Author
|
Topic: Evolution vs. Creationism
|
Victor |
posted 08-12-99 09:04 PM ET
Here's a "great debate" that was requested in another thread. I'm sure it will be able to include everyone here. I won't be able to participate because I just bought a new computer from Dell, and have to ship mine to Chicago in the morning. I will check on this thread ASAP when I get the new computer.
|
GaryD
|
posted 08-13-99 05:05 AM ET
Will this thread evolve, or did you create it ? |
Beta1
|
posted 08-13-99 09:11 AM ET
Infinte monkeys.Beta-1 May decide to comeback and explain that at a later date |
Beta1
|
posted 08-13-99 09:12 AM ET
Should have been infinite |
Spoe
|
posted 08-13-99 01:30 PM ET
Pretty appropriate, what with Kansas and all.The Kansas Board of Education has voted to remove almost all reference to evolution from its science curriculum. The chair of the board said, "Where is the evidence for that canine-looking creature that somehow has turned into a porpoise-looking creature, or that cow that has somehow turned into a whale, or that dinosaur that has somehow turned into a bird? I haven�t seen that evidence.". |
JohnIII
|
posted 08-13-99 01:39 PM ET
They obviously haven't been watching The Sun's opinions over the past few years... John III |
jsorense
|
posted 08-13-99 01:54 PM ET
Spoe, The Kansas Board of Education vote is very sad and disturbing. It is tempting to try and make fun of the know nothing creationist religious nuts ruining an entire state's education system but some monumental issues are raised. What is democracy? What are the intellectual relationships between science, religion and post modernism? What are the relationships of these concepts and government? What is the responsibility of local governance verses state and federal concerns? I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I sure am glad that I don't have any children enrolled in Kansas public schools. If I were a praying man, I would pray that other communities and states do not follow this example. However, I realize how organized and dedicated this movement is. :-(
|
GaryD
|
posted 08-13-99 02:10 PM ET
Geeze, I've been trying to post this since before JohnIII got in there. Why won't it go ???Yeah, this is being discussed on other forums too. I say if one hasn't seen the evidence then one hasn't been paying sufficiently close attention to the fossil record. If you reject evolution you have to assume new creatures just come into existence at various points in the past, and that somehow they just happen to look similar to another species that happened to disappear at the same time. (Either that or assume all the fossil records are fake.) I say evolution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. And any Board of "Education" that bans the teaching of it, just prove themselves to be a bunch of hicks. |
Dreadnought
|
posted 08-13-99 02:45 PM ET
I find it hard to belive that anyone nowadays believes in Creationism. So these religious, I mean conservative, politicions belive that the human race came from two people who, well, had sex all day. They claim that there is'nt enough evidence to prove evolution. Well, I don't see any evidence but the bible that advocates Creationism. And look at the similarites between people and apes. Look at the slowly changing skull shapes of fossils found over the years. Besides, the bible is so damn vauge about everything it preaches no one really knows what the hell it's saying. "Eve was born of Adam's rib"? Ohhhhhh kaaaaayyyy. Advocation Creationism just proves how ignorant some people are. Besides, if we all came from the same two people, then technicly (sp?) I'm related to Misho. *shudder* |
GaryD
|
posted 08-13-99 03:32 PM ET
Don't want to worry you, but you probably are anyway. If Sarich & Wilson's protein analysis is correect then we all have a common ancsestor, whom they called Eve (sense of humour).I'm presently reading a book called "The Neadertal Enigma" but don't expect any other info from it as I've only got to page 66 so far. |
Spoe
|
posted 08-13-99 03:44 PM ET
"Eve was born of Adam's rib"I've always thought this amazingly supportive of human cloning(from a religious perspective, anyway), eh? |
Beta1
|
posted 08-14-99 10:12 AM ET
GaryD - If your interested in common ancestor(s) etc. check out Newscientist (7 or 14 Aug I think) in the section about mass extinctions theres an interesting section on how we could be related much more closely than from Eve (and presumably Adam).Its a shame no one went with the creationist line - I was looking forward to a good scrap. Anyway on the subject of evolution - Darwinian or Lamarckian - which ones right and which would lead to a more interesting world? The answer to the first bits pretty clear - the second less so Beta-1 May have just got too technical |
Shaggy2Dope
|
posted 08-14-99 10:44 PM ET
People from Kansas are dumb@$$es anyway. |
Kangawallafox
|
posted 08-16-99 12:23 AM ET
Interesting read.Dreadnought: You won't prove or vindicate evolution just by discrediting creation (by which I assume we all just mean Creation as recorded in the book that Christians call Genesis, and not a broader theory). Beta1: When contemplating animal diversity I prefer Darwin's model. Wanna scrap? Anybody: Creation cannot be "proven" to people who follow scientific methods of proof and argument because nobody trained in methods of scientific proof and argument were present way back then to make records. Hence it is referred to as a theory or myth. Similarly, evolution cannot be "proven", and for exactly the same reason. Many christians don't have a problem with Adam having some genetically diverse "created" brothers (just not mentioned). But then many christians also don't have a problem with Adam and Eve having way too many kids and those kids being involved in some serious incest - the bible doesn't record incest as being a bad thing for a couple of generations at least. If you tend to believe that God cannot interfere with the world as it exists now, then you're not likely to accept creation, nor are you likely to become a christian. On the other hand if you think God created the world and the persons in it, you probably also accept that he can interfere with it at will (which is why a lot of christians pray). He can cause evolution to happen. He can "evolve" animals. He can create persons "in his image". Even if people have bodies that are the image of an ape, the min of a person is are something fairly different. So while a person can go about saying "why are we here" and important things like that, an ape might be thinking "I wonder if that yellow thing would taste nice". For my money, evolution may have happened (Darwin style not Lamarck style) and some kind of creation most certainly did, even though the details aren't clear enough to make for a very scientifically robust theory. I live my life based on bible-axioms like "God is a person and I'm a person because I'm made a bit even though I probably look different" and "sin happens" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart etc". K-fox
(A not-evolved hybrid of Kangaroo, Wallaby, Fox, and something much more sinister. Looks just like a 'roo but with tiny little horns and razor sharp teeth, although few humans get that close and surive. Related to yowies and dropbears. You'd probably have to be Australian to understand.) |
HelloKitty
|
posted 08-16-99 12:58 AM ET
I believe in the bible. It is always right. Gays are evil. Black people are really fallen angels. Women are here to support their men. We are all going to hell.Kitty
|
Kangawallafox
|
posted 08-16-99 02:07 AM ET
Since the bible doesn't anything about gay people or black people being any more "fallen" or sinful than me, I'll stick by my comments. People who say the things you're mimicking certainly don't share my faith. Blacks and whites and gays and straights are just as much "made in God's image" as one another. |
Dreadnought
|
posted 08-16-99 06:13 AM ET
I still fail to see how X-tians can preach of an all knowing, all loving God on one hand, then claim he hates gays on another. Talk about hypocracy..... |
Beta1
|
posted 08-16-99 07:19 AM ET
Kangawallafox - Have you read any of the Eon series by Greg Bear. One of the sequels takes place on a planet where Lamarckian evolution rules rather than darwinian. It makes an interesting idea although I dont think its quite true to the idea. Anyway I'm not suggesting that lamarck was right merely that evolution following his rules might make for an interesting ecosystem. When you can aquire new properties that rapidly who knows what you might end up with?Beta-1 |
GaryD
|
posted 08-16-99 08:04 AM ET
't tell me, let me guess. Everyone was born with a mass of scars right ? |
GaryD
|
posted 08-16-99 08:04 AM ET
Don't tell me, let me guess. Everyone was born with a mass of scars right ? |
Mertz
|
posted 08-16-99 04:18 PM ET
Kangawallafox: Evolution can be (and has already been) proven as a scientific theory. Darwinian evolutionary theory consists of three parts [(1)+(2)+(3)]: (1) Natural diversity (i.e. individuals of the same species are not identical) (2) Heridability (i.e. your offspring inherit some of your traits) (3) Selective pressure (more often known as "survival of the fittest") Each of these parts can be proven by itself, which is a fairly easy process. (1) is obvious to everybody. (2) had no scientific proof when the theroy was first proposed, but has since been proved by mendelian heredity and modern genetics. (3) is easily prooven (try placing a reindeer and an elefant on Greenland and see which lives long enough to reproduce). Since each of these three factors is independant of the other and all of them are ALWAYS applicable, the combination (1)+(2)+(3) gives you evolutionary theory. This is just basic science, and saying "nobody trained in methods of scientific proof and argument were present way back then to make records" isn't even relevant. Evolution can not be witnessed in the lifespan of a single person, but this is not even necessary for it to be a scientifically valid theory. This debate would benifit from a bit of basic understanding about evolution. |
Kangawallafox
|
posted 08-16-99 06:54 PM ET
Beta1: No I haven't read Eon, but on that recommendation I think I might. Have you read any Ursula LeGuinn? (I hope I spelled that right). I've read two and they were both interesting in similar ways, and contain well thought out "world views" with different "origin of the race" models. I'm going to get some more.Mertz: Also quite well put (there's a "but" coming ) I happen to like evolution as a model, but I don't accept it as an alternative to creation. I happen to think that your steps (1) + (2) + (3) can be observed by a human, in colonies of bacteria and in virii. The model makes a good basis for antibiotics research and explains why antibiotics get beaten by new microbes. The proof you've described explains it as a cool model now but not as an explanation for the origin of man which excludes God from the picture. For me, evolution's "link is still missing" ... that is to say I'll stake my life on antibiotics from time to time but I won't stake my life on a theory that says I evolved independantly, outside God's will. Dreadnought: God hates gays? I wish I could apologise on behalf of whoever told you that; I reckon it wasn't God!! C'mon you've heard what the bible really says, "for God so loved the world that he sent his only son". Gay people can go to heaven just like angry people, selfish people, proud people (have I included you yet?) covetous people, manipulative people etc but they have to do it on God's terms which means being either perfect OR a christian. The bible talks of righteousness... I guess you know all this already. God does hate sex outside marriage (presumably because it stuffs up marriages), he hates favourtism and ill-treatment of people, he hates tyranny, but in the face of that he loves the world. But in the face of all that he loves the people who do all these things enough to sacrifice his own son. GaryD: I assume that's your comment on Lamarck? Yes? All: Thanks for being so polite. This question (and my attempts to explain the particular answer that I subscribe to) can be threatening to a lot of people so I'm mildly relieved I didn't get a huge bashing just for having my say. |
Dreadnought
|
posted 08-16-99 07:09 PM ET
Maybe God himself does'nt hate gays, but listen to the insane ravings of most major religious figures, (Jerry Falwel, Billy Graham) they almost always are anti-homosexuality. Where were you when Jerry Falwel had that big fuss over that purple teletubbie? One of the main resons gays a persecuted like they are is because religion is well, homophobic. When people see this, they believe it's OK to hate gays. I still find it hard to believe that anyone could believe in god when the only proof of his existance is an incredibly vauge book. |
White_Cat
|
posted 08-16-99 08:27 PM ET
According to Christianity, all sins are equal. This means that a homosexual is no worse than a disobedient child, and no better than a murderer. All of them are enough to stop you from going to heaven.What exactly has Billy Graham said against homosexuality? Anything more than "it's a sin?" The Christian attitude towards gays is "hate the sin, love the sinner." I should also point out that several months before Falwell started raving about the Teletubbie being gay, there was a gay activist who was claiming the same thing, and accused the show's producer of homophobia when he denied it. I recently read that the homosexual lobby is claiming that Abraham Lincoln was gay... |
JaimeWolf
|
posted 08-18-99 03:15 AM ET
Mertz: Just a quick comment about evolution - there are two parts to the theory (as far as I understand it, anyway). (1) involves observable small changes between individuals and the tendency of a population to favour those individuals with a better chance of survival. Hence a species of grey moth in England changed from predominantly light-grey to predominantly dark-grey during the industrial revolution when all the trees they nested on got darker due to the amount of soot in the air. (2) extrapolates (1) out to say that because small-scale changes have been observed, large-scale changes must also be possible such as evolving from a reptile into a bird, or further evolving from a single-celled procaryotic (simple) organism into a complex multi-cellular organism such as a human.(1) is observable and testable in laboratory conditions so can be thought of as a well-tested scientific theory (not fact, but that's another story) (2) is much more wishy-washy and not so susceptible to scientific proof, but it's the simplest scientific explanation that's come along so far for the facts we have observed (such as the fossil record). However, since it cannot be repeated in a laboratory environment it is hard to credit it with even the name "theory" - probably better named an hypothesis (or "educated guess"). James |
GaryD
|
posted 08-18-99 09:31 AM ET
Kangawallafox: Yes, in was written tongue in cheek of course.God does hate sex outside marriage Whoops, that's me and my girlfriend heading 'south' then BTW God wouldn't need to "evolve" animals. The process of errors creeping in, due to radiation or whatever, does the job quite adequately. |
Kangawallafox
|
posted 08-18-99 11:34 PM ET
*chuckle*Well GaryD, maybe you want to be reminded that your "going south" depends on whether you trust God and want to be able go to heaven and be with him - in which case you'll be a christian - or not. In that light, then what you get up to with your girlfriend is pretty secondary. Alternatively, maybe you just wanted to brag or keep the forum friendly and entertaining ... |
Koshko
|
posted 08-19-99 01:34 AM ET
The Bible is in one essence a History Book. In Genesis 1, GOD created the World in 6 days. On the 7th he rested. It has also said (I don't remember where exactly offhand) that one day can be equavalent to 1000yrs or even more. So, Evolution CAN fit into the Creation ideal. One GOD day can represent many, many Earth yrs. Plus, On the 7th day, he rested letting everything go peacefully on their own way. There is no saying that Evolution didn't occur.Also of note is that Adam and Eve originated in Genesis 2. They weren't necessarily the First on Earth, they were just the first in the Garden of Eden. |
Natguy
|
posted 08-19-99 09:22 AM ET
Well, I've often thought about this issue, although my hard-core fundamentalist mother tends to put a damper on the issue at home. (Once my father (used to be a marine biologist) and I were discussing something I had seen on the Discovery Channel about the Big Bang. I was saying something about how it's expaning and they think that it will keep expanding, faster and faster, forever. Then he broke in saying, "But the world wasn't created in the Big Bang. God created it" I then proceeded to get a bible and Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", informed her that our own Pastor had said that the Book of Genesis could describe the Big Bang. After telling her that the Catholic Church (we're Lutherans) accepted the idea in I believe it was 1969, read the account of Creation and the description of the Big Bang, and she was surprised to find that they paralleled (mostly) Hee hee hee. That was fun. I hate fundamentalism)Anyway, that's what I think about evolution and Creationism. Merged together. I'm way too much of the scientist type to think that it took a week to create the universe. And some passages in Genesis promote evolution, actually. Adam was created from the dirt. Much in the same way that organic material formed in the "dirt" on the ocean bottom, forming simple lifeforms which evolved gradually to (possibly) form humans. And if you ask me, evolution can be proved by Neanderthals and other early humans. (Homo Erectus for example) Hee hee hee... I recall a debate last year with a kid who is amazingly intelligent and smart yet completely lacks social skills or the ability to concentrate hard. I feel actually pretty sorry for him, as he will never be accepted in any social group for the remainder of his school career in this town,because he tries to annoy people on purpose amd now his slightest remark is met with a "shut up, Ryan" Anyway, he told me that he had proof that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans. (He believes that the world is 6000 years old or whatever it supposedly is according to the whole lineage thing) He said that fossils had been found on mountatntops, and since the mountains couldn't have formed in 6000 years, they must have already been there when the dinosaurs died-and this is his theory-and so the only time when sufficient pressure was on tehm to form fossils was during Noahs Flood. Now excuse me, I don't think a few months is quite long enough to form a fossil, and what would a dinosaur be doing on a mountain-top anyway, if they're cold-blooded? I managed not to laugh at this and launched into my version, but could not get past "The universe is billions of years old" before he stopped me with the lineage thing and his incistence with "Seven days is seven days" despite me quoting (well, maybe not quoting but referencing) the "God's time is his own" passage. We didn't get much further than this, despitemy further arguments (darn good ones, too) before class started (ironically, science) I wish we'd been able to have that argument now, instead, when I've read up on the subject and have a better understanding. |
sandworm
|
posted 08-19-99 11:15 AM ET
How did one measure the length of a day (one rotation of the earth) before there was an Earth? ...and who did the measuring?Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care, about time? Literal interpretation of "seven days" seems silly, since my understanding is that much of the Bible is a human's interpretation of what God "said". Its also been transcribed/translated innumerable times. Try and tell me some bored monk didn't take a few liberties while hand copying the bible. |
Victor
|
posted 08-19-99 02:07 PM ET
Pardon me, but I don't have very much time to post.Dreadnought: quote: I still find it hard to believe that anyone could believe in god when the only proof of his existance is an incredibly vauge book.
I don't think the Bible is a "vague book" at all. I think Leviticus was quite specific in it's directions on constructing certain holy objects.-I want somebody in here to give me an example of when an organism's DNA got more complex because of a mutation. -Who here can give a good scientific definition of a mutation? |
sandworm
|
posted 08-19-99 03:08 PM ET
mutation - a mutation is a change in DNA sequence - everything a point mutation (one "base pair" to a large insertion of DNA from another source, external or internal. Easily detectable mutations (ones that don't require a laboratory to find) are generally bad, but sometimes there's actually an advantage for the survival and reproduction of an organism with a mutation. Sometimes the advantage is only visible in a certain context. The milder form of sickle cell anemia actually provides a survival advantage to people who live in areas with high incidences of malaria - the parasite can't utilize sickle cell hemoglobin. Most mutations, particularly the small ones, have no effect at all. An organisms DNA can become more complex (if by complex you mean either larger or more variable) - the easiest example is bacteria, which can take up DNA from an external source (in nature its usually an exchange between bacteria that are "conjugating". This DNA may contain genetic information permitting growth in the presence of antibiotics, or genes giving the bacteria the ability to synthesize on its own, some rare chemical it can't extract from the environment (example: amino acid biosynthetic pathways) Higher life can also increase the complexity and size of its genome. 1 Portions of "deactivated" human retroviruses can be found "captured" in the human genome. Their presence may be important in conveying some form of immunity to the pathogenic form of that virus. 2 Sexual reproduction also increases complexity in the sense that different forms of the same gene can be combined in the offspring in new ways. This could lead to genetic disease or just to a subtle change in appearance. Ok, that was kind of rushed, and oversimplified, but its still more than you probably wanted to know. Aspiring retroviral engineer, sandworm |
Spoe
|
posted 08-19-99 03:37 PM ET
"I don't think the Bible is a 'vague book' at all. I think Leviticus was quite specific in it's directions on constructing certain holy objects."It's vague enough where it counts -- in independently verifiable evidence that its core tenets are true. It can be as historiographically correct as it wants to be, but mere agreement with established events does not mean its deeper interpretation of these events is correct. Yes, Pontus Pilot and King Herod are real historical figures, but does that mean that the story of the crucifixion of the Son of God is correct just because they figure in the story? That's why I hate people trying to convert me to Christianity(or any other religion) purely on the basis of the Bible(or appropriate book). It's circular logic; God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true unless because God wrote(or inspired men to write) it. Logical proof doesn't figure in religious belief; belief is an axiom that helps form the basis for logical arguments about what a religion says. |
Beta1
|
posted 08-20-99 12:10 PM ET
Sandworm - good definitions(And as someone who spends far to much time hunting down point mutations I should know!) Anyway interesting to find a fellow retroviral person around here - what do youdo anyway (cell biology/genetics/microbiology?) Victor - how do you define "more complex"? Do you mean gaining new genes, altering the abilities/expression of existing ones? Or simply increasing the total amount of DNA present? If you imply most mutations have no or negative effects on their "host" then you are correct. BUT remember evolution occurs on a timescale almost immpossible to picture and that if a mutation does give an advantage to an individual then natural selection will cause that individual's offspring to dominate other less well adapted. When you are working over millions of years and possibly billions of individuals (depending of course on what type of creature they are) it is actually quite likely that beneficial mutants will arise (infact this was my original monkeys point). Beta-1 Sitting in a lab and rather bored. Beta-1 |
sandworm
|
posted 08-20-99 02:50 PM ET
Beta-1 - "Molecular Pathogenesis of Human T-cell Leukemia virus" is the general phrase describing what we study.The program I'm in is pretty varied - Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology. I don't do any developmental work, though. Mostly the other two and a little biochem./protein work. Oh, and I think the Bible has been transcribed/translated way too many times to be close to the "original". Ever play that "pass it on" game in school? After passing through 10 kids the original message is nearly always lost. That doesn't mean there isn't anything useful or interesting in there though.
A lot of people buy into the "God created evolution" compromise, I saw a survey somewhere on the net that said something like 40% of US citizens surveyed, anyway. I should have saved it.
|
Natguy
|
posted 08-21-99 12:44 AM ET
Eh? Are you a geneticist, Beta1? The reason I ask is because I have aninterset in genetics and think it's something I might want to do, but then I'm not really sure what they actually do (attend meetings, work inlabs, research, all of the above) If you are a geneticist (or can answer my questions) plesase do. If not, sorry for harassing you.(Summary: What do geneticists do all day?) Of course, I'm only a freshman in high school, so I've got some time. |
Dreadnought
|
posted 08-21-99 12:59 AM ET
Well Natguy, I thought I was the youngest person here, but I guess I was wrong |
Beta1
|
posted 08-21-99 05:38 AM ET
Actually I'm a cell biologist but I'm collaberating with a genetics lab. Beta-1 Does sit in a Lab, Research and waste too much time hanging around here. |
sandworm
|
posted 08-21-99 10:54 AM ET
Beta 1 -The forum is made for incubation periods! Unless you need to overlap five experiments at once, of course. I just love those days.But I digress... Isn't this a creation/evoloution thread? |
Beta1
|
posted 08-21-99 02:40 PM ET
Yeah I seem to remember someone talking about that.OK then do you think that lack of education in Kansas is likely to be an evolutionary disadvantage and therefore lead to the offspring of other states gradually replacing those of Kansas? Beta-1
|
Natguy
|
posted 08-21-99 09:36 PM ET
Yeah, I've yet to meet anyone younger here. ::sigh:: Only 14. Two years till I can drive (actually on year and eight months) but who knows what will happen with that new "graduated liscence" thing.Hee hee hee...just got back from my 2nd driving lesson with my mom (she's a secretary, so we use her school's parking lot) Went pretty well, except for the minor snag when I floored the gas instead of the brake. Oops. |
sandworm
|
posted 08-22-99 09:58 AM ET
Lack of education also tends to lead to poor use of birth control, soooo... Kansas could be in for a population boom. People won't be as healthy, because they don't know how to take care of themselves, but humans only need to hang on 'till their teenage years to reproduce and raise children. Once they're done with that they've fulfilled their evolutionary purpose. Its a ploy to take over the US by the Kansas state government. |
sandworm
|
posted 08-22-99 10:01 AM ET
FYI: for those of you not up on US news, the state of Kansas just forbade teachers in the state from teaching evolution in school. |
JohnIII
|
posted 08-22-99 10:06 AM ET
Natguy, you tie with me for youngest here ( or ?) John III |
Ronbo
|
posted 08-22-99 10:47 AM ET
My two cents, for what it is worth...The state of kansas did NOT ban the teaching of evolution, as the more hysterical types out there have proclaimed. They simply have eliminated it from the list of required courses (core curriculum), not prohibited teachers from teaching it. Some of the LOCAL school boards plan to introduce creationism into the classroom, but that is a whole different can of worms. Also--White Cat, I don't what branch of Christianity you speak of when you say that all sins are equal. I was raised Catholic (yes, they ARE Christians), and we were taught that there are two types of sins, Mortal and Venial. The mortal sins are the heavy-duty transgressions, such as murder or rape, while venial sins were the minor ones, such as lying or talking back to one's parents. (I don't know where being gay fits into that equation, although I have a lot of trouble with that one; I think the bible is incorrectly interpreted there...) |
Natguy
|
posted 08-22-99 12:52 PM ET
JohnIII: Just so we can be sure, when were you born? (April 16, 1985 for me) |
JohnIII
|
posted 08-22-99 01:06 PM ET
Hah! January 31st 1985 :P John III |
Natguy
|
posted 08-22-99 09:55 PM ET
Yay! I have the distinction of being the youngest person here! I'm unique! Okay, I think that's the last of my babbling about being the youngest, I think. |
Ronbo
|
posted 08-22-99 10:07 PM ET
Remember, Natguy, you're unique, just like everyone else... :P |
Kangawallafox
|
posted 08-22-99 10:43 PM ET
Ronbo,There's no definition of some sins being more 'mortal' than others, in the bible, other than the one of not being a christian which "blashpemes the holy spirit". Their equality extends only so far as each sin is an act of rebellion that stops you being perfect enough to stand before God and enter his kingdom on your own merits. It isn't like saying that driving one mile per hour above the speed limit is as bad as raping somebody. It's healthy to say murder is worse than some other things, and perhaps that's why some catholic churches preach that concept of mortal sin. Can anybody clarify? |
Wyarian Pryde
|
posted 08-22-99 11:23 PM ET
Damn! I'm only second youngest (March 1, 1985 ) - WVPryde - |
Dreadnought
|
posted 08-22-99 11:26 PM ET
Hmmm, so I suppose that makes me fourth. (August 21, 1984)Dreadnought Chinese Proverb #U883I4 "Man who stand on toilet high on pot" |
sandworm
|
posted 08-23-99 09:47 AM ET
Me, hysterical? Maybe. I heard it from some guy that called in to NPR on one of the public forum shows. I may have tuned out before they corrected him.Gotta go, the sky is falling! |
Natguy
|
posted 08-23-99 12:58 PM ET
Now I must seek out my counterpart. I shall find you, Really Old Guy! (echos)Natguy the Young Who is starting to scare me. Maybe I should go read a book. (Actually the book I'm reading is on the internet so I won't really go anywhere, but I'll no longer be at this forum for a while but I'm babbling now so I'll go read my Machiavelli) |
Lurker
|
posted 08-24-99 06:24 PM ET
Were we created with the ability to blah? Or did we evolve it? What is your opinion? |