God vs. Science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sledlude

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by
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. [size=3

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.

god would win! lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k20kid

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sledlude

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sledlude

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sledlude

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k20kid

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k20kid

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

---

evilbible.com is a site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastermech

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sledlude

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mastermech

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.

^^ 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).

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-l...-0-0-0-0-0.jpg

Human embryo <4 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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

^^ 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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ;)

---

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?

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

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

no such things as cliffnotes in this thread, read it then post please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniac1

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MistaCee

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!

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.

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.......

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.

WHY GOD??


Why can't you call him Allah ;)

Allah luvz teh c0ck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CobraClone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.......

---

troof and troof all the way :goodjob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One_Bad_SHO

Allah luvz teh c0ck.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheProfiteer

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.

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.

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.

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.