/ignores standard FARK flame war, tries to return to subject at hand.

Am I the only one who is worried about religious freedom here? Some of these lawyers want to subpeona what is said in confession. According to Church law, all confessions to a priests are private, under penalty of ex-communication. Likewise, legally they are considered privilaged conversations, much like attorney-client and husband-wife conversations. Subpeoning (sp?) these conversations has a very frightening consequence for religious freedom.

beasty_fella:

i do believe in natural selection, there is plenty of evidence for that. radical changes in structure, design and and process over time is another matter altogether.

the red shift indicates that things are moving away faster. at a certain point this shift goes into the the range of radio waves. that is what is called the background radiation that supposedly supports the big bang theory. i think it just means they are receding from us at a rate faster than those galaxies that are just within the "sphere" of visibility.

rupert_prime
: so, if evolution is false, then the world is 6000 years old? this means that both geologic dating and observations of light reaching earth from millions of light years away are wrong? maybe you're one of those people who think that the speed of light has slowed down since creation...


on an interesting side note, here are some lies that even fundies don't believe anymore: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

2003-08-05 10:22:28 AM 2nnin

One of the biggest ironies, at least it astonishes me, is that throughout history, the vatican has probably killed more Christians than any other organization or nation.

Do you think you'll find honor among thieves?

Schling: You said touched. huh huh

wayward: I am all for religious freedom. But no freedom stands against individual rights. You don't get to hide your pedophelia behind the church doors. Not any more than the Church of England, though King George III, got to dictate life in the colonies.

Remember kids, the separation of church and state is there to keep the church out of the state, not the state out of the church.

Discuss.

Crunch61:

apples do not contradict oranges.

(what can you expect from domesticated apes educated in 3 space with 2 space tools)

The Catholic Church has killed more Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals than Hitler.

There is a common thread at the root of all war, murder, hate, racism, etc. - man. It is the nature of man to hate.

Religious people are still people. Catholics are still humans. On the one hand, they (people of faith) should be held to a higher standard because they proclaim the standard and are expected to adhere to what they proclaim. On the other hand, they are human and should be expected to fail from time-to-time. The Bible names that human failing sin and condemns it most harshly.

The good news is that it is also within the nature of man to love. The Bible argues for that extensively. Love is at the heart of the sacrifice of Christ. Love is how the church is supposed to be known, according to Jesus.

Catholicism is no better than Nazism and the Catholic Church deserves to be charged with crimes against humanity.

Let's rewrite that, "Man is no better than man and man deserves to be charged with crimes against humanity". This is the fundamental premise of the Bible. Christians believe that God is the judge in this trial. We also believe that humanity is guilty of the accusations. Fortunately, we have a pretty good public defender who was willing to take the punishment for us: Jesus.

big bang - the edge of the know universe is actually in the center of the universe just like everything else is - just because we can't see beyond the "edge" doesn't mean it isn't there. from the perspective of someone at what we percieve as the edge of the universe, they are in the center of the universe and we are on the edge and beyond us lies nothing. it reallly just does go on forever expanding and accelerating.

there are cosmological theories that have eliminated the idea of the big bang. however, it is much more complex than your basic description here to fit the equations of general relativity and quantum physics.

interestingly enough, eliminating the big bang eliminates the need for God. hawking's idea of a steady-state universe gets rid of the last mystery, namely, who started off the universe with its initial conditions? without a start, it needs no creator.

Here's one: I'll concede that you could justify the need for a society to be moral in the absence of a God, but how do you conclude that any particular individual need contribute to that instead of taking advantage of other's that do?

/not trying to prove God

CapnWacky:

so if i don't "BELIEVE" in evolution, i must believe in "CREATIONISM"????

i don't believe in BUNK.

besides, 6000 years is not nearly enough time to account for the loss of so many species through the known and established FACT of the process of extinction.

extinctionism trumps both evolution and creationism!

whoa... I just went to that ID website, and the guy was basically telling me, since he can debunk numerous scientific theories about the universe and how it began and what its nature is, THAT is what should lead me to believe that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator.

Pretty much, yeah. He is trying to show how science points TO God, not away. How many of these religious threads throw out science to prove that God (usually the biblical God) can't exist and that the bible is all some fantasy for weak minded, uneducated people who can't understand simple science? This guy is showing how science supports the biblical God.

Apparently, I am to become disillusioned because science is giving me theories instead of true answers and I am to run to the christian church with open arms, waiting to be enlightened by... oh... wait... more theories!?

Perhaps. And perhaps you are just supposed to question your pre-concieved notions of God and science and reconsider them in light of additional information.

It is a sign of weakness to look for an answer to it.

I would argue that it is a sign of strength that someone is willing to look at new information and be ready to accept something new (on both sides).

rupert_prime: well, you were making bold claims about knowing exactly what happened without any real research or data. figured that you had caught the bible bug. most scientists are more open minded... do you know how often new theories replace old ones?

so... who are you yelling at here, anyway, if you're not a creationist?

rupert: the process of extinction is simply the converse of adaptation, which is micro-evolution.

It does not trump anything, it's just another way of looking at things.

rupert_prime
what can you expect from domesticated apes educated in 3 space with 2 space tools
You should know. Apparently, your shallowness accentuates your inability to see your own limitations.

As an example, go back to the Mesazoic era. The Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods are divided by marked extinctions.

Comparatively (and geologically) speaking, we are swarming with new lifeforms

well, does anyone know how this compares with doctor/patient confidentiality? or better yet psychologist/client?

If I tell my shrink I raped a child, is he/she legally allowed to turn me in?


I think so, yes. At least on the Sopranos, he had to watch what he said about specifics to his shrink.

Thom:

god is a three letter word that means whatever people want it to.

the tribal god is trumped by the god for all people which is trumped by the good for all life which is trumped by the god of all science which is trumped by the god of all creation.

it's all about my god being bigger than your god (not personally but conceptually).

god is the whole thing, the infinite the unexplainable and all the dimensions which generate the entire thing. it isn't some cheap cosmic hood which is what most people worship as to their own custom and tradition.

if you accept the concpet of infinity, then that is the proper concept of god.

rupert_prime I'll have to look some more into the accelerating universe theory, seems interesting.

I still have to disagree with you about evolution/adaptation though.

Like it was stated above, the chance of a mutation occuring is pretty slim. The chance of a viable mutation occuring is even more slim, almost zero. Given time, it it will take place, over and over, and over again.

Why does a cat need wings? What environmental necessity is there for it to have wings? A cat has none of the makeup to even begin to start on something like that. It's pretty specialized for what it needs to be so it isn't going to change anytime soon. If you stick a cat in an environment where it has to have wings or it will die, it will die because it is to specialized to get them in that amount of time. If you follow the theory that some dinosaurs gave rise to birds (which im sure you dont, and i dont know where I stand on that one either), just take a look at some dinosaurs. Say, I want to see a dinosaur with WINGS!(Discounting pteradons and the like). *millions of years later* POOF holy smokes it's got wings! It doesn't work like that. The theory is that its scales first became featherlike(dont remember fully) and it used them for balance while running. And so on, and so on until it had wings.

A land iguana and a marine iguana are two different critters. They have different specializations for different lifestyles, so they are different species.

*Think of it as evolution in action*
/Name that quote!

2003-08-05 10:46:07 AM Groton

because the body is the temple of God

The motto of the parlor where I got my first tattoo was "Your body is a temple-we're just here to paint the walls."

pgoat and catherine: It's not that simple. A lawyer has an obligation not to aid in the commission of a crime, not to report past crimes. If they did, every defendant's lawyer could be a potential source of information for the state, and the 5th Amendment would be rendered meaningless. A lawyer has no duty to report past crimes in Texas, although that is being challenged lately. A lawyer has the obligation to withdraw from representation if their client insists on committing criminal acts, and he cannot be persuaded otherwise. So what HAS been done, and what WILL be done are two different things.

I believe the same thing goes for other professions. They cannot aid crimes, and in many cases must report the possibility of future crimes, but they have no obligation to report past crimes.

CapnWacky,

I'm a hardcore scientist, but I think it's foolish to believe that there isn't some underlying force guiding everything. I think it's foolish due to the way everything in science is interconnected. As we've delved deeper and deeper into the sciences, the more we realize that they're all very closely related at their base levels.

The only thing I take issue with is the notion of the idea of this force as a sentient being who passes judgement upon us.

I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe that.

Thom: Don't get your legal advice from the TV.

Here's one: I'll concede that you could justify the need for a society to be moral in the absence of a God, but how do you conclude that any particular individual need contribute to that instead of taking advantage of other's that do?

/not trying to prove God


The only meaning in the universe is what we ascribe to it. Anything else is unprovable, to the chagrin of our need for purpose and sense.

Thom: Don't get your legal advice from the TV.


Does this include those ambulance-chasers who advertise on tv?

SchlingFo along those lines...

I've always had trouble in hearing about "elementary particles" even though I've had science in truckloads. For some reason the concept of *this is what everything is made of* is just odd to grasp. I still half want to ask, "Great, what IS it?" Some goofy little ball, vibrating string, ect.....

SchlingFo it's foolish to believe that there isn't some underlying force guiding everything

It's foolish to not consider it, but given there is no evidence, the idea must be either thrown out of kept with a grain of salt.

And what does everything in science being interconnected have to do with it? That can just as easily be a sign there is no underlying force.

I think that while the_pgoat and I agree and disagree about diffrent concepts of the topic, you can notice we never called each other asshats and the like. Bad flamers.

No joke, V-sama I'm just trying to reason/figure some stuff out. I can usually admit when I'm wrong and generally dont try to eat the people I disagree with.

I have come to a revelation. Religion is just like my Political Horseshoe. Only this time, replace Socialism with Yahweh and replace Anarchy with Satan. Both of them want to eat your soul and once that happens, you cease to exist in any form. It's basicly two super powerful aliens fighting over a buffet spread(Earth). Our only hope is to reject both of them and make mankind master of its own destiny.

if you accept the concpet of infinity, then that is the proper concept of god.


The idea of the entire universe itself (which we are a tiny part of) being "god" is the only conclusion I can come to.

Of course, god is a word which we made up, and has a very ambiguous meaning. I could probably show that everything is god, and nothing is god, at the same time with some basic logic.

2003-08-05 12:48:00 PM the_pgoat


well, does anyone know how this compares with doctor/patient confidentiality? or better yet psychologist/client?

If I tell my shrink I raped a child, is he/she legally allowed to turn me in?

honestly, I am asking this question because I don't know the answer.
anyone?

Only if they believe that you're capable of doing it again. Given that most child molesters, left uncaught, rape/molest over 100 children in their lives, you'd probably go up isht's creek, bub.

Rupert - a land iguana and a marine iguana are variations of the same thing. let it grow wings and fly or sprout some hair and nipples and then i'll recant and bow down to your god.

It's been a long time since biology, but if memory serves, iguanas are the same at the Genus level. That is where they are all functionally homogenous. However, the species is a unique sequence of traits specific to set of iguanas. Hence, the land and the marine iguanas are a different species.

As far as things growing wings, I'll be more than happy to show you how that works. You gonna be around for the next few million years? Of course the argument that the penguin has developed webbed feet and a thicker coat of feathers than say a sparrow doesn't show evolution, right? They are both avens, but both of them are customized to their own environment. But that don't mean a thing, does it?

Now, that I really think about it...

Moses was up on that mountain for a really long time. I think what really happened was that God really tried to explain where we all came from and after days of frustration of trying to beat it into his head he finally gave up, said "fine, I created all of you," carved out ten commandments and said "Get the hell away from me, moron."

Really, all that time up there to only come down with a couple pieces of stone with ten rules on it?

Crunch61:

what percentage of lifeforms are preserved through fossilization do you suppose?

in my opinion, we have no idea.

making assumptions based upon impomplete and rather scant evidence seems to be quite acceptable for certain "scientists".

limiations? i have none. i came up with the idea on an infinite multidimensional universe when i was in high school ca. 1970.

e- mc^2 is the same logic and struture as a - pi r^2 through the lens of dyslexia.

ae
Mpi
rc

these work fine in 3 space.

rotate a dimension (2 space, 3 space or 4 space) along first the x axis, then the y axis and then the z axis and think of what happens and what is generated. there are far more than just three you know.

deSelby,

And what does everything in science being interconnected have to do with it? That can just as easily be a sign there is no underlying force.

When I pointed out how we're learning that the sciences are more interconnected than originally thought, I was trying to explain that there is a specific, predictable order that can be found in every discipline. That is to say that the same forces that make molecules interact in a chemical reaction are the exact same forces that allow a person to grow and develop.

I don't believe that this type of underlying order can stem from a complete randomness in the universe. I don't believe that complete randomness can bring about a predictable pattern on a larger scale.

This is why I believe there's an underlying force.

I know this belief doesn't stem from a good scientific method, but everyone believes in something for which there may be no concrete evidence.

This is what I believe in :)

SchlingFo: True... it's just that the idea of who created the universe in the first place, at the big bang (if that actually happened), is a philosophical idea out of the realm of science. That's why we like to restrict science to observable phenomon.

I agree, though, about the idea of a sentient force behind everything seems implausable. If anything, the consistency of the laws of the universe and the nature of how everything is interconnected points to absolute laws that would be broken by such intervention.

moses got baked. learned it from the magi who got it from the scythians.

jesus called it the keys of the kingdom and the land of cana - well just add a bis.

burning bush indeed.

(nope, i'm cleaner than a mormon elder)

pgoat:

so farking right.