God vs. Science

[BABY J]

Right now one of the current mainstream origin theories is that "we" (all life on earth) is actually alien, the result of biomaterial deposited by a comet strike.

There are several billion galaxies visible from earth. There are more than 10,000 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photograph and that's one tiny little portion of the sky. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars.

The first time I really looked at this picture, I literally couldn't breathe. Seen from the ground, this photo represents an area of the night sky that looks almost empty and is one-tenth the size of the diameter of the full moon. It's like looking "through the end of an 8' soda straw at the night sky."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

[soul]

Right now one of the current mainstream origin theories is that "we" (all life on earth) is actually alien, the result of biomaterial deposited by a comet strike.

There are several billion galaxies visible from earth. There are more than 10,000 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photograph and that's one tiny little portion of the sky. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars.

The first time I really looked at this picture, I literally couldn't breathe. Seen from the ground, this photo represents an area of the night sky that looks almost empty and is one-tenth the size of the diameter of the full moon. It's like looking "through the end of an 8' soda straw at the night sky."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg
this kinda covered in the book i posted, ill kinda qoute it.

"Assume thats theres the possiblity for life to grow and thrive on a planet is 1 in a billion, well you take that ratio apply it the universe and you still get roughly about 1billion!!!!!!!!! planets that can bear life."

think about that and twist it around your noggins

[CosmoLTW]

That's some brain twisting shiite. Wouldn't it have left a dent though? Seriously? I haven't read the book obviously but I'll have to check it out.

[soul]

That's some brain twisting shiite. Wouldn't it have left a dent though? Seriously? I haven't read the book obviously but I'll have to check it out.
its worth it trust me, great book

[The12lber]

Well actually there is a reason why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"...? It is classified as a theory. And you are very good at making your sentences sound nice and intricate and whatever. But to think that the science that studies all of the fields you mentioned above are in any way related to the study of evolution is a far better example of idiocy. Now I didn't insult anyone else for their beliefs and I would expect the same from you. You do realize that the last time they did a national survey, only something like 10-20% (I don't remember the exact number, but I'm almost positive it was 15%) believes in atheistic evolution. I don't completely throw out the idea of the possibility of it actually working, but at least when I looked at it, I found macro-evolution to be a stretch. Not to say it was way off or all scientists who buy into it are a quack. All I'm saying is that there is faith applied to that belief system too. There are still holes in the theory and I can't explain everything that happens based on my faith. You put your faith where you want, and I'll put mine where I see fit.

The celestial bodies in our solar system orbiting around the sun and the peridiocity of elements? Yeah, those are theories too, but I don't see widespread dissent among the general population about phosphorous' status as a nonmetal or too many geocentrists around. General relativity? Yeah, there's another one. Lots of well accepted scientific "facts" are actually encompassed within theories.

"Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

Science isn't faith. Science is facts. If science was faith, you wouldn't be able to read this now. Your home would be unlit, without internet access and that computer you're reading this on right now wouldn't exist. But clearly, you are. There are a lot of scientific theories that allow for the existence of all these things, but clearly it is just faith because none of it works/is provabable(lol).

If you don't like science that contradicts the bible, you should start taking on astronomy, geology, paleontology and archaeology as well as evolution/biology.

In short, you are dumb.

And as a side note, I was using all of those other things as an example of how well developed science goes uncontested until it starts stepping on religious idiots' toes. I wasn't saying that the existence of coal power plants is direct evidence that evolutionary biology is correct or something equally insane.. The best part is, you thought I was and said I was an idiot for it. More reading comprehension next time.

As another side note, I can't believe you would incorporate statistics into your argument. Not only are statistics quite often bull**** but opinion polls don't mean **** about the validity of something. George Bush was elected to the office of president twice - one time he even got enough votes to win by a popular majority - The Backstreet Boys, N'Sync and Brittney Spears are all best-selling "artists/artistic groups" and most Americans probably think that Muslim babies are baptised in the blood of freshly beheaded westerners. People are dumb and are wrong all the time.

To wrap this up so I don't need to make another reply

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community), the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent)) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)".[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#cite_note-EvolutionFact-5) Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Scienc e)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#cite_note-6) .When discussing the topic, creationists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#cite_note-Matzke-0) Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution""

Basically, you can contest it, but the science isn't "inconclusive" by any means. Its also worth saying that from a logical standpoint, when one accepts "micro-evolution", you are allowing for the existence of "macro-evolution". Saying that a species can evolve slightly but that one species cannot evolve into another is a logical fallacy. What do you think evolution is? IT IS A PERIOD OF SMALL CHANGES OVER A LONG LONG TIME - WHEN PUT ON A LONG ENOUGH TIME LINE, SOME OF THE FISH GET LUNGS AND THEIR FINS BECOME LEGS. Why do you think chickens have latent genetic information that allows for the growth of tails and teeth? God damn some people are dense.

[soul]

"god only exsist because science has not proven his non existence.... yet"

[The12lber]

"god only exsist because science has not proven his non existence.... yet"
I don't think you can explicitly disprove the existence of something "transcendent".

[CosmoLTW]

Feel better? I have not a single problem with reading comprehension as I have not a single problem with science as a whole. My problem comes from smug little pseudo-intellectuals who want to attack what I want to believe when I have no problem letting you believe what you will. Read what you just wrote. You in no way proved the existence of evolution, but merely quoted what someone else had to say about those pesky Christian and their naive arguments. Go ahead and look for your evidence all you want. There is nothing concrete whatsoever to ever back up evolution as a completely irrefutable fact. They merely find fossils and quote someone else who quotes someone else and so on and so forth until it goes back to Darwin's original notes. And even he didn't completely buy into it. He called it merely a theory as well. And for every scientist who says he has "proved" atheistic evolution there are as many who say they have proved him wrong. So believe what you want and I'll believe what I will. I'm not going to spend hours looking up ways to disprove evolution and bring it back to you because frankly I don't care enough. You're way too arrogant to ever listen to anything I have to say anyways. So, how about this, prove me wrong. I dare you if you are so dam smart. Actually find evidence. Not a fossil related to another one because that could just as easily be another species. Not some scientist coming up with a very compelling argument. I am talking about irrefutable, scientifically stable, undeniable evidence. And I promise you I will be waiting a while. As far as your micro vs. macro cop out, ever heard of checks and balances? Adaptation? If I move to Northern Canada, my body and face will grow more hair. Does that mean that my great great great great great grandchildren will look like Chewbacca? No! That's absurd! It's all theories and it all takes faith. If you are actually interested in finding the truth of the matter rather than arguing and making an ass of yourself then go read these books and prove them wrong: "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel (former atheist trying to disprove the possibility of creation), "The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott M. Huse, and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry. Like I said I'm not gonna sit here all night and pull facts out for you because I just don't care enough, but if you are so set on your anti-religion vendetta to open the naive and ignorant world's eyes, then by all means, prove your point and I'll be right behind you.

[The12lber]

I actually didn't say anything anti-religious. Not surprisingly, you are just displaying reactionary behavior towards anything that might undermine your beliefs however slightly. It is not my fault you are a moron who only contests science accepted when they don't like it's implications.

The only people who don't accept evolution as fact are religious nuts, not scientists. You're not going to find any real biologists who share your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Shockingly, you're not going to find a section labeled "Scientific criticism of the theory of evolution" or the like.

Like I said before, there are plenty of other discoveries in the field of paleontology, archaeology, geology and astronomy that are contradictory to the "facts" set forth in the bible. Better start working on shooting down the existence of dinosaurs etc while you are out looking to discredit evolution.

But I suppose those dinosaur bones or their scientifically determined age have a perfectly rational Christian explanation, like being placed in the ground already fossilized by the devil to erode your faith. Afterall, the bones just being there isn't rock solid proof of their existence.

SNOOZE. YOU ARE PAINFULLY DUMB.

I am going to bed.

[CosmoLTW]

I actually didn't say anything anti-religious. Not surprisingly, you are just displaying reactionary behavior towards anything that might undermine your beliefs however slightly. It is not my fault you are a moron who only contests science accepted when they don't like it's implications.

The only people who don't accept evolution as fact are religious nuts, not scientists. You're not going to find any real biologists who share your opinion.

Like I said before, there are plenty of other discoveries in the field of paleontology, archaeology, geology and astronomy that are contradictory to the "facts" set forth in the bible. Better start working on shooting down the existence of dinosaurs etc while you are out looking to discredit evolution.
Actually dinosaurs are mentioned twice in the Old Testament in the book of Job, one called the Leviathon which was probably a Liopleurodon or something like it, and one is a land-going plant eater called the Behemoth, which was probably a Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus. But nice try. Is that the best you got?

[CosmoLTW]

And for the record, you are the only one I have ever met that sees it solely as Science vs. Religion. I can and do believe in both. But keep going because you are clearly showing your ignorance in both fields. I really don't have to say anything, I just thought I would make it apparent to you because I have developed a strong distaste to you. You came in here, insulted me, then called me defensive when I fired back. You're digging your own hole.

[The12lber]

Actually dinosaurs are mentioned twice in the Old Testament in the book of Job, one called the Leviathon which was probably a Liopleurodon or something like it, and one is a land-going plant eater called the Behemoth, which was probably a Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus. But nice try. Is that the best you got?

I think you mean "Leviathan" which is referred to as a giant sea monster that had multiple heads and breathed fire.

Clearly, a well documented dinosaur species.

[CosmoLTW]

And wikipedia? Seriously?! Anybody can go in there and make changes to what anything says so that is nowhere near a reliable source. Besides, I read what THE THEORY of evolution was in like what the sixth grade? And that was out of a real encyclopedia, Einstein.

[The12lber]

And for the record, you are the only one I have ever met that sees it solely as Science vs. Religion. I can and do believe in both. But keep going because you are clearly showing your ignorance in both fields. I really don't have to say anything, I just thought I would make it apparent to you because I have developed a strong distaste to you. You came in here, insulted me, then called me defensive when I fired back. You're digging your own hole.

I don't see it as science vs religion. They're totally different things. That's why its idiotic to come in here and go.

EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ITS RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS.

If you don't think evolution is true, fine, write evolutionary science off as the deceptive work of the devil. But don't come in here and say its because it isn't well accepted by science as fact. Because that's pretty clearly bull****.

[CosmoLTW]

I think you mean "Leviathan" which is referred to as a giant sea monster that had multiple heads and breathed fire.

Clearly, a well documented dinosaur species.
Have you read the passage? Nothing about multiple heads and breathing fire, I just read it. Maybe you were thinking of a hydra? Wrong belief system. That would be Greek mythology.

[The12lber]

And wikipedia? Seriously?! Anybody can go in there and make changes to what anything says so that is nowhere near a reliable source. Besides, I read what THE THEORY of evolution was in like what the sixth grade? And that was out of a real encyclopedia, Einstein.
Wikipedia is actually extremely reputable and well maintained. Seriously, go in there and try to make some bull**** changes. They'll be deleted quite quickly and you'll be banned from editing. If only you understood the internet.

As a side note, you clearly didn't understand anything I said early about the orbit of the planets in the solar system, elemental periodicity or general relativity also being "theories".

Theory
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

IF ONLY YOU UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE.

God damn you are dumb.

[CosmoLTW]

I don't see it as science vs religion. They're totally different things. That's why its idiotic to come in here and go.

EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ITS RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS.

If you don't think evolution is true, fine, write evolutionary science off as the deceptive work of the devil. But don't come in here and say its because it isn't well accepted by science as fact. Because that's pretty clearly bull****.
No what I said is that I do believe in micro-evolution and that evolution as a whole is just a theory. That doesn't mean I don't think it could be true. Maybe you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension. The only thing I will openly say I think is bull is the big bang theory and the idea that we all came from primordial goo. I think humans were there in the beginning and the book of Job, which was written well before any fossils of dinosaurs were found, documents us and them living side by side. Do I know that as complete and total fact? Nope, wasn't there. But then how did they know about these creatures? And how come almost all societies have some mythical creature that resembles a dinosaur?

[The12lber]

Have you read the passage? Nothing about multiple heads and breathing fire, I just read it. Maybe you were thinking of a hydra? Wrong belief system. That would be Greek mythology.
"Like the Leviathan, the Nile crocodile is aquatic, scaly, and possesses fierce teeth. Job 41:18 states that Leviathan's eyes "are like the eyelids of the morning". Some have compared this verse to a crocodile's eyes, which rise out of the water before the rest of its head, invoking the image of the sun rising over the horizon. Major difficulties of this view are that in Job chapter 41 Leviathan is described as breathing fire like a dragon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon), and that the crocodile does not seem to fit the descriptions of Leviathan given in other Bible passages, such as in the book of Psalms, e.g. it does not have multiple heads."

[CosmoLTW]

Wikipedia is actually extremely reputable and well maintained. Seriously, go in there and try to make some bull**** changes. They'll be deleted quite quickly and you'll be banned from editing. If only you understood the internet.

As a side note, you clearly didn't understand anything I said early about the orbit of the planets in the solar system, elemental periodicity or general relativity also being "theories".

Theory
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

IF ONLY YOU UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE.

God damn you are dumb.
And how do any of those other theories have anything to do with what we are talking about? Look at the thread you are in dumbass.

[The12lber]

No what I said is that I do believe in micro-evolution and that evolution as a whole is just a theory. That doesn't mean I don't think it could be true. Maybe you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension. The only thing I will openly say I think is bull is the big bang theory and the idea that we all came from primordial goo. I think humans were there in the beginning and the book of Job, which was written well before any fossils of dinosaurs were found, documents us and them living side by side. Do I know that as complete and total fact? Nope, wasn't there. But then how did they know about these creatures? And how come almost all societies have some mythical creature that resembles a dinosaur?
Yes, like the Chinese belief in dragons, flying snake like creatures which breathe fire. There's actually not a whole lot of mythical creatures which are similar to dinosaurs in anything but the vaguest way.

I'm sorry, but I think if Humans and dinosaurs lived side by side they would get more than one unverifiable mention in the book of job.


.

[CosmoLTW]

Don't take it out of context from some other person cynically trying to prove everything that someone else believes as wrong. Here I'll make it easy for you:

1 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord?
2 “Can you put a rope in his nose Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 “Will he make many supplications to you, Or will he speak to you soft words?
4 “Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him for a servant forever?
5 “Will you play with him as with a bird, Or will you bind him for your maidens?
6 “Will the traders bargain over him? Will they divide him among the merchants?
7 “Can you fill his skin with harpoons, Or his head with fishing spears?
8 “Lay your hand on him; Remember the battle; you will not do it again!
9 “Behold, your expectation is false; Will you be laid low even at the sight of him?
10 “No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; Who then is he that can stand before Me?
11 “Who has given to Me that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is Mine.
12 “I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, Or his mighty strength, or his orderly frame.
13 “Who can strip off his outer armor? Who can come within his double mail?
14 “Who can open the doors of his face? Around his teeth there is terror.
15 “His strong scales are his pride, Shut up as with a tight seal.
16 “One is so near to another That no air can come between them.
17 “They are joined one to another; They clasp each other and cannot be separated.
18 “His sneezes flash forth light, And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 “Out of his mouth go burning torches; Sparks of fire leap forth.
20 “Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 “His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes forth from his mouth.
22 “In his neck lodges strength, And dismay leaps before him.
23 “The folds of his flesh are joined together, Firm on him and immovable.
24 “His heart is as hard as a stone, Even as hard as a lower millstone.
25 “When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; Because of the crashing they are bewildered.
26 “The sword that reaches him cannot avail, Nor the spear, the dart or the javelin.
27 “He regards iron as straw, Bronze as rotten wood.
28 “The arrow cannot make him flee; Slingstones are turned into stubble for him.
29 “Clubs are regarded as stubble; He laughs at the rattling of the javelin.
30 “His underparts are like sharp potsherds; He spreads out like a threshing sledge on the mire.
31 “He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment.
32 “Behind him he makes a wake to shine; One would think the deep to be gray-haired.
33 “Nothing on earth is like him, One made without fear.
34 “He looks on everything that is high; He is king over all the sons of pride.”

[The12lber]

And how do any of those other theories have anything to do with what we are talking about? Look at the thread you are in dumbass.
Are you contesting any of those? Do you think any of those aren't true?

The point is you're only contesting evolution because you don't like it. Use your brain.

[CosmoLTW]

That is meant to be expressing the power of this creature in poetic form, not just to say that he breathes fire. But, if you read this, clearly it is talking about something much bigger than a crocodile. This wasn't written pre-society. You don't think they could easily capture a crocodile in these times? The point of this passage is to illustrate the strength of God in to say that man cannot control this beast, but God can.

[The12lber]

18 “His sneezes flash forth light, And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 “Out of his mouth go burning torches; Sparks of fire leap forth.
20 “Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 “His breath kindles coals, And a flame goes forth from his mouth.


Good job reinforcing what I said before. You really are dumb.

Aside from Leviathan breathing fire and being described in other books of Christianity as having multiple heads, therefore clearly not being a dinosaur, this is laughable.

LOOK, THIS MIGHT VAGUELY BE LIKE A DINOSAUR. IF IT IS, CLEARLY HUMANS AND DINOSAURS ONCE COEXISTED EVEN THOUGH SOME DINOSAURS ARE ****ING HUGE CARNIVORES SO YOU'D THINK THEY'D GET MENTIONED MORE THAN ONCE OR TWICE.

[CosmoLTW]

And, I am not contesting evolution. I think we are in an ever-changing world so God gave all of creation the ability to adapt, hence micro-evolution and maybe macro too to some degree. All I am trying to get across is that evolution doesn't necessarily rule God out, but people get all gung ho about it because the new fad religious belief during this time is anti-religion; the death/ nonexistence of God. The old church used to think that the universe was geocentric. Galileo proved them wrong. That has nothing to do with the core beliefs of my faith and is actually never backed up in scripture.

[The12lber]

And, I am not contesting evolution. I think we are in an ever-changing world so God gave all of creation the ability to adapt, hence micro-evolution and maybe macro too to some degree. All I am trying to get across is that evolution doesn't necessarily rule God out, but people get all gung ho about it because the new fad religious belief during this time is anti-religion; the death/ nonexistence of God. The old church used to think that the universe was geocentric. Galileo proved them wrong. That has nothing to do with the core beliefs of my faith and is actually never backed up in scripture.
No, when you read back a few pages you were definitely contesting it, you are just backing off now as your argument has become so desperate you are citing bad poetry from the Bible.

There's nothing anti-religious in any of my statements. There's hostility towards idiots who want to contest science just because it intrudes on their metaphysical comfort zone.

[CosmoLTW]

Good job reinforcing what I said before. You really are dumb.

Aside from Leviathan breathing fire and being described in other books of Christianity as having multiple heads, therefore clearly not being a dinosaur, this is laughable.

LOOK, THIS MIGHT VAGUELY BE LIKE A DINOSAUR. IF IT IS, CLEARLY HUMANS AND DINOSAURS ONCE COEXISTED EVEN THOUGH SOME DINOSAURS ARE ****ING HUGE CARNIVORES SO YOU'D THINK THEY'D GET MENTIONED MORE THAN ONCE OR TWICE.
Again, you take it completely out of context. Look at it in the way it was written. I mean, in the beginning of the passage, do you think based on what it says, God wants us to go talk to the huge dinosaur? No the whole passage is written in a sarcastic tone at first but it written to stress the power and awe of this creature. If you are familiar with the way old hebrew texts were written this wouldn't seem like such a weird passage.

[CosmoLTW]

No, when you read back a few pages you were definitely contesting it, you are just backing off now as your argument has become so desperate you are citing bad poetry from the Bible.

There's nothing anti-religious in any of my statements. There's hostility towards idiots who want to contest science just because it intrudes on their metaphysical comfort zone.
Read through my posts. I said it is not a proven fact. I did not say it doesn't exist. And you have got to be kidding when you say you have not made any anti-religious statements. Look at what you have posted and come back to me.

[CosmoLTW]

you are just backing off now as your argument has become so desperate you are citing bad poetry from the Bible.


You don't like the dinosaur argument anymore? ...Which by the way you brought up. Here, how about the flood and Noah:

In a recent article from the Washington Post, explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah’s Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.’

They captured sonar images of a ‘gentle berm and a sandbar submerged undisturbed for thousands of years on the sea floor.’ Then using radiocarbon dating, they determined that the remains of the freshwater mollusks found on this submerged beach were 7,500 years old and that the saltwater species were only 6,900 years old. (By the way, radiocarbon is not reliable in giving accurate dates going back thousands of years. AiG believes that Noah’s Flood should be dated to about 4,300 years ago.)

In an interview, Ballard said, ‘What we wanted to do is prove to ourselves that it was the biblical flood.’

According to Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman, who had predicted where this shoreline would be found in the Black Sea, describe the flood as such: ‘The Black Sea was created when melting glaciers raised the sea level until the sea breached a natural dam at what is now the Bosporus, the strait that separates the Mediterranean Sea from the Black Sea. An apocalyptic deluge followed, inundating the freshwater lake below the dam, submerging thousands of square miles of dry land, flipping the ecosystem from fresh water to salt practically overnight, and probably killing thousands of people and billions of land and sea creatures.’

Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, replied to Ballard, Ryan, and Pitman’s claim with, ‘All modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary. There are other flood stories, but if you want to see the Black Sea flood in Noah’s flood, who’s to say no?’

We agree that they indeed have found evidence for a huge flood in the Black Sea area. But we do not support their claim that this was Noah’s Flood. You see, in order to justify their assertion, they declare that the record of Noah’s Flood in the Bible is legendary and just a myth. They say the ‘myth’ originated from a real event (their Black Sea flood), but that it has been grossly distorted and exaggerated as it was relayed by word of mouth before eventually being written down. By using the term ‘myth’ they can disregard all the details of the biblical account that do not fit their Black Sea claim.

Pitman recently spoke about this idea during an Australian lecture tour. Now in his mid 70s, Pitman has an interesting talk. He has conducted some excellent geological work in the Black Sea area. He presented good geological evidence that the Black Sea suddenly rose in level when a land barrier with the Mediterranean Sea failed, allowing water to flow in suddenly.

Unfortunately, he handles the biblical record carelessly. Noah’s Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet.

Pitman knows that his link between the Black Sea flood and Noah’s Flood does not fit with the Bible. For example, his Black Sea flood does not have 40 days and nights of rain (He says the ‘whole event probably lasted about 40 years’), does not have a 140-meter ark as described in the Bible, does not cover the highest mountains, does not recede off the Earth etc, etc. Pitman knows it does not fit, shrugs his shoulders and when questioned about it he simply said he does not read the Bible literally. Therefore, his link with Noah’s Flood is totally arbitrary. He wants a flood, so plucks Noah’s Flood out of the air. It is a good flood to pick because it sells lots of books. Furthermore, the geologists love him. They think by saying that Noah’s Flood was a local flood then they can dismiss the implications of the real global Flood described in the Bible.

This is just another attempt to undermine the integrity of the biblical account of Noah’s Flood. However, the Bible claims to be the Word of God and ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ (2 Tim. 3:16). To say that Noah’s Flood was anything other than what Scripture says it was (i.e., a global flood) is tantamount to declaring that God is a liar. If God is lying, then we cannot trust any part of the Bible, including the Gospel message of the Cross, which means there is no hope for salvation and eternal life. The implications of Ballard’s claims are far more serious than many realize.

There is no reason to believe that Ballard’s Black Sea Flood was Noah’s Flood.

[CosmoLTW]

I saw you were talking about the Exodus earlier, so how about this:

Many people do not believe the Exodus took place. They often claim that there is no historical evidence, other than that found in the Bible. But there is evidence of the Exodus as stated by Grant Jeffrey in his book "Unveiling Mysteries of the Bible". An important Egyptian historical manuscript was discovered in Egypt more than a century ago.

Remarkably, this ancient papyrus parallels the history of the Exodus account as found in the Scriptures. This manuscript recorded the writings of an ancient Egyptian named Ipuwer. The papyrus manuscript, now called the Ipuwer Papyrus, was discovered by someone named Anastasi in the area of Memphis, near the pyramids of Saqqara in Egypt.

The museum of Leiden in the Netherlands acquired the papyrus in 1828. It was translated and published in English for the first time in 1909 by Professor Alan H. Gardiner. Gardiner wrote that the manuscript was one that recorded a genuine historical catastrophe when the whole country of Egypt was in distress and violence. "It is no merely local disturbance that is here described, but a great and overwhelming national disaster."

Gardiner suggests that Ipuwer was an Egyptian sage who directed his writing to the king as a complaint that the national catastrophe was in part caused by the king’s failure to act and deal with the crisis.

A comparison of several key passages from the Biblical Book of Exodus with the ancient Egyptian papyrus reveals remarkable correspondences and parallels that point to a real historical catastrophe.

1. The Plague of Blood
In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:5-6, it says: Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. Compare this with the Book of Exodus 7:21: There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:10, it says: The River is Blood. Compare with Exodus 7:20: All the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

In Ipuwer Papyrus 2:10, it says: Men shrank from tasting...and thirst for water. Compare with Exodus 7:24: And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.

2. The Plague of Hail
Ipuwer papyrus 9:23: The fire ran along the ground. There was hail, and fire mingled with the hail. Exodus 9:25: And the hail smote every herb on the field, and brake every tree in the field.

3. The Plague of Darkness
Ipuwer Papyrus 9:11: The land is not light. Exodus 10:22: And there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.

4. The Plague of Egyptian Cattle
Ipuwer papyrus 5:5: All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan. Exodus 9:3: Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be grievous murrain (disease).

5. The Plague of the Firstborn of Egypt
Ipuwer Papyrus 2:13: He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere. Exodus 12:27: He (the angel of the Lord) smote the Egyptians. Ipuwer Papyrus 4:3: Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls. Exodus 12:29: At midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. Ipuwer Papyrus 6:12: Forsooth, the children of the princes are cast out in the streets, Exodus 12:30: There was not a house where there was not one dead.

6. Response of the Egyptians to the Loss of their First born
Ipuwer Papyrus 3:14: It is groaning that is throughout the land, mingled with lamentations. Exodus 12:30: There was a great cry in Egypt.

In light of the ample evidence accumulated from ancient Jewish and Greek historians, together with the Ipuwer Papyrus that parallels several of the 10 Biblical plagues, it is clear that there is compelling non-Biblical evidence to confirm the scriptural account about the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Further proof of the Exodus is the fact; the Jews have annually celebrated three great festivals in commemoration of their Exodus (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) for 3500 years. Therefore, logically, the public observance of the Exodus Passover festival can only be explained if the Jewish people actually participated in these historical events as recorded in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

[Maniaç]

The point of this passage is to illustrate the strength of God in to say that man cannot control this beast, but God can.When it comes to making someone believe in something they always resort to using the word, "God." Your statement made me giggle, because I used my brain cells and came up with this conclusion. "How can something have control on something else, if that person, uses the strenght of others, to assist it." Without faith God would be nothing.

You also keep babbling about how Evolution is nothing more than a theory. Yet there is proof of it's existence. How can you not take into consideration, all the past microorganisms, who started off life cause of adaptation. I hope you don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Your first post in this thread was directed at me, seeing as I was the one who created this thread. You say that I made this thread to argue, that I didn't have knowledge when it came to both sides of the card. I mean, who are you, to say what I have knowledge on? You obviously have the reading skills of a brain damaged baboon. I could do whatever I want here, this is a public forum after all. And if you don't like it, all you have to do is hit that red X on the upper right hand side of your screen.

[CosmoLTW]

Or how about the prophecies of Isaiah?

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah.htm

[CosmoLTW]

"How can something have control on something else, if that person, uses the strength of others, to assist it."

Where anywhere in the Bible is this said?

"You also keep babbling about how Evolution is nothing more than a theory. Yet there is proof of it's existence. How can you not take into consideration, all the past microorganisms, who started off life cause of adaptation."

Be more specific. Which microorganisms? And there is NO proof that we can see that evolution exists to the level we think it does. It moves too slow. Show me the proof of its existence. Just one thing.

[CosmoLTW]

Yes, like the Chinese belief in dragons, flying snake like creatures which breathe fire. There's actually not a whole lot of mythical creatures which are similar to dinosaurs in anything but the vaguest way.

I'm sorry, but I think if Humans and dinosaurs lived side by side they would get more than one unverifiable mention in the book of job.


.
"Similar confusion is involved in objections that evolution is "unproven";[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#cite_note-morris-19) strict proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory) is possible only in logic and mathematics, not science, so this is trivially true, and no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory" is. The confusion arises, however, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven". The distinction is an important one in philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science), as it relates to the lack of absolute certainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty) in all empirical claims, not just evolution. "

Your precious wikipedia has betrayed you

[Maniaç]

Where anywhere in the Bible is this said?
Do something other than show me that your IQ is even lower than my dogs.

Where in my post, did I say that the statement came from the bible? Read it again, einstein. I clearly said, "I" came up with this conclusion. As in, after reading your post, my brain marinated the statement you had so much trouble understanding.


Be more specific. Which microorganisms? And there is NO proof that we can see that evolution exists to the level we think it does. It moves too slow. Show me the proof of its existence. Just one thing.
Haha, dude. There is no point in trying to explain ANYTHING to you. Ancient remains, fossiles, ect etc. I mean, do you want me to show you my cat slowly evolving into a smaller version of a saber tooth tiger? You also keep saying how you don't care about this and that, yet you continue posting in here?

[CosmoLTW]

And none of those fossils prove evolution. Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean it came from that. In 100,000 are people going to dig up a tiger and say that your cat came from that too?

[CosmoLTW]

"I came up with this conclusion."
So... if you came up with this conclusion about something you don't believe in or know anything about, then its got to be true, right? And drop the insulting remarks, little boy, I promise you I have twice the IQ you have. Just learn to express yourself a little more clearly and we'll be alright. You have yet to come up with one specific, clear rebuttal. All you have done is come back with online insults. Man, aren't you cool.

[The12lber]

"Similar confusion is involved in objections that evolution is "unproven";[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#cite_note-morris-19) strict proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory) is possible only in logic and mathematics, not science, so this is trivially true, and no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory" is. The confusion arises, however, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven". The distinction is an important one in philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science), as it relates to the lack of absolute certainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty) in all empirical claims, not just evolution. "

Your precious wikipedia has betrayed you

Actually, it basically said that all fields of science are without completely definite truth but scientists consider evolution as good as factual and are as certain as they can be. Just as certain as they can be about anything else. You know, like, the science behind the electrical engineering which created the computer you're using right now. They're not totally 100% all of that is factual. The bible says that god only created volatile storage mediums and not non volatile storage mediums like your hard drive... and that thing isn't working is it? OH WAIT, IT IS!?

You even bolded the part that illustrates this best.

IF ONLY YOU COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ.

[The12lber]

Again, you take it completely out of context. Look at it in the way it was written. I mean, in the beginning of the passage, do you think based on what it says, God wants us to go talk to the huge dinosaur? No the whole passage is written in a sarcastic tone at first but it written to stress the power and awe of this creature. If you are familiar with the way old hebrew texts were written this wouldn't seem like such a weird passage.

I love it

THE PARTS THAT ARE CONVENIENT FOR MY ARGUMENT ARE FACT.

THE PARTS THAT ARE INCONVENIENT ARE LITERARY DEVICES.

Dude, you are painfully stupid. It is terrible. My kidney hurts reading this ****.

[Maniaç]

In 100,000 are people going to dig up a tiger and say that your cat came from that too?
Well if you reproduce then yes. Your lack of intellect will transfer to your children and their children and so on. How can you ask such ridiculous? In 100k years the tiger will most likely look very similer to how it does now, it may have some minor changes but nothing too extreme. That is, if they don't go extinct cause of some bad judgment we make.


So... if you came up with this conclusion about something you don't believe in or know anything about, then its got to be true, right?
It's nothing more than an opinion. So yea, to me it's true. LOL


And drop the insulting remarks, little boy, I promise you I have twice the IQ you have.
:lmao: Im a day older than you man! If your birthday is on May 18th then yea, im older than you. And I wouldn't have to make remarks like those if you could prove to me that your shoe size isn't higher than your IQ. But take those remarks how ever you want, don't matter to me.

[hatch91]

Religion. 1 of the best topics of all time lol

[CosmoLTW]

Honestly guys, after last night I was thinking about it, and really this is just stupid. Neither one of us is going to get anywhere with the other on this topic. I dunno about y'all but I was getting too heated to where it was arguing just to be stubborn. Both of you have your opinions and beliefs and I have mine. Agree to disagree and no hard feelings and I'm sorry if I was a ****.

[man]

Honestly guys, after last night I was thinking about it, and really this is just stupid. Neither one of us is going to get anywhere with the other on this topic. I dunno about y'all but I was getting too heated to where it was arguing just to be stubborn. Both of you have your opinions and beliefs and I have mine. Agree to disagree and no hard feelings and I'm sorry if I was a ****.

The greatest minds in the universe don't have a concrete answer, why would you think a couple dumbass kids do (even though they think they do)? I think the smarter you are, the more you realize you don't know ****.

[CosmoLTW]

The greatest minds in the universe don't have a concrete answer, why would you think a couple dumbass kids do (even though they think they do)? I think the smarter you are, the more you realize you don't know ****.
You are absolutely right! Haha well said. Reps for being the smartest one in here.:goodjob:

[The12lber]

Honestly guys, after last night I was thinking about it, and really this is just stupid. Neither one of us is going to get anywhere with the other on this topic. I dunno about y'all but I was getting too heated to where it was arguing just to be stubborn. Both of you have your opinions and beliefs and I have mine. Agree to disagree and no hard feelings and I'm sorry if I was a ****.

You can just admit that your argument was mostly inflated by bull****.

And srsly, no hard feelings? This is the interwebs.

[CosmoLTW]

You can just admit that your argument was mostly inflated by bull****.

And srsly, no hard feelings? This is the interwebs.
No prob;)

[man]

And srsly, no hard feelings? This is the interwebs.

http://cache.bordom.net/images/f9cc829ae0b529241778cbc6134fbbcc.jpg

[David88vert]

You all are still going? :-)

Ok, I will not bother with the Biblical arguement, only the evolutionary discussion, if you agree.

Evolution is not a scientific fact - it is a theory. Any accredited university that teaches evolution will explain that to you. Try Berkeley, they are the most liberal of universities, and promote the teaching of evolution more than any other. They teach that it is only theory, not scientific fact.

Genetic study of DNA shows that evolution is not mathematically probable. The mathematical probability of a single cell coming about by random chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros. That's pretty close to zero percent, wouldn't you agree?

Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another species, and this can only be done by changing the DNA.
The same basic quality of information exists in bacteria and plants as in people. The code is shorter in bacteria, but qualitatively, it gives instructions as precisely as that in a person. We find a complete, intelligently designed language (alphabet, grammar, semantics) in bacteria as in people. Show me a language that was not created by random accident. It has never happened. ALL languages were created by intelligence.
Back when Darwin published his book, life seemed simple. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered inside the cell a major complex DNA system.

One of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. Even he accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code. "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together."

[Sledlude]

of course it is not 'probable'. just the right amount of events had to occur at precisely the right time. but given that the eart holds the aqueous soup that is our oceans, the chances of the alignment of the proper molecules to the right degree is made possible... think of how small one nucleic acid residue is.... compare that with the size of the oceans and the elemental particles within, and your chances of proper alignment increase significantly.

i agree that it was an amazing event that occured and odds were stacked against it, but it happened. This is why you do not have life popping up on every single planet or asteroid in the universe.... the odds are small, but there are still odds.

just a fraction of a chance is still a more scientifically sound explanation than God creating the universe in 7 days, moses parting the red sea, jesus rising from the dead, etc etc.

[soul]

of course it is not 'probable'. just the right amount of events had to occur at precisely the right time. but given that the eart holds the aqueous soup that is our oceans, the chances of the alignment of the proper molecules to the right degree is made possible... think of how small one nucleic acid residue is.... compare that with the size of the oceans and the elemental particles within, and your chances of proper alignment increase significantly.

i agree that it was an amazing event that occured and odds were stacked against it, but it happened. This is why you do not have life popping up on every single planet or asteroid in the universe.... the odds are small, but there are still odds.

just a fraction of a chance is still a more scientifically sound explanation than God creating the universe in 7 days, moses parting the red sea, jesus rising from the dead, etc etc.
yea this relates to the qoute i posted few pages back about probality of life on other plantes. and with the ocean theres possiblitly of even greater probalitly

"Assume thats theres the possiblity for life to grow and thrive on a planet is 1 in a billion, well you take that ratio apply it the universe and you still get roughly about 1billion!!!!!!!!! planets that can bear life."

apply thy to the ocean and the oprganisms, say there 8 billion dif type of cells n what not over time, possibilty for the right occurance and right matches, are exponetntial

[David88vert]

Do you 2 understand mathematics?

Probability is the chance or likelihood that a certain event will happen. Mathematical probability is usually expressed as a ratio. If it is equally likely that an event may happen in h ways and fail to happen in f ways, where h + f = n, then the probability that the event will occur may be expressed as the ratio h/n, and the probability that it will fail to occur may be expressed as the ratio f/n. The fraction that denotes the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will happen. The fraction that denotes the number of ways an event will fail to happen divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will fail to happen.

Let me explain it this way, scientists at Cornell estimate that there are 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the universe. That number is a 4 followed by 79 zeros.

Do you realize now that the odds are incredibly large - and that for just a single cell - not all of the cells that exist in the universe? On top of that the cell would have to live long enough to reproduce, and that would be another set of odds? It won't happen. It is as close to impossible as anything can get.

If you want to believe in evolution, realize that you are taking it completely on faith, not based on science. Physics, genetics and mathematics do more to disprove evolution than support it - at this point in time, with our current knowledge. I am not saying that you cannot believe in evolution, just understand that it is no different than religion right now. You are believing through faith in something based upon what has been told to you by other people.

[Deke]

Fuk me, I didn't read your first post correctly, and honestly I don't want to get into this on import atlanta.

Hopefully you didn't alreay quote the original :)

[ahabion]

jeez this thing is still going? I think I'm back at page 8 or something... oh well...

Instead of the topic being God vs Science, should be God vs Darwinism or something like that...

[The12lber]

Do you 2 understand mathematics?

Probability is the chance or likelihood that a certain event will happen. Mathematical probability is usually expressed as a ratio. If it is equally likely that an event may happen in h ways and fail to happen in f ways, where h + f = n, then the probability that the event will occur may be expressed as the ratio h/n, and the probability that it will fail to occur may be expressed as the ratio f/n. The fraction that denotes the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will happen. The fraction that denotes the number of ways an event will fail to happen divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will fail to happen.

Let me explain it this way, scientists at Cornell estimate that there are 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the universe. That number is a 4 followed by 79 zeros.

Do you realize now that the odds are incredibly large - and that for just a single cell - not all of the cells that exist in the universe? On top of that the cell would have to live long enough to reproduce, and that would be another set of odds? It won't happen. It is as close to impossible as anything can get.

If you want to believe in evolution, realize that you are taking it completely on faith, not based on science. Physics, genetics and mathematics do more to disprove evolution than support it - at this point in time, with our current knowledge. I am not saying that you cannot believe in evolution, just understand that it is no different than religion right now. You are believing through faith in something based upon what has been told to you by other people.

You're actually refuting natural origin and not evolution there, smart guy.

As a side note, considering the scope of the universe, your "as next to impossible as possible" odds mean nothing. The incomplete nature of science isn't proof of god, its proof of human imperfection. So take your statistics and shove them up your ass.

[David88vert]

You're actually refuting natural origin and not evolution there, smart guy.

As a side note, considering the scope of the universe, your "as next to impossible as possible" odds mean nothing. The incomplete nature of science isn't proof of god, its proof of human imperfection. So take your statistics and shove them up your ass.

Evolution is based on natural selection, smart guy.

As a side note, considering the scope of the universe, you seem incapable of putting together a single coherent scientific observation that can prove evolution through physics, genetics, or mathematics. Your "incomplete" statement is a cop-out. So take you unfounded, non-scientific opinions and keep them in your ass. :D

The bottom line is this - if you chose to believe in evolution, it is completely on faith, just as religion. Scientifically, the theory of evolution does not stand up to solid scientific evidence. It's just like believing that a god created this entire universe. Neither is proveable at this time. Seems to me that you are getting riled up that your "religion" is not as solid as you thought. That's ok though, you can still believe it based solely on blind faith, and no one can put up a scientific argument against that.:D

What I find funny about current science is its similarities to the ancient Greeks. They knew that the world was flat and the earth had to be the center of the universe. Anyone who didn't agree with their highly educated opinions was branded a backwards religious nutcase. Of course, we know a lot more know about the universe than they did then, and I suspect that in 1500 years, our decendants will know a lot more, and make us look like the Greeks.;)

[BABY J]

I'd take Greek Science over Greek Mytholgy (religion) any day of the week. But to your defense... that post sounded a whole lot like:


http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showpost.php?p=35785217&postcount=117

[Sledlude]

wow. yessir, I do understand mathematics. I know what a probability is. The point is, there is a probability, no matter how small, that is mathmatically calculatable... right? what is the probability that divine Creation occured? Is it measurable? Is there a mathematical possibility? I don't think there is. It is not mathematically measurable because there is no science behind it; ie there is no evidence to back it up.

'belief' in evolution is not like 'belief' in a god who created us- there is scientific proof vs ancient text.

The fact that the chances are small that an event will occur does not hold as evidence against its occurrence.


Do you 2 understand mathematics?

Probability is the chance or likelihood that a certain event will happen. Mathematical probability is usually expressed as a ratio. If it is equally likely that an event may happen in h ways and fail to happen in f ways, where h + f = n, then the probability that the event will occur may be expressed as the ratio h/n, and the probability that it will fail to occur may be expressed as the ratio f/n. The fraction that denotes the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will happen. The fraction that denotes the number of ways an event will fail to happen divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will fail to happen.

Let me explain it this way, scientists at Cornell estimate that there are 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the universe. That number is a 4 followed by 79 zeros.

Do you realize now that the odds are incredibly large - and that for just a single cell - not all of the cells that exist in the universe? On top of that the cell would have to live long enough to reproduce, and that would be another set of odds? It won't happen. It is as close to impossible as anything can get.

If you want to believe in evolution, realize that you are taking it completely on faith, not based on science. Physics, genetics and mathematics do more to disprove evolution than support it - at this point in time, with our current knowledge. I am not saying that you cannot believe in evolution, just understand that it is no different than religion right now. You are believing through faith in something based upon what has been told to you by other people.

[David88vert]

wow. yessir, I do understand mathematics. I know what a probability is. The point is, there is a probability, no matter how small, that is mathmatically calculatable... right? what is the probability that divine Creation occured? Is it measurable? Is there a mathematical possibility? I don't think there is. It is not mathematically measurable because there is no science behind it; ie there is no evidence to back it up.

'belief' in evolution is not like 'belief' in a god who created us- there is scientific proof vs ancient text.

The fact that the chances are small that an event will occur does not hold as evidence against its occurrence.


Evolution claims to be based upon scienctific measurements and observations, therefore you can calculate its mathematical probabilty as we are dealing with a finite universe. Religion does not claim to be based upon scientific measurements, therefore you cannot calculate its mathematical probability as we are dealing with an inifinite entity. However, there was a book that attempted to deal with the mathematical probability of God's existance, and it was written by an atheist attempting to disprove God. By his own calculations, however flawed, he determined that there was a 97% chance that God did not exist. If you take his answer, it is much more likely that we were created by the Christian God, than we came into existance by random chance.

There is ample scientific evidence against evolution, as I have pointed out, and no one has been able to produce any conclusive evidence for it - and I don't mean just on this forum, I mean anywhere. No one has been able to show a species evolve to another species, and current genetic understanding expressly negates the possibility.

Since you need to learn for yourself, I would suggest you see how random mutation works through a simplified simulator. It is not perfect IMO, but it will get the point across that random mutation doesn't work. Yes, it is from a pro-ID site, but the math is correct regardless.
http://progettocosmo.altervista.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=102

[BABY J]

Why do people laugh at creationists??? Because they make it easy...duh. This is a 22 part series, here's the first 11. Good for a sh*t-ton of laughs at these brainwashed illiterates.




www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY



--> second video about 2:40 in listen to that then at 3:00 the guy says What a crock of ****. lmao. I lost it laughed pretty good.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttnU8Tbwtd0

[Sledlude]

There is ample scientific evidence against evolution, as I have pointed out, and no one has been able to produce any conclusive evidence for it - and I don't mean just on this forum, I mean anywhere. No one has been able to show a species evolve to another species, and current genetic understanding expressly negates the possibility.




What is a species? it is described as a group of organisms that can only reproduce with itself. correct? Evolution is a process that has been described as taking millions of years- the evolution of a macroorganism takes too long to be noticeably to human observers. HOWEVER... we can look at microorganisms, such as bacteria. They are evolving before our eyes. Natural selection occurs everyday in these organisms. Look at antibiotic resistant strains! Genes for antibiotic resistance can be transferred from one bacterium to another (a process called transduction). Once a bacterium has acquired the genes for antibiotic resistance, it is no longer susceptible to being killed off by said antibiotic, nor are its daughter cells. Ever heard of MRSA or VRSA staphylococcus? These strains have acquired serious resistance and are virtually untreatable by conventional antibiotics. This phenomenon is pretty much explained by OUR overuse of antibiotics (remember, back in the day, they prescribed penicillin for everything). After some horizontal gene transfer, and killing off of susceptible organisms, resistant strains have emerged ('evolved', if you will ;) ) Natural selection/evolution before your eyes, homeboy.

It is observable to us in these organisms because of their extremely small generation times. You also see this in mice that are resistant to pesticides, in weeds that are resistant to herbicides, etc. etc.... For larger, k-selected species (that take forever to establish a new generation), evolutionary change takes way too long for us to notice. Now that we have written history, lets see in a few thousand years (if we are still around) what kind of changes our species has made, and what characteristics we will have acquired. It should be interesting!!!

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to David88vert again.

Thank you for intelligent debate.

[David88vert]

What is a species? it is described as a group of organisms that can only reproduce with itself. correct? Evolution is a process that has been described as taking millions of years- the evolution of a macroorganism takes too long to be noticeably to human observers. HOWEVER... we can look at microorganisms, such as bacteria. They are evolving before our eyes. Natural selection occurs everyday in these organisms. Look at antibiotic resistant strains! Genes for antibiotic resistance can be transferred from one bacterium to another (a process called transduction). Once a bacterium has acquired the genes for antibiotic resistance, it is no longer susceptible to being killed off by said antibiotic, nor are its daughter cells. Ever heard of MRSA or VRSA staphylococcus? These strains have acquired serious resistance and are virtually untreatable by conventional antibiotics. This phenomenon is pretty much explained by OUR overuse of antibiotics (remember, back in the day, they prescribed penicillin for everything). After some horizontal gene transfer, and killing off of susceptible organisms, resistant strains have emerged ('evolved', if you will ;) ) Natural selection/evolution before your eyes, homeboy.

It is observable to us in these organisms because of their extremely small generation times. You also see this in mice that are resistant to pesticides, in weeds that are resistant to herbicides, etc. etc.... For larger, k-selected species (that take forever to establish a new generation), evolutionary change takes way too long for us to notice. Now that we have written history, lets see in a few thousand years (if we are still around) what kind of changes our species has made, and what characteristics we will have acquired. It should be interesting!!!

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to David88vert again.

Thank you for intelligent debate.

Ah, bacteria - a good, logical statement from you. :D Only a couple of things were left out. Bacteria that mutate their DNA tend to not be as effective at doing their intended task, nor do they tend to reproduce as well. Natural selection "should" improve the bacteria, correct? That's not the case currently with mutated bacteria. Their defective proteins tend to lose normal functionality based upon current observations. Mutated bateria do not gain any funtionality that we are aware of currently, correct?
Horizonal gene transfer is capable in bacteria, but not humans or complex life forms. While bateria can swap DNA genes, they are not creating any new genes, and thus cannot create new, more complex species (like people). You are just swapping genes around, but you are not creating new genetic information.

Mutation and natural selection lead to a loss of functionality, not the creation of it. Genetic information is not created, only modified. That is not evolution, as it is not evolving to a higher level.

Evolution from a species to species change must be done at the genetic level. With somewhere between 5-30 million species on earth, there has not been found in nature any example of one genetic strain inside the cell gradually evolving (creating new information) into another functional genetic strain.

However, I applaud you on your post. It was much better than anyone else so far.:goodjob:

[Sledlude]

Ah, bacteria - a good, logical statement from you. :D Only a couple of things were left out. Bacteria that mutate their DNA tend to not be as effective at doing their intended task, nor do they tend to reproduce as well.
Not necessarily! It is true that a mutation leads to a loss of function of that particular gene, but what it can also do is change the primary sequence of amino acids, which can lead to the expression of a completely different protein. Sometimes these changes are not beneficial, and sometimes they are. Thats the reason we can genetically alter bacterial genomes to be more productive, that is, reproductively or otherwise. We already clone 'superbugs' to be more useful to us industrially (think yeast cells that are genetically optimized to make more productive beer fermentations, (and these are eukaryotic cells- way more complex than bacteria)). Another example of mutation leading to more production- cancer cells. A loss of function caused by mutation here leads to uncontrollable reproduction of the cell- some are even resistant to therapy. They reproduce so much that they end up killing the body.


Natural selection "should" improve the bacteria, correct? That's not the case currently with mutated bacteria. Their defective proteins tend to lose normal functionality based upon current observations. Mutated bateria do not gain any funtionality that we are aware of currently, correct?
Horizonal gene transfer is capable in bacteria, but not humans or complex life forms. While bateria can swap DNA genes, they are not creating any new genes, and thus cannot create new, more complex species (like people). You are just swapping genes around, but you are not creating new genetic information.

natural selection doesnt necessarily require an improvement per se; just a selective advantage. Just some change in the organism that lets it survive and reproduce while other individuals cannot. And yes, mutations *can* create new genetic info. Like I said before, alteration of one basepair (which can happen easily) can lead to an entirely new protein.


Mutation and natural selection lead to a loss of functionality, not the creation of it. Genetic information is not created, only modified. That is not evolution, as it is not evolving to a higher level.

Ever heard of transposons? Bridge-break-fusion cycles? These phenomena totally have the potential to create novel genotypes. Genomes can also grow in size... genetic material is 'absorbed' by bacterial genomes all the time( a process called transformation). Anything that allows an organism to survive better, (whether it be by reproducing more, secreting exotoxins, being resistant to toxins, hell, even growing sharper teeth) will lead to its natural selection.

A good example of a bacterial genome growing in size and undergoing a mutation that gives it a selective advantage is V. cholerae. It has recently been found that resistant strains of this organism were made resistant because their genomes absorbed the resistance-encoding genome of a bacteriophage. Cool Stuff!

[qwick]

No one has been able to show a species evolve to another species[/size], and current genetic understanding expressly negates the possibility.


There are many instances where the" family tree” of a species splits and becomes a seemingly different type of species thus giving rise to the term “a close cousin” where referring to similar species that came from the same ancestor took different “path of evolution” caused by differences in habitat, climate or a number of other reasons. An example would be dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were more closely related to reptiles, and it has been shown that the “family tree” split and gave rise to modern day reptiles and birds.

[01CDMLUDER]

god would win! lol

[David88vert]

There are many instances where the" family tree” of a species splits and becomes a seemingly different type of species thus giving rise to the term “a close cousin” where referring to similar species that came from the same ancestor took different “path of evolution” caused by differences in habitat, climate or a number of other reasons. An example would be dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were more closely related to reptiles, and it has been shown that the “family tree” split and gave rise to modern day reptiles and birds.

No scientist has been able to show a proveable genetic path between two species. Family tree splits have been speculation only. Genetic proof has not been shown.

Let me guess, you have been reading EvilBible. :D

[d993s]

With the amount of evidence regarding proof of God that we have so far in the last couple thousand years........it amounts to nothing.
Nothing.
Faith itself won't ever prove something unless it becomes reality, and until it does, it's just plain stupid to have faith in something that has never been seen.
Yes that may defy the reasoning behind faith.......but IMO it's nothing but parental control for adults who think they need it to stay "good" or "go to heaven" etc etc etc.

Humans have been searching for immortality for thousands of years, and so far they've come up with nothing except their religious beliefs that if they're good and beleive they will go to heaven etc etc etc.
You're born, you live, then you die. The next generation follows. Just like every other species on earth. DEAL WITH IT! The only thing we can do so far is leave our mark and hopefully throughout the generations advance far enough to conquer life's problems, time travel, and maybe immortality.

[qwick]

No scientist has been able to show a proveable genetic path between two species. Family tree splits have been speculation only. Genetic proof has not been shown.

Let me guess, you have been reading EvilBible. :D

There is significant evidence that some species of Raptors evolved over time to have both scales and feathers, and that as these species moved to different areas the scales or feathers became a more and more dominate trait. In fact fossils have been found where the animal was completely covered in feathers and some of the bones interior were porous while a few hundred miles away the same species was found with only scales and a sold bone interior. This evidence alone supports the theory that some dinosaurs evolved to both birds and reptiles.



No I have never read EvilBible but I was told it is interesting, Your opinion on the book?

[mastermech]

It has been a considerable amount of time since I commented on this topic but, I choose to do so now. David88Vert decent defense, and i appreciate how much of the subject you actually understand and comprehend.

E20Kid: I am avidly interested in your proof of the evolution of Raptors into that of Birds of flight(having feathers), beyond the movie Jurassic Park I have seen no solid proof, foundation, or credible information that leads to the conclusion that Raptors evolved into feathered creatures. The studies which I have seen prove that Raptors as well as the creature known as dromaeosaurid(what youre referring to as feathered raptors) always coexisted. If the current understanding of Evolution is correct then the co-existence of the predecessor as well as the Evolved creature a complication arises. One can not evolve into whats considered its advanced evolutionary form if both always existed. Also from current records, the earliest birds are found in what we consider the early Jurassic. And the oldest raptor we currently know of is from the late Jurassic. Therefore if Birds already existed then they could not have been the advanced Evolutionary form of the Raptor. Thoughts?

Sledlude: You seem also to be knowledgeable concerning this topic. Do you have proof of a mutation that resulted in a positive mutation? From the research which I have first hand experience in as well as the research I have evaluated I have not seen any mutation which was passed to the next generation consistently and in a manner that the next generation used to its advantage. I find interesting that you would state that the mutation does not have to be good but, just provide a selective advantage. And then use cancer as your example, Cancer brings no advantage but instead causes major damage to the cells because of rapid reproduction, depleted oxygen, faster cell death, and also depleted nutrient sources. What advantage does cancer supply?

[David88vert]

Not necessarily! It is true that a mutation leads to a loss of function of that particular gene, but what it can also do is change the primary sequence of amino acids, which can lead to the expression of a completely different protein. Sometimes these changes are not beneficial, and sometimes they are. Thats the reason we can genetically alter bacterial genomes to be more productive, that is, reproductively or otherwise. We already clone 'superbugs' to be more useful to us industrially (think yeast cells that are genetically optimized to make more productive beer fermentations, (and these are eukaryotic cells- way more complex than bacteria)). Another example of mutation leading to more production- cancer cells. A loss of function caused by mutation here leads to uncontrollable reproduction of the cell- some are even resistant to therapy. They reproduce so much that they end up killing the body.


Changing characteristics is not creating new species. And currently, we cannot even artifically create a new species with a single cell - although we are getting close. Going from microbes-to-man is a much larger task, and not even remotely possible in the near future. Cancer cells function is to kill the body - antibodies are used against it, and slow it, that does not make it function better.



natural selection doesnt necessarily require an improvement per se; just a selective advantage. Just some change in the organism that lets it survive and reproduce while other individuals cannot. And yes, mutations *can* create new genetic info. Like I said before, alteration of one basepair (which can happen easily) can lead to an entirely new protein.


Evolution does require an improvement, per the definition of the word. Natural selection is the proposed means. Alteration of characteristics do not create new species. If I remember correctly, you need at least a 5 molecule sequence to change and reproduce into other cells to have a genetic improvement (You will have to check me and keep me honest on this). That has yet to happen and be observed naturally.



Ever heard of transposons? Bridge-break-fusion cycles? These phenomena totally have the potential to create novel genotypes. Genomes can also grow in size... genetic material is 'absorbed' by bacterial genomes all the time( a process called transformation). Anything that allows an organism to survive better, (whether it be by reproducing more, secreting exotoxins, being resistant to toxins, hell, even growing sharper teeth) will lead to its natural selection.

A good example of a bacterial genome growing in size and undergoing a mutation that gives it a selective advantage is V. cholerae. It has recently been found that resistant strains of this organism were made resistant because their genomes absorbed the resistance-encoding genome of a bacteriophage. Cool Stuff!
Yes, and I have read a lot of Kimball's links (I'm guessing you were there). I haven't really read anything much on cholera, but if you will post some links to research, I will be happy to read up on it, and check some other research sites on it. I have now managed to suck you into genetics!:D It is cool stuff.

A+ to you for a very good post.

[David88vert]

There is significant evidence that some species of Raptors evolved over time to have both scales and feathers, and that as these species moved to different areas the scales or feathers became a more and more dominate trait. In fact fossils have been found where the animal was completely covered in feathers and some of the bones interior were porous while a few hundred miles away the same species was found with only scales and a sold bone interior. This evidence alone supports the theory that some dinosaurs evolved to both birds and reptiles.

Speculation. Please show the research supporting this.




No I have never read EvilBible but I was told it is interesting, Your opinion on the book?
evilbible.com is a site.

[qwick]

If the current understanding of Evolution is correct then the co-existence of the predecessor as well as the Evolved creature a complication arises. One can not evolve into whats considered its advanced evolutionary form if both always existed.

My current understanding of evolution is that of a “ripple effect” at first one or two individuals gain an evolutionary advantage then pass that trait own to offspring thus multiplying the number of evolved individuals. As the number of evolved individuals increase the number of non-evolved individuals decreases thus for a short time (a few hundred years) there is a co-existence of both non-evolved and evolved.

To explain how one species splits and evolves into two seemingly different species is left to the fact that almost all animals current and prehistoric migrate until they find areas suitable to sustain them. Even in modern day animals it is true that when a large group of animals migrates not all of the animals choose to leave a give area thus leading to different paths of evolution. Obviously an evolutionary advantage in one area may not and usually does not translate to an advantage in another area.



As for finding research to back up my previous statements of the scaled and feathered raptors it will be a few days because I am having to go out of town for work but I will post my findings ASAP.

[Sledlude]

Yes, and I have read a lot of Kimball's links (I'm guessing you were there). I haven't really read anything much on cholera, but if you will post some links to research, I will be happy to read up on it, and check some other research sites on it. I have now managed to suck you into genetics!:D It is cool stuff.

A+ to you for a very good post.

Nope, this is straight off the dome from me... you didn't suck me into anything! Its what I do! I am actively involved in microbiology and molecular biology research. As we speak, I am growing competent E. Coli cells so that I can transform them with a plasmid containing a gene that I am trying to express. :D I know a thing or two about manipulating genomes.

I will get back to the rest of your post later, as I have a lot to say about that. A lil' hungover, not thinking straight, and too much to do at the moment

[Sledlude]

David88vert and mechman, here is a link to some literature that discusses v. cholera... The topic of the paper is climate change and the effect that has on infectivity of certain organisms, but if you skip down to page 759 and onwards, you'll see what I'm talking about. If the link will not let you access the paper, here is the citation:

Lipp, E.K., A. Huq, R.R. Colwell. 2002. Effects of global climate on infectious disease: the Cholera model. Clin. Microbiol.Rev. 4:757-770.

This is published info regarding mutations that result in a change in phenotype that result in the organism having a selective advantage. I'll come back n post on the rest later. Happy reading! :crazy:

[David88vert]

David88vert and mechman, here is a link to some literature that discusses v. cholera... The topic of the paper is climate change and the effect that has on infectivity of certain organisms, but if you skip down to page 759 and onwards, you'll see what I'm talking about. If the link will not let you access the paper, here is the citation:

Lipp, E.K., A. Huq, R.R. Colwell. 2002. Effects of global climate on infectious disease: the Cholera model. Clin. Microbiol.Rev. 4:757-770.

This is published info regarding mutations that result in a change in phenotype that result in the organism having a selective advantage. I'll come back n post on the rest later. Happy reading! :crazy:

No link listed there. I assume that you are refering to this article though.
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/15/4/757

This is only 14 pages long in PDF. Is there another paper? This one is the effect of climate change, not genetic change, unless I am missing something. Some help please?

[David88vert]

I will get back to the rest of your post later, as I have a lot to say about that. A lil' hungover, not thinking straight, and too much to do at the moment

That's cool. I am actually very busy lately also, so I can't always jump on here. It's not like we are changing the world, just having good discussion.

[Maniaç]

I am avidly interested in your proof of the evolution of Raptors into that of Birds of flight(having feathers), beyond the movie Jurassic Park I have seen no solid proof, foundation, or credible information that leads to the conclusion that Raptors evolved into feathered creatures. The studies which I have seen prove that Raptors as well as the creature known as dromaeosaurid(what youre referring to as feathered raptors) always coexisted. If the current understanding of Evolution is correct then the co-existence of the predecessor as well as the Evolved creature a complication arises. One can not evolve into whats considered its advanced evolutionary form if both always existed. Also from current records, the earliest birds are found in what we consider the early Jurassic. And the oldest raptor we currently know of is from the late Jurassic. Therefore if Birds already existed then they could not have been the advanced Evolutionary form of the Raptor. Thoughts?I've read on some experiments that some scientists are conducting. They're doing something with the dna on some bird(forgot the name, will look for it later) and notice that the embryo changes. The bird, grows teeth, similier to a raptor. Another one also grew feathers, or what looked to be feathers.

This experiment or act of devolution should be proof that our current birds do have some characteristics very simlier to dinosaurs. Not saying they came straight out of the Jurassic period but im sure this should be some nice evidence that can back up evolution.

[Sledlude]

^^ OH word.... another thing I forgot to mention.... vestigial body parts. As in organs or parts that we possess but have absolutely no use for, ie. coccyx (tailbone, as in, our progenitor had a tail), appendix (remnant of a cecum), also why do human embryos have gill slits? why do human embryos have tails? during embryonic development, it seems that our phylogenetic history is conserved.

And about the cholera paper--- as i said, skip to page 759, thats where it talks about these infectivity genes that the bacterium absorbed from bacteriophage (pathogenecity island).

[Sledlude]

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/images/1-2-3-1-5-0-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

Human embryo <4 weeks.

[David88vert]

^^ OH word.... another thing I forgot to mention.... vestigial body parts. As in organs or parts that we possess but have absolutely no use for, ie. coccyx (tailbone, as in, our progenitor had a tail), appendix (remnant of a cecum), also why do human embryos have gill slits? why do human embryos have tails? during embryonic development, it seems that our phylogenetic history is conserved.

And about the cholera paper--- as i said, skip to page 759, thats where it talks about these infectivity genes that the bacterium absorbed from bacteriophage (pathogenecity island).

The one that I found online was only 14 pages long - so I couldn't find p.759. ;) Like I said, I can use help finding the right pdf.


Gills? Are you referring to Haeckel's biogenetic law? That was disproven back int he 1800's but still persists today.
Fact: Mammalian embryos never had gills in any sense of the word. The notion of gills is based upon the presence of four pharyngeal arches and pouches that bear a superficial resemblance to gills. While similar arches do give rise to gills in certain aquatic vertebrates such as fish, in mammals, these four arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands. They are not gills.

Appendix? If evolution is correc, then a tailed mammal without an appendix gave rise to a monkey with a tail but still without an appendix, which then gave rise to an ape without a tail but with an appendix, and then on to man where the appendix has developed to the extreme. See the problem with that scenario?:D

You are putting some pretty good questions up though. Keep it up.:D

[Sledlude]

^^ the pages are numbered 7xx-7xx on the bottom. that is a published peer-reviewed journal article, so the pages are not really 1-14, theyre numbered according to how they appear in the journal.

on the side of the page where the link leads, there should be another link that says "full text pdf". here is where u will find pages numbered like that.

will be back about the rest ;)

[David88vert]

^^ the pages are numbered 7xx-7xx on the bottom. that is a published peer-reviewed journal article, so the pages are not really 1-14, theyre numbered according to how they appear in the journal.

on the side of the page where the link leads, there should be another link that says "full text pdf". here is where u will find pages numbered like that.

will be back about the rest ;)

http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/15/4/757
I used the "Full Text (PDF)" link on the left. 14 pages only. Is this the correct article?

[Maniaç]

ttmft anyone else want to post up their opinion on the subject lol?

[stillaneon]

whats the difference? both subjects have truth and false beliefs. Both are based on faith. Religion is just a version of science for the common man...

[CobraClone]

Wow. This thread is DEEP. I've only read through page 6, does someone have some cliff notes for the rest or should I continue reading before I comment? Or should I comment? I'm not sure where I would start.

[soul]

Wow. This thread is DEEP. I've only read through page 6, does someone have some cliff notes for the rest or should I continue reading before I comment? Or should I comment? I'm not sure where I would start.
no such things as cliffnotes in this thread, read it then post please

[MistaCee]

Think about it for a sec. I mean REALLY think about it. Do you think GOD placed us here, the "first" human beings were Adam and Eve, correct? So they produced children, those children screwed each other, did it again next generation, did it the next and the next? No way in hell man...

Religion is a business, nothing more.

So what your saying is that people evolved from tiny germs in the water?:thinking: Wouldn't that still be happening then. Next time I see a monkey I am going to tell him he'll be human in the next 100 years. No way in hell man.

[CobraClone]

Well, so far (p.8&9) JDMEK18 shares alot of the same views I have.

[TheProfiteer]

So what your saying is that people evolved from tiny germs in the water?:thinking: Wouldn't that still be happening then. Next time I see a monkey I am going to tell him he'll be human in the next 100 years. No way in hell man.

Watch this, just because this post is long, the jesus freaks will skip right over it.

Man, evolution is not a process that happens within 100 years, or a thousand years. Hundreds of thousands of years are necessary for even a trace of any significant evolution of a gentic code, or at least things that are noticible.
If the mind can evolve the body can evolve along with it, but a mind cannot evolve past the limitiations of its genetic code until the genetic code has evolved significantly. And the only thing that causes genetic evolution in the wild natural world is the necessity to survive. Humans with no natural predator other than themsleves have no need to physically evolve.

THINK and break life, the world, the universe, and then yourself down into parts. Only then will you come to grips that DNA is a simple combination of various Hydro-Carbon compounds. We are made of the same thing that everything else is made of, we all come from the same source.

OMG IS IT GOD!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:gay: (If you think so you can stop reading here ignorant jesus phucks and holy rollers)


No its the earth. With alot of influence from the sun.

You know whats funny, its that just because we know the speed of light, we are able to hypotheticaly glimpse back in time and almost see the begging of the universe.

The Universe is so much more complex then any Idea of God will ever be able to explain.

Only science and a love and faith for the source of our life will give us the answer we are desperatly looking for.

Who we are, and why we are here!

[One_Bad_SHO]

Wellll.... you gotta keep into consideration that practically every culture from every corner of the earth since we've been on this planet has worshiped some sort of god. Even tribes that are in the deep rainforests segregated from any human contact worship A god.

Coincidence? I think not.

I belive that as centuries passed, bible interpretations and personal beliefs altered a cultures "god" to be what that culture finds socially acceptable and morally ethicle. In the end, we all worship the same god. We just see him in different aspects and worship him in different ways.

Sure, its easy to believe evolution and disregard religion because its not scientifically proven. Miracles cant be proven by science either but most of us have witnessed some sort of miracle, have you not?

Coincidence? I think not.

I went to McDonalds the other day and asked for the Big Mac meal. When I received my meal, it was supersized. I didnt ask for that nor pay for it.

Coincidence? I think not.

And seriously.... rain on your wedding day and 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife is NOT ironic.

[type_r]

Everyone should watch zeitgeist in here if they haven't......
Now onto my thoughts. My parents attempted to raise me a good christian boy, never worked as my intelligent thought processes denied it. I'm not trying to insult Christians, most of them are very good people. However, I think Christianity is somewhat of a utopian dreamworld so to speak. I think people only want to believe in a god because they are scared that this life is all they have, that they need God to open his arms and take them into heaven. Sorry, I'm not buyin it. All religion is is an easy explanation. Yes, I'm sure you feel Jesus inside of you. I'm also sure your mind is capable of creating any sort of sense of Jesus' presence within you. And as for your near death experience where Jesus reached out to you, ever heard of DMT? When the body senses it's about to die it releases a massive quantity of DMT into your brain(i.e. you trip nuts right before you die). The human brain is capable of thinking up absolutely anything, your average everyday Joe will think of some crazy **** thousands of times during the process of a lifetime. Religion is an unexplained crutch used by a corrupted "parish" used to gain wealth and control. Christianity is responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, **** every mass murderer in the world put together. The Bible is full of so many lies and stolen ideas. It's mind blowing how truly full of **** most religions are. Of course trying to debate these points with a religious person is pointless, although I do sometimes find it hard to engage in conversation with someone who thinks I'm on the road to a fiery eternity for simply thinking.......

[CobraClone]

I watched the video at the beginning. All it shows is that many different cultures have beleived in a God. Just because they have different names for that God does not mean they are not the same God. We as a people have a tendency to make God what we want him to be, therefore changing things here and there to make things more pleasing to us. If many forms of christianity truely beleived the bible as they say they do, there religions and practices would be considerably different than they are now.

I think many people do not beleive in God because they are afraid of the consequences they will have to face.

God speaks symbolically. In the bible Jesus often spoke in parables.

Christianity has been around since the beginning of this earth making it the first and longest lasting religion. When this earth was created, God (The Father) already knew he would send his Only Begotten (Jesus) to the earth to sacrifice his life for the world. This is the reason for the sacrifices of animals before the time of Jesus. It was symbolic. You sacrified the firstling of your flocks. The reason this is not done anymore is because it doesn't need to be. Jesus has already fulfilled that task.

I also beleive the fire and brimstone is symbolically speaking. You will not literally be in a place of fire an brimstone, but it will seem as such to you because of the lack of light (presence of God). No unclean thing can be in the presence of God. So the whaling, nashing of teeth, etc. will be caused by our own aguish created by ourselves for knowing what we could have had but chose not to receive it.

God is just and will give everyone a fair chance. If not given that chance in this life you will receive that chance after this life.

Last, but definitely not least. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change.

One more thing, I beleive we are NOT born evil or sinners. This is the reason Jesus taught we must become as children, or in other words innocent. I beleive we will be punished for our own sins and not for Adams transgression.

[lilmanx01]

WHY GOD??


Why can't you call him Allah ;)

[One_Bad_SHO]

Allah luvz teh c0ck.

[TheProfiteer]

Christianity has been around since the beginning of this earth making it the first and longest lasting religion. When this earth was created, God (The Father) already knew he would send his Only Begotten (Jesus) to the earth to sacrifice his life for the world. This is the reason for the sacrifices of animals before the time of Jesus. It was symbolic. You sacrified the firstling of your flocks. The reason this is not done anymore is because it doesn't need to be. Jesus has already fulfilled that task.



are you f u c k i n g serious???? PROVE THIS!!

FIRST and LONGEST Lasting Religion!?!?!??! I URGE YOU, cite something, ANYTHING, other than your worthless fairytale bible, and try to even attempt to prove this.

the idea of MONOTHEISM is not even concived untill the AGE of Moses, supposedly around 2000bc.

Let me ask you this, if god created the earth, and everything on it, then why did he create the rest of the universe?!?!? If life only exists on earth why the hell would god create all that rabble floating in spaces millions upon billions of light years away?!?!?!

They are billions of galaxys, stretching for billions of light years, containing billions of stars, and encompasing trillions of planets, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS IS, IF THE ONLY THING GOD IS WORRIED ABOUT IS THE EARTH AND THE SPECIAL PEOPLE ON IT!?!?!?


the idea of a god is inhernt to human beings because of our development of sentience, we ask a question then we seek an answer, and the easiest way to answer the question of who we are and where we are going, is god.

It really comes down to this, religion is preventing intellectual evolution, because instead of continuing the search for an answer we accept a stupid fairytale story, that has absolutely no logical grounds or basis.

[TheProfiteer]

Everyone should watch zeitgeist in here if they haven't......
Now onto my thoughts. My parents attempted to raise me a good christian boy, never worked as my intelligent thought processes denied it. I'm not trying to insult Christians, most of them are very good people. However, I think Christianity is somewhat of a utopian dreamworld so to speak. I think people only want to believe in a god because they are scared that this life is all they have, that they need God to open his arms and take them into heaven. Sorry, I'm not buyin it. All religion is is an easy explanation. Yes, I'm sure you feel Jesus inside of you. I'm also sure your mind is capable of creating any sort of sense of Jesus' presence within you. And as for your near death experience where Jesus reached out to you, ever heard of DMT? When the body senses it's about to die it releases a massive quantity of DMT into your brain(i.e. you trip nuts right before you die). The human brain is capable of thinking up absolutely anything, your average everyday Joe will think of some crazy **** thousands of times during the process of a lifetime. Religion is an unexplained crutch used by a corrupted "parish" used to gain wealth and control. Christianity is responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, **** every mass murderer in the world put together. The Bible is full of so many lies and stolen ideas. It's mind blowing how truly full of **** most religions are. Of course trying to debate these points with a religious person is pointless, although I do sometimes find it hard to engage in conversation with someone who thinks I'm on the road to a fiery eternity for simply thinking.......


troof and troof all the way :goodjob:

[lilmanx01]

Allah luvz teh c0ck.


SO your saying..GOD luvz teh c0ck?? :thinking:

[CobraClone]

are you f u c k i n g serious???? PROVE THIS!!

FIRST and LONGEST Lasting Religion!?!?!??! I URGE YOU, cite something, ANYTHING, other than your worthless fairytale bible, and try to even attempt to prove this.

the idea of MONOTHEISM is not even concived untill the AGE of Moses, supposedly around 2000bc.

Let me ask you this, if god created the earth, and everything on it, then why did he create the rest of the universe?!?!? If life only exists on earth why the hell would god create all that rabble floating in spaces millions upon billions of light years away?!?!?!

They are billions of galaxys, stretching for billions of light years, containing billions of stars, and encompasing trillions of planets, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS IS, IF THE ONLY THING GOD IS WORRIED ABOUT IS THE EARTH AND THE SPECIAL PEOPLE ON IT!?!?!?


the idea of a god is inhernt to human beings because of our development of sentience, we ask a question then we seek an answer, and the easiest way to answer the question of who we are and where we are going, is god.

It really comes down to this, religion is preventing intellectual evolution, because instead of continuing the search for an answer we accept a stupid fairytale story, that has absolutely no logical grounds or basis.


Now you are getting really in depth, where alot of christians are afraid to even venture.

Who said this is the only planet in the universe with life on it?
Who said God did not create worlds without end? Worlds we could not even begin to number.

Just because we cannot see them does not mean they are not there.
We cannot even begin to grasp the consept of everthing in this world or even how our own bodys function, etc., etc.
The life and being of other planet out of our solar system is not of importance for our eternal well being. Therefore we will probably not know about them in this lifetime. Does that mean stop researching the solar system, galaxy, universe? No. We were given intelligence and are expected to use it.

There is, nor will there ever be any way for one person to prove this to another. You can talk and debate all you want, but the only way to receive an answer to these questions is to truely want to know. If you truely want to know you have to pray about it. Even by doing this you probably are not going to have this great vision, but I promise you will know.

I beleive the reason for this life is to be tested and to prove ourselves. Once you know God exists by seeing Him for yourself you can no longer be tested. You know for a fact and need no faith. This is what everyone wants, to know the answers to the test before taking or without having to take the test.

[CobraClone]

To be clear on christianity being around since the beginning, and I know this is speculation to you, but humor me and think about it.

God created the world knowing before hand that he would sacrifice His Son.
This is where sacrifice originated. It was always symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ.
Everything in this world is symbolic. People say we made these stories up from the way the universe functions. Ex. Astronomy, seasons, the rise and fall of the sun in the sky, etc. In reality if you reverse the roles you see that all of those things symbolize the ultimate sacrifice for this world, the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ.

[type_r]

Oh, uh, well the pope's astronomer says you can still be faithful and believe in aliens............lol

I'm sorry bro but the Earth is not 2000 years old. No matter what your bible tells you it is a giant plagiarism, organisms have existed far beyond 2000 years ago. On top of this, Jesus wasn't even a real person. There is absolutely no documentation of Jesus' existance, and the only attempts at proving his existence were fraudulent. Christians need to give it up, it is a religion based on falsehoods and assumptions. I personally believe we were put here, but nobody on earth will ever explain by who or why. Scientology is as valid as Christianity is.

[CobraClone]

Who said the earth was only 2000 years old? 7000? 10000?

The earth can be much much older than that. In the bible it states that there where people who lived for 900+ years, if you add up some of those people you would have over 10000 years alone before you even get out of genesis.

Besides that most people beleive that Gods time is different than our time. So, we can't really say how long that 7 day period was. We also don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden before they were cast out. This leaves so much time unaccounted for that we could not even begin to speculate how old the world is according to the bible.

[TIGERJC]

I believe in the ole mighty dollar, no god or gods can compete with that

[type_r]

Who said the earth was only 2000 years old? 7000? 10000?

The earth can be much much older than that. In the bible it states that there where people who lived for 900+ years, if you add up some of those people you would have over 10000 years alone before you even get out of genesis.

Besides that most people beleive that Gods time is different than our time. So, we can't really say how long that 7 day period was. We also don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden before they were cast out. This leaves so much time unaccounted for that we could not even begin to speculate how old the world is according to the bible.

Yes, most may believe that. But the Christian faith is based solely on speculation. You seem to know what you're talking about, yes, but even an educated Christian such as yourself has to admit that Christianity leaves too many holes in its explanations, too much is left out. What exactly was going on while Adam and Eve were in the garden-what happened in between then and the present time that can account for the world's massive population? Did millions of people just appear? It just doesn't make sense. I'm not too well versed in the Bible but I do have the understanding that it does leave a lot to be desired. I just think that organized religion isn't an accurate way to explain creation, there are too many religions out there claiming to be true. What's your take on Pagan religions? Were they just wrong? I mean yes Christianity is obviously the most popular choice but it doesn't hold any more water in its explanations than any other religious theory. I'm not some atheist jackass that's constantly screaming "SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!" as I believe science is inherently flawed, anything created by man is inherently flawed in that it's our creation. The only explanation available for why we're here and how the world works will come directly from the source.

[CobraClone]

as I believe science is inherently flawed, anything created by man is inherently flawed in that it's our creation. The only explanation available for why we're here and how the world works will come directly from the source.


This final statement of yours is exactly right and pretty much sums it all up.

This is why you should not take anyones word for it. Just because someone says it is true doesn't mean you should beleive it.

The bible even states this. Because we are not perfect and noone has complete knowledge of anything. (I have not quoted any scripture till now because I know to someone who does not beleive in it, it will have no meaning. But for this I want to give an example.)

It states in The Epistle of James chapter 1 verse 5-6 :

5 - If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 - But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave on the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So, I agree with you 100%. We all lack wisdom. The only way we will receive an answer to these questions is straight from the source, God.

[TIGERJC]

This final statement of yours is exactly right and pretty much sums it all up.

This is why you should not take anyones word for it. Just because someone says it is true doesn't mean you should beleive it.

The bible even states this. Because we are not perfect and noone has complete knowledge of anything. (I have not quoted any scripture till now because I know to someone who does not beleive in it, it will have no meaning. But for this I want to give an example.)

It states in The Epistle of James chapter 1 verse 5-6 :

5 - If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 - But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave on the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So, I agree with you 100%. We all lack wisdom. The only way we will receive an answer to these questions is straight from the source, God.
so when was the last time God talked to you? and what did he say?
and
Can you ask him for the winning lottery numbers for the Friday drawing

[type_r]

This final statement of yours is exactly right and pretty much sums it all up.

This is why you should not take anyones word for it. Just because someone says it is true doesn't mean you should beleive it.

The bible even states this. Because we are not perfect and noone has complete knowledge of anything. (I have not quoted any scripture till now because I know to someone who does not beleive in it, it will have no meaning. But for this I want to give an example.)

It states in The Epistle of James chapter 1 verse 5-6 :

5 - If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 - But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave on the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So, I agree with you 100%. We all lack wisdom. The only way we will receive an answer to these questions is straight from the source, God.

So then are you saying that you define the Bible as more of guidelines than a concrete explanation? I would understand that view a lot more in regards to religion. The one major issue I have with Christians(and all religions in this case) is that they view their books as truth, when in reality they were all written by man and thus are a flawed means of explanation. I do understand using religious books as more of a means of suggestion, not definition. I dont believe in defining a single sect as right as all religions are created by people, meaning they will all have their different explanations of what is essentially the same goal-to find God. The possibilites are so vast it just doesn't make sense to me to pick and choose what explanation you think is right. Despite this I guess we have common grounds in that final truth that none of us can explain anything except through FAITH. Reps for good discussion.

[CobraClone]

So then are you saying that you define the Bible as more of guidelines than a concrete explanation? I would understand that view a lot more in regards to religion. The one major issue I have with Christians(and all religions in this case) is that they view their books as truth, when in reality they were all written by man and thus are a flawed means of explanation. I do understand using religious books as more of a means of suggestion, not definition. I dont believe in defining a single sect as right as all religions are created by people, meaning they will all have their different explanations of what is essentially the same goal-to find God. The possibilites are so vast it just doesn't make sense to me to pick and choose what explanation you think is right. Despite this I guess we have common grounds in that final truth that none of us can explain anything except through FAITH. Reps for good discussion.


This is hard to explain. I beleive the bible to be the word of God as long as it is traslated correctly. We know that there are many errors in the bibles translation, but I beleive the most part of it is true. I think everyone can agree that it is sometimes difficult to see the line where they stop speaking about events in their lives and start speaking about visions they have had, or giving examples in parables. These visions are almost always symbolic for events to come.

I beleive there is one true gospel, and that all other religions stem from this. I beleive this is the reason that all religions have things in common. They all have form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. In other words, they have parts of the truth, but don't have all of it.

For those who beleive the bible, there were prophets called of God, who lead the beleivers in Christ according to His will. When Jesus walked the earth he was this prophet, and he called apostles to follow him and taught them the things they needed and gave them the authority to act in his name and do His Fathers work.

I beleive the true gospel is on the earth today. This religions leader, the head of the church, is Jesus Christ and He has called prophets and apostles and given them authority to act in his name on this earth. To act in the name of Christ you need authority given you from Him or those he has given authority to do so. This is not done by going to school or just learning the gospel.

Again, if you do not beleive the bible you have to truely seek the truth for yourself.

If you do beleive the bible, you must beleive this is the organization of Jesus Christs church. If you do not, you cannot say you beleive the bible.


To TIGERJC: God speaks to us through the Holy Ghost. It will most likely not be physical words that we hear, but feelings and emotions. The Holy Ghost speaks to us all the time, if we just listen. It's just alot of other things are expained, "use it or lose it." If you never listen, it will take time for you to recognize these times and understand.

[CobraClone]

Type r, I would give reps to you as well, but I don't know how. Let me know, and I will. Very good discussion.

[type_r]

Ok. I understand what you're getting at but I still dont believe it lol. Of course it's nothing personal, thank you for not getting offended and throwing the fire and brimstone routine at me like many Christians have. I like starting these debates at school because sadly your religion is full of many angry, ignorant people. And btw go to a post and click on the justice scale looking thing in the top right corner to rep the person.

[soul]

To be clear on christianity being around since the beginning, and I know this is speculation to you, but humor me and think about it.

God created the world knowing before hand that he would sacrifice His Son.
This is where sacrifice originated. It was always symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ.
Everything in this world is symbolic. People say we made these stories up from the way the universe functions. Ex. Astronomy, seasons, the rise and fall of the sun in the sky, etc. In reality if you reverse the roles you see that all of those things symbolize the ultimate sacrifice for this world, the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ.
you ever think the bible might be based of those symbolisms and not the other way around? the bible if not mistaken was written by a few politico's and roman....

[WickedIXMR]

This thread is awesome LOL!

-Maniac

[CobraClone]

Ok. I understand what you're getting at but I still dont believe it lol. Of course it's nothing personal, thank you for not getting offended and throwing the fire and brimstone routine at me like many Christians have. I like starting these debates at school because sadly your religion is full of many angry, ignorant people. And btw go to a post and click on the justice scale looking thing in the top right corner to rep the person.


It cool, it's been a good discussion. I don't get offended or take anything personally. Everyone is intitled to there own beleifs. The things I have spoken of are my beleifs for my own personal reasons. Like I said before, I would never expect, or advise, anyone to belive anything, just because someone told them it is true.

You are right, far too many people do just that, get angry about it. I don't want to call them ignorant, but it is usually because they can't prove it and it makes them mad that people are right when they tell them so. I can't get mad about it because I beleive it with all my heart. I have proof enough for me and I can't, nor will I, force what I beleive on anyone else. I am more than happy to share my beleifs, but never with force or anger.

[CobraClone]

PS. Yours does not have a justice scale in the corner. Everyone elses seems to, but yours does not. What's up with that?

[ARH1192]

I missed this thread somehow. I usually but in a give my 2cents on the god thing.

anyways, god is no more or less real then santa clause, the easter bunny, or tooth fairy. They all have books saying they are real.

the bible is just a book. it doesn't mean its are fact and there is a god just bc so many ppl seen the same thing and wrote about it yet never meet each other blah blah blah

there are millions of hill billy red necks that call UFO hotlines every year to say they seen a UFO.. u gonna believe them? its a millions of different ppl saying the same thing that dont know each other.

[CobraClone]

you ever think the bible might be based of those symbolisms and not the other way around? the bible if not mistaken was written by a few politico's and roman....


That's the point that was already made in the video at the beginning of this thread. I was doing what you are trying to do and think of the roles being reversed. The works included in the bible were written by Jews. That is why the original texts were in hebrew.

[CobraClone]

I missed this thread somehow. I usually but in a give my 2cents on the god thing.

anyways, god is no more or less real then santa clause, the easter bunny, or tooth fairy. They all have books saying they are real.

the bible is just a book. it doesn't mean its are fact and there is a god just bc so many ppl seen the same thing and wrote about it yet never meet each other blah blah blah

there are millions of hill billy red necks that call UFO hotlines every year to say they seen a UFO.. u gonna believe them? its a millions of different ppl saying the same thing that dont know each other.

As stated before, everyone is entitled to there own beleifs. It's is up to each of us to find out for ourselves.

PS. You are correct many people see UFO's. They really do see them, because they are real.
U - Unidentified
F - Flying
O - Object

Anytime someone cannot identify something flying, it is a UFO. Doesn't mean it is an alien ship from space. Just means they don't know what it is.:D

[fivex684]

Heres a good video on religion.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E