Re[2]: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheepletricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Hallo Folks, Sunday, 28 November, 2004, 02:38:12, you wrote: C True, but what I mean is that life struggles to keep order within, C at least. C And, since a single individual can't do that forever, we procreate. C Best regards, C Christopher I'm replying to Christopers mail but these are just some general thoughts. I suppose I should not be amazed at how unreasonable people tend to be. I look at nearly anything, partisan politics, economics, religion and see the language of reasonableness but not the substance. It is as though folks just don't want to get along the want to be RIGHT at all costs. Now these are generalities folks. I don't know that I would set myself up as the standard by which reasonableness should be measured, but I don't see any conflict at all between evolution and creationism other than the artificial posturing by both sides. Artificial? Sure. Let's see either side give adequate proofs of anything they posit. They are all theories. Religion is theoretical. Science is theoretical. With religion the only sure knowledge we have is personal, subjective. Beyond that lies theory. Let's say there is a God or whatever one chooses to call it (let us not quibble over name and form). Suppose God thought, Hmm, I believe I will create something out of nothing (our concepts). and then set creation loose which resulted in a big bang or any other method and that set evolution to going. Then suppose, after evolution had worked long enough to get the sentient critters we humans are going and they decided to make sense and order out of things they did not understand so they decided write their holy texts explaining THEIR understanding of that which is beyond all understanding and set creation down as being six days and the date of creation some 6.000 years ago. Then along comes science and says, You've got your dates wrong so that invalidates the whole shebang. Both sides being wrong and unreasonable. Now let's say there is no God or whatever one chooses to call it. Let's say that we are an accident of nature and will never know how the whole thing began. Then let's further posit that humans created religion and imagined God to explain that which is also beyond all understanding which calls folks, in its proper use, to aspire to their highest moral and ethical values and to give more order and purpose to their lives than they might otherwise have. Where is the harm in that? And remember, I am not talking about the intolerance, hate and violence which seems to be the hallmark of organized religion, but of the love and cooperation engendered by ones personal relationship with that highest ideal we call God or whatever our religion chooses to call it. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive unless misused and misapprehended. It is only when partisanship enters and reasonableness and reason are absent when this occurs. There is a middle way which allows for both to coexist with dignity but some of the hardest words in any language are, I could be mistaken. We tend to confuse truth with fact and knowledge with wisdom and perhaps most importantly we tend to equate our own pipsqueak point of view with full knowledge and understanding in areas where full knowledge and understanding are, at least in this point of our development, beyond total comprehension. We humans are an odd lot, eh? Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
(This may be a bit late.) I don't know about you guys but here is how I came to the realization that there is indeed a God. Silly as it may seem, I found God through science. snip Also, nothing else in the universe goes against ENTROPY but living things. In any spontaneous process, entropy increases. Actually nothing goes against entropy as long as you consider the system. Life involves a decrease in entropy because it is not a spontaneous process. Energy inputs are necessary to sustain life. Bob Allen, http://ozarker.org/bob Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 19 of The Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly,10 December 1948: ~~~ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
(This may be a bit late.) I don't know about you guys but here is how I came to the realization that there is indeed a God. Silly as it may seem, I found God through science. A philosophy professor of mine once made an analogy. I don't know if its an original but here it goes. Say you are simple person walking on a beach on a deserted island. While walking you happen to find a watch on the beach, all shiny and ticking. Wouldn't it occur to you that someone made that watch which is so sophisticated with gears springs and all? I paid no attention to my professors analogy until a few years later when I was taking up biochemistry. A single living cell, if I remember it correctly, has at least 600 chemical pathways/reactions occurring in sequence, in complementary of and simultaneous to one another. And, so I found my watch on the beach. I you look at everything closely,contradicting as it may sound, you'll see the magnificence of how everything has its own place in the universe, how everything follows a certain order. Also, nothing else in the universe goes against ENTROPY but living things. Regards, Christopher -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of robert luis rabello Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping,not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God Appal Energy wrote: Cobb County Georgia School Board puts stickers on their biology books stating that evolution is only a theory, all at the behest of a few screaming meamies, and two thousand petition signers. They're rationale? God is real but evolution is unproven. Well now..., one must ask the question: If sufficient proof of evolution is requisite, shouldn't the existance of God, gods or goddesses be held to the same standard? Would someone please show me the irrefutable proof that God exists? This is an excellent question that nicely illustrates the conflict between the scientific method and religion. If I depend on the scientific method, I must be able to quantify my deductions by virtue of experimentation that can be reproduced by my peers with the same results. This is an unsatisfactory way to contemplate the question of origins, as no one really knows with certainty what conditions existed on earth at the time life began. Further, no experimentation has ever demonstrated that non living matter can be transformed into living things; nor has any verifiable, reproducible experiment ever shown the transformation of one kind of living thing into another. Our understanding of genetics harmonizes with the principle that variations in phenotype must exist in the genotype of a living thing before micro variations can be expressed. So if science can, at best, offer conjecture about origins, it's unreasonable to demand proof of God or gods in a purely scientific sense. Once we begin speaking and writing of God and origins, we have moved into the realm of philosophy and religion. The diversity of views already expressed in this forum illustrate the lack of consensus among intelligent humans in this area. snip So given enough time (millenia or just a few biologic cycles), it's rather easy to prove the selectivity of nature for specific traits that are best suited to certain environmental characteristics. Rather kind of mindless work. Perfectly amazing, but none-the-less simple. But these traits exist in the genotype before they're expressed in the environment. The mechanism for the existence of latency in the genotype is not well understood. Many people conclude that the process of mutation explains variance in the genotype, but this explanation does not fit the observations biologists have made in repeated studies of the matter. It is, at best, a mystery at this time. It's really rather easy to feel some degree of sympathy for those who believe but can't prove the existance of what it is they believe in. Frustrating it must be for them. Of course, there is the age-old and failure-proof standby that If you don't believe me, you must be an agent from hell. That usually gets most people to leave them alone in their dither. I am a deeply devoted Christian who also happens to be educated in evolutionary theory, as my undergraduate degree is in biology. I find no dichotomy in my faith concerning the issue of origins. The tension you are describing does not exist for me. Further, I'm perfectly happy to allow room for you to disagree because we can BOTH agree that the idea of God, creation and salvation cannot be quantified in the same sense that science can describe the composition of biodiesel. (I HAD to throw that in somehow. . .) My experience, however, moves me and motivates me (and other people of faith) on a level that simply can't be explained in terms of what is rational. For this reason, philosophy and religion continue
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Interesting. I really don't understand how you rationalize micro evolution on a daily basis but reject macro evolution over many, many millenia. For the same reason why I don't win the lottery every day. Micro evolution is the expression of phenotype in response to changing environmental conditions. The basic morphology of the creature does not change. This is observed in nature and environments as mundane as the barnyard. A mechanistic view of the fossil record is the only evidence cited for macro evolution, (though I would argue that it's not actually present in the fossil record) and the positive mutations required for a new species (let's define that as a creature that cannot successfully bear offspring when mated to anything other than its own kind) to emerge stagger my imagination; even when I consider those mutagenic events to occur simultaneously in oceans teeming with chemistry favorable for life, not just sequentially. I don't expect you to accept my view as meritorious. I do, however, understand your position very well. no it doesn't. that is what mutations are all about. Mutagenesis can only impact an existing genome, it cannot create one. Further, in the event that a given mutation happens to be viable, a creature must be able to pass that mutation successfully to its offspring, and in addition, that mutation must give the creature some kind of competitive advantage (your clever wording) in order for the environment to select for that trait. We both understand this. Where we differ is in our view of whether or not this process explains the diversity of life on earth. agreed, but that has nothing to do with the variability of life on the planet. Only those mutations which confer a competitive advantage to an organism will be selected for. The overwhelmingly negative impact of mutations on a genome has a great deal to do with the variability of life on the planet. If mutagenesis was the mechanism by which life adapts to the environment, this planet should be sterile. Well, I just took a poll of several of my biologist colleagues and 100 per cent do believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once, maybe more, on this planet. And we are only one of billions and billions of planets. To me the odds are in favor of spontaneous generation in the universe, we just happen to be one of those places where chemistry, temperature, etc are right for what we call life. No scientist has ever demonstrated the concept of spontaneous generation in any experiment, neither is it observed in nature. The belief that life arose on its own requires as much (if not more) faith than does the belief that God created life on earth. If your colleagues believe in spontaneous generation, they should start a church. . . Read the article in the 1979 special edition of Scientific American, entitled Life: Origin and Evolution. (This was the one that retracted the 1953 Stanley Miller experiment, in which he produced amino acids in a laboratory flask.) Retracting the work of a Nobel Laureate is not done lightly. The fossil record indicates that single celled life began once there was water present on the surface of the earth. This doesn't allow for the requisite time that a random coupling of molecules would require to produce a living thing. The rates and order of mutations, the original DNA upon which mutagenesis was subjected and the environmental conditions that existed at the time must all be assumed. The conceptual framework upon which this theory is built requires a number of such assumptions not to you apparently, but I and a lot of others don't have any problem. There are some vary provocative experiments going on with autocatalytic RNA Indeed! It's all very interesting. For those who are not familiar with autocatalytic RNA, a current theory proposes that before proteins existed, RNA provided both genetic information and catalyzed chemical reactions. These were not alive in the sense that is commonly understood, but provided the building blocks upon which life moves forward. The jury is still out on this one, however. We have to wait for additional research. Not really, 120 million years is a long time. But the difference in time between the appearance of single celled life and that of the ediacaran fauna, when compared to the difference in time between the appearance of ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian period presents a curious problem. Why can we infer a very long period between the arising of single celled creatures and the ediacaran fauna, (with a relatively minor change in morphology), when the much shorter period between the rise of ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian produced an incredibly vast diversity of life forms? Just look at the variability of dogs. Everything from teacup poodles to great danes are descended from wolves only a few thousand years ago.
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
I remember seeing an electron microscope picture of a virus and thinking the thing had more in common with a nanobot than something living. Looked very mechanical. Don't remember which virus but think it was in Scientific American about 15 years ago. -Kirk --- robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bob allen wrote: Interesting. I really don't understand how you rationalize micro evolution on a daily basis but reject macro evolution over many, many millenia. For the same reason why I don't win the lottery every day. Micro evolution is the expression of phenotype in response to changing environmental conditions. The basic morphology of the creature does not change. This is observed in nature and environments as mundane as the barnyard. A mechanistic view of the fossil record is the only evidence cited for macro evolution, (though I would argue that it's not actually present in the fossil record) and the positive mutations required for a new species (let's define that as a creature that cannot successfully bear offspring when mated to anything other than its own kind) to emerge stagger my imagination; even when I consider those mutagenic events to occur simultaneously in oceans teeming with chemistry favorable for life, not just sequentially. I don't expect you to accept my view as meritorious. I do, however, understand your position very well. no it doesn't. that is what mutations are all about. Mutagenesis can only impact an existing genome, it cannot create one. Further, in the event that a given mutation happens to be viable, a creature must be able to pass that mutation successfully to its offspring, and in addition, that mutation must give the creature some kind of competitive advantage (your clever wording) in order for the environment to select for that trait. We both understand this. Where we differ is in our view of whether or not this process explains the diversity of life on earth. agreed, but that has nothing to do with the variability of life on the planet. Only those mutations which confer a competitive advantage to an organism will be selected for. The overwhelmingly negative impact of mutations on a genome has a great deal to do with the variability of life on the planet. If mutagenesis was the mechanism by which life adapts to the environment, this planet should be sterile. Well, I just took a poll of several of my biologist colleagues and 100 per cent do believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once, maybe more, on this planet. And we are only one of billions and billions of planets. To me the odds are in favor of spontaneous generation in the universe, we just happen to be one of those places where chemistry, temperature, etc are right for what we call life. No scientist has ever demonstrated the concept of spontaneous generation in any experiment, neither is it observed in nature. The belief that life arose on its own requires as much (if not more) faith than does the belief that God created life on earth. If your colleagues believe in spontaneous generation, they should start a church. . . Read the article in the 1979 special edition of Scientific American, entitled Life: Origin and Evolution. (This was the one that retracted the 1953 Stanley Miller experiment, in which he produced amino acids in a laboratory flask.) Retracting the work of a Nobel Laureate is not done lightly. The fossil record indicates that single celled life began once there was water present on the surface of the earth. This doesn't allow for the requisite time that a random coupling of molecules would require to produce a living thing. The rates and order of mutations, the original DNA upon which mutagenesis was subjected and the environmental conditions that existed at the time must all be assumed. The conceptual framework upon which this theory is built requires a number of such assumptions not to you apparently, but I and a lot of others don't have any problem. There are some vary provocative experiments going on with autocatalytic RNA Indeed! It's all very interesting. For those who are not familiar with autocatalytic RNA, a current theory proposes that before proteins existed, RNA provided both genetic information and catalyzed chemical reactions. These were not alive in the sense that is commonly understood, but provided the building blocks upon which life moves forward. The jury is still out on this one, however. We have to wait for additional research. Not really, 120 million years is a long time. But the difference in time between the appearance of single celled life and that of the ediacaran fauna, when compared to the difference in time between the
Re: [Biofuel] about God
In oreder to have a chicken one must then have to have a fertile egg right ? Ok, who insiminated the first egg? Ergo, Creation. The chicken came first. :) Peggy: God doesn't send you to hell or anywhere else, you, by your choices, good and bad, make that decision for yourself. Hense, the majesty of choice, your majesty that no one has the right to remove, and that God has specifically limited Himself not to interfere with, otherwise we would all be mindless zombies with no will and what could possibly be the point to that ? You are a free moral agent, and it is up to you to determine your fate. Best to do it with a solid foundation, or not, your choice. Luc - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:23 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] about God Gabriel, You are obviously a profound thinker so I will pose a troubling question to you. Which cam first? The Chicken..or the Egg? Best wishes, Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gabriel Proulx Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] about God I saw that some people are talking about God. I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. __ ___ Gardez le contrle grce la protection contre les fentres pop-up articule sur la technologie brevete Microsoft SmartScreen http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=fr-capage=features/ popup Commencez ds maintenant profiter de tous les avantages de MSN Premium et obtenez les deux premiers mois GRATUITS*. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
What? I have personally conducted experiments, verifiably and reproducibly (as have countless others) that transform one kind of living thing into another. Really? The examples you have cited consist of variations on a theme. A fruit fly is still a fruit fly. A virus remains a virus. Different characteristics within the basic form of creature can certainly be expressed, and no one who is serious about biology would dispute that micro evolution occurs on a daily basis. (But again, variability within the genotype must already exist, and the vast majority of mutations harm, rather than help, the affected creature.) However, we observe in nature that only living things produce living things. No serious biologist believes in spontaneous generation. The fossil record indicates that for a little over 3 billion years, all life on earth consisted of single celled organisms. Nobody can adequately explain how these life forms came to be. Ediacaran fauna (these are globular life forms, for those not familiar with the term) show up 650 million years ago, and then, quite suddenly (with no hint of change in older fossils) the Cambrian explosion reveals all the basic anatomical life forms that we know in the oceans today. Believing that this change occurred by the mechanism of mutagenesis in only 120 million years (the difference in time between the appearance of ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian period) requires a great deal of faith to believe. The Ames assay depends on the conversion of a histidine dependent strain of Salmonella to non-dependence via mutagenesis. Undergraduates in genetics courses routinely manipulate the genome of fruit flies. No end of new kinds of critters, up to and including mammals, are available on a daily basis via directed mutagenesis. So you can change a mammal into a different kind of thing? Can you change an amphibian into a reptile, or a reptile into a bird? Even if this was possible, directed mutagenesis requires a certain amount of intelligence to manipulate the genome. It is not a random process that is observed in nature. Even without human intervention, viruses are constantly dragging bits of DNA from one organism to another. New flu vaccines are needed on an annual basis because the viruses have mutated. But the viruses remain viruses, do they not? As to origins, I prefer Occam's razor. It is a lot easier for me to imagine thermodynamics for origins than belief in supernatural voodoo. Thermodynamics does not explain the origin of life. No experiment has ever successfully reproduced a living thing from something non living. Do you dispute this? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Robert, I didn't say that any supposed diety should be subjected to any chemical tests or an MRI to substantiate existance. All I said was that proof of existance should be offered. And after several hundred million years, one would think that proof would be abundant. Perhaps I've communicated my thought poorly. The proof of God's existence absolutely depends on how an individual views the evidence. All of us bring a set of assumptions into our examination of the world we observe, as you rightly point out. What I may cite as evidence, you may dismiss by offering a different explanation. For example, I had a very hard time accepting the evidence for the evolution of humans, when the divergence of the human branch from that which later produced simian apes occurred only a few million years ago. The number of changes necessary for the 2% difference between our genome and that of chimpanzees to occur by the mechanism of mutagenesis in that short time, staggers my imagination. It would be like winning the lottery every day, for millions of years. (This was a primal motivator in the development of Christianity, in my case.) Other people, however, see no tension in this. What I view as evidence of God's creative power, another person may readily accept as evidence for evolution. In fact, both perspectives require faith. You are reading words on a screen that bring understanding to your mind. The fact that you can do this is a mystical capability, as the grapheme / phoneme relationships we associate with words have no intrinsic meaning. How did this ability develop? No one has a satisfactory explanation. It may as well be a miracle, because the genome that enables your intellect to comprehend my writing existed many thousands of years before you and I had a need to engage in this conversation. To me, this is evidence of God's creative power. It's likely that you have a more mundane view, and that's ok. snip I think George Burns walking through Times Square tomorrow at noon would be sufficient proof. Turning lead into gold might take a close second. Walking on water a reasonable third, levitating and tight aerial acrobatics on the head of a pin a close runner-up. You can't offer any proof of substance other than what you hope and what you believe. Nobody can. Several centuries ago, people were so convinced that a man rose from the dead that they willingly subjected themselves to intense ridicule, persecution, and even death. They were eye witnesses to a horrible execution, followed by an empty tomb. Some of these same people watched the same man turn water into wine. Other people of the day rejected this evidence. No miracle can convince someone who simply doesn't want to believe. As for substance and proof, people who know me have seen a profound change in my attitude and behavior. Something has happened to me that I can't effectively put into words, but the experience is meritorious as evidence for me. Until you have the same kind of epiphany, you simply can't know, and it would be unreasonable for me to insist that you do. Just don't take me on a whirlwind tour of the toolies and your beliefs/indoctrinations/hopes and expect me to lose sight of the original premise. I'm happy for you. But none of that is sufficient evidence, much less evidence at all. I wouldn't insult your intelligence that way, but I think we agree on your basic premise. Belief in creation depends on faith. Here, we have no dispute. I would argue, however, that belief in a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life also depends on faith. The point is that if honesty and equity are supposed to be god-like attributes, then there should be either two stickers on each biology book stating that they're both theories or no stickers at all. One would hope that those professing to follow in the mold of their creator would understand such a principle long before the unindoctrinated pagan. Indeed! Unfortunaely, reality and what one would think all too frequently are at odds with each other. That is the nature of humanity, is it not? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
The proof of God's existence absolutely depends on how an individual views the evidence. So you're saying that if you saw someone walking on water tomorrow, he or she may not be God? Okay. I'll buy that. But I'd sure like to know that trick. Think of all the money that would be saved on Goretex. What I view as evidence of God's creative power, another person may readily accept as evidence for evolution. In fact, both perspectives require faith. Homey don't buy that. Adapting, when given sufficient time, is a far sight easier than just being, without beginning or end. To me, this is evidence of God's creative power. It's likely that you have a more mundane view, and that's ok. You're correct. To me it's evidence that it existed. Not how it came to be. Several centuries ago, people were so convinced that a man rose from the dead that they willingly subjected themselves to intense ridicule, persecution, and even death. They were eye witnesses to a horrible execution, followed by an empty tomb. Some of these same people watched the same man turn water into wine. Other people of the day rejected this evidence. No miracle can convince someone who simply doesn't want to believe. You make the presumption that this actually occurred. Yet all you have as substance is supposed manuscripts of supposed people, all pasted together in a nice little novel that sells at bookstores world round for around $7.95 in paperback. Might be that some very bizarre things transpired in their day. Might be that a sect of people desperately seeking something to cling to found just that. Who knows what possessed the writers of epistles and gospels? They certainly felt it worthwhile to burn a lot of midnight olive oil to get it all down. But then so did Edgar Allan Poe. Belief in creation depends on faith. Here, we have no dispute. I would argue, however, that belief in a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life also depends on faith. Ahhh, but I wasn't speaking of a mechanism that explained the origin of life, only a mechanism that explained how life continually evolves/devolves based on the demands placed upon it. Who knows how life actually began. Certainly not you or I or anyone on this planet. Which rather brings the conversation full circle yet again Put two stickers on the biology books or take all stickers off? If there is a god out there, no doubt he or she is perfectly capable of convincing me without so much as a nod of help from the frail human sector. All their involvment tends to do is shun people in the other direction. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping,not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God Appal Energy wrote: Robert, I didn't say that any supposed diety should be subjected to any chemical tests or an MRI to substantiate existance. All I said was that proof of existance should be offered. And after several hundred million years, one would think that proof would be abundant. Perhaps I've communicated my thought poorly. The proof of God's existence absolutely depends on how an individual views the evidence. All of us bring a set of assumptions into our examination of the world we observe, as you rightly point out. What I may cite as evidence, you may dismiss by offering a different explanation. For example, I had a very hard time accepting the evidence for the evolution of humans, when the divergence of the human branch from that which later produced simian apes occurred only a few million years ago. The number of changes necessary for the 2% difference between our genome and that of chimpanzees to occur by the mechanism of mutagenesis in that short time, staggers my imagination. It would be like winning the lottery every day, for millions of years. (This was a primal motivator in the development of Christianity, in my case.) Other people, however, see no tension in this. What I view as evidence of God's creative power, another person may readily accept as evidence for evolution. In fact, both perspectives require faith. You are reading words on a screen that bring understanding to your mind. The fact that you can do this is a mystical capability, as the grapheme / phoneme relationships we associate with words have no intrinsic meaning. How did this ability develop? No one has a satisfactory explanation. It may as well be a miracle, because the genome that enables your intellect to comprehend my writing existed many thousands of years before you and I had a need to engage in this conversation. To me, this is evidence of God's creative power. It's likely that you have a more mundane view, and that's ok. snip I think George Burns walking through Times Square tomorrow at noon would be sufficient proof
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general s heeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Belief in a god of any king was there to hound the people into a belief that if you are a bad person you will be punished. just like in the Holiwood movies or the kindergarden stories told to ignorant children. It is human nature to believe in A HIGHER BEEN because we all look for a father or mother figure to cling to. Unfortunately, some humans have exploited this nature and taken it into profiting from some weaker, social dropouts and seriously demented beens, who are gullable enough to believe in rubbish tossed in their direction. Scraps from the table of the rich man i.e The origin of mankind as a race on Earth has always been in question. Mankinddoes not fall into the other categories of other animals on earth. We are called primates, but why are we 1 million time more dominant in every field over our nearest competitor. The answer stares us in the face on a daily basis, but we refuse to accept it. Humans do not originate from Earth. We are our own Martians. Laugh as you may, but look at the evidence. Don't you think Earth is slowly replicating the conditions found on Mars? CO2 levels unbearable, water evident, Temperatures unbearable extremes, deforested, poles melted, and... and and... Put any been on a virgin planet or island and they revert to cave man. Watch the Survivor series on T.V. and you will see the logic. They are only there for a few weeks and look what happened. The Bible , Koran etc are nice story books to base an ideal on, but remember.a story book still. Most of the Bible's stories are symbolic figures of speech and can not be taken literally. People .wake up and realise that the dark ages of magic and trickery were left there and word games are not a modern fad. Look after yourself and know the difference between right and wrong. Trust no-one, for they will let you down. I have live on this policy for 40 years and has worked for me so far. Live lif4e to the full, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in the process or deminish the gift of life to something cheap. Perfection comes with practice , not create in a whole or hole. Craig -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 6:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God Robert, The proof of God's existence absolutely depends on how an individual views the evidence. So you're saying that if you saw someone walking on water tomorrow, he or she may not be God? Okay. I'll buy that. But I'd sure like to know that trick. Think of all the money that would be saved on Goretex. What I view as evidence of God's creative power, another person may readily accept as evidence for evolution. In fact, both perspectives require faith. Homey don't buy that. Adapting, when given sufficient time, is a far sight easier than just being, without beginning or end. To me, this is evidence of God's creative power. It's likely that you have a more mundane view, and that's ok. You're correct. To me it's evidence that it existed. Not how it came to be. Several centuries ago, people were so convinced that a man rose from the dead that they willingly subjected themselves to intense ridicule, persecution, and even death. They were eye witnesses to a horrible execution, followed by an empty tomb. Some of these same people watched the same man turn water into wine. Other people of the day rejected this evidence. No miracle can convince someone who simply doesn't want to believe. You make the presumption that this actually occurred. Yet all you have as substance is supposed manuscripts of supposed people, all pasted together in a nice little novel that sells at bookstores world round for around $7.95 in paperback. Might be that some very bizarre things transpired in their day. Might be that a sect of people desperately seeking something to cling to found just that. Who knows what possessed the writers of epistles and gospels? They certainly felt it worthwhile to burn a lot of midnight olive oil to get it all down. But then so did Edgar Allan Poe. Belief in creation depends on faith. Here, we have no dispute. I would argue, however, that belief in a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life also depends on faith. Ahhh, but I wasn't speaking of a mechanism that explained the origin of life, only a mechanism that explained how life continually evolves/devolves based on the demands placed upon it. Who knows how life actually began. Certainly not you or I or anyone on this planet. Which rather brings the conversation full circle yet again Put two stickers on the biology books or take all stickers off? If there is a god out there, no doubt he or she is perfectly capable of convincing me without so much as a nod of help from the frail human sector. All their involvment tends to do is shun people in the other
RE: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general s heeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
snip It is human nature to believe in A HIGHER BEEN because we all look for a father or mother figure to cling to. Um, I am a strong believer of higher beans ... :-) ... red kidney especially. And that these beans cling to poles :o). Yum. Cheers Aleks ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
The rich man is the man that needs nothing. And faith can be the impetus for knowing that as the center of expression for the primal will-to-good your needs will be met regardless of one's profit and loss statement. There is nothing wrong with wealth (as has been already stated on this forum). It is the greed that some associate with personally acquiring their physical possessions. We all come into the world naked and when we leave, who cares what clothes are buried along with the decaying rot. (Therefore leading to an entire philosophy of Pharaohnic science which doesn't really matter in this discussion anyway.) You hit the nail on the head when you targeted beliefs as the persuasion to and from difficulty. Best wishes, Peggy Subject: RE: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God Belief in a god of any king was there to hound the people into a belief that if you are a bad person you will be punished. just like in the Holiwood movies or the kindergarden stories told to ignorant children. It is human nature to believe in A HIGHER BEEN because we all look for a father or mother figure to cling to. Unfortunately, some humans have exploited this nature and taken it into profiting from some weaker, social dropouts and seriously demented beens, who are gullable enough to believe in rubbish tossed in their direction. Scraps from the table of the rich man i.e The origin of mankind as a race on Earth has always been in question. Mankinddoes not fall into the other categories of other animals on earth. We are called primates, but why are we 1 million time more dominant in every field over our nearest competitor. The answer stares us in the face on a daily basis, but we refuse to accept it. Humans do not originate from Earth. We are our own Martians. Laugh as you may, but look at the evidence. Don't you think Earth is slowly replicating the conditions found on Mars? CO2 levels unbearable, water evident, Temperatures unbearable extremes, deforested, poles melted, and... and and... Put any been on a virgin planet or island and they revert to cave man. Watch the Survivor series on T.V. and you will see the logic. They are only there for a few weeks and look what happened. The Bible , Koran etc are nice story books to base an ideal on, but remember.a story book still. Most of the Bible's stories are symbolic figures of speech and can not be taken literally. People .wake up and realise that the dark ages of magic and trickery were left there and word games are not a modern fad. Look after yourself and know the difference between right and wrong. Trust no-one, for they will let you down. I have live on this policy for 40 years and has worked for me so far. Live lif4e to the full, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in the process or deminish the gift of life to something cheap. Perfection comes with practice , not create in a whole or hole. Craig ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] about God
Hey Tim: In oreder to have a chicken one must then have to have a fertile egg right ? Ok, who insiminated the first egg? Ergo, Creation. The chicken came first. :) Actually, there was a non-chicken egg layer long before there was a chicken. Ergo, Evolution. The egg came first. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] about God
The essence of egg-o-ism drew the chicken unto itself and into a future probability as did the squawking joy of reverberating sound made by the chicken as she laid her first egg. Forevermore the sound of joyful laying of eggs shall disrupt hen houses followed by the cackle of remembrance--a feeling men will never know. Peggy Hey Tim: In oreder to have a chicken one must then have to have a fertile egg right ? Ok, who insiminated the first egg? Ergo, Creation. The chicken came first. :) Actually, there was a non-chicken egg layer long before there was a chicken. Ergo, Evolution. The egg came first. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] about God
God laid an egg? H. . . :) Kirk --- Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The essence of egg-o-ism drew the chicken unto itself and into a future probability as did the squawking joy of reverberating sound made by the chicken as she laid her first egg. Forevermore the sound of joyful laying of eggs shall disrupt hen houses followed by the cackle of remembrance--a feeling men will never know. Peggy Hey Tim: In oreder to have a chicken one must then have to have a fertile egg right ? Ok, who insiminated the first egg? Ergo, Creation. The chicken came first. :) Actually, there was a non-chicken egg layer long before there was a chicken. Ergo, Evolution. The egg came first. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
bob allen wrote: What? I have personally conducted experiments, verifiably and reproducibly (as have countless others) that transform one kind of living thing into another. Really? The examples you have cited consist of variations on a theme. A fruit fly is still a fruit fly. A virus remains a virus. Different characteristics within the basic form of creature can certainly be expressed, and no one who is serious about biology would dispute that micro evolution occurs on a daily basis. Interesting. I really don't understand how you rationalize micro evolution on a daily basis but reject macro evolution over many, many millenia. (But again, variability within the genotype must already exist, no it doesn't. that is what mutations are all about. and the vast majority of mutations harm, rather than help, the affected creature agreed, but that has nothing to do with the variability of life on the planet. Only those mutations which confer a competitive advantage to an organism will be selected for. ) However, we observe in nature that only living things produce living things. No serious biologist believes in spontaneous generation. Well, I just took a poll of several of my biologist colleagues and 100 per cent do believe that spontaneous generation took place at least once, maybe more, on this planet. And we are only one of billions and billions of planets. To me the odds are in favor of spontaneous generation in the universe, we just happen to be one of those places where chemistry, temperature, etc are right for what we call life. The fossil record indicates that for a little over 3 billion years, all life on earth consisted of single celled organisms. Nobody can adequately explain how these life forms came to be. not to you apparently, but I and a lot of others don't have any problem. There are some vary provocative experiments going on with autocatalytic RNA Ediacaran fauna (these are globular life forms, for those not familiar with the term) show up 650 million years ago, and then, quite suddenly (with no hint of change in older fossils) the Cambrian explosion reveals all the basic anatomical life forms that we know in the oceans today. Believing that this change occurred by the mechanism of mutagenesis in only 120 million years (the difference in time between the appearance of ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian period) requires a great deal of faith to believe. Not really, 120 million years is a long time. Just look at the variability of dogs. Everything from teacup poodles to great danes are descended from wolves only a few thousand years ago. I recommend _In the blink of an eye_ by Andrew Parker. It is yet another explanation of the cambrian explosion. His position is that it was the evolution of photosensitivity that then resulted in an massive increase in ecological nitches which were filled through natural selection. The Ames assay depends on the conversion of a histidine dependent strain of Salmonella to non-dependence via mutagenesis. Undergraduates in genetics courses routinely manipulate the genome of fruit flies. No end of new kinds of critters, up to and including mammals, are available on a daily basis via directed mutagenesis. So you can change a mammal into a different kind of thing? Can you change an amphibian into a reptile, or a reptile into a bird? Even if this was possible, directed mutagenesis requires a certain amount of intelligence to manipulate the genome. It is not a random process that is observed in nature. Come on, lets not use that tired expression thing, The only place I see it used is among creationists. the difference between me and a bed bug is our genome. (and a scant difference it is) Even without human intervention, viruses are constantly dragging bits of DNA from one organism to another. New flu vaccines are needed on an annual basis because the viruses have mutated. But the viruses remain viruses, do they not? if the genome is different, they are different. Things like species, genera, etc are mearly arbitrary methods of organizing information. As to origins, I prefer Occam's razor. It is a lot easier for me to imagine thermodynamics for origins than belief in supernatural voodoo. Thermodynamics does not explain the origin of life. No experiment has ever successfully reproduced a living thing from something non living. Do you dispute this? Do you consider viruses living? As I recall the 5200 nucleotide sequence of the SV 40 virus has been assembled _in vitro_. And when placed in the proper environment proceeded to replicate. I further submit that more complex organisms will be created from whole cloth in the future as technology matures. Robert, your arguments beckon to the past vitalist theory I just don't need it to explain how the world goes 'round .
RE: [Biofuel] about God
probability as did the squawking joy of reverberating sound made by the chicken as she laid her first egg. Forevermore the sound of joyful laying of eggs shall disrupt hen houses followed by the cackle of remembrance--a feeling men will never know. Peggy Peggy, it's a nice story, but you're not really saying are you that we poor foolish males know nothing of the disruption of which you speak??? The rooster just crowed again (yeah, 4am again!), very timely (as well as punctual) - he knows a thing or two. So do I! LOL! Actually I don't believe I've heard joyful cluckings accompanying the laying of eggs. Usually there's no accompaniment, but if anything it sounds more like dismay. Which would figure. And once they're sitting on them they're nothing but grumpy, to anyone who comes near, especially another chicken. So much for the Great Sisterhood of Chickens. Anyway, I think Brian just established, didn't he, that chickens, as has been alleged, are nothing more than a plot by eggs to beget more eggs. BUT I think we've all missed the point when it comes to the creation of chickens and eggs, or shall we say the chicken-egg complex. The credit lies with the Indian agricultural geniuses of Long Ago who, along with much else (and not all of it so long ago), produced this wondrous gift to the world from a wild bird still to be found in the forests there. The I Ching says that man's work with nature that furthers nature's aims is the work that rewards him the best. Undoubtedly true - but the catch is to figure out quite what nature's aims might be and get it right, no simple matter. It takes a quiet mind. But I cannot imagine that nature was displeased with the outcome when it came to the chicken, nor with her creators. Regards Keith Hey Tim: In oreder to have a chicken one must then have to have a fertile egg right ? Ok, who insiminated the first egg? Ergo, Creation. The chicken came first. :) Actually, there was a non-chicken egg layer long before there was a chicken. Ergo, Evolution. The egg came first. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] about God
I appreciate time-tested answers from learned thinkers. Paul Foster Case reports that nature unaided fails and that sub-consciousness is amiable to suggestion. The essence of egg-o-ism drew the chicken unto itself and into a future probability as did the squawking joy of reverberating sound made by the chicken as she laid her first egg. Forevermore the sound of joyful laying of eggs shall disrupt hen houses followed by the cackle of remembrance--a feeling men will never know. Keith: Peggy, it's a nice story, but you're not really saying are you that we poor foolish males know nothing of the disruption of which you speak??? P: Now, Keith... Yes, I was getting colorful and the innuendos are most definitely there. I would not refer to it as disruption--more like a combination of ecstasy and pain. K: The rooster just crowed again (yeah, 4am again!), very timely (as well as punctual) - he knows a thing or two. So do I! LOL! P: He too recalls his feelings. Ah Ha! Another PROOF!!! K: Anyway, I think Brian just established, didn't he, that chickens, as has been alleged, are nothing more than a plot by eggs to beget more eggs. P: That's a historical record. The future is open to change. K: BUT I think we've all missed the point when it comes to the creation of chickens and eggs, or shall we say the chicken-egg complex. The credit lies with the Indian agricultural geniuses of Long Ago who, along with much else (and not all of it so long ago), produced this wondrous gift to the world from a wild bird still to be found in the forests there. P: Ah--the cross-over beings. And we all want to be one of those--if not on this plane, then perhaps on another. K: The I Ching says that man's work with nature that furthers nature's aims is the work that rewards him the best. Undoubtedly true - but the catch is to figure out quite what nature's aims might be and get it right, no simple matter. It takes a quiet mind. P: Thank you for reminding us. And I believe that the quiet mind can be better understood by considering arbitrary definitions in Beta, Alpha, Theta, and Delta brain-wave activity. This concept relates directly to my beliefs. We find our intellectual reason in our beta and alpha states and many people on this forum relate most heavily to this state of mind which is evidenced in their philosophical bent. I believe that we find our creativity in theta states, and we find communication with the higher self in deep-theta and delta. The master of brain-wave frequency control can draw from more sources than are available to the intellect. Some people call it righteous prayer, some call it meditation. Names are arbitrary. The information received is what matters... And as a final note: It feels good to feel good. Best wishes, Peggy ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Cobb County Georgia School Board puts stickers on their biology books stating that evolution is only a theory, all at the behest of a few screaming meamies, and two thousand petition signers. They're rationale? God is real but evolution is unproven. Well now..., one must ask the question: If sufficient proof of evolution is requisite, shouldn't the existance of God, gods or goddesses be held to the same standard? Would someone please show me the irrefutable proof that God exists? This is an excellent question that nicely illustrates the conflict between the scientific method and religion. If I depend on the scientific method, I must be able to quantify my deductions by virtue of experimentation that can be reproduced by my peers with the same results. This is an unsatisfactory way to contemplate the question of origins, as no one really knows with certainty what conditions existed on earth at the time life began. Further, no experimentation has ever demonstrated that non living matter can be transformed into living things; nor has any verifiable, reproducible experiment ever shown the transformation of one kind of living thing into another. Our understanding of genetics harmonizes with the principle that variations in phenotype must exist in the genotype of a living thing before micro variations can be expressed. So if science can, at best, offer conjecture about origins, it's unreasonable to demand proof of God or gods in a purely scientific sense. Once we begin speaking and writing of God and origins, we have moved into the realm of philosophy and religion. The diversity of views already expressed in this forum illustrate the lack of consensus among intelligent humans in this area. snip So given enough time (millenia or just a few biologic cycles), it's rather easy to prove the selectivity of nature for specific traits that are best suited to certain environmental characteristics. Rather kind of mindless work. Perfectly amazing, but none-the-less simple. But these traits exist in the genotype before they're expressed in the environment. The mechanism for the existence of latency in the genotype is not well understood. Many people conclude that the process of mutation explains variance in the genotype, but this explanation does not fit the observations biologists have made in repeated studies of the matter. It is, at best, a mystery at this time. It's really rather easy to feel some degree of sympathy for those who believe but can't prove the existance of what it is they believe in. Frustrating it must be for them. Of course, there is the age-old and failure-proof standby that If you don't believe me, you must be an agent from hell. That usually gets most people to leave them alone in their dither. I am a deeply devoted Christian who also happens to be educated in evolutionary theory, as my undergraduate degree is in biology. I find no dichotomy in my faith concerning the issue of origins. The tension you are describing does not exist for me. Further, I'm perfectly happy to allow room for you to disagree because we can BOTH agree that the idea of God, creation and salvation cannot be quantified in the same sense that science can describe the composition of biodiesel. (I HAD to throw that in somehow. . .) My experience, however, moves me and motivates me (and other people of faith) on a level that simply can't be explained in terms of what is rational. For this reason, philosophy and religion continue to provide a vehicle for the human experience. So, while the world waits for an irrefutable appearance of the cosmos' most premier water walker, perhaps we oughta' either take all the stickers off the books, or at minimum eliminate the double standard and put two stickers on everything, declaring that God and evolution are both theories, giving evidence to a little honesty in advertising for a change. As science is not an appropriate tool for understanding the question of origins, the scriptures were not intended to be a science primer, and I strongly disagree with those who would like to make it so. While much harmony has appeared in the two realms within the last hundred years (as, thanks to Einstein, science generally accepts a beginning to all things), the scriptures cannot be used to substantiate science, nor can science be used to substantiate the existence of God. Our conclusions absolutely depend on the a priori assumptions we bring into our examination of the evidence. You are right in underscoring this. I know. Jeers, virtual athiesm tomatos and fatwahs all around. I think I understand your perspective on this issue more than you realize, as I once believed in a similar fashion. If there is grace for me, then there is certainly grace available to you! The essence of my faith in Jesus Christ gives me hope, no matter how dark the world becomes; and we are certainly on the path
Re[2]: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Hallo Robert, The scientific method requires, if memory serves: 1. Define operational terms 2. Allow for experimental duplication, repeatability 3. Emperical observation and induction 4. Analytic-synthetic thinking 5. Prediction and falsification 6. Scientific public consensus of truth The piece below was written to Friends (Quakers) by a minister from New Jersey named Elias Hicks in 1826. The operational terms, although not enumerated and defined in the letter were and are already defined and accepted by Friends so you will not find that in his letter. He advises Friends to duplicate and repeat his experiment, calls for emperical observation and induction, requires analytic-synthetic thinking for the experiment to be successful, gives his prediction of the outcome and calls not once but twice for either falsification of his premise or a public consensus of truth. The problem is that ones knowledge of and relationship with that which is pure and is called many different things by many different people is that it is, like the headache, entirely subjective and beyond objective proofs. But, like the headache, if one has had the experience then one knows and relates to others who have had the same experience and this does not require a lot of words because the experience is nigh onto impossible to accurately describe. To these folks proofs are moot. The experience stands on its own. But again, like the headache, if one has not had the experience one may believe that since there is no measurable proof (or at least there was not the last time I looked-this may have changed) the headache does not exist because they have not experienced one and it cannot be measured. And again, religion and science are both used and abused each and every minute of each and every day. Both are criminal in my book. But as Hicks says, investigate them for yourselves and if you find nothing worthy in them then turn and walk away. Just remember though, that just as in science the experiment has to be repeated exactly or the results will be skewed. We cannot expect less from science than we demand from religion. Happy Happy, Gustl From a sermon by Elias Hicks in 1826: Now I want these things to sink deep into the heart of every age, sex and condition. Be willing to investigate for yourselves; don't mind what I say, or what any one else may say, but bring things home to the truth in your own bosoms; turn them over and over, and see if there is not something in them worthy of preservation--and if there is not, leave them. I say, I want you to investigate for yourselves; for we have that liberty, in this land of liberty. We have a right to think for ourselves, about what we know to be the truth in ourselves, and nothing but the truth...Oh! then, that we may become willing to turn inward to what the light makes manifest...Whatsoever is wrong is reproved by this light, and all things that are reproveable we know, for they are made manifest by the light; clearly so. And it is reasonable to conclude that without light, nothing can be made manifest. But when we come into the light of the Lord, all things will be made manifest, when the mind is willing, and the heart is disposed to receive God in the way of his coming. I feel earnest in my desires for us, that we may this evening lay these things properly to heart. I hope you will take these things home, my friends, and not be hasty in deciding, but turn them over in your minds, and if you can find any thing in them, well, and if not leave them. (Gould 1830) Thursday, 11 November, 2004, 11:36:15, you wrote: rlr Appal Energy wrote: Cobb County Georgia School Board puts stickers on their biology books stating that evolution is only a theory, all at the behest of a few screaming meamies, and two thousand petition signers. They're rationale? God is real but evolution is unproven. Well now..., one must ask the question: If sufficient proof of evolution is requisite, shouldn't the existance of God, gods or goddesses be held to the same standard? Would someone please show me the irrefutable proof that God exists? rlr This is an excellent question that nicely illustrates the conflict rlr between the scientific method and religion. If I depend on the rlr scientific method, I must be able to quantify my deductions by virtue rlr of experimentation that can be reproduced by my peers with the same rlr results. This is an unsatisfactory way to contemplate the question of rlr origins, as no one really knows with certainty what conditions existed rlr on earth at the time life began. Further, no experimentation has ever rlr demonstrated that non living matter can be transformed into living rlr things; nor has any verifiable, reproducible experiment ever shown the rlr transformation of one kind of living thing into another. Our
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
snip Further, no experimentation has ever demonstrated that non living matter can be transformed into living things; nor has any verifiable, reproducible experiment ever shown the transformation of one kind of living thing into another. Our understanding of genetics harmonizes with the principle that variations in phenotype must exist in the genotype of a living thing before micro variations can be expressed. What? I have personally conducted experiments, verifiably and reproducibly (as have countless others) that transform one kind of living thing into another. The Ames assay depends on the conversion of a histidine dependent strain of Salmonella to non-dependence via mutagenesis. Undergraduates in genetics courses routinely manipulate the genome of fruit flies. No end of new kinds of critters, up to and including mammals, are available on a daily basis via directed mutagenesis. Even without human intervention, viruses are constantly dragging bits of DNA from one organism to another. New flu vaccines are needed on an annual basis because the viruses have mutated. As to origins, I prefer Occam's razor. It is a lot easier for me to imagine thermodynamics for origins than belief in supernatural voodoo. -- -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- - The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] about God
Very interesting reading Martin. I did not realize there was so much involved with discussion groups. Personally, I see no need for messages such as the one originally listed here that you responded to. I don't think it benefited anyone. Other than that, this list has a lot of interesting reading. Jonathan Schearer. Martin Klingensmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Whether you intended it or not it seems you are trolling See this: Note, I am not moderating any as that is up to Keith. -- Martin Klingensmith site admin Gabriel Proulx wrote: I saw that some people are talking about God. I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ - Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
I didn't say that any supposed diety should be subjected to any chemical tests or an MRI to substantiate existance. All I said was that proof of existance should be offered. And after several hundred million years, one would think that proof would be abundant. By proof I mean something more than simply declaring that a book says so, or sweeping one's hand to the horizon and declaring all of creation sufficient evidence. I think George Burns walking through Times Square tomorrow at noon would be sufficient proof. Turning lead into gold might take a close second. Walking on water a reasonable third, levitating and tight aerial acrobatics on the head of a pin a close runner-up. You can't offer any proof of substance other than what you hope and what you believe. Nobody can. That's not to say that God, gods or Goddess(s) don't exist. Lovely thing if they do. Just don't take me on a whirlwind tour of the toolies and your beliefs/indoctrinations/hopes and expect me to lose sight of the original premise. I'm happy for you. But none of that is sufficient evidence, much less evidence at all. The point is that if honesty and equity are supposed to be god-like attributes, then there should be either two stickers on each biology book stating that they're both theories or no stickers at all. One would hope that those professing to follow in the mold of their creator would understand such a principle long before the unindoctrinated pagan. Unfortunaely, reality and what one would think all too frequently are at odds with each other. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:36 AM Subject: Re: Bible, Koran Torah Thumping,not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God Appal Energy wrote: Cobb County Georgia School Board puts stickers on their biology books stating that evolution is only a theory, all at the behest of a few screaming meamies, and two thousand petition signers. They're rationale? God is real but evolution is unproven. Well now..., one must ask the question: If sufficient proof of evolution is requisite, shouldn't the existance of God, gods or goddesses be held to the same standard? Would someone please show me the irrefutable proof that God exists? This is an excellent question that nicely illustrates the conflict between the scientific method and religion. If I depend on the scientific method, I must be able to quantify my deductions by virtue of experimentation that can be reproduced by my peers with the same results. This is an unsatisfactory way to contemplate the question of origins, as no one really knows with certainty what conditions existed on earth at the time life began. Further, no experimentation has ever demonstrated that non living matter can be transformed into living things; nor has any verifiable, reproducible experiment ever shown the transformation of one kind of living thing into another. Our understanding of genetics harmonizes with the principle that variations in phenotype must exist in the genotype of a living thing before micro variations can be expressed. So if science can, at best, offer conjecture about origins, it's unreasonable to demand proof of God or gods in a purely scientific sense. Once we begin speaking and writing of God and origins, we have moved into the realm of philosophy and religion. The diversity of views already expressed in this forum illustrate the lack of consensus among intelligent humans in this area. snip So given enough time (millenia or just a few biologic cycles), it's rather easy to prove the selectivity of nature for specific traits that are best suited to certain environmental characteristics. Rather kind of mindless work. Perfectly amazing, but none-the-less simple. But these traits exist in the genotype before they're expressed in the environment. The mechanism for the existence of latency in the genotype is not well understood. Many people conclude that the process of mutation explains variance in the genotype, but this explanation does not fit the observations biologists have made in repeated studies of the matter. It is, at best, a mystery at this time. It's really rather easy to feel some degree of sympathy for those who believe but can't prove the existance of what it is they believe in. Frustrating it must be for them. Of course, there is the age-old and failure-proof standby that If you don't believe me, you must be an agent from hell. That usually gets most people to leave them alone in their dither. I am a deeply devoted Christian who also happens to be educated in evolutionary theory, as my undergraduate degree is in biology. I find no dichotomy in my faith concerning the issue of origins. The tension you are describing does not exist for me. Further, I'm perfectly happy to allow room for you to disagree because we can BOTH agree that the idea
RE: [Biofuel] about God
Gabriel, You are obviously a profound thinker so I will pose a troubling question to you. Which cam first? The Chicken..or the Egg? Best wishes, Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gabriel Proulx Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] about God I saw that some people are talking about God. I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. __ ___ Gardez le contrle grce la protection contre les fentres pop-up articule sur la technologie brevete Microsoft SmartScreen http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=fr-capage=features/ popup Commencez ds maintenant profiter de tous les avantages de MSN Premium et obtenez les deux premiers mois GRATUITS*. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] about God
Hallo Gabriel, The problem with your proposition is that in logic one has to define and agree upon terms and definitions and since God is a concept beyond definition there can be no logical discussion about God. We can discuss different beliefs we hold or don't hold about God or we can discuss what we may or may not consider attributes of God but we cannot directly discuss God because of our limitations. Organized religion is mostly about control and not only of money but of peoples thoughts. What most folks call religion is really creed. Religion is between the person and their diety. Creed seeks to control and limit ones understanding to a certain set of beliefs, but the problem is that everyone does not have the same understanding. You have none when it comes to religion since you reject it and as far as I am concerned that is perfectly fine. It certainly doesn't mean you are not a good person. Religion brings people together and creed pushes people apart. If you want to find religion you go somewhere and sit quietly and listen to what your heart tells you. If it is good and pure and its source is love then you have found what you are looking for. If the source is not based in love then you have not found it. You don't need to define it but you need to heed it. You don't even have to call it God or Buddha or Krishna or Brahma or anything else. You don't even have to call it religion. But friend, do not let logic be that what controls and drives you because there are times and situations where logic is unable to meet the needs of the situation. The heart, however, never fails when it is grounded in love.Logic has its uses and its limitations as well. Don't let it confuse you. By all means help the world evolve, but don't forget to include yourself in there someplace. Don't leave yourself out. Happy Happy, Gustl Tuesday, 09 November, 2004, 21:54:22, you wrote: GP I saw that some people are talking about God. GP I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! GP It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the GP logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift GP even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that GP rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox GP here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. GP Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to GP lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything GP and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? GP Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. GP Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about GP collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] about God
So this excrement you speak of? Can we make fuel or fertilizer from it? Is it a fertilizer of great strength? Does it Excrete often or once every millennia or so? How might we transport this excrement? mel -Original Message- From: Gabriel Proulx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] about God I saw that some people are talking about God. I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. _ Gardez le contrle grce la protection contre les fentres pop-up articule sur la technologie brevete Microsoft SmartScreen http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=fr-capage=features/popup Commencez ds maintenant profiter de tous les avantages de MSN Premium et obtenez les deux premiers mois GRATUITS*. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] about God
Very well said... Jonathan Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gabriel, You are obviously a profound thinker so I will pose a troubling question to you. Which cam first? The Chicken..or the Egg? Best wishes, Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gabriel Proulx Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] about God I saw that some people are talking about God. I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. __ ___ Gardez le contrôle grâce à la protection contre les fenêtres pop-up articulée sur la technologie brevetée Microsoft SmartScreen http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=fr-capage=features/ popup Commencez dès maintenant à profiter de tous les avantages de MSN Premium et obtenez les deux premiers mois GRATUITS*. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ - Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] about God
I have to disagree. We can have faith in God, but, we have to trust that men did what god wanted them to do - that is to say, not change what god put forth. While it may seam like I'm saying much of what you are, I see it as something different, as faith and trust while they may have similar meanings, they are not the same and should not be used interchangeably as some people may suggest. This is why we should 'study the scriptures, and pray about what they are about, and what they mean ', and not just put blind trust in what others say what the scriptures mean. Greg H. - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 08:40 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] about God But here is my 2 cents on god and the bible (or qur'an): People don't have faith in god, people have faith in men (gender specific) that they told the truth about god in their writings. God didn't write anyting (ok, its said the commandments, but moses could have changed them), men did (not women). That is a bitter pill zelots simply cannot swallow. It doesn't mean god exists or the bible is false. It just points out our faith base is not in god but in men. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] about God
Thanks Keith, I can now rest easy :) ! Best wishes, Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] about God Um... the rooster? Keith Very well said... Jonathan Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gabriel, You are obviously a profound thinker so I will pose a troubling question to you. Which cam first? The Chicken..or the Egg? Best wishes, Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gabriel Proulx Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 9:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] about God I saw that some people are talking about God. I just want to express my point of view about God: it's total bullshit! It's told that God can create and do anything, as he wish. Following the logic of this statement, he could create a rock which is impossible to lift even for him because he can do anything he wants. But if he can't lift that rock, this mean he can't do anything he wants. Seems that we got a paradox here. Seems that the Bible is not telling the truth. Some peole will say: it's impossible to create a rock which is impossible to lift even God can't do that. That directly say that god can't do anything and that the Bible was not right. Don't it smell like bullshit? Think about that and tell me if paradox can be true. Stop wasting your life and energy in this ridiculous story. It's all about collecting beliver's money. Help the world evolve instead. _ _ ___ Gardez le contrôle grâce à la protection contre les fenêtres pop-up articulée sur la technologie brevetée Microsoft SmartScreen http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=fr-capage=features / popup Commencez dès maintenant à profiter de tous les avantages de MSN Premium et obtenez les deux premiers mois GRATUITS*. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] about God
I have faith that a higher being exists but its not based in any writen work; just my gut feeling. I have to disagree. and you are welcome to disagree= ;) This is why we should 'study the scriptures, and pray about what they are about, and what they mean ', and not just put blind trust in what others say what the scriptures mean. The scriptures were writen by mortal hands not buy the had of any god. therefore, they can and may be completley made up. You have faith that they indeed are telling true stories. Its akin to the scientists studying maps of a flat earth. They wern't intentionally documenting false informtion, but it was still false. No amount of study on these maps makes any of the data true. Can we find meaning in them? Very much... but should we live our lives by them? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] about God
You put words into my mouth. I did not say that I have faith that they indeed are telling true stories . Again, faith and trust are different things, even though they have been used by some people interchangeably. Faith is belief in that which is not provable, by means available. Trust is belief based on understanding of that which can be proved or disproved. I trust that the money in my pocket will be honored, even 5 years from now. I have faith that God exist, I will continue to have faith in God, until after I am dead, then I will have knowledge one way or another. Scripture ( of what ever the source, religious, or secular belief ) may be eventually be proved to be true ( or not ), thus I place trust on the men that pronounced / publish it, that it is true, until proven otherwise.I try and trust people until they prove to be untrustworthy, then I will give them benefit of doubt. If they then continue to prove untrustworthy, then they lose even the benefit of doubt, until they start proving that they are again trust worthy, then is goes back up the scale. Greg H. - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:54 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] about God The scriptures were writen by mortal hands not buy the had of any god. therefore, they can and may be completley made up. You have faith that they indeed are telling true stories. Its akin to the scientists studying maps of a flat earth. They wern't intentionally documenting false informtion, but it was still false. No amount of study on these maps makes any of the data true. Can we find meaning in them? Very much... but should we live our lives by them? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Bible, Koran Torah Thumping, not to mention other general sheeple tricks was Re: [Biofuel] about God
Cobb County Georgia School Board puts stickers on their biology books stating that evolution is only a theory, all at the behest of a few screaming meamies, and two thousand petition signers. They're rationale? God is real but evolution is unproven. Well now..., one must ask the question: If sufficient proof of evolution is requisite, shouldn't the existance of God, gods or goddesses be held to the same standard? Would someone please show me the irrefutable proof that God exists? Now, now. You can't rely upon semi-contemporary interpretations of written words from thousands of years ago. That's hearsay and second hand at best. That would be no different than anyone quoting from Darwin's Origin of the Species. Just because someone wrote it doesn't make it fact anymore than just declaring it. What is required is first hand knowledge that is repeatable and provable, given the correct set of circumstances of course. So given enough time (millenia or just a few biologic cycles), it's rather easy to prove the selectivity of nature for specific traits that are best suited to certain environmental characteristics. Rather kind of mindless work. Perfectly amazing, but none-the-less simple. But given the same amount of time, all that is evidenced relative to God's existance is more hearsay, first hand, second hand and off-hand tales of miracles and magnificent radiance, but nothing tangible, nothing repeatable, and in many respects nothing at all. It's really rather easy to feel some degree of sympathy for those who believe but can't prove the existance of what it is they believe in. Frustrating it must be for them. Of course, there is the age-old and failure-proof standby that If you don't believe me, you must be an agent from hell. That usually gets most people to leave them alone in their dither. Now please don't get me wrong. I'd bet good money that there's something out there that's bigger than me, and you as well. Just that virtually no-one has any proof as to exactly what that is. It's all theory. And while theory is all rather nice and no doubt necessary, especially when considering the needy, foolish and frail mental capacities of humanity in general (see the dismal, human propensity to punch time clocks and afford governments opportunity to cast bullets, muzzles and bombs and then put them in the hands of their children to unleash on whomever they wish), it remains nothing more than that. So, while the world waits for an irrefutable appearance of the cosmos' most premier water walker, perhaps we oughta' either take all the stickers off the books, or at minimum eliminate the double standard and put two stickers on everything, declaring that God and evolution are both theories, giving evidence to a little honesty in advertising for a change. I know. Jeers, virtual athiesm tomatos and fatwahs all around. Must often times be depressing, disconcerting and demoralizing for those who have a belief and no proof...other than the proof of their belief, of course. Circular logic, that. A record stuck playing in the same groove, never letting the listener/audience hear the rest of the song, much less experience it as fully as they could... Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Greg Harbican [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] about God You put words into my mouth. I did not say that I have faith that they indeed are telling true stories . Again, faith and trust are different things, even though they have been used by some people interchangeably. Faith is belief in that which is not provable, by means available. Trust is belief based on understanding of that which can be proved or disproved. I trust that the money in my pocket will be honored, even 5 years from now. I have faith that God exist, I will continue to have faith in God, until after I am dead, then I will have knowledge one way or another. Scripture ( of what ever the source, religious, or secular belief ) may be eventually be proved to be true ( or not ), thus I place trust on the men that pronounced / publish it, that it is true, until proven otherwise. I try and trust people until they prove to be untrustworthy, then I will give them benefit of doubt. If they then continue to prove untrustworthy, then they lose even the benefit of doubt, until they start proving that they are again trust worthy, then is goes back up the scale. Greg H. - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:54 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] about God The scriptures were writen by mortal hands not buy the had of any god. therefore, they can and may be completley made up. You have faith that they indeed are telling true stories. Its akin to the scientists studying maps of a flat earth. They wern't intentionally
