Did Adam have a member?

[Gilvan Blight]

I can\'t see how

Personally I can\'t see how anyone can claim to be anything but agnostic. I\'m pretty sure no one can be 100% sure in that what they believe is 100% true, whether science or religion. Both tend to admit that they could be wrong in one way or another.

 

[mattrock]

I get Mormons and Jehovah\'s witnesses at the door. I usually invite them in to talk. They have no idea what they\'re getting into. I figure it usually saves the neighbor some hassle cause by the time our conversations are over they typically call it a day lol

I\'ll take some kettle corn btw. And a DP would be nice. And then some gum cause you know when it\'s all said and done we\'re gonna have that lovely DP breath to contend with.

 

[mattrock]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
Personally I can\'t see how anyone can claim to be anything but agnostic. I\'m pretty sure no one can be 100% sure in that what they believe is 100% true, whether science or religion. Both tend to admit that they could be wrong in one way or another.

I don\'t think you have to have a monopoly on \"rightness\" in order to be convicted about something. I\'m certain that my wife is the woman for me but I\'m rarely ever \'right\' when it comes to her lol.

That\'s an exhaggeration of course, but you get the idea. As the old addage goes:


....if a tree falls in the woods and there are no women around to hear it, are all men still wrong? lol

[size=-2]\'look, worms...sunlight! You\'re Free!!![/size]

 

[fieldarchy]

Gilvan, saying you are agnostic means you are unsure of a higher power existing but don\'t discount that it could happen.

Being a believer in God means you well . . . believe in God. As an Agnostic I say I don\'t believe in God or any other \"specific\" higher power but I cannot be 100% sure of anything, I personally don\'t believe humans are possessed with the intelligence, the capacity to know God exists. We know science though does because there\'s proof in Science.

But in order to be a believeer in God you have to have faith that He exists.

 

[fieldarchy]

Originally posted by mattrock

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
Personally I can\'t see how anyone can claim to be anything but agnostic. I\'m pretty sure no one can be 100% sure in that what they believe is 100% true, whether science or religion. Both tend to admit that they could be wrong in one way or another.

I don\'t think you have to have a monopoly on \"rightness\" in order to be convicted about something. I\'m certain that my wife is the woman for me but I\'m rarely ever \'right\' when it comes to her lol.

That\'s an exhaggeration of course, but you get the idea. As the old addage goes:


....if a tree falls in the woods and there are no women around to hear it, are all men still wrong? lol

[size=-2]\'look, worms...sunlight! You\'re Free!!![/size]

Yes, they are still all wrong.

 

[mattrock]

] [/quote]

Yes, they are still all wrong. [/quote]

yeah, it was a rhetorical question...I already learnt the answer through self-performed scientific inquiry. lol

oh well...I\'d trade being right for being able to write my name in the snow and ejoying the same proper care and feeding regardless of the time of the month. So here\'s my AMEN and a hat-tip to Shawn\'s earlier post.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Originally posted by fieldarchy
Gilvan, saying you are agnostic means you are unsure of a higher power existing but don\'t discount that it could happen.

That\'s a slightly narrow version of Agnosticism. It can also very well mean you are near certain a higher power exists, but don\'t discount that it may not.

Either way you can feel strongly about either side of the coin, I just find it hard to belive anyone can truely be 100% certain 100% of the time that what they belive is 100% true. Now I have to admit I am impressed by the people do have that level of faith (in science or relegion) just for the strength of their convictions.

 

[fieldarchy]

Medicine is a wonderful thing. Some of us out there no longer have that time of the month. Very freeing, liberating and god you can\'t tell me to stop the injections! Depo serves two great and wonderful purposes! Ahhhh!

My female coworkers I don\'t envy at all. I can always tell when it\'s that time for them. Me, it never is! So nice.

 

[fieldarchy]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight

Originally posted by fieldarchy
Gilvan, saying you are agnostic means you are unsure of a higher power existing but don\'t discount that it could happen.

That\'s a slightly narrow version of Agnosticism. It can also very well mean you are near certain a higher power exists, but don\'t discount that it may not.

how is that different from what I said other than you stated you are near sure . . . that still means you are unsure my man. Which is all I said, being agnostic means you are unsure of a higher power existing but you don\'t discount it could happen or be true.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Okay now I am confused then, what were you trying to say in your original reply to my post then?

My point was that I don\'t see how anyone can not be unsure in some small way, and thus I don\'t see how anyone can not be agnostic.

Seems we are chasing our tails here, so back to the original topic.

I would hazard a guess that yes if Adam as proposed in Genesis exists then he does indeed have a member. I go with the \'master plan\' version of why. I once read a paper by some medieval period monk titled God and the Eternality of the Universe. Which while being the headiest thing I have every tried to figure out was still quite interesting. The basic theory (IIRC this Monk did use that term) was that since god was eternal anything he did was eternal, even if he didn\'t do it at first the moment he did it it had always been done. Like I said heady stuff, try reading 90 some pages of \'proof\'. So using that theory, even if Adam didn\'t have a member, at some point he needed one and when given it he always had it.

I now have a huge urge to head home from work and go through my old texts to try to find that and see if 15 or so years of life experiences make it make any more sense.

 

[wiccanpony]

Originally posted by fieldarchy
Medicine is a wonderful thing. Some of us out there no longer have that time of the month. Very freeing, liberating and god you can\'t tell me to stop the injections! Depo serves two great and wonderful purposes! Ahhhh!

My female coworkers I don\'t envy at all. I can always tell when it\'s that time for them. Me, it never is! So nice.

:wow: wait until menopause.......it’s like a 24/7, goes for a coupe of years month.
:cussing::evil::evil::flame::evil:

 

[mud duck]

\"Prove denies Faith, and without faith I am nothing.\"


Could I get some of that corn? Oh and DR, I\'ve got the Dew here if you\'d like one.

@Field, Have you visited the Dr Pepper museum? Fun way to kill a afternoon if memory serves.

 

[fieldarchy]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
Okay now I am confused then, what were you trying to say in your original reply to my post then?

You stated that you didn\'t see how any one could be anything other than agnostic. What I was saying is agnostic just means you are waffling. You aren\'t sure one way or the other.

But there are people out there who do hold a conviction one way or the other. Some people really truely wholeheartedly believe in the Lord, Our Savior, Jesus Christ, et al.

And then there are others who believe in nothing but science and believe there is no such thing as a higher power.

So it is possible and it is logical that there are people out there who are anything but agnostic. It just depends on what THEY believe. However the hang up lies in that if you are a believer how do you reconcile scientific fact. Some have explanations for this and others don\'t.

Personally I think if you are a christian and don\'t believe in things like evolution then you are a hypocrite if you go to a doctor and get medical help because the medical field and science are based on scientific theories such as the Theory of Evolution (which helped pioneer the cellular biology field and medicine in general).

 

[mud duck]

Originally posted by fieldarchy

Personally I think if you are a christian and don\'t believe in things like evolution then you are a hypocrite if you go to a doctor and get medical help because the medical field and science are based on scientific theories such as the Theory of Evolution (which helped pioneer the cellular biology field and medicine in general).

I\'m not sure I follow your thinking on this. Couldn\'t it be reasoned that the medial field is based on the mechanics of HOW the body works, and not where the \'mechanism\' was created?

 

[No Such Agency]

I\'m not sure exactly what I am, because it\'s not so much that I am ambivalent about God\'s existence, or that I refuse to believe... I just don\'t care. Seriously, I was raised without religion and it doesn\'t really enter into my daily life at all. I think I may be a \"Secular Humanist\", however a lazy one who couldn\'t really defend it in a debate.

 

[fieldarchy]

but you have to have an understanding of evolution to be able to deal with a good chunk of the medical field because diseases are evolving all the time. Sooo . . . if you don\'t believe in evolution how can you reconcile the fact that germs continue to evolve according to science and the medical field?

I\'m really just stiring up debate at this point.

And when I\'m talking about Christians and being hypocritical in this sense I\'m talking about the ones who are incredibly devout and believe things like the earth is only 10k years old (if that). Kinda the crazy ones.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by fieldarchy
but you have to have an understanding of evolution to be able to deal with a good chunk of the medical field because diseases are evolving all the time. Sooo . . . if you don\'t believe in evolution how can you reconcile the fact that germs continue to evolve according to science and the medical field?

Anti-evolution creationists claim there are two separate types of evolution: micro- and macro-. Supposedly micro is when little things like antibiotic resistance evolve, but macro is the idea that new species can arise. In practice however, if scientists observe and publish it, these folks claim it\'s micro-evolution and thus doesn\'t count

 

[mud duck]

Looks like NSA beat me to it, but....

Originally posted by fieldarchy
but you have to have an understanding of evolution to be able to deal with a good chunk of the medical field because diseases are evolving all the time.
Not sure if that would be a good argument. Believe/understanding of mechanical systems could be the base of medical understanding. It could be argued that diseases are not \"evolving\" or becoming something greater then what they are, but reacting to mans attempts to destroy them, but still staying a disease.


Sooo . . . if you don\'t believe in evolution how can you reconcile the fact that germs continue to evolve according to science and the medical field?
See above. Not the greatest of arguments but.....
I\'m really just stirring up debate at this point.
But isn\'t that the fun part of discussing things like this?

And when I\'m talking about Christians and being hypocritical in this sense I\'m talking about the ones who are incredibly devout and believe things like the earth is only 10k years old (if that). Kinda the crazy ones.

What\'s to say that it isn\'t, and that all the stuff to \'prove\' that point isn\'t a \'back story\' that \'God\' put in place to make the story that is time and the universe be complete? I\'m thinking along the lines of say WOW or Everquest, where the creators have a back story and some prove in the game itself of this history of the universe? Just that \'God\' being all knowing, just has created a complete story with all the bells and whistles. Just playing Devil\'s Advocate here

 

[treide]

I don\'t really understand the point in distinguishing micro- vs. macro-evolution. It is all just evolution.

Germs do evolve, just as everything else evolves. This is based on simple genetic principles that are integral to modern biomedical research.

If you want to plug \"God\" into the beginning of it all, fine. I can\'t refute that. I don\'t think it is any more probable than claiming that the universe rests on the backs of 4 elepants riding a giant celestial turtle, though.

 

[No Such Agency]

Not sure if that would be a good argument. Believe/understanding of mechanical systems could be the base of medical understanding. It could be argued that diseases are not \"evolving\" or becoming something greater then what they are, but reacting to mans attempts to destroy them, but still staying a disease.

A disease or parasite is just an organism whose survival and reproductive mechanism happens to utilize another organism (to that host\'s great or minor detriment). Cold viruses use you the way a polar bear uses its den, and also the way a lion uses the gazelle it hunts down.

When an organism acquires and passes on genetic changes, that begets evolution. Evolution = changes in allele (gene variant) frequency over time. A disease virus or bacterium doesn\'t really have to become \"greater\" or even \"better\" to have evolved. Human medicine is a form of \"natural selection\" - not that different from how our bodies fight disease naturally - and when disease organisms are challenged by it, the lucky mutants survive and proliferate, the unlucky remainder perish. The offspring of the few survivors make up the new population and have the mutant gene(s). Instead of a few individuals having that gene, most or all do... ta da, evolution!

Originally posted by treide
I don\'t really understand the point in distinguishing micro- vs. macro-evolution. It is all just evolution.

Like I said, the rule seems to be... observable evolution is what is demanded as \"proof of the theory of evolution\". However, whenever scientists acquire observations and data clearly demonstrating organisms evolving right before their eyes, that data is dismissed as \"micro-evolution\". It\'s a devious semantic trick of moving the goalposts. Nothing will ever be \"macro\" enough to satisfy the people who make the distinction.