No you arn't an animal...... you're just stupid.

Every living, breathing organic being is either a plant or animal, if you claim to be a tree then I am sorry for being so greatly mistaken.

(Curse the new owner for drawing in more of these damned flash arcade junkies that make moronic statements and act as if they know all while they spend hours a week shooting pixelated targets in some pathetic excuse for a game.)

From a scientific standpoint, we are indeed animals if only in the sense that we aren't anything else. There is no denying that we are mammals, vertebrates, etc. The argument is whether animals descended from a common ancestor, and from that standpoint, there isn't anything beyond a nonfalsifiable theory that has no experimentation or proof and only disputable evidence.

As a scientist, I don't have a problem with religion. As a Christian, I don't have a problem with science. What I have a problem with, both as a Christian and as a scientist are hypotheses that don't fit into the scientific model. I also have a problem with these hypotheses being presented as facts in our culture (including in schools).

Darwin's evolutionary "theories" (better termed hypotheses; there were 5 major ones) were presented at a time when science thought that life was trivially simple. This occurred at a time when DNA wasn't discovered and when nobody understood the complexity of a single cell, let alone a genome. This also occurred when most universities were run by churches and, as such, scientific theories had to be approved by a theology department. Evolution was loved by scientists who no longer had to go to a theology department for approval (I agree with this, by the way), but the theories don't meet true scientific criteria and they don't mesh well with today's knowledge of the complexity of life. Still, the theories are loved by scientists despite the unscientific nature and poor fit of them in the real world.

As I've written before, I have no problem with evolution (or people who believe in it) as long as it is acknowledged (factually) as faith.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

I don't wanna 'interrupt' the discussion. I just wanted to state something to Vicious, and anyone interested.

Note that the following is due to my Islamic beliefs:
This points out one of the shortcomings of the 'current' Christianity. In Islam, there is no such thing as faith in a building or whatnot. Yes, I know in Christianity ppl aren't supposed to believe in a buliding, I mean what comes with (or in) it. For example, how can priests forgive you for your sins? Only God can do that. When you ask for forgiveness you should pray to God, and not to some guy that abondoned some of the blessings (marriage, etc) given to him by God, and whom also might be doing all kinds of crazy stuff. Child abuse anyone?


Also, something to thunderbird. If you mean science and religion never seem to get along, you should probably do a little research on the early days of Islam. You will find that it is not only the religion that most strongly pushes people toward science and sceintific research, but that Muslim scientists have made books that served to enlighten the (then) dark ages in Europe. And those books have been the cornerstone for science and scientfic progress in Europe for hundreds of years.

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to make people become Muslims. I'm just stating facts, and differences...

__________________

I think the discussion had already died (your post and mine are, unfortunately, the only two in the past week on the entire P&R board).

One of the mistakes that non-Christians make about Christians is equating Christianity and the Catholic Church. The points you've made here do apply to the Catholic Religion, but not to Christianity. I'm not saying that Catholics aren't Christian, most of them are, but so are Baptists, Methodists, Protestants, Assemblies of God, Four Square, Evangelicals, etc. Each of these different religions has a different take on Christianity (which makes sense because in Christianity we are instructed to use our own intellect in interpreting The Bible which leads, of course, to some different interpretations, just as there are different interpretations in most religions including Islam). My point is that Christianity doesn't require confession to a priest (as you mentioned), nor does it require priests and/or ministers to remain umarried. The Catholic Church does have these requirements, but Christianity does not. Similarly, the Catholic Church requires church attendance on holy days of obligation, Christianity doesn't have this requirement (but it is recommended, just as every faith in the world has services of some sort that believers should attend).

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

I see. I knew that priests weren't a true part of the original religion..and a few other things. Thanks for the info.
Btw, Islam as a whole doesn't really have different interpertations. All differences are pretty minimal, and not even close to the size of the ones that are between Christians. Although on a comparison note, Islam itself does have the requirement of attendace to the mosque (as long as a person is able).

__________________

Well, actually priests were a true part of the original faith. See, Christianity was founded by Jewish people following Jesus. The Jewish tradition had priests, so naturally, priests became part of the Christian faith as well. That said, the precise role of priests was changed over the years within the Catholic Church and other religions.

As to differences, from a theological standpoint, the differences between various Christian faiths are also quite minimal (sometimes even ridiculous). For example, one church split occurred because some people felt that baptism should be done by full immersion and others felt that a sprinkling of water was enough. That said, baptism isn't really the important part of Christianity (these churches are missing the point somewhat). The important portions of Christianity are pretty much the same in all of the Christian religions.

Actually Christianity has only one requirement. That is faith in God, and in Jesus as the Christ (Christ literally means Messiah or Annointed one, but Christianity also affirms that Jesus is God in a human embodiment). That faith is the only requirement in Christianity, and if one has that faith, from a Christian standpoint, they will attain salvation. Everything else is "optional" (although things like attending church are recommended). The great thing about this requirement for salvation is that everyone can attain salvation if they want to.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Many talk about the Darwin theory like French freemason Monod interpretted it (french freemasonry Grand Orient Lodge of estimated more than 300 000 is communist). Evolution is not especially about chance and need (nature). Darwin supposition can be supreseeded without conterdicting its theory by intelligent design. Intelligent design can mean evolution too. It can be something nested into the mater for the materialists. No need to belive in God to accept intelligent design.
All research and tests has made quite obvious that evolution should be more agressive and well suited than simply resulting from some lucky mutation.
In fact the bold Monod interpretation of Darwin theory is obviously wrong without anybody able today to say for sure what makes evolution if any.

__________________
From SR

I see. Thanks for the info.
Most of the other stuff you mentioned is, in my religion, considered an alteration in the original Christianity...
Now that could lead to alot of discussion. That's why I'll stop there.

__________________

No, I don't believe in darwins theory of evolution as I don't believe in theories, only facts. I'm agnostic; not just in religious matters, but in every aspect of scientific inquiry.

I'd like to point out that no one can literally see thier own brain either. It has to be assumed that one has a brain, too, based upon the empirical evidence of viewing other's brains(dead or alive) or assuming that x-rays, video feed, brain wave detectors, etc. are relaying undoctored results. It has to be deduced.

For all we know one of us could be the exception to the rule with our brain actually comprised of a special breed of living marshmallows, but just maybe everyone else has lied to you about it. Faith is a stab in dark, the great huge gaping dark that is our unknown universe.

To dismiss abiogenesis is not to discredit the theory of evolution necessarily either. Abiogenesis is just as much an unproven theory to me as evolution, however the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 did establish "that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them in the first place." Given enough time & the correct conditions.

It is still, to my current knowledge, unknown as to the exact conditions present on the early forming earth approx. 4.6 billion years ago, but it's believed to be much different from how it is today. Though even if these conditions were not adequate enough to form life from abiogenesis during early earth then perhaps they were adequate enough on another planet somewhere else throughout the galaxies and ended up transferring these "buliding blocks of life" via a comet or intervention of an alien civilization. Both of which are of "earthly" origin and thus much more in accordance w/ the simplicity of occums razor as opposed to an immaterial god(s) or force(s). Besides, occums razor may seem tidy & logical, but is infact only a dogmatic rule of indefinite utilty.

The current theories concerning the origins of life are just that; theories. And will remain that way until someone get's off thier ass & verifies it reproducibly through scientific method.

[I'd love to throw-out a few insults to a few of you unreasonable tards, but I'm short on time. so maybe next time ]

__________________
<---Click on it

Granted, but unlike a brain, which we can observe physically and therefore use that physical evidence as a deduction method, explanations of the origin of life aren't observable physically.

Actually Miller-Urey failed in a few very important ways. First, many of the amino acids produced by Miller-Urey were the "wrong" type of amino acids. All living beings on earth (including plants, single celled organisms, etc.) have only left-handed amino acids. Miller-Urey's experiment produced right-handed proteins as well as left-handed ones. What science has observed is that the introduction of even a single right-handed amino acid (which will bond nicely with left-handed ones) results in a useless chain of amino acids with regards to living beings. The fact that Miller-Urey produced right-handed amino acids at all means that the "natural process" that the experiment was supposed to emulate would have produced completely useless "building blocks of life"
Second, Miller-Urey needed to use a "cold trap" to isolate the resulting amino acids when they were formed. Without the cold trap, the acids immediately broke down as they were being created. In a natural environment, no such "cold trap" would have existed. The environment that created these building blocks would have immeidately destroyed them. Only through intelligent intervention were these amino acids preserved in the experiment. It is significant to note that Miller devised and introduced the cold trap only because the experiment destroyed the acids 100% of the time when the cold trap was not used. Not one single amino acid was created without it.
Third, the environmental conditions that Miller used are considered to be inappropriate given the current scientific beliefs regarding a primordial atmosphere on earth. This is not conclusive, but it is important to note that Miller chose the conditions that would be most conducive to making amino acids and readily admitted that any other conditions wouldn't likely work.
Fourth, the experiment ignores oxygen. The enviroment that Miller used was devoid of oxygen which was necessary to produce the amino acids, however if the real world environment had no oxygen, then it would have no ozone which would mean that the amino acids would have been subject to ultraviolet light and destroyed immediately. On the other hand, if oxygen had existed in quantities necessary to produce a protective ozone layer, it would have also prevented the very results that Miller-Urey produced.
The experiment ultimately proved that only in a controlled laboratory setting could the proper amino acids be produced. Certainly not in a natural setting.

An interesting side note is the left handed amino acid issue. In any "natural" genesis, one would indeed expect an equal number of right handed and left handed amino acids. Yet 100% of life on this planet uses only left handed amino acids. That is the statistically like flipping a coin one billion times and having it always come up heads. In fact it is worse because right handed amino acids destroy the ability for amino acids to form into anything usable in a living organism. The fact is that any "natural" explanation of the origin of life would have to explain this aberration. Miller-Urey doesn't even come close, nor do any other theories of non-intelligent origins. In fact any explanation that includes any element of chance would have to deal with right-handed amino acids. An intelligent origin, on the other hand, makes more sense in this matter because an intelligent creator could easily select the amino acids that would work.

Occam's Razor doesn't even apply because it is only used to differentiate between scientific theories. Evolution doesn't qualify as a scientific theory (it isn't falsifiable) and neither does creation. Neither, for that matter does a comet carrying life's building blocks or alien implantation of life. You are correct however that occam's razor is only a rule which may or may not produce any useful result.

The scientific method, unfortunately, isn't able to verify any single-point past event. At most, someone might come up with an experiment that could produce something living, but that may or may not be what actually happened originally. Science can never prove what happened because of its own limitations. Thus the theories will always be theories and our belief in them will always be faith.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan