Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[QuickDraw 0]

Where the hell is Jesus anyway ? he's over 2 years late by my watch.
The only faith i ever hold for anyone is in a rigger (or am i confusing that with hope)
..Billions of people living out their lives..Oblivious..

[james1010 0]

" Where the hell is Jesus anyway ? he's over 2 years late by my watch."
Uh . . the Bible states, that is to say, Jesus himself said that no man will know the day nor the hour that He would return. . . . so when did you recieve this divine revelation that He would be here in 2000?
James

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Where the hell is Jesus anyway ?

[mental note]Stay the fuck away from QuickDraw because there is one bick fuckin lightning bolt coming his way[/mental note]
Skydivers...they're just plain cool!
Chris

[QuickDraw 0]

Quote

so when did you recieve this divine revelation that He would be here in 2000?

I think i read it on the back of one of them little packets of sugar a while back.
"Bart, stop pestering satan" - Marge Simpson.

[james1010 0]

Quote

I think i read it on the back of one of them little packets of sugar a while back.

no worse than hearing it from a televangelist, I guess.

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

Jesus himself said that no man will know the day nor the hour that He would return

Well I wonder what would happen if came here after one of those nasty asteroids slams into this planet and kills every human, and many other species...???
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Wow, I go away for 4 days and see this discussion when I get back. Great, great discussion with people staying very civilized which is ncie to see. I have not read the whole thread, but skimmed through it.
Sinkster I have a question for you, especially since you seem to be a very smart and educated man, certainly more so than I am. Here it goes:
All your proof is based on a certain assumption. As in the case of Descarte, his whole proof started with the statement cogito ergo sum. It is that first assumption of "I think therefore I am" that needs to be accepted before you can start to accept the rest of his statement. If you do not agree with that assumption, with that starting point, than you cannot agree with the rest of the argument.
Your other proof, in my mind proves that there must have been a beginning. That there must have been a force to set it all in motion. You have chosen to assume that that force is God, more specifically a Christian God. Even if I would agree with your assumption that that starting force is a God, I would still like to see proof that it was a Christian God. Why could that starting power not have been Bhudda, or Allah or "anybody/thing" else?
The proof you have given also makes me question somethign else. If there was a need for a starting power as shown in what you have submitted as proof, is it not a basic assumption or belief that God was that starting power and not just another link in the chain?
Thirdly on a more personal note, I would love to see some data on how many people are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty.
SkyDekker
"We cannot do great things, only small things with great love" Mother Theresa

[antimike 0]

Comparing the invention of the internal combustion engine with playing God is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I 100 % agree with President Bush. Leave it alone. spend the money on reseach that will do some good. Not invent a race of perfect humans.

[quade 4]

Quote

Comparing the invention of the internal combustion engine with playing God is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I 100 % agree with President Bush. Leave it alone. spend the money on reseach that will do some good. Not invent a race of perfect humans.

You appear to have missed quite a few of the points that have been made in this thread.
I don't think I was comparing the creation of engines with playing God. I simply stated that you can't know what is a "good" invention versus a "bad" invention until many years down the line.
Next, I don't think -anyone- is suggesting that the cloning of human tissue is being done with the intention of creating a "race of perfect humans." On the contrary, the -specific- research being talked about would enable the repair of existing people with things like spinal injuries - people like Christopher Reeve a quadriplegic living on a respirator.
Lastly, at what point is it playing God? Is it playing God when my team mate gets his insulin injections (insulin made from pig blood I might add)? How about when my boss had his quadruple by pass surgery? Was that playing God? Well, it's certainly not "natural" in either case, but would you deny them those treatments. Is it "playing God" keeping Christopher Reeve alive the way he is now?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[favaks 0]

Quote

Comparing the invention of the internal combustion engine with playing God is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I 100 % agree with President Bush. Leave it alone. spend the money on reseach that will do some good. Not invent a race of perfect humans.

If you think manipulating a few genes and cells here and there is playing god, then you're really putting him down. God can do a lot better than that, I hope.
favaks

[billvon 3,111]

>I 100 % agree with President Bush. Leave it alone. spend the money on
> reseach that will do some good. Not invent a race of perfect humans.
Statements like this that makes me fear for the whole concept of democracy. It's one thing to object to abortion (for example) on moral grounds - it's another thing to object because you think that legalizing abortion will mean that government agents will roam college campuses and rip fetuses out of unwilling women. That's not reality, and if you vote based on such imaginings, democracy can't possibly work.
No one, outside of comic books and hollywood movies, is proposing cloning as a way to create a race of perfect humans. There are three major reasons to research it:
1. As a way to create human tissue that won't be rejected. For example, instead of getting a kidney transplant from someone else that you may reject, you might be able to get one that is, immunologically, your own kidney. Since thousands of people every year die awaiting transplants that never come, this will save a lot of lives.
2. As a way to get pluripotent cells (i.e. stem cells and the like) to allow even more dramatic cures. Alzheimers, spinal cord injury and diabetes are some candidates for such treatment.
3. As a way for infertile couples to get pregnant. I have friends who have spent tens of thousands of dollars to have a lab create a blastocyst for them out of their donated sperm and egg, which was implanted and is now a healthy baby girl. I have other friends who tried that and failed. Cloning would be a way for them to still have children - unless people like you tell them they shouldn't be able to do that. This is still many, many years off though.
You can argue that curing Alzheimers, diabetes, spinal cord injury, kidney disease and liver dysfunction are all useless, and therefore 1 and 2 are not considerations. You can claim that a lab creating a blastocyst with sperm and egg is OK, but creating a blastocyst with skin and egg is not, in which case 3 is not a consideration.
But to claim that someone is trying to "invent a race of perfect humans?" You're not even having the same argument as everyone else.
-bill von

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

All your proof is based on a certain assumption. As in the case of Descarte, his whole proof started with the statement cogito ergo sum. It is that first assumption of "I think therefore I am" that needs to be accepted before you can start to accept the rest of his statement. If you do not agree with that assumption, with that starting point, than you cannot agree with the rest of the argument.

I think everything whittles down to some kind of assumption, but the cogito for Descartes is more powerful than most. The idea behind "cogito ergo sum" was that it was an undeniable truth that escapes even extreme doubt. (like doubting that 2+2 = 4 even) In full, here is the famous quote as best I can remember it: "Therefore, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, "I am, I exist" is necessarily true whenever it is put forth by me, or conceived in my mind." The point is that even if a supremely powerful evil being was trying to trick Descartes into thinking he doesn't exist in the very act of deception the evil being would acknowledge Descartes' existence. This truth is almost impossible to deny which is why Descartes started out his philosophy by first showing an EXTREME skepticism of everything and then seeing if there was anything at all that could be trusted no matter what. Then once Descartes could not possibly doubt that he really exists he goes on to describe what "this puzzling I" (himself) really is. Which he starts by calling himself "a thinking thing" and builds from there. The attempt to build a philosophical system from the ground up which can escape exteme doubt was a phenomenal achievement and could only happen if a single non-deniable truth (no matter what not even if a god was trying to trick us) could be established and build upon. This is one reason why Descartes is usually considered the father of western philosophy.
Now, you are definately correct in saying that if the root of the tree can be shown to be corrupt then the rest of the tree is as well--which is why it's trivial to attack the weak points of any philosophy instead of focusing on the strongest areas. So yes, if you don't agree with the starting point then the rest falls apart. Of course if you don't agree that you even exist I am somewhat worried for you because I don't know if it would be possible to stay sane as such an extreme skeptic. =)

Quote

Even if I would agree with your assumption that that starting force is a God, I would still like to see proof that it was a Christian God.

This kind of argument would probably flame on for a long time and I have papers to write, but I can say that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus really is/was who he said he was enough to enable one to have faith in that God. Many people will disagree that there is sufficient evidence of course, but it's worth investigating to see for yourself in my opinion, because after all it is your eternal soul in the balance if it is true. I also believe that if you pray and God is really real then you will see results so that can't hurt either and it's worked for me. I can also suggest reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, and one of the best apologeticists (brilliant man) of the last century. It is definately not some dumbed down televangelistic tear-jerker mood-music altered piece of propaganda, but instead takes a thorough and objective look at the subject.

Quote

Why could that starting power not have been Bhudda, or Allah or "anybody/thing" else?

That is entirely possible. You just have to decide for yourself. *Side Note*: However, it couldn't be both "Budda" and "Allah" and "Christian God" because of the conflicting doctrines. Some people say that all roads lead to God. Like follow Budda or Allah or whoever and you will get there. This cannot be true by necessity and definition because each of those preach a totally different and conflicting way to salvation. To say all are true is like saying it is both raining and not raining at the same time (in the same exact area) which is a logical impossibility in *any* possible universe. So only one can be right, or none at all. Take your pick.

Quote

If there was a need for a starting power as shown in what you have submitted as proof, is it not a basic assumption or belief that God was that starting power and not just another link in the chain?

The point was that the chain *must* stop somewhere, so if God was just a link it would be pointless and wouldn't be the same God that was proposed as the solution. The God of the solution must have certain properties to make it work--perfection and infiniteness. But, you are right that it is an assumption that that God exists, but the belief was that a particular God was the only solution to the dilemma. Of course, as seen from previous posts, many people will disagree.
To be honest, I don't care what you believe. But I do care about *you* which is why I post these messages (and because I hate to be bested in an argument which is true too so I know I'm far from perfect!!!!) since I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. I just want everyone to be at the big DZ in the sky. That is all. =)
Ok, I go eat pizza and read about skydiving now. hehe.
l8r
-Sinkster
P.S. As a side note I don't have very many churchy friends because so many are so critical and legalistic and most importantly, don't accept me for who I am. I prefer to hang out with skydivers, 'sinners', and blue collar workers because those types usually don't give a d*mn about status or how you look or act or fit in with the herd--so I can be myself. And I accept them for who they are too. I don't proselytize or evangelize unless people ask about those kind of things. I also figure that if there is nothing different (in a good way) about me worth asking about then my faith is probably not worth much anyway.

[rhino 0]

My eyes hurt again... LOL
Boobies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blue Skies .....

[james1010 0]

Quote

since I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. I just want everyone to be at the big DZ in the sky. That is all.

Well said Sinkster, that truly is the bottom line.

Quote

I don't proselytize or evangelize unless people ask about those kind of things.

Being on the threshold of eternity everytime one exits an aircraft, should cause us to consider and downright worry about the eternal destiny of our friends and family. Jesus commands that we tell them, He doesn't suggest it. That doesn't mean run around all day asking folks if they'r saved, but opportunities often arise where we can share the Gospel in the right way. I try my best not to miss those opportunities.
James

[james1010 0]

Quote

Well I wonder what would happen if came here after one of those nasty asteroids slams into this planet and kills every human, and many other species...???

You've been watching too many movies. I'm sure God considers the trajectories of Asteroids, but most importantly, He considers you.
BTW, nice quote from the Bible.
James

[Scratch 0]

Quote

"Budda" and "Allah" and "Christian God"

Same Dude, different forumEvery day above ground is a good day.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think everything whittles down to some kind of assumption

I agree with you completely on that. To me, it is that assumption that would be called faith in its most basic form.

Quote

Now, you are definately correct in saying that if the root of the tree can be shown to be corrupt then the rest of the tree is as well--which is why it's trivial to attack the weak points of any philosophy instead of focusing on the strongest areas.

I could not agree with you more on that. It is unfortunate that so many people will identify a weak point, hammer it to death and call it a discussion or argument. (This statement is certainly not directed to anyone in particular. It is just an over generalized statement of belief.)

Quote

But, you are right that it is an assumption that that God exists, but the belief was that a particular God was the only solution to the dilemma.

That is exactly what I was trying to say. In the end it all boils down to that basic belief. Some will agree with it, some will not.

Quote

To be honest, I don't care what you believe. But I do care about *you* which is why I post these messages (and because I hate to be bested in an argument which is true too so I know I'm far from perfect!!!!) since I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. I just want everyone to be at the big DZ in the sky. That is all. =)

Thanks. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I am not trying to prove or disprove the merits of a belief, nor am I even trying to best anyone in this argument, since, to me, it all boils down to whether or not you agree with that basic belief outlined before. (wow, bad grammar, but no time to word it differently) I do however enjoy the argument and to hear other peoples opinions on the matter. I have tried to keep my own opinions and beliefs out of the argument. If anybody out there really cares about them, send me a pm and I will be happy to tell.
SkyDekker
"We cannot do great things, only small things with great love" Mother Theresa

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

You've been watching too many movies.

Movies??? I'm afraid not. Perhaps you are not aware that 4 major episodes of mass extinction in the past 300 million years have been attributed by scientists to colllisions with asteroids and/or comets. A comet impacted Jupiter just a few years ago. In 2000, a kilometre wide asteroid missed the earth by just 12 times the distance to the moon. Had it collided with Earth, it would have left an impact crater 250 kilometres across, and would have sent enough dust and ash into the atmosphere to block out sunlight, resulting in the end of life as we know it.

Quote

I'm sure God considers the trajectories of Asteroids

A bolide WILL hit this planet again in the future. The only chance for survival humanity has is to colonize the Moon, then Mars, and then other asteroids.
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[james1010 0]

Quote

the past 300 million years

Umm, not to start a new debate or anything, but being a young earth advocate, I'm wondering what major episodes you're refering to.

Quote

In 2000, a kilometre wide asteroid missed the earth by just 12 times the distance to the moon.

"missed??" are you implying earth was the target, or just the fact that it came close? In any case, "missed'" would be the key word.

Quote

A bolide WILL hit this planet again in the future. The only chance for survival humanity has is to colonize the Moon, then Mars, and then other asteroids.

That's quite a stretch to say the least. Please share your source.
James

[Iflyme 0]

It's no secret that the extinction of the dinosaurs - and 1/2 of all ofher species on the planet was likely caused by an asteroid crashing into this planet 65 million years ago ... Here is just one place to find information http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/arsw.html There are many others...

Quote

being a young earth advocate

Can you explain with more detail please?

Quote

"missed??" are you implying earth was the target, or just the fact that it came close? In any case, "missed'" would be the key word.

By "missed", I mean the opposite of "did not miss". I am not implying Earth was a "target" -- merely that as Earth and this asteroid travel their orbital paths around the sun, they could end up in the same position in space at the same time... KABOOM!!!
I know this has nothing to do with stem cells or cloning, but I find this debate fascinating, nevertheless...
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[james1010 0]

Quote

I know this has nothing to do with stem cells or cloning, but I find this debate fascinating, nevertheless...

Me, too! However, I have to get out of here (work) for the evening. Check back tomorrow for a reply.
cya
James

[quade 4]

Quote

being a young earth advocate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you explain with more detail please?

I'll jump in here and even do a bit of the explaination for James.
By "young earth advocate" James means that he believes that the Earth was formed more or less as stated in Genesis.
For some religions, the book of Genesis is considered to be historical fact with all events happening exactly as stated without, I might add, there even being contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
If you take the statements of Genesis and the rest of the Bible literally you can figure out the age of the Earth to be about 6,000 or so years old.
Some of the more liberal creation scientists have modified that quite a bit and have modified that number to anywhere between 6,000 years and the 4.5 billion or so years most main stream scientist believe it to be.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[billvon 3,111]

>Umm, not to start a new debate or anything, but being a young earth advocate,
>I'm wondering what major episodes you're refering to
The big one is the K-T boundary event, 65 million years ago. It's the one that we have the most info about because it's the most "recent." Around 70% of all species went extinct very suddenly. At about the same time, a new crater (Chicxulub) was formed on the Earth. In addition, sediment layers show massive layers of soot and dust, indicating a cataclysmic event. Put all that together and you have pretty good evidence for a massive asteroid impact causing an extinction.
There are a few others that wiped out between 60 and 80% of life on Earth - there's a good graph at [link]http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html[/link]. All of them are linked to either iridium spikes (iridium is an element rare on earth but common on asteroids) or large crater formation.
>In any case, "missed'" would be the key word.
Well, if you're standing on the street and someone's shooting at you, the fact that the first two missed doesn't make you safe.
>That's quite a stretch to say the least. Please share your source.
While I don't think it's quite that bad, there's pretty good evidence that, if an asteroid the size of the one that caused the K-T event hit us, we would no longer be able to feed ourselves (you need sunlight to grow food.) While that might not completely wipe out all of humanity, it would go a long way towards that end.
-bill von

[billvon 3,111]

>If you take the statements of Genesis and the rest of the Bible literally you can
> figure out the age of the Earth to be about 6,000 or so years old.
What a boring universe that would make for . . .
I always thought the accepted theory of planetary evolution in our solar system was pretty elegant. Mars, a planet that once had water and an atmosphere, but was just a little too small to hang on to its air and a little too far away from the sun to keep water liquid as it lost its internal heat. Our moon, gradually slowing its rotation over millions of years until it finally became tide-locked to the earth. Jupiter, tugging the millions of fragments in the asteroid belt around just enough to keep another planet from forming there. Saturn capturing a whole host of moons, including some (Io, Europa) that are stranger than anything science fiction has imagined . . .
Would be sad to discover that it was all just plopped into a vacuum by a god who would then tease us by making it _look_ like it all developed from of natural physical laws. Somehow I'd have a hard time believing in a god like that, one who would manufacture and then bury fossils just to confuse us.
-bill von

[quade 4]

Quote

Somehow I'd have a hard time believing in a god like that, one who would manufacture and then bury fossils just to confuse us.

I'm going to be playing the Devil's Advocate here since I don't believe in the literal meaning of Genesis, but . . .
What if it wasn't God that placed the dinosaur bones? What if it was the Devil trying to confuse us? Or, what if those were the dragons and other animals that just didn't make it to Noah's Ark?
quade
http://futurecam.com