Is there a GOD? - ding! ding! ding ding geeeeet reaaaaaady toooooo rummmmble!!!!

[Hemodoc]

    And one more idea...... I sure would like to know  how  amino acids were found on meteorites......   not from this planet......

Dear Kathy,

What a great topic to look at.  I believe that the jury is still out on this one, but even if we start with some simple amino acids here on earth or outer space from some fairly simple chemical reactions, when do we go from some of the building blocks of organic life, to life itself.  The most impressive evidence for God written in the chemicals of life is actually DNA since DNA is not just a complex organic molecule, it is actually a language defining all aspects of life.  It is impossible to assemble information from random events.  But that is what DNA represents.  Mutations only scramble the message, they don't make the message.  Here is a review of a book for a well renowned scientist on the issue of DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

So, I believe that there is a God first from the testimony of the Bible of His Son, and second from examples such as DNA which is an actual language conveying information from an intelligent being that I believe to be the God of the Bible.  That is why I believe that there is a God.

[jennyc]

That is so true Jenny - we have the Destiny Church here which is similar.  However, having said that, I know many many church going people in all sorts of Christian churches who are out there giving their time for others and really doing what they believe is right - just for the sake of doing right.

Oh i totally agree, i just think churchs and preacher like that make a mockery of everything that is good about religion. Esp TV evangalists. I mean i know priests and pastors and reverends get paid but they don't drive around in porches and own mansions, they do it for the love of God, not for the love of the money they can get from God. They actually pray to make more money..... how sick is that!

[Hemodoc]

    And one more idea...... I sure would like to know  how  amino acids were found on meteorites......   not from this planet......

Dear Kathy,

What a great topic to look at.  I believe that the jury is still out on this one, but even if we start with some simple amino acids here on earth or outer space from some fairly simple chemical reactions, when do we go from some of the building blocks of organic life, to life itself.  The most impressive evidence for God written in the chemicals of life is actually DNA since DNA is not just a complex organic molecule, it is actually a language defining all aspects of life.  It is impossible to assemble information from random events.  But that is what DNA represents.  Mutations only scramble the message, they don't make the message.  Here is a review of a book for a well renowned scientist on the issue of DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

So, I believe that there is a God first from the testimony of the Bible of His Son, and second from examples such as DNA which is an actual language conveying information from an intelligent being that I believe to be the God of the Bible.  That is why I believe that there is a God.

Dear Kathy,  here is another source that I have seen in the past and it looks like he has updated it since I looked at it last a couple of years ago.  Organic chemicals is only one layer but what is most important is the fact that all of life is dictated by intelligent information contained in the DNA.  That cannot come about by random chance reactions.  It is an interesting site.  Let me know what you think about it.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis3.htm

God bless,

Peter

[Stoday]

Dear Hemodoc, you berate me for quoting the Pope. Then you do the same thing yourself by quoting Fred Hoyle. In the 1950’s there was great controversy concerning the universe. On the one hand Fred Hoyle maintained that the universe had always existed, whereas on the other ideas were developing on what is now known as the “big bang” origin. A decade later the consensus was that Hoyle was wrong. You have to be careful with scientists; some get it wrong. I particularly remember Harold S Jones, the Astronomer Royal, in 1955, declaring that man could not possibly put anything into orbit. The Russians did it one year later.

So, as you said in your 11 Jan post, “I thought that we were talking about the issues based on facts and evidence, not on authorities, could we not quote authorities the other doesn’t accept?

[Stoday]

Dear Hemodoc, time and time again you misquote evolution. For example, you say that DNA can’t come about by random chance reactions. Of course not. Evolution cannot happen like that. In particular, I never said that “natural selection” was at the heart of evolution. There’s no one to do the selecting. The evolutionary driver is the survival of the fittest.

Yes, DNA can be changed at random but the vast majority of changes are bad and get rejected. They are bad and don’t survive because they don’t provide an advantage to the organism; they die out. Perhaps only one change in a million is good, but that’s the one that might get reproduced. To be adopted by the species population, each change is minor and must be an advantage to the species in its environment. With time, and environmental separation from the parent species, a new species may develop as a result of cumulative beneficial changes.

[Stoday]

Hemo you have insulted me many times and I've tried my best to be civil to you.  Of course since you hold your self in such high regard you probably feel it is yours to be rude to me, to catholics, to Jews, etc. 

Don’t worry about it dwc. You are too sensitive; grow a thicker skin.

If you start with the same facts as hemo but draw a different conclusion, as I do, then the difference is a consequence of the logic used to derive the results from the facts. I don’t believe there is a God, but hemo does. Yet we have the same facts from which to draw our conclusions. From my point of view, hemo is using false arguments, so I say so. He then accuses me of insulting him or being sarcastic.

If you accept that different people have different concepts of God, based on the same facts, you have to accept that their interpretations are different. Hemo does not accept that. To him Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Hindus have got it wrong. Fair enough, but you can’t have that attitude and criticize others for saying mutatis mutandis they have got it wrong.

[rocker]

Dan, I have not once insulted you in any manner, nor anyone else on this thread while you and several others have enjoyed mocking, and ridiculing my faith and that of others with high fives so to speak with each insult placed.

Peter, you are very good at reposting old posts without added context.  (Many reading this may not know it, but this is considered breathtakingly bad etiquette in some corners of the internet.  This dates from the days when storage was very expensive - to repost an entire post, particularly when adding no new information, doubled the storage required for that post without adding anything.  This is referred to in a derogatory way as a "Me, too!" post.)

Could you please repost some of the posts wherein you were "mocked and ridiculed", along with some of the "high five" metoo posts?

If simple disagreement equates to mockery and ridicule, how do you explain your "mockery and ridicule" of science?

And an aside - I cannot for the life of me understand why fundamentalists focus on evolution.  Virtually all sciences contradict the Biblical story - forget biology, try cosmology, chemistry, geology, and even math.

You state there is no single universally-accepted theory of the mechanism of evolution.  True, and entirely irrelevant.  There is no single universally-accepted theory of the mechanism of gravity, either.  And yet, this does not lead physicists to leap from the top of tall buildings...no one doubts that gravity exists, even if we don't know precisely how it works.

You've stated that the teaching of evolution has changed over time, and so has the teaching of creationism.  When I was a child, we were taught flatly that evolution was bunk, it simply did not happen.  God's creation was perfect and unchanging.  Now that evolution has been demonstrated to exist, creationism teaches that of course, microevolution happens.  Just not macroevolution.  A hundred years ago, dinosaur fossils were explained as the remains of demons or other Biblical creatures, as the idea of extinction was considered unbiblical.  (God would never let one of His creations die out.) Now the notion of extinction is accepted by all.

You've stated that some scientists began as atheists and came to believe in God.  This is true - and other scientists have started as Christians and become atheists.  People change their minds.

 I have since August simply spoken about the faith of God that I have through the Bible and refuted the many false assertions against the Bible and Christians that many have placed on this thread.

Again, I would be interested in which posts you perceive this to be the case.

I have countered false assertions of the Bible with direct quotes from the Bible simply to let it speak for itself.

Indeed.  I understand that we are very different.  You found Christian faith through studying the Bible, I lost Christian faith through studying the Bible.

You have defended the scientific accuracy of the Bible.  Some scientific statements made by the Bible -

Rabbits chew their cud.
Bats are a type of bird.
Snakes eat dirt.

Some questions to which the Bible provides multiple answers:

What is the fate of the righteous?
How did Judas Iscariot die?
What were Jesus' last words?
How many years of famine did God send to David?
Is it possible for a human to see God and live?

I have enjoyed far ranging debates on other websites on the issues of the Bible and the issues of evolution without the low demeanor that many have fallen to on this thread.  That is a shame since it is a debate that many would enjoy discussing in an orderly manner, looking at the substance of the arguments instead of becoming embroiled in petty personality contests peppered with insults and false innuendos that you yourself have delighted in over and over again the last couple of weeks.  Perhaps there are some that actually wish to look at the evidence of is there a God and can agree to disagree intelligently and congenially. I have participated on other websites on these very issues for months at a time without losing sight of the topic at hand.  That is what I believe Epoman would have had for this thread as well.

As I said, I find this topic fascinating.  Could you point me to some of the interesting debates you've had on other websites?  I enjoy hearing all sides presented.

 -rocker

[tyefly]

    And one more idea...... I sure would like to know  how  amino acids were found on meteorites......   not from this planet......

Dear Kathy,

What a great topic to look at.  I believe that the jury is still out on this one, but even if we start with some simple amino acids here on earth or outer space from some fairly simple chemical reactions, when do we go from some of the building blocks of organic life, to life itself.  The most impressive evidence for God written in the chemicals of life is actually DNA since DNA is not just a complex organic molecule, it is actually a language defining all aspects of life.  It is impossible to assemble information from random events.  But that is what DNA represents.  Mutations only scramble the message, they don't make the message.  Here is a review of a book for a well renowned scientist on the issue of DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief

So, I believe that there is a God first from the testimony of the Bible of His Son, and second from examples such as DNA which is an actual language conveying information from an intelligent being that I believe to be the God of the Bible.  That is why I believe that there is a God.

Well I did take a few hours and read and watch the video.... I will say that the presentation sounds fairly logical..... DNA being defined as a language is doable....  Random processes not creating codes like DNA is not doable for me.... it is possible that a random process could create a code...  but that code would need to work  for it to continue...  like computers  its either on  or off... cant be inbetween.....   I realize that humans made computers which are either on or off.....  Now for DNA to be compared to language like a computer it is reasonable that it too would be out of a design.... where did that design come from.....  God....  or a random process...  I really don't know.......  know one does....  There was a mention of undiscovered physics.....  that is possible.... we are discovering thing all the time....   Evolution is possible and to me reasonable..... and I realize there can be different definitions of the word evolution....   There is also different definitions of the word God as well.......  There are more unanswered questions than answered.....   basically  did the chicken come first of did the egg....   and who cares cause the real question is what came before the chicken.....  if there is a God  who does he answer too.....  There was a time before when the bible was written.....  what about those people..... are they lost souls...  they certainly did not know of that God....  and what about those people who lived only a minute and died....and never accepted God .....or had the chance.....  Sometimes I think we think too much.... Somethings are just too big.... or sometimes they are not even there.....  Is in really that important to spend so much of a persons time wondering about the things you can not controll....  We can  not answer any of those questions , we will never be able to prove the truth...... Since we cannot prove the truth wouldn't it be better to spend a persons energy with some of the simpler things in life that we can control so that we can make life better for us here.... what happens if you were wrong  and there was no God  and you spent your whole life wish apond a star to only find out that you wasted your time and that heaven was right here... Maybe when a person dies and the molecules return to the earth for something or someone else to use, maybe that is the real gift....... oh gee..... there I go.....  too much thinking......  I am not that knowledgable about any one subject but I do find it interesting with the human brain.....  its got to put a smile on your face.....

[willowtreewren]

I'm still enjoying my popcorn, so keep up the dialog.

I would like to comment on something. One of the beauties of science is that, as Stoday commented, the knowledge changes. Science is forever going through peer review as scientists try to poke holes in the ideas of other scientists. It is always being tested.

Some people say you have to have faith in science. But it is the process of finding out that the scientists didn't have it quite right, but continue to get it better that makes is so exciting and NOT an object of faith (unless ones professes to have confidence or faith in the process - but that is not the same kind of faith that one is talking about when professing religious faith).

I am comfortable with folks who have faith especially if it gives them inner peace.

But Peter, I will never be persuaded to believe in God by arguments quoting the Bible. To me it is not a source of authority any more than Nostradamus. That the universe works is also not a proof to me of a god. If the universe did NOT follow the laws of nature, that might be a more compelling argument for god! 

One of my friends, when asked what might convince her that there were a god, answered that a good miracle such as seeing a person spontaneously regenerate a severed arm might suffice. Yeah, that would pretty much do it for me, too.

I'm open to the idea that there is a god. Just haven't been convinced by any evidence, and the Bible isn't evidence for me.

And for every Frank Collins there are 100 scientists who believe differently. Collins is not representative of the scientific community.

Peter, I don't want to de-convert you. But, I do hope you realize that your zeal in quoting the Bible or holding up A scientist isn't doing much to convince me. I could site many former evangelicals who lost faith as well (Dan Barker is one who I know personally and have met a half a dozen others). It just doesn't prove a thing.

I'm done. It's been a long day.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Hemodoc, you berate me for quoting the Pope. Then you do the same thing yourself by quoting Fred Hoyle. In the 1950’s there was great controversy concerning the universe. On the one hand Fred Hoyle maintained that the universe had always existed, whereas on the other ideas were developing on what is now known as the “big bang” origin. A decade later the consensus was that Hoyle was wrong. You have to be careful with scientists; some get it wrong. I particularly remember Harold S Jones, the Astronomer Royal, in 1955, declaring that man could not possibly put anything into orbit. The Russians did it one year later.

So, as you said in your 11 Jan post, “I thought that we were talking about the issues based on facts and evidence, not on authorities, could we not quote authorities the other doesn’t accept?

Dear Stoday, Sir Fred Hoyle left a body of work that we can look and judge on it's own merits.  I spoke of a small part of his large body of works not as an authoritative issue, he was an atheist and believed in evolution, but not Darwinian evolution.  The point of agreement that I have is his mathematically modeling of the statistically probabilities of different evolutionary events.  I referenced his work for the issue of abiogenesis.  Here is a quote from Sir Fred Hoyle:

In Evolution from Space, Hoyle also calculated the chance of randomly obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was 1 in 1040,000 (a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it). He argued that even an entire universe full of "primordial soup" would give little chance to the evolutionary process. In an address at Cal Tech, Hoyle stated that no amount of time currently being considered by evolutionists is even remotely adequate for the formation of higher life forms by chance. Such an occurance, he said, would be equivalent to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein." He also once compared the chance of assembling a single functioning protein by chance combinations of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's cube simultaneously (the Fred Hoyle Family website, http://www.hoyle.org.uk).

http://hubpages.com/hub/On-the-Origin-of-Species-by-Means-of-Special-Creation

He disagreed with Darwinian evolution and the big bang not because he didn't accept evolution, but he couldn't make it work mathematically.  His mathematics on abiogenesis still stands as a monumental work, even if it is ignored due to it's implications for adhering to Darwinian evolution as well as Neo-Darwin theories as well.  So, no authority, but still an important commentary relevant to this discussion.

[tyefly]

I'm still enjoying my popcorn, so keep up the dialog.

I would like to comment on something. One of the beauties of science is that, as Stoday commented, the knowledge changes. Science is forever going through peer review as scientists try to poke holes in the ideas of other scientists. It is always being tested.

Some people say you have to have faith in science. But it is the process of finding out that the scientists didn't have it quite right, but continue to get it better that makes is so exciting and NOT an object of faith (unless ones professes to have confidence or faith in the process - but that is not the same kind of faith that one is talking about when professing religious faith).

I am comfortable with folks who have faith especially if it gives them inner peace.

But Peter, I will never be persuaded to believe in God by arguments quoting the Bible. To me it is not a source of authority any more than Nostradamus. That the universe works is also not a proof to me of a god. If the universe did NOT follow the laws of nature, that might be a more compelling argument for god! 

One of my friends, when asked what might convince her that there were a god, answered that a good miracle such as seeing a person spontaneously regenerate a severed arm might suffice. Yeah, that would pretty much do it for me, too.

I'm open to the idea that there is a god. Just haven't been convinced by any evidence, and the Bible isn't evidence for me.

And for every Frank Collins there are 100 scientists who believe differently. Collins is not representative of the scientific community.

Peter, I don't want to de-convert you. But, I do hope you realize that your zeal in quoting the Bible or holding up A scientist isn't doing much to convince me. I could site many former evangelicals who lost faith as well (Dan Barker is one who I know personally and have met a half a dozen others). It just doesn't prove a thing.

I'm done. It's been a long day.

OMG     Aleta.... you said everything so perfectly....  I cant write well   but your remarks are right to the correct point.....  Thanks so much.... I feel this way too......

[Hemodoc]

Dear Hemodoc, time and time again you misquote evolution. For example, you say that DNA can’t come about by random chance reactions. Of course not. Evolution cannot happen like that. In particular, I never said that “natural selection” was at the heart of evolution. There’s no one to do the selecting. The evolutionary driver is the survival of the fittest.

Dear Stoday, I am not sure where you are getting some of your information and why you keep saying I am misquoting evolution.  Natural selection is the correct term and it actually derives in part from the term survival of the fittest which many actually believe is a tautology with no meaning and circular reasoning.  Take a look.

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description,[5] and is both incomplete and misleading.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as it does not convey the complex nature of natural selection, so they prefer and almost exclusively use the latter term (natural selection). Survival is only one component of selection. For example, where a number of males survive to reproductive age, yet only a few ever mate, the difference in reproductive success would stem from factors other than the ability to survive, such as an ability to successfully attract mates. In an evolutionary reproductive sense, fitness is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool, and should not be confused with meaning physically fit - biggest, fastest or strongest - and which does not necessarily lead to reproductive success [6].

http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=301826;topic=635.640;num_replies=659;a391a8c=f76274f8d6dd98ca9ddcd5236b3c5dcf

[Hemodoc]

Yes, DNA can be changed at random but the vast majority of changes are bad and get rejected. They are bad and don’t survive because they don’t provide an advantage to the organism; they die out. Perhaps only one change in a million is good, but that’s the one that might get reproduced. To be adopted by the species population, each change is minor and must be an advantage to the species in its environment. With time, and environmental separation from the parent species, a new species may develop as a result of cumulative beneficial changes.

Dear Stoday,  I believe that your math is a little too simplistic on this issue.  Here is an excellent review of the complexity of living systems including a commentary on Sir Fred Hoyle and his calculations. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=atC52cn9SZQC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=sir+fred+hoyle+chance+enzyme&source=bl&ots=dj-aYjxQDC&sig=TwzkfWdNPVv5YMvNUELCqaQw4as&hl=en&ei=c1VNS4CUE4zWtAOF2rzOAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=sir%20fred%20hoyle%20chance%20enzyme&f=false

You may wish to look at Haldane's Dilemma and how truly impossible it really is for the type of changes you readily accept as fact from one species to another, such as chimp to man.  Here is an excellent PPT I came across going over this issue as well as several issues with evolution.  You will need to scroll down to the following webpage on the link below:

[PPT] Haldane Dilemma - INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS - Home Page

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=walter+remine+Haldane's+dilemma&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Here is another site on Haldane's Dilemma.  Some interesting reading but a little technical:

http://SaintPaulScience.com/Haldane.htm

[Hemodoc]

The Bible contains hundreds of specific prophecies telling from the ancient of times what shall come to pass at the end of times.  DNA is a language which must have come from an intelligent designer.  There are many other issues of difficulty with abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, yet it is the predominant subject taught in our schools.  The so called science of evolution is fraught with conjecture and speculation. I hope that I have been able to present some food for thought for folks to look at these issues for themselves.  In my early 20's, I looked at religion, philosophy and science for the answers to life.  I didn't find them there.  I looked in many other areas and likewise didn't find the answers there.  It was not until I looked at the God of the Bible that not only did I find many of the answers, but God also found me and brought me back home.

[tyefly]

   I am so glad that we all have come to the correct conclusion......  for our selves.....            

[dwcrawford]

Dear Peter and Born Agains,

While I truly respect your convictions, if I had the belief in your god as some in here say they have, this morning I'd be down on my knees praying for the people of Haiti rather than continuing to spend so much time trying to prove myself right.  As it is, I'll have to wait  for instructions or suggestions from the Red Cross or some other organization to offer minimal financil contributions.  Hell, I'd even contribute to some right winged church supported organization if I felt they'd get there faster and as efficiently.

Hey, it would be a better use of your time (prayers I mean) than continuing  this repetitve rhetoric  (yes,  I know).  And a lot less annoying.

Love, Dan

PS:   I do NOT believe the Universe is a god, but rather "a higher power than myself". 

[del]

Dear Peter and Born Agains,

If I had the belief in your god as some in here say they have, this morning I'd be down on my knees praying for the people of Haiti rather than continuing to spend so much time trying to prove myself right.  As it is, I'll have to wait  for instructions or suggestions from the Red Cross or some other organization to offer minimal financil contributions.  Hell, I'd even contribute to some right winged church supported organization if I felt they'd get there faster and as efficiently.

Hey, it would be a better use of your time (prayers I mean) than continuing  this repetitve rhetoric  (yes,  I know).  And a lot less annoying.

Love, Dan

So true Dan.   Actions always speak louder than words.  I am home sick today but I will be talking to my Grade 2 students tomorrow about the situation in Haiti and how we can help.  I did the same thing with the tsmani (spelling) a few years ago.  As a school we raised well over a thousand dollars to sent .  (we only have about 150 students in our school).  Last year at Christmas time we asked parents to donate money in our name to a charity instead of buying a gift for the teacher.   We also have 3 children in our school who are adopted from Ethiopia. Last year the oldest was going back with his mom when she got the third child.  We raised over $2000 for him to take back to help the people.  I think it is more important to teach children ethics and morals than anything else.  We have such a diverse group of children in our schools that it is hard to teach one religious belief so I think it is much more important to try to teach them respect for all people.  Plus like most people I do not want to be pressing my own beliefs on another person.

[paul.karen]

I am not welcome here and I will not return again.  Believe me I'll live without your relitious advice or your hemo dialysis advice (much of which I did copy and talk to my Nephrologist about.)


LOL

Who said you are not welcome here Dan?
As for your last comment about Born Again Christians who should be praying for people mainly in Haiti.  Who says people have or havnt prayed for whomever?  Praying doesnt take long.
As for you not having faith it is easy to see you cant even decide for yourself if you are staying or going.  It is easy to see you like to stir stuff up.  This is your perogative.  You bring things from one thread to another, take pot shots at people and then claim it is all in the name of fun, or people misunderstand you.  I understand you.  I dont agree with evertything you say or do but it is your right to post your thoughts and insights like it is everyone elses right.

If what you read offends you so much why do you torture yourself?  Just dont read it.

[dwcrawford]

Paaul karein, how  many times have I been through this  with you.  \\\

BUTT Out of my business.  Again.

[dwcrawford]

You have already cause Petey to be banned oncej and me to be "scolded" a couiple of times.

Now, I say  again   

BUTT  Out.

[paul.karen]

Am i not entitled to my opinion Dan?

I said nothing negative towards you.  Just pointed out some facts ABOUT YOU.

I still am not sure who said you were not welcome here?
Then again if you were to leave and never return like you claimed you would do we wouldnt have had this discussion.
Most grown ups that i know usually mean what they say and say what they mean.

Oh and PS.  If it is in an OPEN FORUM I can speak my mind.  Again let me put it to you simply.  You dont have to read my posts and better yet you dont have to respond to them.    I call it like i see it.  if that offends you or threatens you get a thicker skin.  Then again maybe you just misunderstood my post:?  Seems you have no problem saying what you think of other members why should you be excluded from your own style.
 

I didnt have anyone banned. 

[dwcrawford]

I have not said a word about or to you since your  last tirade that got petey banned.  I'd rather not and this is the first post I've ready from you since thing are you are still talking the same crap.

espress your opiinions  abouut religioon in here.  not about. me

[Rerun]

Dear Peter and Born Agains,

If I had the belief in your god as some in here say they have, this morning I'd be down on my knees praying for the people of Haiti rather than continuing to spend so much time trying to prove myself right.  As it is, I'll have to wait  for instructions or suggestions from the Red Cross or some other organization to offer minimal financil contributions.  Hell, I'd even contribute to some right winged church supported organization if I felt they'd get there faster and as efficiently.

Hey, it would be a better use of your time (prayers I mean) than continuing  this repetitve rhetoric  (yes,  I know).  And a lot less annoying.

Love, Dan

So true Dan.   Actions always speak louder than words.  I am home sick today but I will be talking to my Grade 2 students tomorrow about the situation in Haiti and how we can help.  I did the same thing with the tsmani (spelling) a few years ago.  As a school we raised well over a thousand dollars to sent .  (we only have about 150 students in our school).  Last year at Christmas time we asked parents to donate money in our name to a charity instead of buying a gift for the teacher.   We also have 3 children in our school who are adopted from Ethiopia. Last year the oldest was going back with his mom when she got the third child.  We raised over $2000 for him to take back to help the people.  I think it is more important to teach children ethics and morals than anything else.  We have such a diverse group of children in our schools that it is hard to teach one religious belief so I think it is much more important to try to teach them respect for all people.  Plus like most people I do not want to be pressing my own beliefs on another person.

Our right hand is not to tell our left hand what good deeds we have done.

[rocker]

The Bible contains hundreds of specific prophecies telling from the ancient of times what shall come to pass at the end of times.

So does Nostradamus, if you read it with the same "interpretation".

I am not sure why you have turned a thread about God into an anti-science screed, but I admit it does annoy me.  The progress of science has kept my husband alive many years past the time when he "should" have died.  Anti-science views bother me - it seems almost equivalent to saying my husband should be dead.

DNA is a language which must have come from an intelligent designer.

"I can't imagine a way it might have happened, therefore it must be magic." is also an attitude which would have led to my husband's death.  We could have tried burning incense when he became ill, but many studies show that dialysis is more effective.

  There are many other issues of difficulty with abiogenesis and the theory of evolution,

Abiogenesis is an entirely separate subject from evolution, and yet you continually conflate the two.

yet it is the predominant subject taught in our schools.

This bit is simply nonsense.  "Predominant subject"?  I know several children who have recently been in high school in the US.  They tell stories of biology teachers gritting their teeth in class and saying "I'm not allowed to say the 'e word'.", because of manufactured "controversy" such as this.  US students are far behind many other countries in science education, because a vocal minority insists they not be exposed to "dangerous" ideas.

Have you gotten more than one flu vaccination?  (Do not get me started on anti-vaccinators.)
Why?  If there is no evolution, then the flu virus doesn't evolve and one vaccine should be sufficient forever.

The so called science of evolution is fraught with conjecture and speculation.

All science is fraught with conjecture and speculation.  That is how science is done. That is how we learn new things.  That is how medical treatments are created and improved.  Hooray for conjecture and speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I hope that I have been able to present some food for thought for folks to look at these issues for themselves.  In my early 20's, I looked at religion, philosophy and science for the answers to life.  I didn't find them there.  I looked in many other areas and likewise didn't find the answers there.  It was not until I looked at the God of the Bible that not only did I find many of the answers, but God also found me and brought me back home.

And by implication, those of us who do not find such inspiration as you have, are somehow "lost".

I do not know everything.  I don't think everything is knowable.  But I find joy and inspiration in the search.

And it has kept my husband alive.

Perhaps we need a new thread discussing anti-science views, as certainly it has nothing to do with God.

 - rocker

[Rerun]

Then go start a thread about "Do you believe in Science"

This is about "Is there a God"......  who do you think will come here and write.

I think it is great that whomever comes here and reads what Hemodoc writes gets the word wheather they want it or not.  Then when judgment day comes you cannot stand before God and say you did not know.