing what we do now. We give ourselves goals
to
> > strive for based on what we look for and what we consider ideal.
>
> Yes, in your opinion. We don't need to "accomodate" a god in the
> sequence of events. He created the events and has managed to
> "accomodate" us. :-)
I disagree...its existence if it is true is an event itself.
>
> Yes, I understand what you are saying - but I still use the word,
> "mistake". Basically if we were not "chosen" by a being we name God then
> our dominance is a "mistake". If one of your hominids had stood a week
> earlier than we did - they might have cast the first stone and history
> would be changed. It is only by chance that we gained dominance in your
> theory.
Mistake implies an intent to do otherwise...there is no intent, therefore
there can be no mistake. All homonids share a more recent common ancestor
that do chimps and humans BTW which was likely already standing...of course
if another homonid had got the same traits we have before we do then a
similar organism (that homonid) would be here debating this instead of me
with another of its kind.
>
> Yes, it ultimately makes a great difference whether there is an answer
> to the why. You see if the answer to the "why" is God - then we in fact
> have a responsibility to live for and be accountable to that creative
> being.
Why do we? We created chickens out of a simlar though less appealing
organism...do they have a responsibility to be accountable to us? No, we
just make them be. I personally wasn't created by a god either, I exist
because my parents exchanged half their genetic material in a meiotic
recombination + gamete fusion event and my mother provided me with nutrients
from which I built this body and mind according to the instructions. Now
even if some mystical being provided the initial plans (which by now have
under gone some revisions due to selection) the product doesn't owe anything
to the planner...if I build something according to some plans given to me by
someone, the thing I built doesn't get owned by them for instance (though
this is a bad analogy).
>If the why is that nature had a "hiccup" and we emerged with
> intelligence then we had better learn to control and guide the
> "hiccups" to "protect" our future. Which of course is in one sense what
> science does.
We exist because of the way nature works, not because it somehow messed up.
We are supposed to be here for no other reason than the fact we are.
>
> Ultimately if the "why" is a God then our life on this world takes on
> different meaning in terms of the eternal that is God and what happens
> after death.
Does it? Even if we were made, that doesn't mean there will be an afterlife.
Why were we made anyhow...as a weapon? As a joke?
>
> If the "why" is a universal "hiccup" (not intended as sarcasm just used
> for lack of a better word to describe any natural occurence that could
> influence or change the course of evolution) then there is no eternal
> and how we live this life changes greatly.
Not to me...either way I don't care...I'm not pandering to some creator
(whatever that being is) just because he thought up the brilliant idea of
evolving something that reasons its own existence and will change the
environment and life around it to its own ends unless I get a damn good
reason why I should. I figure whatever we are supposed to be doing, we
aren't going to do a good job of it here anyhow unless it happens to be to
ponder our existence and change the environment and life around us to suit
us. I seriously doubt that we are supposed to exist in a very strict
predetermined way when we are capable of so much more. If we are "made" in
gods image, how are we going to do anything better than god can? If we were
made at all, IMO we have been engineered to do something the creator
couldn't do. That doesn't mean we are better, just that we are not the same
as the creator.
>
> So yes, the "why" does matter in my opinion.
Not as much as you contend IMO.
<snip>
> > > Because I have stood in the presence of God and felt his awesome power
> > > and holiness. Because I have seen his power in my life - the changes
he
> > > has made and the blessing he has given me. Because all that I have
seen
> > > and experienced have made God a great reality than the world in which
I
> > > live. I choose in faith to believe him - that he created mankind in
his
> > > image.
> >
> > Others have "stood" in the presence of other deities and "felt" their
> > powers...yet other people have contacted a spirit world where a
multitude of
> > spirits influence our existence. All of these things can also be
explained
> > as delusions caused by any number of known phenomena. Another thing to
> > consider is that only one can be correct and all the others nessesarily
ARE
> > some kind of delusion.
>
> No - actually none of them need be delusions (though of course they may
> be). The scripture is quite clear that the fallen angels may disguise
> themselves as angels of light and deceive mankind.
Then perhaps it is you who are being deceived.
>
> Of course only one can be correct. That is the claim of scripture. That
> only God is the Truth.
>
> But see if you are right - I live a good life and am happy. I hold onto
> beliefs that bring strength, courage and hope to my life and I die
> peacefully - never to know how foolish I was and never to care.
And in that I have no problem, I just have a problem with religious types
opposing cloning and stem cell research now as well as the other technologie
s that have been opposed in the past and that will be in the future, as well
as social evolution (changes to family structure and sexual attitudes).
>
> But, if I am right - then someday we will stand before the throne of the
> Creator and be accountable for our life choices. The difference is
> whether eternity will be in the presence and love of that God or in
> eternal punishment and condemnation.
Hey, its not my fault god didn't show himself to me...I'm just thinking and
believing the way he made me, so really I'm not all that accountable if a
god really exists.
<snip>
--
Blade ICQ#27537648
Why do people insist on trying to compare me to others? Don't they realise
no one can compare to me?
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
The Omniscient Blade
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> In article <1023748795.29325....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
> <major snip>
>
> method.
>
> But it is not necessarily possible to do. :-) Here we are just going to
> have to agree. Science cannot prove now even the existance of alien
> worlds within our universe which we can see and probe. How can science
> see the existance of God who created this world and lives beyond this
> world in ultimate reality? God exists outside time and matter - how can
> science prove the existance of God
If something exists outside some kind of time, then it cannot change as
there is nothing to measure change by. A similar argument applies to the
universe...three is no "before" the universe as the concept becomes
meaningless without time. Aliens aren't near us (if they exist) and so
aren't causing any interactions that are within our range of detection,
while supposedly you've been in direct contact with god only recently
implying near by interactions that can be quantitatively detected and
traced.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Yes, but why. Why didn't the "Planet of the Apes" form? Why didn't the
> > > other hominids gain the upper hands. You acknowledge that the
> > > physiological differences weren't that great. Why us and not them?
> >
> > Our adapatability was superior and in many cases its possible that the
other
> > homonids were simply absorbed if they could interbreed and their genes
have
> > been diluted to the point they can't be detected as being distinct from
what
> > our genes are. You won't get the planet of the apes, because you would
have
> > competition between species, not the cooperation you see in the film.
Any
> > slight advantage no matter how trivial will cause a shift in numbers
over a
> > few generations and lead one species to extinction.
>
> But why was our adaptability superior? At one point (to simplify) this
> common ancestor had two hominids. One was one so much more adaptable
> than the other one?
Common ancestor implies only one. At some point in the past all life has a
common ancestor...the original lifeform that succeeded and caused extinction
of all other lines that arose around it if any. There is no "why" as such
for our adaptability to be superior, slight differences in the genome and
thus the organisms due to different evolution environment led to the
differences, whatever they were and such differences would be expected.
Since both can't be the same (or they are the same organism), then one must
hold traits different to the other and in any given environmental niche,
such differences almost inevitably lead to a difference of survivability (in
this case the trait was ability to adapt to new conditions and thrive
without the need for genetic changes).
The Omniscient Blade
<snip>
> > > Science cannot prove now even the existance of alien
> > > worlds within our universe which we can see and probe. How can science
> > > see the existance of God who created this world and lives beyond this
> > > world in ultimate reality? God exists outside time and matter - how
can
> > > science prove the existance of God
> >
> > If something exists outside some kind of time, then it cannot change as
> > there is nothing to measure change by. A similar argument applies to the
> > universe...three is no "before" the universe as the concept becomes
> > meaningless without time.
>
> "scientific reality".
I disagree with your interpretation...or rather your application of reality.
Scientific reality is what our reality is. If you can't interact with
something as a result of it not being part of our reality, its existence is
irrelevant as it existing is the same as it not existig from our pov and its
not affecting us or indeed having an effect on us either. Reality is the
measure of what is real...not part of our reality=not real.
>
> > Aliens aren't near us (if they exist) and so
> > aren't causing any interactions that are within our range of detection,
>
> And yet for years people have claimed interactions with aliens. Science
> has the ability to disprove but lacks the ability to prove. That is,
> science can disclaim a particular instance - but cannot prove or
> disprove the reality of the claim.
It can demonstrate claims are reality and provide evidence that a claim is
inconsistent with models of reality so to "disprove" them in an existing
kind of sense. Science looks at reality and describes what it sees, it is
building up a model of reality as it really is. Religion presupposes the
existence of certain things and then trys to reconcile all observations with
that preconception which is the wrong way to go about it as it is
exceptionally unlikely that the preconceptions used by religions are
correct.
>
> > while supposedly you've been in direct contact with god only recently
> > implying near by interactions that can be quantitatively detected and
> > traced.
>
> No - for thousands of years we have documented reports of people who
> have experienced closeness to God. Today, there are hundreds of
> thousands of Christians who have sought and experienced the first hand
> love, presence and power of the Living God. Yet, science finds itself
> helpless to prove or disprove these experiences.
Science disproves and offers alternative explainations for virtually all
cases based on known phenomena. Christians seeing their god is not suprising
since they already have preconceptions about such a being existence. Others
who experiences the same phenomenon that caused such "visions" would likely
experience different things based on their own ideas an memories.
>
> Science does some wonderful things and has been a blessing as well as a
> curse in our lives.
Science is neither a blessing, nor a curse...it is just the way...the ONLY
way currently that we have a way of knowning with certainty things about the
universe. You have zero certainty about your god...your own experiences are
fallible and unreliable due to the fact the human mind is based on chemistry
and that chemistry can be affected adversely due to environmental factors.
>
> That faith is real is beyond a doubt to all who have experienced it. For
> two thousand years people have had such confidence in the power and
> presence of God that they have died rather than deny their faith. This
> is real power. I won't die for electricity. It is real - but if someone
> told me to deny electricity or die - I would deny electricity in a
> moment. I would rather die than deny my God.
Such zealous behaviour is dangerous not only to those who partake in it, but
for all those around them. What amazes me is that people continue to do it
while all the while condemming people like those who hijack planes and fly
them into buildings as madmen. Yes, your faith is real, but what you have
faith in is not. For tens of thousands of years before your god was even
concieved of by men, there were other gods that varied greatly from your
model of a god...for those thousands of year the people had such confidence
in the power and presence of these gods that they would die rather than deny
their faith. Guess what happened...they did die, many of them in the service
of their religious leaders warring against other religions. But in the end
the beliefs were lost as people changed and moved on to believe in other
things. The only real power such beliefs bring is the power of the heads of
the religions to control the hearts and minds of the faithful. Religion is
one of the more powerful tools by which the masses are controlled in order
to create an organised stratified society and in earlier times, this was
nessesary to hold large groups of people together. Nowadays new control
methods have been developed and religion is holding things back rather than
letting them go forward.
<snip>
> > > But why was our adaptability superior? At one point (to simplify) this
> > > common ancestor had two hominids. One was one so much more adaptable
> > > than the other one?
> >
> > Common ancestor implies only one. At some point in the past all life has
a
> > common ancestor...the original lifeform that succeeded and caused
extinction
> > of all other lines that arose around it if any. There is no "why" as
such
> > for our adaptability to be superior, slight differences in the genome
and
> > thus the organisms due to different evolution environment led to the
> > differences, whatever they were and such differences would be expected.
> > Since both can't be the same (or they are the same organism), then one
must
> > hold traits different to the other and in any given environmental niche,
> > such differences almost inevitably lead to a difference of survivability
(in
> > this case the trait was ability to adapt to new conditions and thrive
> > without the need for genetic changes).
>
> And yet the very traits we have today denies the change. e.g. The
> heroism of New York indicated a trait within our species to die rather
> than desert a friend. We can't say this is a weak trait that
> "Darwinism" rules out because the bravest and best of our species have
> the trait. My father would talk of the heroics during the Second World
> War of men who would die for their friend. A strange trait - to throw
> yourself on a hand grenade knowing you will die to protect others.
Altruism has other uses that enhance survival beyond the blind stupidity you
seem to suggest. By helping people you can expect to recieve assistance when
you are in trouble yourself thus overall enhancing your survival prospects
for an initial risk. The people that died trying to do "heroic" things
certainly didn't believe they would die by helping people, but rather that
they would all remain alive rather than just the guy who was trying to help.
They took the risk and it didn't pay off. Of course other factors come into
play as well beyond the survival of the individual. Indoctrination by
society and indeed religion that you should sacrifice yourself for the
greater good and you will be rewarded in the afterlife for instance.
>
> Yet this first common ancestor had two sons - the dominant trait of
> which had to be destroying his brother so that he could live. Doesn't
> make sense to me.
Its not in the brothers best interest to kill his sibling actually, although
it is in his interest to get more of the resources from the parents to get
the advantage. The rational is that if some misfortune should befall brother
one, there is still a chance that much of his genetic legacy will be
preserved in his brother and so will still survive. Often in animal
societies, siblings will work together to improve the chance of their shared
heritage being passed on.
The Steel Wolf
<bl...@mysanctuary.con> scripsit:
>"Pastor John" <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.177130943...@news.charter.net...
>Scientific reality is what our reality is.
No, I don't think so. Science can take an excellent shot at providing
us with a coherent picture of *empirical* reality, but by its very
nature it is incapable of addressing meta-empirical reality. So
scientific reality is indeed reality, but it is only a portion
thereof. There are aspects of existence which science can never
approach, because it was not designed to do so.
>If you can't interact with something as a result of it not being
>part of our reality, its existence is irrelevant as it existing is
>the same as it not existig from our pov and its not affecting us or
>indeed having an effect on us either.
Granted--however, there is a great difference between an inability to
interact with something and an inability to interact with something in
an empirically verifiable manner. If one is able to interact with
something, yet this interaction is not objectively measurable or
mechanistic (and thus able to be subjectively experienced in a
reliable manner by performing certain rote steps), then it is outside
the ability of science to comment on.
>Reality is the measure of what is real...not part of our reality=not
>real.
Here it seems that you draw no distinction between the subjective and
the objective. While pragmatism is often useful (isn't that
redundant? ;) it cannot tell us about objective truth; by its very
nature its domain is limited to the realm of our own experiences.
>> for thousands of years we have documented reports of people who
>> have experienced closeness to God. Today, there are hundreds of
>> thousands of Christians who have sought and experienced the first hand
>> love, presence and power of the Living God. Yet, science finds itself
>> helpless to prove or disprove these experiences.
>Science disproves and offers alternative explainations for virtually all
>cases based on known phenomena.
Science is indeed able to offer alternative explanations, but it seems
to me that a reliance upon such explanations where meta-empirical
claims are involved is at best a stop-gap measure. It necessarily
interprets such occurrences within a materialist framework, and thus
makes certain epistemological presuppositions which may or may not be
correct.
>> Science does some wonderful things and has been a blessing as well as a
>> curse in our lives.
>Science is neither a blessing, nor a curse...it is just the way...the ONLY
>way currently that we have a way of knowning with certainty things about the
>universe.
Regardless, you must admit that science has had an overwhelming impact
on society. Such an impact brings consequences along with it. At
times these consequences have been good, at others bad. I think that
this is what Pastor John meant when he referred to science as both a
blessing and a curse.
>You have zero certainty about your god...
The level of certainty which one can be said to have depends entirely
upon one's epistemology. In your eyes there can be zero certainty,
but in Pastor John's eyes, in my own, and in those of many others a
great degree of certainty is attainable. This seems to be more a
difference of opinion than a declaration of fact.
>your own experiences are fallible and unreliable due to the fact the
>human mind is based on chemistry and that chemistry can be affected
>adversely due to environmental factors.
I'm curious; what argument are you supporting with this statement?
>Yes, your faith is real, but what you have faith in is not.
The problem here is that under your own epistemology, you have no way
of backing up this statement--at least not in the general sense. Yes,
certain religious claims may be falsifiable where they incorporate an
empirical element, but if no scientifically verifiable empirical
claims are made about God (a condition which is entirely possible with
regard to theistic claims) there is no possible way that you can back
up your assertion.
>Altruism has other uses that enhance survival beyond the blind
>stupidity you seem to suggest. By helping people you can expect to
>recieve assistance when you are in trouble yourself thus overall
>enhancing your survival prospects for an initial risk.
Not given the knowledge that such altruism will result in one's death.
>The people that died trying to do "heroic" things certainly didn't
>believe they would die by helping people, but rather that they would
>all remain alive rather than just the guy who was trying to help.
Do you honestly believe this?
AntiSocial
Wrong again. He's only been around since man first looked up and tried to think
of something greater than himself.
> In fact, the first curse was put on Adam
> and Eve in the garden due to their disobedience. Now Chirst has freed us
> from all curses by his death and ressurection. It is just we are not
> enforcing our freedom yet.
Again, a propaganda trick used to make something seem more enticing than it's
competition. Join my church and God will love you. No, join mine, and not only
will God love you, but he'll put aside a place for you later. No wait, if you
join up with mine...
I've found most religious discussion resemble competing fast food ads more than
anything else.
Jonathan Downie
Not true. God was around before there was anything to look up at.
Your problem is you see God as a concept not as a person and spirit.
>
> > In fact, the first curse was put on Adam
> > and Eve in the garden due to their disobedience. Now Chirst has freed us
> > from all curses by his death and ressurection. It is just we are not
> > enforcing our freedom yet.
>
> Again, a propaganda trick used to make something seem more enticing than it's
> competition. Join my church and God will love you. No, join mine, and not only
> will God love you, but he'll put aside a place for you later. No wait, if you
> join up with mine...
>
> I've found most religious discussion resemble competing fast food ads more than
> anything else.
Too true. The thing is that true theology is a multi-disciplinary
field and very few have the neccessary talent in all the fields. most
make linguistic or historical errors and let others copy them.
My view is that there is an absolute truth of God and some have got
more of it right than others but noone has it all yet.
Jonathan
Steven Schrader
Can we take our time doing it or is it real-time? We could always start a
game in here. I played a game with a past-poster named Matt Noonan a while
back. I think his Go page for arc-t still exists actually. If it does, it
should be listed in the links section of the website.
Oh, and I don't get to play very often, so I'm not very good, but it's a
game a find fun regardless. :)
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"I got well by talking. Death could not get a word in edgewise,
grew discouraged, and traveled on." - Louise Erdrich
The Steel Wolf
<digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
[TSW:]
>> Yahoo! has a good Java-based game of Go on a part of their site.
>Can we take our time doing it or is it real-time?
Real-time, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at
it).
>We could always start a game in here. I played a game with a
>past-poster named Matt Noonan a while back. I think his Go page for
>arc-t still exists actually.
Weird. Sure, I'd give that a shot.
>Oh, and I don't get to play very often, so I'm not very good,
I've played less than ten times in as many years, so no need to worry
about being outclassed :)
The Omniscient Blade
> anno Domini Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:32:21 +0100, "The Omniscient Blade"
> <bl...@mysanctuary.con> scripsit:
>
> >"Pastor John" <pasto...@charter.net> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.177130943...@news.charter.net...
>
> >Scientific reality is what our reality is.
>
> No, I don't think so. Science can take an excellent shot at providing
> us with a coherent picture of *empirical* reality, but by its very
> nature it is incapable of addressing meta-empirical reality. So
> scientific reality is indeed reality, but it is only a portion
> thereof. There are aspects of existence which science can never
> approach, because it was not designed to do so.
Science is adaptive to explore more of reality the more we learn about it.
That can't really be anything that exists that is not part of physical
reality pretty much by definition.
>
> >If you can't interact with something as a result of it not being
> >part of our reality, its existence is irrelevant as it existing is
> >the same as it not existig from our pov and its not affecting us or
> >indeed having an effect on us either.
>
> Granted--however, there is a great difference between an inability to
> interact with something and an inability to interact with something in
> an empirically verifiable manner. If one is able to interact with
> something, yet this interaction is not objectively measurable or
> mechanistic (and thus able to be subjectively experienced in a
> reliable manner by performing certain rote steps), then it is outside
> the ability of science to comment on.
All interactions produce reactions that can be observed by agents outside
the actual interaction and thus the nature of that interaction can be
determined. Without evidence that such interactions as you describe exist,
it is speculation that science can't touch everything. Anything must have a
mecanism by which it acts and behaves, even if it is beyond our
understanding for a given period in time.
>
> >Reality is the measure of what is real...not part of our reality=not
> >real.
>
> Here it seems that you draw no distinction between the subjective and
> the objective. While pragmatism is often useful (isn't that
> redundant? ;) it cannot tell us about objective truth; by its very
> nature its domain is limited to the realm of our own experiences.
Is it really possible to remove a subjective pov? I don't think so because I
don't really think there can be a truly objective POV in existence. What you
can do is try to avoid subjectivity as much as possible and so models as
closely as possible the objective truth. Given sufficient time, the model
would eventually approach objectivity, but could never reach it entirely.
>
> >> for thousands of years we have documented reports of people who
> >> have experienced closeness to God. Today, there are hundreds of
> >> thousands of Christians who have sought and experienced the first hand
> >> love, presence and power of the Living God. Yet, science finds itself
> >> helpless to prove or disprove these experiences.
>
> >Science disproves and offers alternative explainations for virtually all
> >cases based on known phenomena.
>
> Science is indeed able to offer alternative explanations, but it seems
> to me that a reliance upon such explanations where meta-empirical
> claims are involved is at best a stop-gap measure. It necessarily
> interprets such occurrences within a materialist framework, and thus
> makes certain epistemological presuppositions which may or may not be
> correct.
I disagree, the presuppositions are in fact based on how we define things
like materialistic...the physical. If something interacts with a physical
thing, then it itself must nessesarily be a physical entity.
>
> >> Science does some wonderful things and has been a blessing as well as a
> >> curse in our lives.
>
> >Science is neither a blessing, nor a curse...it is just the way...the
ONLY
> >way currently that we have a way of knowning with certainty things about
the
> >universe.
>
> Regardless, you must admit that science has had an overwhelming impact
> on society. Such an impact brings consequences along with it. At
> times these consequences have been good, at others bad. I think that
> this is what Pastor John meant when he referred to science as both a
> blessing and a curse.
I still disagree...science is itself ambivalent, it is the application by us
that has the consequences.
>
> >You have zero certainty about your god...
>
> The level of certainty which one can be said to have depends entirely
> upon one's epistemology. In your eyes there can be zero certainty,
> but in Pastor John's eyes, in my own, and in those of many others a
> great degree of certainty is attainable. This seems to be more a
> difference of opinion than a declaration of fact.
There are aspects of such beliefs that really should ring alarm bells in
your heads that things don't all tally up, but because of the nature of the
belief and how you have to behave to maintain it, you don't hear them.
>
> >your own experiences are fallible and unreliable due to the fact the
> >human mind is based on chemistry and that chemistry can be affected
> >adversely due to environmental factors.
>
> I'm curious; what argument are you supporting with this statement?
That "visions" of gods are not reliable evidence of a god and that neither
is coincidence.
>
> >Yes, your faith is real, but what you have faith in is not.
>
> The problem here is that under your own epistemology, you have no way
> of backing up this statement--at least not in the general sense. Yes,
> certain religious claims may be falsifiable where they incorporate an
> empirical element, but if no scientifically verifiable empirical
> claims are made about God (a condition which is entirely possible with
> regard to theistic claims) there is no possible way that you can back
> up your assertion.
I find this claim to be the ultimate alarm bell about gods existence being
blatantly untrue...that it should be impossible to verify its existence even
if it did exist. And yet it is supposed to directly intervene on a regular
basis with man, particularly in the past more than now yet without leaving
anything that can even begin to suggest it actually happened? Its the
ultimate bullshit story to cloud the minds of men to the truth of their
existence if you ask me (which you did). You can't demonstrate that my
assertion is untrue (or rather that your assertion is true since I assert a
negative). The lack of evidence it itself suggestion that you are wrong and
infact that lack of belief in a god is a default stance in the absence of
evidence.
>
> >Altruism has other uses that enhance survival beyond the blind
> >stupidity you seem to suggest. By helping people you can expect to
> >recieve assistance when you are in trouble yourself thus overall
> >enhancing your survival prospects for an initial risk.
>
> Not given the knowledge that such altruism will result in one's death.
If death were certain in the individuals mind, they would not IMO endevour
such and act of altruism unless coerced by more certain punishment.
>
> >The people that died trying to do "heroic" things certainly didn't
> >believe they would die by helping people, but rather that they would
> >all remain alive rather than just the guy who was trying to help.
>
> Do you honestly believe this?
Yes, actually I do and indeed for the most part such a belief would have
held some probability of being true. You also have to figure into the
equation the confusion as to what was actually happening that could cloud
judgement on such issues as well.
Steven Schrader
> anno Domini Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:26:28 -0500, Steven Schrader
> <digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>
> [TSW:]
> >> Yahoo! has a good Java-based game of Go on a part of their site.
>
> >Can we take our time doing it or is it real-time?
>
> Real-time, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at
> it).
In my case it's fairly rare that I'd have the time to sit and play a game on
my computer. Same reason I prefer newsgroups and email over IRC and AIM
really.
> >We could always start a game in here. I played a game with a
> >past-poster named Matt Noonan a while back. I think his Go page for
> >arc-t still exists actually.
>
> Weird. Sure, I'd give that a shot.
Smallish board okay? I'll start up a new thread prolly this weekend and we
can play. :)
> >Oh, and I don't get to play very often, so I'm not very good,
>
> I've played less than ten times in as many years, so no need to worry
> about being outclassed :)
*whew* :D
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"Pooh knew what he meant, but,
being a Bear of Very Little Brain,
couldn't think of the words."
- A.A. Milne, "The House at Pooh Corner"
Steven Schrader
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> bl...@mysanctuary.con says...
>
<snip>
> As a pastor, I can tell you that the god of science comes up empty when
> a person has put their faith in science and suddenly faces an incurable
> disease and realizes how powerless science is to help them. Sadly too
> often they have also lost faith in God as they followed science and
> therefore lose hope in an eternal world which holds the final victory.
That's not a fault of science though, but of the person who turns it into a
"god". Science is a tool, not something you have faith in.
<snip>
> And science's inability to see God is not surprising since it already
> has preconceptions that such a being doesn't exist.
Not exactly. Without evidence of a "God", the reality of such a being can
not be addressed. That's not the same as assuming that such a being doesn't
exist.
<snip>
> Anything that doesn't fit into science's nice little world is dismissed
> - the person was crazy - or the person saw what they wanted to believe -
> etc.
Not dismissed, but set aside without adequate evidence to properly assess
the "answer" and without a proper means with which to test. Also, the
person may well be crazy, or seeing what they want to see. These are as
valid of explanations as any, and part of science is exploring these
possibilities.
> Yet science has truly disproved nothing except that their prejudice
> closes their eyes to a deeper more spiritual truth.
On an individual basis you may have some valid points here, but I'm running
into a problem with your personifying of "science". There are many
scientists out there, all with different beliefs. Lumping them all together
under a generaliziation you label as "science" is making your argument come
across less as a valid, supported criticism, and more as empty rhetoric (to
me anyway).
Kinda like your up on a soapbox preaching away, which I suppose is
appropriate given your choice of occupation. :) Just not the most useful
way to make a point around here.
<snip>
> You believe that I have zero certainty about my God. That is nonsense
> and shows science's limitations. I have 100 percent certainty about my
> God - despite my fallible mind - he has made himself very real as he
> will with all who take time to truly learn and seek the Truth.
Saying you have 100 percent certainty is one thing, can you actually
demonstrate it?
The points you make against science seem like they could be made against
your position as well. If science can't be certain of reality, then how can
you?
<snip>
> No my friend - the man in the foxhole next to my dad's that dived on a
> grenade had no expectation of benefitting by his bravery. He expected to
> die! He had just learned a great truth. "Greater love has no man than
> this that he lay down his life for another..."
Have you ever read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene"? I'm about a third
of the way through it myself. It addresses issues such as the above.
Personally, I've never understood why people see only the biological
imperatives and ignore the sociological ones.
<snip>
> > Its not in the brothers best interest to kill his sibling actually, although
> > it is in his interest to get more of the resources from the parents to get
> > the advantage. The rational is that if some misfortune should befall brother
> > one, there is still a chance that much of his genetic legacy will be
> > preserved in his brother and so will still survive. Often in animal
> > societies, siblings will work together to improve the chance of their shared
> > heritage being passed on.
>
> And yet they didn't. As you stated earlier - there was no cooperation -
> just a known instinct to survive and that meant wiping out the
> competition. It just doesn't fit the facts.
It really depends on the available resources. If there are abundant
resources, then there isn't much of a reason for you to compete or share
since there would be no "crisis" there to address.
Later,
--
Steven Schrader
The Musician's Homepage - http://www.themusicianshomepage.com/
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a
lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
- DOuglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Winamp says: Yumiko Kobayashi - Puni Puni Densetsu Ppoi
The Steel Wolf
<digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:41:44 GMT, The Steel Wolf wrote:
>> anno Domini Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:26:28 -0500, Steven Schrader
>> <digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>> >We could always start a game in here. I played a game with a
>> >past-poster named Matt Noonan a while back. I think his Go page for
>> >arc-t still exists actually.
>> Weird. Sure, I'd give that a shot.
>Smallish board okay? I'll start up a new thread prolly this weekend and we
>can play. :)
Sounds good.
--
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
-- Albert Einstein
PGP fingerprint: 8C37 6F91 A883 F7C9 2ECC F65C 0DEC AB5A 3084 906D
AntiSocial
Then I ask you, where did god come from?
The Steel Wolf
<digi...@enteract.com> scripsit:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:36:48 -0500, Pastor John wrote:
>> I have 100 percent certainty about my God
<snip>
>Saying you have 100 percent certainty is one thing, can you actually
>demonstrate it?
Ah, but the certainty with which an individual possesses a certain
belief is based on purely subjective factors! As such, a request to
demonstrate such certainty objectively is paradoxical.
Excellent points otherwise, and ones with which I would largely agree.