Do you believe in God?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

However, the Torah as interpreted by the Talmud is supposed to provide the answer to every situation.

That's a rather important qualifier. Talmud is a whole other story, a giant safety net intended to ensure that one comes no where close to crossing the line of the laws of torah. I have major issue with the way that Talmud has been elevated to a point where too many people have lost sight of what it actually is and venerate it more than Torah itself.

But I digress. My point was that organized religion is a tool and nothing more. Other people's use or miss-use of the tool are something I have no control over and are not my concern. All I'm concerned with is how I can make use of a tool that I've felt has helped me in my life.

As for circumcision, we've gone through that discussion before. I'll leave it at the fact that a mohel-performed bris bares little resemblence to radical circumcision performed in many hospitals which involved constriction and tearing.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

As for circumcision, we've gone through that discussion before. I'll leave it at the fact that a mohel-performed bris bares little resemblence to radical circumcision performed in many hospitals which involved constriction and tearing.

Obviously, I didn't have the pleasure of that discussion. I've been to just one bris. The actual removal was done with just the parents present. The baby howled. The mother wept. I've heard a number of other anecdotes to the effect that "If I'd known it would be like that . . ." I submit that if Jews did not practice circumcision, Jews would have no trouble condemning at as something akin to female genital mutilation.

For some openmindedness: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I submit that if Jews did not practice circumcision, Jews would have no trouble condemning at as something akin to female genital mutilation.

I've seen it all, and I've seen the studies that have not shown that properly performed circumciscion carries any significant risk beyond the risk involved in any surgical procedure or lead to desensitized penis. I've also seen the studies that show that a circumsized penis leads to lower risk of infections (though that evens out with proper hygene).

Geez, I ddin't post to this thread thinking I'd have to defend my religion.

[RStar]

I don't see it as much defending as defining, at least to me reading it. It's very interesting.

I do belive.

There is so much we don't understand, that as science makes discoveries, I find that this universe could not have been just one big accident. And if God did create it, ponder this-

On the first day of creation, he created the first day. So he created time, and is outside of time. He lives forever, because there is no time where he is at. That is outside the realm of my thinking.

The big question everyone brings up. What came first, the Chicken or the egg? If you belive in what the Bible says, that God created the animals, then it is simple. He created the animals and told them to "Be fruitfull and multiply". Therefore, he made the first chicken (and hen) and then they laid eggs. So the chicken came first. At least in my mind.

[Alex]

I was very careful to not go into discussion of what I believe and am definitely trying to avoid discussion of what others say they believe.

But I want to respond to one little thing in Moonliner's post (with which I am much in agreement). Predetermination does not necessarily require pre-intent. If Newtonian mechanics had proven correct in their entirety (rather than just being correct as a subset of mechanics) they would produce an entirely pre-determined universe throughout all time without requiring a "plan" or "intent" for what happened.

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by RStar

I don't see it as much defending as defining, at least to me reading it. It's very interesting.

I do belive.

There is so much we don't understand, that as science makes discoveries, I find that this universe could not have been just one big accident. And if God did create it, ponder this-

On the first day of creation, he created the first day. So he created time, and is outside of time. He lives forever, because there is no time where he is at. That is outside the realm of my thinking.

The big question everyone brings up. What came first, the Chicken or the egg? If you belive in what the Bible says, that God created the animals, then it is simple. He created the animals and told them to "Be fruitfull and multiply". Therefore, he made the first chicken (and hen) and then they laid eggs. So the chicken came first. At least in my mind.

But if you're going to tie your belief to scientific discoveries, then your belief system is subject to being disproved. Big Bang theory shows how the laws of the universe were created, extrapolating backwards, to include time. As Stephen Hawkings says again and again, since time is linked inseparably with matter, if the Universe slows and begins reversing back to a singularity, time would actually run backwards. Thus, the theory of relativity, which predicts manipulation of time, doesn't require a creator, and even more significantly, if there is an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, there is an infinite universe, and thus nothing for a Creator to "create".

Science has an answer to the chicken and the egg question, and it can be proven - the egg came first. A dinosaur that was one mutation away from a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken -- the first chicken, if you will.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Frogberto

But if you're going to tie your belief to scientific discoveries, then your belief system is subject to being disproved.

Not necessarily. Take DNA for instance. There is so much information in it in just the right order, that having it form by accident has been compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary. The more I learn about the human body, the more I realize there is a creator. But that's just my take on it. I respect anyone who has other opinions.

Originally Posted by Frogberto

Big Bang theory shows how

Theory shows nothing more than the person who thought up the theory does. What ever is happening in the universe could have easily been the work of God, a god or group there of, or some E.T. out there. The creation of the universe will never be explained because we cannot prove it. Which is why we cling to beliefs, including the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Frogberto

Science has an answer to the chicken and the egg question, and it can be proven - the egg came first. A dinosaur that was one mutation away from a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken -- the first chicken, if you will.

Now that's an interesting theory. To my knowledge they have not yet found a "one mutation away from a chicken" dino, but I read today that they believe there are something like 70% of dinosaur species yet to be discovered. Very interesting, but do you know why the chicken crossed the road?

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by RStar

Not necessarily. Take DNA for instance. There is so much information in it in just the right order, that having it form by accident has been compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary.

I'll take DNA as a great example, and you're creatively assembling two old arguments from creationists that have long ago been explained, but I'm happy to explain away once again. (Note that I fear hijacking this thread, so I'm also happy to discuss this in a separate thread if you prefer).

The very act of reproduction adds information mathematically without the need for a higher intelligence. You just mentioned the letters "DNA", without specifying which type of DNA you mean, but RNA also contains information, as do lower phenotypes such as linked protein chains. The fact that the "information" in all higher lifeforms is linked, i.e., humans share 99% of the DNA in chimpanzees, is proof of evolution, not intelligent design or a creator. And science has showed through observation that levels of information in a genome can increase by natural selection. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population;
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material; and
* novel genetically-regulated abilities

Your "having it form by accident is compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary" is Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747" argument. Although this claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures, order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.

However, it's irresponsible for me not to point out that the general principle behind your example is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. Order arises spontaneously all the time in nature - in rocks or crystals, in clouds, in boiling water, in ocean waves, etc. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can, and does, produce more and more complexity.

Originally Posted by RStar

The more I learn about the human body, the more I realize there is a creator.

Does that include, also, bad design, the millions of innocent deaths of babies and children from childhood diseases, the fact that humans have a tailbone, and an appendix, whales have leg and foot bones, the fact that our eyes are designed backwards, and the fact that standing on two legs gives humans backaches? You have to learn about both the bad and the good in the design of the human body before you make a decision, no?

Originally Posted by RStar

The creation of the universe will never be explained because we cannot prove it. Which is why we cling to beliefs, including the Big Bang.

I think that you're confused as to the scientific definition of "theory", but we can certainly prove the creation of the universe - in fact, that is one of the areas of science where proof is overwhelming, and contrary to your statement, the big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

* The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

* The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

* The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

Originally Posted by RStar

To my knowledge they have not yet found a "one mutation away from a chicken" dino, but I read today that they believe there are something like 70% of dinosaur species yet to be discovered. Very interesting, but do you know why the chicken crossed the road?

If you go far enough back, you'll find that all modern birds evolved from dinosaurs of a certain lineage. To be more specific than "dinosaurs", since that term encompasses such a large number of species, chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there could have only been non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

And to answer your other question, the chicken crossed the road either to see a man lay bricks, or to see Gregory Peck. The data is still inconclusive.