science VS faith

**Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2003 9:08 pm

One thing viruses aren't actually living. They don't have cells and all living things have cells. There for they aren't alive. Your example wasn't a good one. <div style="text-align:center">I am the one.</div> <div style="text-align:center">I am Tsunami's apprentice.</div> <div style="text-align:center"> I am one of the few</div> <div style="text-align:center">able to produce</div> <div style="text-align:center">10 Light Hawk Wings!! </div>

**Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2003 9:25 pm

JadenStriker2ndGen wrote: The theory of evolution is not absolut, and it is not absolute because there are 3 forms of it, spawntainius, big bang, and progressive evolution over millions or more years, a year count that keeps changing with new theorys. The "Big Bang" theory is not related to evolution. It is related to universal theories such as those dealing with entropy, universal expansion/contraction, and so forth. It might be considered a "creation" theory, but it does not explain where the energy and mass required for it to occur came from in the first place. Spawntainius evolution is thrown out by science because it states that one animail can give birth to to a totally new kind, and study of DNA has concluded this impossible. And the progressive theor is not absolut because at one point by that theory the world was though to be some where around 4.5 million or billoin of years old. [....] ...the artical said that planet would make the universe over trillions of years old, which would negate the progressive theory. I've already stated the problems with spontaneous evolutionary theory, but the problems facing it also applies to progressive evolutionary theory. Anyways, the last paragraph of yours led to a non-sequitor, a statement that is not logically derived. Progressive evolution has no fixed time-frame, though people attempt to place one, because it is an abstract theory. It merely states that change occurs over time. Since the time required is not stated and the results are not observable, it cannot be proven nor disproven. Hence, in my opinion, it is not a practical theory. It is NOT "negated" as you stated. The big bang threory is hard to suggest and even harder to test, stating that all of the univerce started from a small supercondensed matter that exploded and spawned the univerce as we know it today. [....] The fundamental problem with the big bang theory is that it is predicated upon the theory that the 'universe' is a closed system. Another problem is that we are faced with a fudge-factor that we call "dark matter". Before the big bang theory can be viable, the necessary 'missing' mass must be found/proven to exist. We can't find/prove it exists (at least at present), so it is called "dark matter". The point is you have 1 theory that is through out by science itself, another theory that can't be tested because the laws of physic limit the measuring divices, and another theory thats time based that keeps changing which makes it hard to prove as well as the lack of even a small organisum totally changing all of its attrubutes and function, so taking that into account, you may have evidance, but that evidance is inturpited by measurements, and the measuring divices cannot do all the things you want, so your evolution is stuck in the same problem my choice of religion is in, beliving in something that hasn't been proven. But does that invalidate science? No it doesn't. Evolution is not a core tenant of science. That is where science shines. Scrutiny is an innated aspect of science! A 'favored' theory can easily fall out of 'favor' if its proponents are unable to show that the theory or its direct products are provable/disprovable. In contrast, the very tenants of religion exist in that state, being neither provable nor disprovable (for the most part). I know a lot about your measuring equipemtn, I have to calibrate them in my classes. [....] So I know that you can't test evolution, you have to come up with a formula to interpit the true measurable vules into what you think is right, which is the problem, because one persons interpitation of what he can measure maybe totally off, and that exist many times in these measuring divices, not excluding any instance that can be measured. This equipment is very logical in design using mathmatical formula, and there is also a wide range of human involvement with these divices that can meet human error or fallicy. You trust your equipment, but you don't know how it works, and many of the measurments you know the display screen and software shows you are not the exact measure it recives, it is a mathmatical interpitation of other measurements it can take. And trust me, your not measuring PSI, Celcius, or seeing the accual atom, you are seeing the mathmatical interpitation of logic from a voltage drop through a resistance in the circuit, or refrance movement of a physical element, and comparing them. Being an EE (IEEE member in fact), I am very well aware of the limitations of measuring instruments. However, deductive reasoning leads us to understand how causation can be used to measure otherwise immeasurable phenomena. If something exists, it exist as matter or as energy. If it is matter, it has mass and it exhibits certain physical properties. If it is energy, it likewise has measurable properties. In short, I do not actually have to see my neighbor to know that someone is next door. I simply take note of the effect that the unseen person has upon the environment (i.e. the noise, the yardwork, etc.). That I cannot see anyone does not invalidate the knowledge that someone/something is making the noise, doing the yardwork, parking the car, opening the garage, closing the garage, etc. It simply remains for me to observe the discrete activities to draw one or more conclusions. In science, the theory must be proven true or have direct products that can be measured. Gravitational theory is an interesting one. We don't know what actually causes gravity. That is to say that we can't observe the discrete interaction that shows why matter attracts matter and interacts with energy. Nevertheless, we can accurately predict the rate at which a particular quantity and value of matter will fall. The theory is practical because its products can be measured. In contrast, how does one measure a 'spirit'? What are its products? Such things are wholly abstract, being neither observable values or having measurable products. Where is 'heaven' or 'hell'? Neither place has been found to exist in reality, so they too must be abstract. Those things cannot exist within science unless one is claiming that they do affect the tangible and observable world. Then there is the matter of religious belief not directly tied to such abstracts. The Romans did not use crosses for criminals at the time of Christ's theoretical death. They used stakes, so as to cause death by suffocation. Yet, modern Christianity refers to crosses. Easter and Christmas originated from 'pagan' holidays, not from first century Christian practices. Yet, they are considered to be "Christian" holidays nowadays. The Trinity doctrine is certainly of pagan origin and didn't originate in first century practices, nor is it of Jewish origin. Yet, it is the most commonly taught doctrine throughout Christianity. Religion is not a integral, logical construct. It is a social, psychological, and philosophical composite. It is the ultimate fudge-factor by man to deal with his existence and serve social, political, and economic functions. It exists to fill the gaps of order between that which is and that which is desired. True scientific theories have nothing to do with faith. Religion and science are separate disciplines and will always be such. Science is simply a tool used to determine the nature of reality and when its results contradicts what are viewed to be tenants of religious belief, there is conflict. Religion exists to perpetuate itself and the society/social structure that founded it. Because enduring religions advocate conversion/propogation, differences in beliefs inevitably lead to conflict. Because of religion's social, economic, political, and psychological factors, those types of conflicts can lead to extreme violence (particularly when partnered with government), as witnessed by the innumeral "holy" wars, revolutions, purgings, and other human catastrophes throughout history. Even in modern times we have had the Jewish Holocaust, the Bosnian/Serbian conflict, the Muslim Jihads, and the African genocidal conflicts (often led by religious leaders). Science and religion are two VERY different creatures.

**Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:57 pm

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> very good explinations, you seem like a person I would be able to get a long with real well.

**Posted:** Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:28 pm

Please impose your beliefs upon me.

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Rolfwind you know the first time I refuted you was because of the word you used had a high risk of striking an emtional core that would have let to a flame war.<hr></blockquote> Huh? No I don't know. You are really losing me....... I IDed it as propraganda, if someone doesn't agree, well, let them disagree. I don't care. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This second time I went against you was because you looked for error in the story that was posted by Cerebrate Araq.<hr></blockquote> Can't I point out what I see as errors? Damn Jaden, I never had my posts analyzed this way. Look, I really don't care about the topic, but you are asking me not to voice an opinion while you are Jaden. 'Do not impose beliefs' reads the sign. You are imposing through you're own posting. In fact, everybody is and I don't mind. I'm still not even sure what you're asking of me. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In both of those instances it seems that you would wish to impose your belife rather then say what you belive. If your going to say what your belifes are, don't look for the fault in other belifes, to do so is to attack their belifes.<hr></blockquote> I'm not attacking beliefs, but the original story had some major faults I wanted to point out. If I step on a few toes, well, it's only the internet. Now, everybody else, don't start imposing your beliefs on me. I can't handle it! It makes me go into a corner and cry :P <div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons..... <img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/></div>

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But aren't most allegorical tales portrayed as an actual occurrence?<hr></blockquote> No clue. Reading Aesop's fables, it reads like an actual event as well, but I would never think it could happen since animals are talking, acting like humans, etcetera. But what is the boundary of an allegorical tale and testimony to an actual event? Apparently not much, so some specifics would have been nice. The first time I read the basic story, I'm didn't suspect I was reading a fabricated tale that was trying to prove a point. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The fossil record is another dead end. We don't see a progression of evolution in the fossil record. We see one type of creature begin and another one die off. We do see the mechanisms of adaptation,<hr></blockquote> My impression with the mechanism of adaption is the most important parts of the evolution theory. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>but given that evolution is generally supposed to take place over a period of thousands and millions of years, wouldn't we expect to see creatures evolve from one species to another, eventually splitting off into its own genus?<hr></blockquote> Not necessarily. Depends how fast a creature has to adapt. If the ice age is coming, I don't think they had too much time to adapt to the world. I'm not going to pretend I know the adaption mechanism, if any, though. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We would, but we don't. So, unless one subscribes to accelerated or spontaneous evolution, there really isn't any evidence supporting evolution.<hr></blockquote> I'm not so sure on that one. I'm no expert on evolution but have seen at least for humans, skeletons (or bones) recovered that mark significant differences so that you could link them up into the family tree, so to speak. Growing taller and straighter, that type of thing. <div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons..... <img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/></div>

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:57 am

Well you should have know because I said it in a diffrent way the first time, because the first time I said that the story was not about a "big bad atheist" as you interpided it before, and in that same post you also stated your ID of it being propraganda. In that instance it is all to easy for it to be interpided as if your blaming christance for being bais. From that instance, I'm not saying don't state your opinion as you misintepit, I am saying don't use high risk words. A better way to have made your statement would be "I feel this story is a little bais, and don't agree with how the professor has ben protrayed." People can understand a statement like that much easier and are much more willing to listen to it and understand your point of view. The risk of being blasted because someone got emotionaly involved would be small. Infact I would have agreed my self, it does make the professor excessivly mean, and most of the time a professor knows that doing something like the professor did in the story would be uncalled for. So you see, I'm not saying don't state your opinion, I am saying be careful how you say it, try to avoid using things that could strike an emational cord. The main reason why I wouldn't want you to use words that strike an emional cord is because many times methods that play on a person emotions are used for underhanded tactics, trying to trick people into making rash actions on an emotionaly clouded judgement. People have trouble seeing things clearly when they are angree, and the combination of those things in your first post run that high risk, and is to oftenly connected with underhanded methods. Also to have made that statement "the big bad atheist" suggest that you do care strongly about this subject. So now that you have sayed that you don't care that much leaves the following quetion "If this person doesn't care that much about it, why use such stronge statements when pointing it out?" "did this person have a bad experance with another person under a similer sercomstance?" "did this person become angry with what he saw in the story and reply it a rash way because he was angree, and if so was it the fact that the professor was protrade in a serton view point he didn't approve of?" So you see it seems like you maybe jumping to a conclution before understanding it. You rushed to the belife that I didn't want you to say any thing at all when infact thats not the case, I just don't want you making statements that can be to easily misunderstood. take the fact that I so quickly replied in disaproval of how you put your very first post. I didn't approve of the use of both "big bad atheist" and "christian propraganda" in the same instance. Those 2 things being in one reply like that make it all to easy to come up with a conclution that you may have an aganda or grud against christains. Sence you have stated that you don't care that much about the sercomstance, then I advise not coming on so strong like that, it runs that high risk of misinterpitation via rash emotionaly clouded choices.

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:06 am

The difference is that evolution maintains that a previously non-existing genetically determined attributes arise to facilitate survival in a changing environment. Adaptation dictates no such thing. If a change of available food, either through forced migration or supplantation of existing fauna, means that seeds become larger or harder, a bird that has the gene for a "large beak" has a greater chances of adapting to the changes in food, while another bird from the same gene pool with the gene for a "small beak" has a lower chance of successfully adapting. The genetic diversity already exists within the gene pool, so evolution is not taking place, though adaptation is. "Survival of the fittest" is a term closely associated with evolution, yet it simply says that the organism best suited for the environment will prosper whereas the one that is not well suited, will not prosper. Again, evolution of the organism is not necessary for survival to take place. The 'fitness' of the organism for environment is what matters. Regarding humans, the fossil record does not indicate a change from slouched tree-dwelling hominids to erect, land-dwelling hominids. Rather, what we see are discrete groups of hominids with different attributes existing at the same time. Homo sapiens did not come down from the trees and grow more erect. We had 'slouched' relatives, but we were the 'better' ones and survived. They did not. Then there is the issue of genetic aberrations. Prior to society's development of an understanding of mental and physical deformities, children with extreme deformities or handicaps were either killed or cast out from their society when the defects became apparent. To people at the time, such things were "curses" from the spirits and "unclean". As cities grew larger, the outcasts became more numerous, dwelling outside 'normal' society. Malnutrition worsened their physical conditions, yet they weren't genetic throwbacks or new species. They were still Homo sapiens with genetic abnormalities. I'm planning on writing a paper on one issue of living systems. It's part observation and partly a return to a scientific question that has never really been addressed. It's a matter of entropy and life systems, namely how entropy affects living organisms and their theoretical development. Evolutionists skirt the issue by stating that growing complexity permits continuous development in the face of entropy, but I am hypothesizing that it doesn't. In case there's other UT bioengineering students out there, I don't want give too much away, but let's say that natural evolution always was and always be a dead end. If my hypothesis is right. I still have a lot of research to do, but it's very interesting.

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:15 am

JadenStriker2ndGen, I have two basic questions that deals with one of the innate differences of science and religion: Were the Biblical "Adam" and "Eve" figurative or literal? Did mankind originate from an original pair of humans? Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=truesheol>True Sheol</A> at: 10/29/03 1:17 am

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The difference is that evolution maintains that a previously non-existing genetically determined attributes arise to facilitate survival in a changing environment. Adaptation dictates no such thing. If a change of available food, either through forced migration or supplantation of existing fauna, means that seeds become larger or harder, a bird that has the gene for a "large beak" has a greater chances of adapting to the changes in food, while another bird from the same gene pool with the gene for a "small beak" has a lower chance of successfully adapting. The genetic diversity already exists within the gene pool, so evolution is not taking place, though adaptation is.<hr></blockquote> Okay, now we're getting into something more interesting. Like I said, biology isn't my schtick at all and the adaption part was always the more interesting subject of the theories, to me as a pure layman^_^ I see what you are saying with the adaption mechanism; enough diversity exists in the population to facilitate adapting the general populace toward certain chararistics - like a bird with a big beak eats more, might also likely breed more, making that gene prevalent in the general population over time until the environment dictates otherwise. However, to satisfy my curiosity, is there a competing theory to Evolution that assumes that we weren't created basically as we are but that most life arose from some common ancestor? Be it amino acids or whatever...... I don't see yet see how a purely adaptive theory can give rise to wholly new 'features' like say the ultra-sonic (?) radar that bats use have unless it's by accident - like DNA inscription error. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>take the fact that I so quickly replied in disaproval of how you put your very first post. I didn't approve of the use of both "big bad atheist" and "christian propraganda" in the same instance. Those 2 things being in one reply like that make it all to easy to come up with a conclution that you may have an aganda or grud against christains. Sence you have stated that you don't care that much about the sercomstance, then I advise not coming on so strong like that, it runs that high risk of misinterpitation via rash emotionaly clouded choices.<hr></blockquote> Thank you Jaden, finally I know what you are saying..... if you only simplified it to that in the beginning, we could have avoided misunderstanding in the first place^_^ And sigh, I don't like the story because I seen it in different variations at least six times. <div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons..... <img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/></div>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rolfwind>rolfwind</A> at: 10/29/03 2:36 am

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:14 am

There is "discrete" evolution. I must mention that I view it as being more likely to succeed over classical evolutionary theory. (Classical evolutionary theory is what I was referring to in previous posts.) Rather than a singular origin of evolutionary development, you have multiple ones. This is more in line with the fossil record which shows variations within genus, but not transitions between family. So, rather having fish develop into amphibians, amphibians into reptile, reptiles into birds, and so on so forth, there are a variety of different points of origin. It's not as 'neat' as most evolutionary theories go, but it is much more robust, in my opinion. Since the gene pool is specific to the kind of creature, the limitations of adaptation are inline with development of the lifeform. That is to say that there is no need for there to be development of new genes as the original pool was sufficient. There is a question of initiating mechanism, of course, but that's a common weakness amongst the competing theories. There are also creationist theories that hypothesize the possibility of non-terrestial intervention, genetic experimentation, etc., but I've not particularly delved into them. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=truesheol>True Sheol</A> at: 10/29/03 5:21 am

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:54 pm

It was literal. The sequince envolving that is like this, starting on the sixth day according to the bible. (Note this is not going to be exact wording, just paraphrasing) God created man and saw that this was good. God saw that man was alone and took from him a rib and made women. If you start to make theory from this instance alnoe you could say that, according to biblical princable, life started from 1 person, but at the same time would not be taking into account the first 5 days. So to take into account the first 5 days, lets use a paraphrase i.e. an example scaled to a level people in general can understand, if they so desire. So now you can either leave this as is, or you can read on. The paraphrase is long, and is a mostly hypithadical instance made to convay an idea that is possible. Take a A Plus Certifide Computer Programmer skilled not only in software development, but hardware construction as well, and the computer he is going to make is the univerce we live in. That A Plus Certifide Person can do absolutly any thing he or she wants with his or her understanding of that computer. So that person desides to creat a computer. That person designs the layout of the computers circuitry and demintions, and makes certon circuits work sereton ways they mathmaticly calculate, and the rules of how the software will run will be based on the design of the hardware. Sence the person made this computers hardware him or her self, that person knows how the software should be programmed, and knows the limits of the hardware. So then that person desides to wright a game, and begins scripting it. This person has all the time he needs to make the game, and has a grand plane for it, so this person wrights the gaming engian that makes it work with the hardware the person made. One of the first things this person writes the lighting effects. Second the person writes the worlds. To these worlds he starts to add textures and effects, makes solid objects that can move through some objects while not others a scripts the effects of both, and makes it where you can see through some objects, and not others and varius levels in between. After creating the texttures and enviromental rules, this person then adds objects that have AI in them, objects that can move around in the enviorment, are a part of the enviroment, and can effect the enviroment, as well as other AI objects. But one of the AI objects this programmer made, and spent a lot of detail with isn't finished, and and desides to take part of the code from the AI object that the programmer spent so much time on, and make a new AI object just as detailed as the other, and made it where both objects where made the same, but at the same time had clearly reconisable diffrences. This programmer desides to make the AI on this 2 objects able to have a much more profound control over the enviorment, and writing code that allows them to make choices of there own. The programmer loves his work, but understand what he has made can do things he may not approve of, but never the less gave them that ability to be able to. Well there is the paraphrase for you. In such an enviroment it would be difficalt for the AI to test and measure the programmer, wouldn't it? Espcailly if the programmer makes the AI able to make small basic copies of itself by requireing the first 2 AIs work to gether in a way (*couff*grunt*grin*look up and to the left*), and makes limits to what can be copied and how serton data can be exchanged. The copy has the same abilities data as the original, but not the same knowledge data, and the way that the new copy gains the knowledge data is limited to sevral methods. Because of those limitation, not all the data maybe resived, and possibly lost, and sense the origanl AI has the ability to make choices for itself, the new copy does as well, and can choose to except serton data and reject other data. Hopefully everyone understand that the Highly Detailed AI represents Humans and the A Plus Certifide Person is represenative of god, and does not feel offended by the use of the paraphrase. So now it is a matter of rescaling the paraphrase up to our level, scaling the AI up to use, and scaling the Programmer at the same ratio, it should become easy to undestand why it would be hard to prove and disprove this Monotheistic belife I have choosen. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"> Dang that goes into a lot of detail, so it sucks that that is only a chip of the ice burge. Oh well, I am done for now.

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:10 pm

If Adam and Eve were literal, then you have a very shallow gene pool, one that makes the classical evolutionary model look deep in comparison. Simply put, given the diversity of human being, could two individuals provided the necessary genetic material to support that diversity? Not unless one accepts diversification through random mutation which has proven to be only detrimental to lifeforms, not beneficial. Adam and Eve is a genetic impossibility... unless one subscribes to the classical evolutionary theory. I find it to be ironic. Your "AI model" does not work if the AI is capable of recieving information from the creator. By necessity, the protocols required to recieve instruction must be included... if instruction after activation is required. So, in order for the Creator to remain undetectable by his creation, he must: <ul><li> Not included the necessary protocols, not communicating after activation.</li><li> Cease communication with the program, effectively leaving the program alone.</li></ul> It's an interesting situation given the claims that people make of God 'speaking' to them. Either they are liars/delusional or God is indeed manipulating things on the discrete level... meaning that the Creator is indeed culpable for causing or permitting the tragedies of men.

**Posted:** Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:18 pm

What if the programmer desided that he or she would permit the tragedies withing the program to happen, and felt it nessesary not to infrenge on this AI program to a serton extent? And what if one of those instanse that the programmer deamed it nessesary to interfer brought about a massive change in communication protocal compadibility, and texture of the AIs skin? What if the protocal to be able to communicat with the programmer was a disabled protocal that didn't use the main AI sensory input abilities and that software was within the ability software of AI that would not be enabled except under serton triggers of eather intellagance data the was accepted by the AI, or enabled directly by the programmer? If the programmer will allow the AI to forget about the data of him, or reject him, and will allow that AI to continue to function without deletion, wouldn't you say that would be pretty merciful and forgiving on the programmers part? From that point of view, yes the programmer is manipulating things dicretely, so then it becomes a quetion as to why would the programmer choose to be discreat, and is it a good reason or a bad reason, and under what sercomstances would make the same reason change from good to bad? Some people find mercy hard to understand. This is understandable when a person lives a difficalt life with people back stabing them and always having to be on your gaurd against that. Under a sercomstance like that a person my tent to find any and all efforts that gave a sence of relife. People who do drugs, have sex and all those things are people who have live tarrably difficalt lives and are begging for a way out. Though because they had to always watch there backs against being back stabed, something like mercy is a very difficalt consept to grasp. And if you can't understand mercy, it will be difficalt to accept the possibility of a programmer that would allow the AI to do such things on his computer, so beliving that there is a remote possibilty that there is could be a god out there would be utterly laughable to them. They would have know pain of that nature to much to be very willing to accept it as remotely possible. and yes, it is possible to accept something as possible and not belive it is true. With all that given, that is why what you choose to belive in should be up to you, and why we should focus on trying to co-exist, trying to help make our world a better place, an easier place to live in. Your belifes are your own choosing, and shouldn't be force to choose another, but should be able to feel free to state what you belive, but at the same time, in an effort to co-exist as a team, should try to put it in non-offencive way, and not try to antaginize a person when addressing it.

**Posted:** Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:38 am

Answer the first question. Given that mankind COULD NOT have originated from two humans, no matter how many children they might have borne, is the story of "Adam" and "Eve" literal or allegorical? I am seeing a pattern of broken logic in your writing. Is the following correct or not? If so, do you recognize how your writing contradicts the fundamentals of your own belief structure? If not, please explain why. 1. A creator makes a creature with free-will, that is the ability to originate thoughts and act on them. 2. Said creator sets a certain rule and states the penalty for disobedience is death. (Note, that there was never any mention of eternal torment or anysuch thing.) 3. The creation disobeys the rules, so the creator passes judgment and from that point on, creation was doomed to die. 4. Throughout the written text of "inspired" scripture, the creator continues to communicate with his creation, rendering assistance and guidance. 5. Scripture maintains that the created can contact the creator. If scripture is correct, then the program and its 'actors' were never completely cut off. If scripture is incorrect, the accuracy of its contents and/or interpretations are questionable. The suggestion of scripture is that if the created seek the creator, then the creator will be found. What I am seeking to discover is whether or not you are a rational person. If you are a rational person, then the discussion can continue. If you are not, then there is no benefit to continued discussion as you will continue to avoid that you percieve as jeopardizing your personal beliefs, whether or not they conflict with the fundamental beliefs that you believe them to be based upon. Ultimately, it is a matter of what is being sought. Is truth being sought?

science VS faith

Who is online