GPS

Yes, this is true, and I agree with what Greg H. said. However, it has been my experience that students feel a need to confrom and model the beliefs expressed by their professors and mentors, which is way I felt Afraid of Time may be reacting in following quote (the key word being naturally) and thus my response. Also, has religion ceased scientific advancement? That's similar to an always or never statement. This also points out that Afraid of Time may not have thought out this situation for himself (all the possiblities) and may be listening to an influential indivdual's views.

There's no reason you have to move on from the belief of a god. Who says he doesn't work through these natural forces. I believe he does and I am an evolutionist. I believe that god just didn't make things appear like a magician, ie: man evolved. I too am struggling with the irrationalities of religion (and there are many). I am also going to say I believe in stem cell research because I believe a 100 cell mass should not take priority over for example a forty year old spinal cord victim. I also believe that you can believe in god without going to church. Church is manmade and so is religion. I believe god isn't. A walk through the woods may be just a cleansing. Trying to mumble out a hymn does nothing for me. Pherhaps by studying these natural phenomena you are getting close to him in your own way. But to each his own. But then again you have got to keep things into perspecitive and not let your beliefs influence your logic and I agree with what was said in this thread: There's nothing wrong with believing or having faith. It is something you should be proud of. Don't be so quick to dismiss it.

(Thinking of joining but have many contradictions whith the church, especially when they limit curative research with more pluripotent abilities, deny evolution...these are just a few...the list is long) However, they did take a clear stance against embryonic stem cells: "The resolution states opposition to embryonic stem-cell research that destroys human life" which interfers around the blastocyst stage of the embryo, which is around the same stage that many contraceptives interfere at. So why isn't embryonic stem cell research left up to the individual's choice as well? Are the masses of scientists not to be trusted to do the "right thing"?

The choice of contraception appears to be left up to the individual without the church taking a stance, with the exception of abortion which is not considered contraception. Yet their views are as follows on stem cell research: "supporting adult stem-cell research that does not involve the destruction of human life." and can be transfered over to contraception as well: However, I feel they need to take a stronger stand on contraception, because right now it sounds a little hypocritical, leaving it up to the individual couple.

Here is the most comprehensive, up-to-date, position I could find: on July 17, 2007 in Convention, Reporter HOUSTON — In an overwhelmingly favorable vote, delegates to the 63rd Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted Resolution 6-02 supporting adult stem-cell research that does not involve the destruction of human life. Noting that stem cells have potential to treat diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle-cell anemia, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and others, the resolution received “yes” votes from 96.6 percent of the delegates. The resolution states opposition to embryonic stem-cell research that destroys human life and has not yet shown success for treatment of diseases in humans. It further urges LCMS members to give public witness against the destruction of human life with embryonic stem-cell research and to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”

The Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod has not plainly stated to not use hormonal contraception and in thier Resolution 6-10-Guidance on Contraception Methods, after discussing the differenct types of birth control (hormonal, IUD, and barrier) and how they act on the embryo they come to this conclussion: "The Sanctity of Human Life Committee was not given the task to ask whether or not married, Christian couples should or should not use contraception. We believe that a broader discussion in the church regarding marriage and its purpose would be beneficial. We have sought to free the consciences of Christian couples struggling with the question of what types of contraception cause abortions. We hope that this document accomplishes that goal." In this document they only clearly state that they are against RU-486, but nothing else. I am not sure about other denominations, or religions (except Catholics which Lutherans will argue is not a pure religion because it is governed by the pope and the bible instead of just the bible).

Saddens me

1. Yes, Why do some churches allow birth control and not stem cell research, especially the type that involves somatic cell nulcear transport (SCNT). Both subjects involve the destruction of the "embryo" (and I use quotes because SMNT is a synthetic process) at the blastocyst stage. The combined oral contraceptives are the only hormonal forms that stop ovulation. When seeking hormonal birth control, religious indivuals probably will not be aware of this and take their doctor's advice. We need pleasure but we also are desperate for curative measures. So are some churches guilty of pleasing it's congregation, do they just say they allow birth control and not specify, are they ignorant, or am I missing something here? I makes no sense to deny possible future life saving therapies in the name of God.

touche

You may have helped to further clearify the arguement in my mind between evolutionist and creationist-that is if I interpreted it right. I didn't know the difference between proof and evidence until you pointed it out. I am here to learn. Am I interpreting it right to say that, "Creationist are looking for absolute proof when all we have is evidence? The evidence we have does point to the fact that brids evolved from dinosours but there is no absolute proof." Therefore, it is useless to argue with a creationist and I would do best by replying "no comment" if they asked me (in attempt to debate) about the evolution of dinosaurs to birds. "No comment' is a splendid expression. I am using it again and again." Winston Churchill (For you wise guys out there-please don't use the phrase in reply to this post) Note: I am attempting to refute the claim.

Let me clarify. Is there any cellualr process associated with feathers, protein associated with feathers, commonly believed DNA sequence associated with feathers, etc. that can be found in mummified tissue and which has or could be traced through the phylogenetic tree such as through the application of biomarkers that has been published in a peer reviewed journal? "Why are we limited to "molecular evidence", whatever that's supposed to mean?"-Swansont My thought behind "molecular evidence" or "cellualr process associated with feathers, protein associated with feathers, commonly believed DNA sequence associated with feathers, etc...traced through the phylogenetic tree..." is that it is the best way to argue against a creationist-?

Show me the money! Is there any molecular evidence taken from mummified skin in peer reviewed journals linking dinasours to birds?

The Video Summary- Name:Scientist Caught Faking Dinosaur-Bird Fossils Scientist theorized that feathered dinosours existed in the past. In support of this belief, museums have added feathers to many common models. Opponents criticize this since no feathers have been found on any dinasour fossil. Then the video quotes a National Geographic guru. "The idea of fethered dinosaurs on the theropod orgin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre (spell?) of zealous scientist acting in concert with certain editors of Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspiken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific evidence have been among the firts casualties in their program, which is now fast of grander scientific hoaxes of our age." -Dr. Storrs Olson November 1, 1999 To add to the conspiracy in the mid 1990's a series of fossils was found in China. According to scientist they had unique feathers to support bird evolution (love the science lingo here). Doctor Row, a palentologist that supports evolution had a unique chance to CAT-scan one of these fossils. In summary he questioned the authenticity and claimed their were layers of steel, pait, etc added to it. He claims a piece of its jaw had been substituted from another animal. Doctor Row, had a second chance to view another one of these fossils, Archaeorapter-the missing link that birds evolved from dinasours. It is noted to have feathers blended in with its body as Darwin predicted (not exact wording here). Archaeoraptor consisted of fossilized bones from 5 different animals. Doctor Row reported his his dcoveries to National Geographic. Scientist at the National Geographic held a press conference and failed to disclose Archaeoraptor as a fraud. Three months later, it was published in their magazine where it claimed that it was a flying dinosour, "a missing link, the best evidence that birds evolved from dinosaours."

Here is a Pastor's comment. Can someone refute this please! "Can't help but to quote former President Ronald Reagan during one of his presidential debates after watching this news clip and hearing the criticisms from 'some' scientists about 'Jurassic World ' - President Reagan's great comeback, "There you go again!" Really ... to 'some' scientists, ALL dinosaurs would have had feathers? How come we have so few examples in the entire fossil record - wait a minute - ONE example - archeopteryx. Furthermore, check out this link about another great hoax dealing with alleged fossils supporting the feather myth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Iz7GResDtQ Yep, I've said enough as it doesn't take too much to dispel the incredible distortions, lies, and fabrications that somehow become 'fact' ... TOTALLY ENJOYED THE MOVIE!!! To those scientists who seem to have the time to find fault with this movie, maybe you could better spend that time searching for evidence that actually supports your wild hypotheses - good luck - you'll need it!"

I can only speak for what I was raised to know and that was Christianity, subtype-Lutheran, where Jesus is equated to Christ who is also the son of the father. As it goes, God so loved the world that he sent his only son...a Christ or Messiah to save it by sacrificing himself on the cross. Later the holy spirit came along. It is related to something Christians refer to as the holy trinity-- God the father, the son (Jesus Christ), and the holy spirit. I don't understand it, but the best explanation I have come across is from Dante's Paradiso Canto XXXIII: 115-123 where he see's his final vision, which is of the holy trinity: In the profound and shining-clear Existence Of the deep Light appeared to me three circles Of one dimension and three different colors. One seemed to be reflected by the other, Rainbow by rainbow, while the third seemed fire Breathed equally from one and from the other. O how pale now is language and how paltry For my conception! And for what I saw My words are not enough to call them meager. Note: This is just one religious beleif and is not evidence.