Are any Bodybuilders Christians here

[rockinred]

Truth is, there isn't any meaning to our existance other than the meaning we attach to it.

Christians give a Christian meaning to life, Buddists give Buddist meaning to life, Muslims give a Muslim meaning to life, etc etc etc.

That's all there is, mon petite. If the simple fact of the matter isn't palatable, if you need more comfort than the stark reality of the existance of matter, space, time, and energy give you, retreat into the invented fables of whichever religion makes you happy.


I guess you take the "skeptic" attitude to what seems reasonable to me . . . But, until someone comes along and proves their religion correct and all other religions wrong, I'll be skeptical to what the Bible says.

That's it???....the ability to love, feel emotions, speak, communicate like we are doing now, happy, sad, joy, give, recieve, peace, etc... is all just made up by chance??? right and wrong??? all just made up by some dirt that by chance became us? Just pick any one of those words and meditate and think real hard on the meaning and tell me it is all just chance and luck...those words have deep meaning and explain things.... look around you, nothing can compare, no animal, no living species.... No way by chance.

when you stated cosmos, matter, space, time.... those are not as complex in meaning as the words I stated above... but they are words that WE created to describe actual things....

no way.. I am not going to buy into *********? I was taught that and believed it in school for many years until I went through many real life trials and tribulations that caused changes in my life... I've seen quite a few third world countries, famine, death in my household, war.... love and life.... all to powerful to chalk off as fantasy filled thoughts made up for our own pleasure or arguments only to perish when we return to the dust or cosmos.

I will agree with you that there are many gray areas in all religions that are causes for concern, but I am not going to go back to the religion or belief system of *********... that was when I didn't want to look deep or the beginning of my journey. I only now accept the fact that I don't understand everything and understand what God's plan is for every being and other religion... the fact for me is I don't need to know... I need to know about myself and my own salvation.

The truth is you post in everyone of these threads because you are looking too....just like we all are... the comment that you stated above just said "i don't know, but you don't either".... the truth is, you might be closer to the kingdom of god than many others and closer than you think... Now just open your heart and look.... forget doctrines and differences, who cares about that.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Its all about faith

Either got it or you don't

I don't think its right to say, "My religion is correct, ev1else is wrong and going to hell, blah blah blah"

To completely close and block out all the other religions in the world is fine. But to constantly say your right and write it in stone is foolish and selfish.

On the other hand, there could possibly be some God of some form. Who knows...

But these jesus freaks lol, already have their minds made up. Its their way, or the highway(hell)


Lets just all agree to disagree. Cuz like Pyschotron said, your not going to open your minds. Its the fear. religion makes people feel comfortable.

Like I said a million times. Truth is what you want it to be. Whose to say whose right and whose wrong?

So lets just move along.

btw, i was christian for 19 years, THEN opened my eyes. So don't sit there and say us non-christians need to open our eyes. In reality its you, who sits there with that fear, thus using religion to make yourself feel comfortable with life

I'll leave it with this:

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?


We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

[rockinred]

bigsexy,

wait, why do we have to move along now? it is just a thread to share points of view... why put closure?... there is no hostility going on?

I respect yours and any others perspective...

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

bigsexy,

wait, why do we have to move along now? it is just a thread to share points of view... why put closure?... there is no hostility going on?

I respect yours and any others perspective...

I suppose your right.

But you know these threads lol....

[Tock]

That's it???....the ability to love, feel emotions, speak, communicate like we are doing now, happy, sad, joy, give, recieve, peace, etc... is all just made up by chance???

Dunno if it was by chance or not. But just because your mind is accustomed to the notion of intelligent beings creating things, doesn't mean that's the only way we could have got here.

I'm hardly omniscient, and lots of people are smarter than I am. But I do know this -- the Bible is not to be taken literally, it is chuck full of tales, fables, and fiction, and its stories of creation and gods and afterlife is not the sort of thing I take seriously.

How we got here is how we got here. I probably won't be around when scientists finally piece together all the bits of info and figure out how it all happened. So, I won't worry about it, and I won't embrace fictions that make me feel better.

right and wrong???

What's Right and Wrong frequently depends on your viewpoint. To the cow about to be made into hamburger, eating meat is wrong. To the folks at a summer barbeque, it's a wonderful thing. Obeying the Commandment to "Keep the sabbath holy" is fine for slaves to orthodoxy, but not so good for businessmen. A vote for Obama would be right for America according to some folks, and terribly wrong for others. Under what circumstances is it right or wrong for a beggar to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving 3 year old daughter?

The truth is you post in everyone of these threads because you are looking too....just like we all are..

I've been looking for quite a while. I've blundered up a few dead ends, and am happy to share the benefit of my experience. But anymore, I'm of the opinion that all these religions are just someone else's fictions, other folk's attempts to make sense out of stuff that doesn't make sense. And their explanations don't make sense to me. Nothing does. So, I've made peace with the idea that I'm better off embracing a big question mark than a bloody cross with a bunch of nonsensical rules. You, however, haven't made the same life journey I have, so your conclusions will be different, and you're welcome to think whatever you would like to think.

Now just open your heart and look....

Nope. I've been down that "just open your heart and etc" bit before. What that actually means is, "just open yourself uncritically to this set of ideas . . ." and to do that is to embrace them as conclusions before actually putting them under critical examination. And that's a big mistake . . . Something I'm not gonna do again.

[rockinred]

Tock,

I might be different.. but when I said open your heart... I didn't mean start reading anything or conforming to any set of beliefs or religious system....

I wasn't fancy for the bible or anything like that either... I use to read a lot of psychology, philosophy, and cosmos books.... I have always been a little deep...

anyhow, my journey to becoming a believer from a nonbeliver started when I was in Haiti one night very cold, lonely, sad, and in a lot of pain.... I was by myself and would say from the inside of my inners... "if there is a God out there then why not just show me?" "I like good and if there really is a God then I will be with you, just show me"....I would also think that if there was a bad side, which i didn't think there was, in my heart I knew that I didn't want to be a part of it especially if there was a difference that i could see and choose... and I said it to myself and meant it with all my inside (heart). I said i just want to know because I don't understand things and religion was just silliness to me.. I never thought about the bible or koran or any other specific religion... I just wanted to know for sure the real truth..

so anyhow nothing happened on that night or a few others that was similar, but it was later that both the evil one showed his presence and the God did too... The study of the bible came later and it was more of a confirmation of beliefs that I never knew about but was shown to me when God showed me...

I have only shared that with a few... I know what I am saying can be written off as fanciful thoughts, but in reality I am a changed person in ways I didn't know was possible... I use to be a very violent ill tempered person amongst many other things... I am learning and struggling day in and day out.

The whole thing about opening your heart on what I said is a lot different then saying read a book such as the bible and just accepting it or anything else... that is the difference between intellectually approaching and just doing it from your heart....

Peace!

[magic32]

For you magic,,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=yknwxfc820c

THIS REPLY MAY CATCH YOU OFF GUARD GOOSE, BUT THERE IS INDEED BIBLICAL VALIDITY FOR EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE LINK, AND BECAUSE OF THAT (ALTHOUGH MY WORDS WOULD BE FAR LESS NEGATIVE), I AGREE WITH HIM!

THAT SAID, HE'S SPEAKING OF IS WHAT WE TRADITIONALLY CALL "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE" SO WHETHER IN A HOME, MOVIE, CORPORATION, OR UNIVERSE THE PARENTS, SCREENWRITER, C.O., OR SUPREME BEING MAKES THE RULES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE OMNIPOTENT GOD OF THE BIBLE BEING ALL OF THE ABOVE IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO MAKE FORNICATION, LYING, STEALING, HOMOSEXUALITY, ETC., SINS. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT BECAUSE ONE DISAGREES OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND A THING, PERSON OR DECISION DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG...AN EXPANSION OF WHICH (AS ANY MILITARY OFFICER WILL TELL YOU) IS:

"COMPREHENSION IS NOT A PREREQUISITE OF OBEDIENCE."

ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT BOSS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RULE WITH IMPUNITY, AND OR EXACT PUNISHMENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=6mmskxxetcg

I FOUND THE SECOND LINK FAR MORE INTERESTING, AND THIS QUESTION IS ONE THAT EVERY BELIEVER OF ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY RELIGION SHOULD ASK HIMSELF. NOW CONJECTURALLY SPEAKING, YOU MAY BE ASKING ME THE POSITED QUESTION AND IF SO, I COULD EASILY METAPHYSICALLY ANSWER BY SAYING THAT MY INNER BEING/CONSCIENCE/SUPER EGO/SPIRIT AGREES WITH THIS BUT THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBJECTIVE FOR VIGOROUS DEBATE. INSTEAD, EVEN THOUGH I WASN’T THERE, I DO IN FACT BELIEVE THE BIBLE AND THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL REPORTS OF CHRIST’S EXISTENCE, BEYOND TERRESTRIAL (DIVINE) TEACHINGS AND UNDERSTANDING, NUMEROUS INHUMAN (DEITY-LIKE) MIRACLES, CONSPICUOUSLY UNWORTHY OF DEATH CRUCIFIXION, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION. AND BECAUSE OF MY INDIVIDUAL BELIEF, PARTLY DUE TO UPBRINGING, BUT MOSTLY TO THE SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY OF A MORE PROBABLE EXPLANATION (AS INDICATED BY EARLIER BY ROCKINRED) OF THE WORLD/UNIVERSE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE GRANDEUR.


----------------------

What's Right and Wrong frequently depends on your viewpoint.

THIS IS IN FACT THE CUSP OF THE MATTER.

HOWEVER, UNLIKE OUR ESTEEMED AUTHOR ABOVE, I HOLD A DIFFERING OPINION. WHAT’S RIGHT AND WRONG IS SOLELY DETERMINED BY THE GREATEST AUTHORITY AND THEREBY VARIES ALONG WITH AUTHORITY UNTIL A HIGHEST IS REACHED. VERY RIGHT IN INDIA, MAY BE VERY WRONG IN AMERICA AND VICE VERSA. IT MAY BE RIGHT IN YOUR EYES TO RACE (EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT) TO A MOVIE THEATER WHEN LATE, HOWEVER ROAD CONSTRAINTS BY WHICH SPEED LIMITS ARE DETERMINED, THE COP WITH THE RADAR GUN, AND MOREOVER STATE OF RESIDENCY HOLD THE AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER WHICH MAKES IT WRONG EVEN THOUGH THIS VERY SAME SCENARIO WOULD BE BOTH PARDONED AND ESCORTED IN CASES OF BIRTHING LABOR. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES…”WHAT OR WHO HOLDS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE MORE EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS OF MORALITY & ETHICS?” THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES, THEREBY CREATING A MOST CHAOTIC SOCIETY. NOTE: PEOPLE WHO ROUTINELY BOTH ASSERT AND ASCRIBE TO THIS PHILOSOPHY ARE TYPICALLY INCARCERATED BY THEIR SOCIETY. AH PUNISHMENT, WE MIGHT THEN CONCLUDE THE MATTER WITH THE SIMPLE QUESTION, “DOES THERE EXIST A HIGHEST MORAL AUTHORITY THAT CAN PUNISH US AFTER DEATH FOR OUR ACTIONS OR LACK THEREOF (BELIEF IN CHRIST) IN LIFE? HOW YOU ANSWER THIS ULTIMATELY DETERMINES YOUR BEHAVIOR, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO MOST YOUR FREEDOMS...WHICH AFTERALL IS WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE IS IT NOT?

IF I DO BELIEVE OR EVEN SEEK TO, THEN I'LL OWE ALLEGIANCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVITUDE, BUT IF I DON'T THEN I'M FREE TO DO AS I PLEASE SO WHY BOTHER? AN AVER THE MOST HONEST OF ATHEISTS WILL ADMIT, AND RIGHTFULLY SO ACCEPT FOR THE ETERNITY QUESTION, WHICH THEY THEN NECESSARILY DISMISS.

[Tock]

My gosh, all this shouting . . .

…”WHAT OR WHO HOLDS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE MORE EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS OF MORALITY & ETHICS?” THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES

Of course. Why should anyone in their right mind let a religious leader determine what is right and wrong? You might say, "No, Tock, it won't be a leader that makes those decisions, because it's all laid out for us in the pages of the Bible." I would reply, "Someone will have to read those words and tell everyone else what they mean, and I'd prefer that Someone be me, and not you." And then we'd argue over who gets to interpret the Word Of God, and what it means, and everything would get very messy and ugly.

So. Instead of all that, let's just keep everything nice and secular. When it's time to figure out if homosexuality or Sabbath breaking or adultery or jaywalking or breakdancing or stamp collecting is moral or not, since I am not a member of your religious cult, we aren't going to use your religious definitions of morality.
How about that?

[Tock]

THIS IS IN FACT THE CUSP OF THE MATTER.

WTF do you mean, "This is the Cusp of the matter?"
I thought you were a native english speaker . . .



Here's a definition of CUSP from Wiktionary:
=============================
Noun
Singular
cusp
Plural
cusps

cusp (plural cusps)

1. A sharp point or pointed end.
2. (figuratively) An important moment when a decision is made that will determine future events.
3. (geometry) A point of a curve where it has two tangents.
4. (astrology) A boundary between zodiacal signs and houses.
5. (dentistry) Any of the pointed parts of a canine tooth or molar.

[Kärnfysikern]

so, to all who discredit the bible with some smart response, how about following up with some answers and meaning to our existence.... until then you are just narrow and skeptic...which is easy and simple minded... the exact thing you say you are not...

I dont believe Oden created the universe, does that mean I have to present a alternative reason to the meaning of my existance independent of Oden, otherwise Im simple minded?

For atheist there is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in oden or a invisible pinc unicorn at the dark side of the moon. No offence meant, but thats just the way I see it.

Without proof there is no reason to believe, with proof belife isnt needed.

That's it???....the ability to love, feel emotions, speak, communicate like we are doing now, happy, sad, joy, give, recieve, peace, etc... is all just made up by chance??? right and wrong??? all just made up by some dirt that by chance became us? Just pick any one of those words and meditate and think real hard on the meaning and tell me it is all just chance and luck...those words have deep meaning and explain things.... look around you, nothing can compare, no animal, no living species.... No way by chance.

Emotions are just chemical and electric interactions within our brain which we can even manipulate by toying around with EM fields and chemicals. There are *********ary explanations to why we became emotional animals and they all seem reasonable. It seems like most of our emotions exist in one way or another among most pack animals aswell. Love when a wolf mother takes care of its cub, curiosity when the cub searches through its sourounding, fear when a mouse is caught by a fox, joy when a dog sees his owner after a long day alone etc. Animals communicate in different forms, humans have just taken it a step further.

Humans, emotions, animals etc are not by chance, its by natural selection.

[rockinred]

I dont believe Oden created the universe, does that mean I have to present a alternative reason to the meaning of my existance independent of Oden, otherwise Im simple minded?

For atheist there is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in oden or a invisible pinc unicorn at the dark side of the moon. No offence meant, but thats just the way I see it.

Without proof there is no reason to believe, with proof belife isnt needed.



Emotions are just chemical and electric interactions within our brain which we can even manipulate by toying around with EM fields and chemicals. There are *********ary explanations to why we became emotional animals and they all seem reasonable. It seems like most of our emotions exist in one way or another among most pack animals aswell. Love when a wolf mother takes care of its cub, curiosity when the cub searches through its sourounding, fear when a mouse is caught by a fox, joy when a dog sees his owner after a long day alone etc. Animals communicate in different forms, humans have just taken it a step further.

Humans, emotions, animals etc are not by chance, its by natural selection.

Hey what's up Kärnfysikern, I was wondering if you were going to jump in here.... couldn't resist could ya? Me neither I tried to remain neutral...

When I said for peopel to chime in.... I meant to at least give there perspective of the complex matter of human origin... The reason I say that is because, if someone says... "i don't know what I believe, but I do know that what you believe is wrong", to me it is just simple minded to an extent... it means that one is actually afraid to make stance or choice on a very tough decision.

So we have discussed ev o lution on a previous thread, but I will have to say that it is mixed with fancy realities and ideologies too. The fact that our brain processes chemicals that cause us to react doesn't explain a whole lot other than that is what is going on inside... I might not dispute that that doesn't even occur... what I am saying is that it is the way our body and brain was created..

we also know many other things such as siimple things like hot air rises, etc.. that means we are learning how the creator made things to me... but even then we only tap the surface... think about the response on chemical balances in the brain... sounds cool, but doesn't really mean a whole lot unless we interpret it to mean more.

This might be a weak analogy, but I am not a mechanic right... well I can see and understand how a motor works... doesn't mean I can make one or stuff like that... It means I understand a little about the laws for that particular thing work or intended to work in order to function.

If a person is an athiest and then decides to embrace evo lution.. that is fine, but as we have discussed before, at least understand that a lot of what they believe is not quite as free minded as they might think... Ev o lution, is the same as most religious beliefs systems in the world... it has constantly changed, it has radicalists, and is based on believing what cannot be seen or proved too... I just think the followers accepted into this group is little more open ended where they will take anyone including people who have no idea about it, into their belief system.. think aobut it... how many professed athiest claim they believe in evol ution and have no clue what it even teaches??

anyhow, that is what i meant when I said give some answers to our existence... if the answer is I believe in ev o lution, then I say...ok!... but, if it is i don't know anything, I just know your belief system is a joke...then I still say ok, but where is the objective thought process? and where does the real joke lie?

[Kärnfysikern]

Hey what's up Kärnfysikern, I was wondering if you were going to jump in here.... couldn't resist could ya? Me neither I tried to remain neutral...

Nah its to tempting to post No need to remain neutral aslong as everyone is civil

When I said for peopel to chime in.... I meant to at least give there perspective of the complex matter of human origin... The reason I say that is because, if someone says... "i don't know what I believe, but I do know that what you believe is wrong", to me it is just simple minded to an extent... it means that one is actually afraid to make stance or choice on a very tough decision.

But it could equaly well be a cautios stance admiting that we dont know for sure and it would be premature to take a definite stance. Im confident that we will show how life can come to existance naturally, but since no one has done it yet I cant say it with 100% certainity.

we also know many other things such as siimple things like hot air rises, etc.. that means we are learning how the creator made things to me... but even then we only tap the surface... think about the response on chemical balances in the brain... sounds cool, but doesn't really mean a whole lot unless we interpret it to mean more.

This might be a weak analogy, but I am not a mechanic right... well I can see and understand how a motor works... doesn't mean I can make one or stuff like that... It means I understand a little about the laws for that particular thing work or intended to work in order to function.

But when it comes to life we are the mechanic. We can now modify life in plenty of ways and artificial life is around the corner. Artificial DNA has been synthesised out of chemical building blocks and artificial cells has been created. If we can create artificial life, isnt that proof that life can be created without divine intervention? What room is then left for god?
The only question left then is how it all came togheter on earth a couple of billion years ago. But we have seen time after time that anything that can be done in a lab built by man nature has done way before us.

If a person is an athiest and then decides to embrace evo lution.. that is fine, but as we have discussed before, at least understand that a lot of what they believe is not quite as free minded as they might think... Ev o lution, is the same as most religious beliefs systems in the world... it has constantly changed, it has radicalists, and is based on believing what cannot be seen or proved too... I just think the followers accepted into this group is little more open ended where they will take anyone including people who have no idea about it, into their belief system.. think aobut it... how many professed athiest claim they believe in evol ution and have no clue what it even teaches??

The problem here is that someone doesnt embrace evo lution(damn anoying that its a censored word!!) in the same was as someone embrace religion. evo lution isnt a belife system, it is a testable scientific theory that has passed all tests so far and gives accurate predictions. Its no more a belife system than quantum mechanics or theory of relativity.

Its only controversial because it goes against religion, or atleast some interpretations of certain religions. In scientific circles there are no controversy and that is a testiment on how firm the theory stands. The heliocentric view of the universe was controversial at first, not because the science was controversial, it was acctualy obviously right. No it was only controversial because the church belived the earth is the center of the solar system. Its exactly the same today with evo lution. The science is firm and the controversy is because of other reasons. There are plenty of religious spin doctors that are trying to bad mouth the science, but they dont stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I am by no means a expert in *********ary theory by the way and I dont know the details of the theory so lets not go into a who can link to what experts oppinion kind of discussion But as a scientist I have full confidence in the scientific method and it has validated ********* time and again.

Its not a show of weakness if a scientific theory changes, its just a sign that its beeing improved and better understood. A scientific theory not changing constantly would be more worrying unless its realy old and no question marks are left.

anyhow, that is what i meant when I said give some answers to our existence... if the answer is I believe in ev o lution, then I say...ok!... but, if it is i don't know anything, I just know your belief system is a joke...then I still say ok, but where is the objective thought process? and where does the real joke lie?

But why does someone has to have a belife system? Why isnt it enough to just settle for what is known an proven and not take a position of what is unknown? A belife system to me is accepting something without proof and I have never seen a reason to do that

If something isnt known my instincts just tells me to investigate it until it is known and so far nothing investigated thourougly enough has ever turned out to be unexplainable. My only faith I guess is that its a trend that will continue untill everything has been explained by science.

[rockinred]

[QUOTE=Kärnfysikern;4003539]

But when it comes to life we are the mechanic. We can now modify life in plenty of ways and artificial life is around the corner. Artificial DNA has been synthesised out of chemical building blocks and artificial cells has been created. If we can create artificial life, isnt that proof that life can be created without divine intervention? What room is then left for god?
The only question left then is how it all came togheter on earth a couple of billion years ago. But we have seen time after time that anything that can be done in a lab built by man nature has done way before us.

I would say manipulation as oppose to creation is a better word to describe our advancements in this area. you sound like an aspiring scientist and that can only be good, but don't you think you are overstating the scientific progress in this area? Even the fact that DNA is modified in this manner it is still millions of miles between actually creating it into an actual species... it is only modifications of an existing one.. far from creation imo.

Its only controversial because it goes against religion, or atleast some interpretations of certain religions. In scientific circles there are no controversy and that is a testiment on how firm the theory stands. The heliocentric view of the universe was controversial at first, not because the science was controversial, it was acctualy obviously right. No it was only controversial because the church belived the earth is the center of the solar system. Its exactly the same today with evo lution. The science is firm and the controversy is because of other reasons. There are plenty of religious spin doctors that are trying to bad mouth the science, but they dont stand up to scientific scrutiny..

I would say it is not controversial in the scientific field because it is embraced as fact by most... thus, everyone that is in that field does not question it.... The scientists in the field of Biology are a minority with a lot of influence on the world... therefore it is taught as fact.. Evo lution of the theory of Evo lution is also huge... There has been so many changes that were driven off of the falacies that have been pointed out by those who don't subscribe to it as well as those who do...

I am by no means a expert in *********ary theory by the way and I dont know the details of the theory so lets not go into a who can link to what experts oppinion kind of discussion But as a scientist I have full confidence in the scientific method and it has validated ********* time and again. .

I know you are a chemist as you have stated before... but, if this is not your area of expertise you feel pressured to remain in your tight knit group of believers... so no need to question biologists theories too much... you wouldn't like them testing you and your field of expertise... I understand, but for me it is not that I am afraid of the truth, if evo lution was, it is I need more solid answers to meaningful things.. There are many things like you have stated before that can be tested with science experimentation,(hot air rising or falling)... simple enough... but when you try to experiment with the origin, unfortunately faith and acceptance of many unknown is a baseline to process.. I understand science is trying to work backwords to the answer and that might be fair.. people adapt to environments no doubt... but science hasn't reached the final point or shoudl I say the final answer...

Its not a show of weakness if a scientific theory changes, its just a sign that its beeing improved and better understood. A scientific theory not changing constantly would be more worrying unless its realy old and no question marks are left..

Well you have to think about what is said here... You can't put a clause in there just in case you are wrong.. come on now, ev olution is being taught and embraced in many school systems... nothing is concrete, but how is this fair.. I will show you all these major things,, but, big BUT, I might be wrong... anyone can operate under these conditions... but and another big,big, BUT,BUT... You can't claim authority on the manner, like science does.

But why does someone has to have a belife system? Why isnt it enough to just settle for what is known an proven and not take a position of what is unknown? A belife system to me is accepting something without proof and I have never seen a reason to do that .

Probably the majority in the world need a belief system.. I will say, many do settle for what is known... nothing wrong with that... we as humans can also share our convictions with eachother too.. that is all we are doing.. no one is saying you have to subscribe to a belief system or else you go to jail... I only said if you want to discredit one, then share a better one.... that's it.

If something isnt known my instincts just tells me to investigate it until it is known and so far nothing investigated thourougly enough has ever turned out to be unexplainable. My only faith I guess is that its a trend that will continue untill everything has been explained by science.

That is fair enough, and the only question I have is what if Science cannot explain it.. do you believe Science is infallable? I know you don't because it is an experimentation is how described it, but what if explaining the unexplainable cannot be done by science? What if there is answers and science doesn't have it? where does that leave you? That leaves your trust in science only and you are not giving yourself more credit...

[Kärnfysikern]

edit, alll the ********* is evo lution, Im to lazy to fix it!

I would say manipulation as oppose to creation is a better word to describe our advancements in this area. you sound like an aspiring scientist and that can only be good, but don't you think you are overstating the scientific progress in this area? Even the fact that DNA is modified in this manner it is still millions of miles between actually creating it into an actual species... it is only modifications of an existing one.. far from creation imo.

I think creation is better word than manipulating since we are talking about creating totaly synthetic DNA from scratch, not modification of already existing DNA. Its a first step to life created in the lab from non living chemicals without beeing part of biological reproduction.

I would say it is not controversial in the scientific field because it is embraced as fact by most... thus, everyone that is in that field does not question it.... The scientists in the field of Biology are a minority with a lot of influence on the world... therefore it is taught as fact.. Evo lution of the theory of Evo lution is also huge...

But that just isnt how science works. A theory is never accepted by simply embracing it. If there was glaring flaws in *********ary theory it would be visible to everyone studying it, from undergrads to professors, and it would be highlighted, published, examined etc. You cant not possibly miss a obvious flaw in a commonly accepted scientific theory. All the claims put forth by the I.D crowd for instance has been thouroughly debunked, but they have done a great job of making non scientists belive there are obvious flaws.

There has been so many changes that were driven off of the falacies that have been pointed out by those who don't subscribe to it as well as those who do...

But that is how science do work! Flaws are found and corrected continously in all fields of science. The need to change details in a theory does not invalidate the theory itself, it just highlights parts of it are not well understood. All the basics of *********, natural selection, mutation, adaption,
speciation etc has been proven.

I know you are a chemist as you have stated before... but, if this is not your area of expertise you feel pressured to remain in your tight knit group of believers... so no need to question biologists theories too much... you wouldn't like them testing you and your field of expertise... I understand, but for me it is not that I am afraid of the truth, if evo lution was, it is I need more solid answers to meaningful things.. There are many things like you have stated before that can be tested with science experimentation,(hot air rising or falling)... simple enough... but when you try to experiment with the origin, unfortunately faith and acceptance of many unknown is a baseline to process.. I understand science is trying to work backwords to the answer and that might be fair.. people adapt to environments no doubt... but science hasn't reached the final point or shoudl I say the final answer...

A physicist acctualy I cant say I feel any pressure either way. I wouldnt mind biologist getting into my field(nuclear) and debating me, especialy not when it would be so easy to show that they are wrong

Nothing to me is sacred in science, finding flaws in current theories are usualy how progress is made.

What solid answere are you missing in ********* by the way? It seems like your objection to ********* is in many ways philosophical and not scientific. I.e ********* gives a mechanism and a "how", but it doesnt provide a "why" or a reason.

Well you have to think about what is said here... You can't put a clause in there just in case you are wrong.. come on now, ev olution is being taught and embraced in many school systems... nothing is concrete, but how is this fair.. I will show you all these major things,, but, big BUT, I might be wrong... anyone can operate under these conditions... but and another big,big, BUT,BUT... You can't claim authority on the manner, like science does.

Your missreading what I wrote a bit. All scientific theories are constantly changing, but the basic foundation stays the same. The theories changes within the framework determined by the basic principles of the theory. The basic principles put forth by darwin is still there today, but the details have changed. At the basic level science is thought to kids in school or even undergraduate classes at universities there is no doubt that its correct. Get into the details and current research however and things change.

But you will never show natural selection as beeing wrong no more than you will show newtons laws of motion beeing wrong simply because those basic principles has been tested time and again countless times and has never been proven wrong.

That is fair enough, and the only question I have is what if Science cannot explain it.. do you believe Science is infallable? I know you don't because it is an experimentation is how described it, but what if explaining the unexplainable cannot be done by science? What if there is answers and science doesn't have it? where does that leave you? That leaves your trust in science only and you are not giving yourself more credit...

Science is infallable in the sense that it always arrives to the correct answere, but not always at its first try or even tenth try but the scientific method removes all wrong ideas until the correct ones remain no matter how long it takes.

Since nothing has ever been found to be unexplainable I dont se why anything should turn out to be unexplainable in the future either
I cant prove it of course, but I se no reason why it shouldnt.

We also have to keep in mind that science cant answer some questions because some questions arent scientific. Science cant answer the question "what is the meaning of life". I have no problem with religion stepping in there. Science can not confirm onr deny that there is some kind of purpose to everything. Science can only explain how nature works it cant explain why it works.

The conflict betwen religion and science only comes into the picture when religion imposes on scientific question. The church tried during the dark ages to explain how the universe ticks, it failed of course but in the process hampered science by banning the heliocentric view of the universe and killing scientists.

Today religion is repeating its misstake when it puts itself up against biology, this time without murder luckily. To a scientist ********* is as much a fact as the earth revolving around the sun. Both has been observed!

Purpose and meaning, that is religions domain. The workings of nature is science domain. How we came to be is a scientific question, why we came to be is a religious one.

I really never understood why american christians oppose *********. Is there anything in the bible that positively exclude that god create all species by *********?

[rockinred]

Kärnfysikern,

as it was last time, I enjoy discussing this with you and you have open good points...

[I think creation is better word than manipulating since we are talking about creating totaly synthetic DNA from scratch, not modification of already existing DNA. Its a first step to life created in the lab from non living chemicals without beeing part of biological reproduction.

well the mapping system and everything is in place for the dna.. in fact the premise and foundation is all complete.. nothing special except the study of the marvels... i think i will be more excited if the idea of some new race is built..which I doubt.

[But that just isnt how science works. A theory is never accepted by simply embracing it. If there was glaring flaws in *********ary theory it would be visible to everyone studying it, from undergrads to professors, and it would be highlighted, published, examined etc. You cant not possibly miss a obvious flaw in a commonly accepted scientific theory. All the claims put forth by the I.D crowd for instance has been thouroughly debunked, but they have done a great job of making non scientists belive there are obvious flaws.

Many of the flaws have been pointed out and maybe the groundwork for what the starting point is not re-established, but many of the core beliefs that are taught widely have changed dramatically... if they had been published and examined as you stated above then what need is there for a change....

[What solid answere are you missing in ********* by the way? It seems like your objection to ********* is in many ways philosophical and not scientific. I.e ********* gives a mechanism and a "how", but it doesnt provide a "why" or a reason.

the answer lies more in getting to know the creator...even with the study of how things work it does not disprove it was made... that is all science has to offer to me.. the study of how it works.. which in itself is a testimony to a creator.

[Your missreading what I wrote a bit. All scientific theories are constantly changing, but the basic foundation stays the same. The theories changes within the framework determined by the basic principles of the theory. The basic principles put forth by darwin is still there today, but the details have changed. At the basic level science is thought to kids in school or even undergraduate classes at universities there is no doubt that its correct. Get into the details and current research however and things change.

I just know that it is taught as an authoritative fact in western civilizations throughout the world ... as an adult i feel betrayed by that because everything leads me to believe it is more subjective... that is all i am saying.

[But you will never show natural selection as beeing wrong no more than you will show newtons laws of motion beeing wrong simply because those basic principles has been tested time and again countless times and has never been proven wrong.


Science is infallable in the sense that it always arrives to the correct answere, but not always at its first try or even tenth try but the scientific method removes all wrong ideas until the correct ones remain no matter how long it takes

well it does only take in variables that are known.. which means you know your brain processes things a certain way.. well let's observe those processes and chemical balances to explain why we have emotions... in other words, it simplifies and discredits what the actual end product of what the creator intended it to be... it only sees the surface and no more... it is not impressive to me as the ending result of the whole body as a whole and how the interaction brings the emotions and feelings is what causes me to explore deeper...

also, when you are talking about the explanation of the origin of human species Evo lutionists started with a theory that there was no creation and worked backwards toward that theory... what if the initial assumption is wrong? in the mean time science is dragging millions of kids along with the experiment... which might be based on a wrong assumption initially...

[We also have to keep in mind that science cant answer some questions because some questions arent scientific. Science cant answer the question "what is the meaning of life". I have no problem with religion stepping in there. Science can not confirm onr deny that there is some kind of purpose to everything. Science can only explain how nature works it cant explain why it works.

The conflict betwen religion and science only comes into the picture when religion imposes on scientific question. The church tried during the dark ages to explain how the universe ticks, it failed of course but in the process hampered science by banning the heliocentric view of the universe and killing scientists.

Today religion is repeating its misstake when it puts itself up against biology, this time without murder luckily. To a scientist ********* is as much a fact as the earth revolving around the sun. Both has been observed!

I agree and don't take the approach of going against everything in science.. back in the middle ages, science/politics/religion were all intertwined, not like nowadays so it is a little different to compare.. also, i and many on here have posted many opinions against how organized religion has slandered many people and topics throughout time.. in fact Jesus' main ministry pointed that out also..

[I really never understood why american christians oppose *********. Is there anything in the bible that positively exclude that god create all species by *********?

I will say that my reservations or I should say my defensive position on evolu tion would be due to the fact that it is widely pushed as a belief system that is proof that there is a not a god in exisistence... I don't know how it is taught abroad as my education is limited only here in the states...

I do say that I actually agree that many of the creators works are evident through an evo lution process and i am very open to that idea... but i am also skeptic to use that term to loosely because of the way it is taught around here...

I am thinking really hard and objectively, but I really don't see how science will ever be able to prove there is no need for a creator... even if you are able to clone a human being.. that is still very, very primitive compared to the Earth and all the creations... Unless somehow there can be a way to go back to that time.. which is all lost.. the only hope is to build upon what is being worked on now or wait to see if the creator intervenes with the current state of the Earth....