That shi% drives me nuts. If the faith mongers grill religion into our kids as adolecents, how are they supposed to be open minded and learn in college science class? Some will no doubt see through the veil of deception when they grow up, but most seem to be forever benched in academia over the paradox.

Nothing new here. The Talibaptists have been raising backwards, ignorant little Jihadiis for generations now.

Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, now a polititian, required that senior officers of the Christian Coalition vow to strive for The Death Penalty for adultery and violating any of the other Ten Commandments.

There is no difference between a fundamentalist nutjob in a turban or a buhrka, and a fundamentalist nutjob in a 3 peice suit or a prairie dress. They are both homicidally fanatic about their superstitions and are a danger to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the world at large.

I'm with you Ichtyoid.

Well said, Ichty!!!

"There is no difference between a fundamentalist nutjob in a turban or a buhrka, and a fundamentalist nutjob in a 3 peice suit or a prairie dress. They are both homicidally fanatic about their superstitions and are a danger to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the world at large."

That is the definition of a pluralist position and demonstrates tremendous ignorance of all religions. It is the same as saying all fish are the same so we should not care if our rivers are full of pikeminnow or wild steelhead.

There's no differencee between making your wife wear a prairie dress and blowing up a Planned Parenthood office and making your wife wear a burkha and blowing up busses.

It's just a change in regional fashion.

Rural American Burkha:




Taliban Burkha:



Glad you demonstrate your ignorance of fanatical zealotry, Cock.

"There's no differencee between making your wife wear a prairie dress and blowing up a Planned Parenthood office and making your wife wear a burkha and blowing up busses.

It's just a change in regional fashion."


Sure there is. First demonstarte where women in prarie dresses are partaking in such activity and which church is supporting such activity. Where has any Christian, Bhuddist, Hindu or Jewish leaders supported such actions Publically or privately? Please show where religous groups have supported blowing up planned parenthood clincs. Maybe you can also include their religous affiliation statements from the court docs to support your case. Then go to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ and check out the Islamic side.
Please try to keep it in the last 30 or 40 years I doubt the crusades or natives in N And S America are releveant to what is happening in the world this day.

Now a pluralistic argument is ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of current world events re: religon.

You seem to have the answers, Knock. I'll ask you the same question Mooch side-stepped on the main page. Can you tell me how the church justify's the premise of man's creation predicated on incestous conception between a single couple, their off-spring and their off-spring's off-spring, only to condem incest as a sin in the same document that claims the act is responcible for the genisis of mankind?

By the way, I already know the answer. The greatest story ever told has more holes in it's logic than a piece of swiss cheese. But you morons eat it because you can't accept the fact your existence in the universe is finite.

Arguing over religion is no different than arguing who has the coolest pretend friend.

Sol,

There are several errors in your ? posed. First of you ask "how the Church" Its a biblical question not a matter of Church doctrine. You need to understand the difference between the two. Second you say you all ready know the answer. You may know an answer but clearly you do not know the answer. Your question and therefore most likely your answer are based on lack of study of the releveant parts or based parsed verses of the bible. Its all there and the answer is real simple.

Lets be honest you are asking the question in an attempt to put the premise of god on trial. Much wiser men than you have tried the same for centuries. The best answer I can give you is that man cannot come to the lord via scienctific study or trying to spread sheet study the bible. Your heart has to be opened to the lord by the lord himself and then you have to accept the grace that is offered by the cross.

BTW please show us your proof that the universe is finite? Where is the end and what does it look like?

Double talk, dude. I'll open my heart when the religious community opens their mind. I said our existence in finite. Our hypothisis is that the universe is of course, infinite.

Copernicus' model of our solar system had the sun and other planitary bodies orbiting the earth. When Gallelaeo published his observations stating that the earth orbited the sun instead, the caltholic church had him imprisoned for life, because it flew in the face of christian belief at the time. [BTW:The catholic church did not issue a formal appology to the scientific commumity over this incident until a few years ago].

Here's my point. The medicines we take when we're sick, the technologies we enjoy today, our understanding of the universe as we know it are all funtions of scientific method, which requires us to ask questions, experiment with hypothisis and prove right from wrong or true from false. Faith in god is the anti-science, because logic must be ignored for it to make sence. Our daily lives necesitate the use of logic or the consequence of stepping out in front of a bus would see our demise.

For this reason I have no use for god, jesus, religion or what have you, and I have little use for people of faith.

It seems that you hold a lot of theory to be truth and hold more faith in it and your thoughts than most do with their chosen religion.

Example: Explain how you can know a finite element can exhist in an infinite system?

Do you have proof? lay out the logic or is it based on faith?

My dick is 8 inches long, but the length of vagina from women the world over set end to end would be infinately long over time. And my dick is no stranger to vagina.

All well and good sir but the topic at hand was what takes place when the time of honoring your self comes to and end. It seems your version is based on faith as much as the next guys.

As logic would see it, my soul will cease to exist when my heart quits beating and my body will go back to the earth in the form of nutrients. No faith, just common sence.

Like I've said before People hate bad news, so they invented religion.
I dont think there's any worse news a person wants to hear than "You're going to die someday." So some clever little caveman invented the notion of "an everlasting soul" and went on to sell immortality for the small price of 10% of all his subscriber's incomes, and their everlasting, undying obedience to his word. I'd prolly say that it's a profession older than prostitution or even fishing; selling false hopes and empty promises, but people still swallow it because to them it sure sounds a whole lot better than becoming forgotten worm food...

Harps & trumpets... Laugh my ass off.

Suckers.

Here's the abrieviated version:

The gap between early molecular evolution and the origin of the first cell may have been bridged by a photoheterotrophic obcell, consisting of genes and ribosomes attached to the outer surface of a phospholipid vesicle containing a light-driven proton pump and a proton-driven pyrophosphate synthase. I argue that the obcell was the substratum for the origin of DNA replication; DNA segregation by the growth and division of the peptidoglycan murein; periplasmic solute-binding proteins; bioenergetics, including the F0F1 proton-driven ATP synthase; active transport of calcium; and facilitated diffusion of nutrients across membranes, and that it played the major role in the replacement of ribozymes by protein catalysts. Curved growth of the peptidoglycan and a mutation causing septum formation produced the first true cell. Evolution of porins, sodium extrusion and potassium import, conversion of the facilitated diffusion proteins to active pumps, and the evolution of intermediary metabolism, carbon and nitrogen fixation, and of substrate level phosphorylation, completed the origin of the first negibacterial eubacterium, from which all other cells evolved, and from which they have inherited most of their major catalytic properties--with the notable exceptions of reverse transcriptase, RNA splicing, and methanogenesis, all of which I believe evolved very much later.

[Source: Department of Biophysics, Cell and Molecular Biology, King's College London, United Kingdom.]

Are you still driving up?

WTF?!?

FLIES?

Is Sparkey going with you guys? :p

Interesting, did anyone notice that most of the slides about Jesus Camp were of young girls?? Perhaps that has no significance. (yeah sure)
I impatiently await the continued discussion on the relevance of the distinction twixt 'the works of man' vs the 'works of God.'
Personally the steelhead in the rivers used to be the works of God. And the eagle in the high country too. The beautiful architectural churches in Europe and the Mosques in the Middle East and the written dogma that the various religions use to give themselves justification for being, and for some of their atrocious behaviour, are all the works of man. I cannot envision a supreme being with so capricious and vengeful a nature. The only creature that comes close came from sillywood. On one of the old Star Trek episodes there was a displaced Greek God. He needed love and obeisance, and of course, a pretty bit of eye candy. Terminal intolerance did him in. So much for narcissism and its' risks.
The Ten Commandmants were a code to live by generated by some thinkers in times past. Good job. A society could do nicely following the rules.
The Cross and the Swastika are symbols so ancient that any claim to ownership of them today is ludicrous.

That's enough out of you, Jig Boy!

What's a jig? Oh yeah, it's a weighted fly, I almost forgot.

Now, don't get all defensive.

You don't have to make 5 false casts before you can toss a jig and float.

That's like lifting a drink up to your mouth five times before you drink any......or passing the B five times before you hit it.

I agree totally, bro. Only need one cast with a spey rod, though. Load the rod with a d-loop and let her rip.

Well, one thing is for sure. Even if you're flinging feathers, you'll be having a waaaaay better time than I will be.

Enjoy yourselves up there.

Would you guys just leave already? SOL's like a rat on acid around here this week

Please don't feed him to the bears up there, and take some duct tape if he gets lippy with Mrs. TRBO

'cause Patron make grizz sick to his stomach

Translated: I'm an invaluable employee and replacing me would be impossible.

<insert puking gremlin here>

..........sooooo laughing

How does that song go?

"I'mmmmmmmmmmmm, gonna whip somebody'ssssssssssss assssssssssssssss,
I'mmmmmmmmmmmm, gonna whip somebody'ssssssssssss assssssssssssssss,

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, if ya don't leave me alonnnnnnnnnnne,
Ya better send me hommmmmmmmmmmme,
Cause I'mmmmmmmmmmmm, gonna whip somebody'ssssssssssss assssssssssssssss."



I gotta get outta here.

Sol,

please extend my regards to the lower potato patch.

. . . and how's your D-loop hangin' these days?

High and tight. All I need are some chrome-sided natives to play with. Three more days. Three.

Sol,

You guys have a great time. I sure miss that north country in September. I'd return in a heartbeat, but I've got precious memories of some relatively uncrowded waters. I'd hate to taint that picture.

Hope you don't have to stop and untangle Parker too often.

Will do.

I can barely imagine those rivers up there 20 years ago. I almost made my first trip as a 19-year old. Sure wish I'd have done it.

Sol,

I've got a copy of Fenelly's Steelhead Paradise about fishing the Skeena country in the 1950s with Buzz Fiorini if you want to borrow it some time. Fishing 9 1/2' E.C. Powell bamboo rods, Hardy St. Johns, and these newfangled plastic coated fly lines and nylon monofiliment leaders. High teener and 20# steelhead stacked like cordwood in Johansen Creek. Buzz is still alive and has fishing memories no one in my or your generation will ever know.

Hook one on a skater for me, will ya'?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I just might take you up on that, salmo. Back when I was a hardcore fly guy I looked for that book and never could find a copy.

Skaters may have to come later in the week. I'm jonesin' for a fix, first.

Later bro.

Save your feathers, they keep your ears from saggin.

Ok, Its been awhile since Sol posted his challenge to khock, and I know he is probably out of town, but still I feel a need to answer his challenge. So, here I go...
Sol, The first thing I would like to point out is that I don't know of anywhere in the bible that incest is considered a sin. So, if you feel guilty or were admonished about something in your youth, it wasn't the act of incest that would of been the sin, but rather the act of having sex with someone that was not your life partner. If, we are to believe the biblical story, the risks associated with incest, ie. in-breeding and recessive chromosones, would not have been present, since the bodies would have been in a perfect or near perfect state. As sin entered man, then the body was corrupted and incest would have become more and more of a problem. If there was a commandment against incest, it would have had to do more with the dangers of it, rather than the actual act. I will leave it at that and let you respond.

Now, I would like to address your statement that the belief in God is illogical. In my opinion, the exact opposite is true. As science progresses, it is becoming more and more evident that God, in some form, must exist. This form is where most of the debate belongs, rather than than on his (its,her,etc. include) existance. If we look at the quark, we find subatomic particles that combine in different combinations to eventually create the very cells that you mention as being the start of life. If science is right, then inherent in each of these quarks is the basic laws of physics from which all mater forms. In essence, these quarks are your God. Since they most contain all the laws of physics within them, then within each of them is the ability to create everything that is and will be. They also have to be infinite in nature.
So, in my humble mind, it comes down to believing that an inanimate object, or objects, with no apparent form, knowledge, or ability to think created everything, or an animate object with knowledge started it all. Rather than just believing that all mater is, was, and always will be and that every thing is inherent in every thing, I choose to believe that the order of the universe was not and is not chaotic in order (and could not be unless we believe in a universe without the laws of physics) but rather was created by an animate, thinking being.

How I came to my personal beliefs in what form God takes are a whole different story and take a much longer path of discovery. The truth is Sol, you remind me a lot of the sceintists who keep getting excited about finding water or evidence of water in space. They insist that they are open minded and they are searching for life, but in reality they keep looking for life in the forms we know it. In essence, they say they believe in a universe of infinite possibilities but put restrictions on these possibilities at the same time. Any sceintist who says God can't exist, is denying the basic fundamental belief that most sceintific hypothesis are based on.

So Sol, while I am not very versed in sceince and physics, I am a deep thinker, a conservative christian, and a lover of debate. So, come at me with all you have, I may not have all the answers, but I certainly will try my best.
Hope you had a great trip, are nice and relaxed, and are up to taking a few shots at me.

1]Leviticus 18:6-18 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. If you dont know the book you're preaching about then you really aren't that much of a christian.

2]In your opinion? According to your own people the fundamentalists, Science is all a big lie, and God exists in faith alone, (ie, you gotta believe it to see it, as opposed to vice-versa.) Would you care to share some details of this "scientific proof" of gods existance? If God were PROVEN to exist, since he exists in faith and faith alone, his proven existance would cause him to vanish in a puff of logic.

3]Riddle me this, Smartypants: What are quarks made of?
If Quarks are "God," does this mean that Leptons are Satan? And if Leptons are Satan, doesnt this mean that an Exorcism would cause a physical body to vanish into subatomic particles upon completion? Sounds an awful lot like Buddhism and the attainment of ultimate enlightenment.

4]Obviously you don't have a humble mind, or you wouldnt be here coming off as all knowing and all seeing like you are, but you are right about one thing, it all comes down to believing. Some people just can't function without convincing themselves that Daddy is up there on a cloud still holding thier hand.

5]You deny Entropy?? It goes against the laws of Physics? You yourself have rejected the laws of Science, but when you need to pull something out of your ass, you claim something goes against the laws of Physics? Entropy IS the laws of physics, and as a matter of fact is the foundation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which must've been conveniently left out of that Creationism class you had back in Home Schooling. Furthermore, it was proven over 100 years ago that all trajectories are unstable, in that all particle trajectories diverge exponentially from one-another, thereby *Proving* chaos not to be a faith, a myth, a fable, a fairy tale, or even a Reader's Digest Condensed Book, but a FACT.

6]Water is one of the most basic molecules you can find, and they've known about Ice in space for Centuries. What they get excited about of late is finding it in places they never thought to look such as under Lunar or Martian strata.

I know Im not Sol, but we both decended from the same Monkey, so I figured it'd be OK if I answered in his stead.

Itchy, I agree that I don't know the bible good enough. The fact is though, that Law was written after creation and written to combat sin. While I can't argue for all of the reasons of the law, much of it was written for benefit of man. In the biblical beliefs, Adam and his offspring would have been perfect at first, therefore negating the need of the law. But hey, I am just trying my best and like I said, I really do know I don't know everything. You already taught me one thing.

Arguement #2 in my opinion is a joke. God obviously does not exist in faith alone, in my opinion, but can only be found through faith at this time. In the future this will change.

Arguement #3
First of all my knowledge of quarks is very limited, but I thought that leptons were also quarks, aren't they. But I think you are jumping right past my arguement. Its not quarks that matter, but the fact that there are rules of physics that exist. What I really am trying to argue is that you place your faith in an inanimate object or objects have the innate ability to create things while I put mine in an animate one. Both take faith. Since science is seeming to come down to basic building blocks that through the innate laws that govern them and are with in them gave them the ability to act in certain ways that in the end created all we know,
I equate this your God. Since I find it hard to fathom that these things have been around forever and thereforth had to have had this ability forever I choose to beleive in an animate god. From there I take different paths to choose the GOd I believe in.
4. Trust me, The more you write, the more I know I don't know much. But agian, I am not trying to argue science as much as I am faith and whether or not a belief in God is essentially illogical. I certainly can't prove God and definitely can not argue against science. But You and Sol definitely seem to try to prove that Sceince proves God does not exist and that all belief in that is foolish. In that I beleive you fail.

5. Entropy? Sorry but you lost me here. I never took anything above physics and was not good at that at the time. I read a little on the subject and am lost in how I denied it, but then again, but then agian, for the most part I am just lost. Chaotic was a poor choice of words. My arguement is more philosophical than scientific. What was I was trying to say is that nothing is truely random. Even randomness must follow the rules of physics. These rules come from somewhere. Find what sets these rule in play and you have your god.
Lastly, why get excited about water in space? In an infinite universe you should be able to find life that takes all kinds of forms. It seems to me to focus on finding water limits the possibilities, the very basis of which these sceintists base their faith on. I know they are trying to say that they know life can exist with water so it may be more likely to exist, but since this life would have to take a very diffent form to exist in space, and thereforth came to being separately through separate acts of random actions, wouldn't they just as likely use a different building block? Its late and I know my ignorance is probably killing you, but I am trying.

I'm not really into arguing this, but would like to say simply that faith isn't about hoping or wanting (or not wanting) something to be true, but rather knowing it is. Despite my earnest efforts to disbelieve, I now do. I'm not sure how the whole thing works. It may well work more through attraction than promotion, but I got my answer and it just may be that some others will as well......when its time.

I doubt there are many old Doctors who are completely sold on science.

Well said Slab Happy. I don't expect to convert anyone through this, but do expect to learn something. Hey, I learned a little bit about entropy and the bible already. Over the years I have learned a lot more by being stupid and arguing then I ever have from an arguement I won. I am sure I drive a lot of people I work with nuts, but most of the break throughs I have had have been from asking why. Twenty times in the row I will be given a hastily answer. Sometimes I walk away satisfied. But, sometimes, on the 21st time the answer comes back at well, in that case you could do this or I don't know why that is that way. After years of doing this, I have uncovered a few gems that have paid off well. I don't ever claim to know as much as an expert on any of these things. I only take what little I do understand and look at it in a different way then most people.

vocabulary for the weak:
enthalpy, the measure of the energy content of a system in relation to it's mass.
The definition can mislead in that big and heavy doesn't necessarily have more energy unless you render it. lol

entropy: 1, a thermodynamic measure of the amount of energy unavailable for useful work in a system undergoing change.
2, a measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or system: entropy always increases and available energy always diminishes in a closed system, the universe for example.

3, in information theory, the measure of the information content of a message vs the veracity of the source.

Obviously both terms have political currency. lol

Slab,

Faith is regarded as "knowing" with what is often termed "visceral" knowledge or belief, meaning it's emotional, rather than rational or logical in its substantiation. So faith is a style of knowing, but in science its basis or substantiation is considered far weaker than logical knowledge.

Krijack,

I believe in gravity, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, enthalpy, entropy, and chaos theory, in about that order. The funny thing is that in that range, science and theology usually cross paths.

Sard,

I've never before seen that 3rd definition of entropy. If true, that's so funny, and no doubt applicable.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G,
Source. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. 2nd College Edition. I did not use definitions verbatim, however, close enough for accuracy and comprehension.

Yah sure, you betcha! These friggin geniuses can tell you how it happened but no one has been able to duplicate it with all the modern science available.

If you want to believe that, fine! That takes real faith. If you want to wait up for Santy Claus you might see him too!

1+1=6

KK thinks you have to listen to him Jhook he is in the we run PP club. He thinks you have to do what he says or face a piling on from his buddies. If it were me I would tell him to STFU and go play with himself like the rest of the liberal cowards. But hey thats just me.

KK You obviously cannot tell sarcasm from hate. Quick, tell me. Is the above statement full of sarcasm or hate? It's obvious to me, no amount of calm, intelligent discourse would be of any value to someone who believes that statement.So please don't lecture me about my attitude. OK?

Am I supposed to be impressed or frightened? Suffice it to say I am neither. I suppose the amount of posts is somehow equal to ones stature here? Sorry I don't see it that way but if it makes you feel better, Ride on!