To me religion in general was a way for people to explain the unexplainable, which can now be explained for the most part by science. Yes I understand that science has not been able to tell us how the universe began, but I know you sure as hell cant tell me where God came from. I also know that the bible says that God was always there, and always will be (Here is the scripture Where did God come from?) On the flip side couldn't I just say that the universe was always here? I mean if your logic says he was always here then why couldn't the Universe?
To answer the prayer question I have always found myself saying the same thing as almost everyone else here it is nothing more than a placebo. Answered prayers are nothing more than mere coincidences. For example lets say that you wished that something would happen and it happened, is this a prayer or a wish?
To the argument of morals do you guys really even know what the word morals means? I am assuming not. By definition the word morals means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. ". So yes most of you have the general grasp of morals for our culture, or the christian culture. You must understand that morals are made and defined by man. So what is to say that one mans morals are correct over another mans? the answer there isn't. I just like anyone else have my own set of rules that I live by I believe that we call it a conscious. Your conscious is your own set of moral codes that you personally defined. A set of codes that you follow in addition to those set by your culture. For those who wish to know what I am talking about you can wither spend the thousands of dollars that I have on college sociology courses to learn about other cultures norms and morals and take my word for it or read about the Arapesh just one of many that have a very different set of morals from us.
If there was tangible proof of God, of course anyone would easily believe.
What he's looking for is belief and faith even when there's none of that. He wants to know that you'll trust in him and believe that he's there even though there's no hardcore evidence to prove he exists.
If there was tangible proof of God, of course anyone would easily believe.
What he's looking for is belief and faith even when there's none of that. He wants to know that you'll trust in him and believe that he's there even though there's no hardcore evidence to prove he exists.
Yeah well no matter how hard I want to believe Tupac is alive, that doesn't mean he is.
Something I have a hard time fathoming is how most Christians follow the word of the Bible regardless of the many inconsistencies. If the Bible really is the word of God, why would He let it be marred with imperfection and loopholes? Is it not possible for the Bible to be a complete work of fiction, like a fairy-tale of sorts? What makes you think that the writers of the Bible weren't just creative writers with the means of spreading hope in bad times?
If I was Christian, I don't think I'd be able to follow the Bible through any method but faith, but what reason is there to put faith in something that has as much chance of being false as it does being true?
Now, put faith aside for this question. If you were approached with the option of carrying on into an after-life after a life-time of worshiping a higher power, but there was a 50% chance that you would never actually ascend/descend after your life of devotion, would you still take the risk?
I've heard this charge before, but whenever I ask for details, people either don't have any, or they're flat out wrong. Do you have any inconsistencies you'd like to point out?
50/50? Sounds like Islam or Catholisism, not Protestant Christianity. In both you are never eternally secure: in Islam it doesn't matter how good are bad you are, God can still send you wherever he wants, and in Catholisism if you have any sin on you when you die, you go to purgatory where only people who love you can save you by giving money, time, and prayers. Now, in Protestant Christianity, when Christ claims you as his, you are his, forever, no matter what you've done, no matter what you do. You could become a Christian, kill a hundred people, shoot yourself, and still go to Heaven. Granted, you will only cause God grief for your sin, but Jesus will still be your negotiator and protector, and you will still have guaranteed salvation. There's no 50/50 chance at all. The only gamble you take is on whether or not Christianity is true; if Christianity is true, well then, lucky you just got into Heaven. If, say, Secular Humanism is true, then you've lived your life in a way that made you happy, and then you died, just like anyone else. The only way you can lose, as far as these two faiths are concerned, is if you are not a Christian and Christianity is true. And even with other faiths, like Hinduism or Islam, you can still get into Heaven/Nirvana/etc. if you're lucky.
__________________
o/ lolBeatrice \o
Quote:
Originally Posted by #sos-dan
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: And no, no happying. <.<
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: fapping*
21:42 <vonPreussen>: Freudian typos xD
... and in Catholicism if you have any sin on you when you die, you go to purgatory where only people who love you can save you by giving money, time, and prayers.
WRONG! This may have been true over hundreds of years ago. Today just like your protestant churches the catholic church will accept donations to help pay for things. Yes prayers are used for those whom we have lost, just as you would pray for someone who is going through a difficult time. I do not know why almost all protestants accuse catholics of this whole money thing. They have not done this for over 300 years. I used to be a catholic, and I feel as if you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and I would greatly appreciate if you got your "facts" by observation not by what your pathetic priest has to say.
WRONG! This may have been true over hundreds of years ago. Today just like your protestant churches the catholic church will accept donations to help pay for things. Yes prayers are used for those whom we have lost, just as you would pray for someone who is going through a difficult time. I do not know why almost all protestants accuse catholics of this whole money thing. They have not done this for over 300 years. I used to be a catholic, and I feel as if you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and I would greatly appreciate if you got your "facts" by observation not by what your pathetic priest has to say.
Well, I'm not absolutely certain, but haven't some modern pope condoned the practice, and some condemn it? Though your refutations are phrased more like agreements. Did you mean that how I percieve the pratices of the Catholic church is wrong because Catholics are more like Protestants now? I'm sure Pope Leo X must be rolling in his grave. Also, while I'm fairly certain that no modern pope condones indulgences, I'm fairly certain that extra tithing is supposed to help those in purgatory, no? It's hard to tell when the entire Bible can be reinterpreted by one man. :p
.....Your last statement puzzles me. Not only are you directly attacking my pastor, but you seem to think me an enemy of the Catholic church, which you have venomously attacked on these boards in the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know a lot of Protestants who still think that most, if not all Catholics are not right with the Lord. Bull. Catholics, to me, are just another denomination of Christianity, with differering interpretations on the Bible. Granted, I disagree with some major Catholic doctrine, but that makes me neither ignorant nor hateful. I just disagree with them, that's all. I disagree with a lot of people, simply because I think a lot of people are wrong. But that doesn't make me ignorant or hateful, and certainly not spiteful, as your post appears to be. So, don't talk about things that you have no knowledge or business talking about, and please refrain from flaming people you don't even know.
And for the record: 90% of my knowledge comes from my own observations and research; as I mentioned before, I don't trust a lot of people to be right. And my pastor doesn't really talk about Catholic doctrine at all.
__________________
o/ lolBeatrice \o
Quote:
Originally Posted by #sos-dan
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: And no, no happying. <.<
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: fapping*
21:42 <vonPreussen>: Freudian typos xD
Now, in Protestant Christianity, when Christ claims you as his, you are his, forever, no matter what you've done, no matter what you do. You could become a Christian, kill a hundred people, shoot yourself, and still go to Heaven. Granted, you will only cause God grief for your sin, but Jesus will still be your negotiator and protector, and you will still have guaranteed salvation.
For the nonbelievers who may misinterpret this...when you belong to Christ, you do go to heaven, but if you do this without sincerly seeking forgiveness and a deep regret for what you did, then you most likely don't belong to Christ.
For the nonbelievers who may misinterpret this...when you belong to Christ, you do go to heaven, but if you do this without sincerly seeking forgiveness and a deep regret for what you did, then you most likely don't belong to Christ.
Well, naturally. Actions are result of the heart. A bad heart will usually result in bad actions, and a good heart will usually produce good actions. Not guaranteed, of course, but in general.
__________________
o/ lolBeatrice \o
Quote:
Originally Posted by #sos-dan
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: And no, no happying. <.<
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: fapping*
21:42 <vonPreussen>: Freudian typos xD
Now, i'm not folowing the current topic, but there is something that has yet to be addressed.... "But why would God intentionally put hurdles in our way to trip us up? Why would he allow rational people such as myself to slip through the cracks and burn in hell for using the reason he supposedly gave me? I know you cannot answer these questions, but this is the type of rational that leads me to believe there is no God. Most of the answers given to back up religion just do not make sense."
I have an answer to this! I do not beleive that God is trying to fool anyone, nor do i think that it is a test of faith as others have said. As a follower of Jesus, i believe that we have an enemy. the devil has been called the great deceiver. He decieved Adam and Eve, he deceives us every time we fall to temptation. He has even deceived himself into beleiving that he can defeat God, when was defeated the moment Jesus died for us. God does not deceive, it is not in His nature.
Now, i'm not folowing the current topic, but there is something that has yet to be addressed.... "But why would God intentionally put hurdles in our way to trip us up? Why would he allow rational people such as myself to slip through the cracks and burn in hell for using the reason he supposedly gave me? I know you cannot answer these questions, but this is the type of rational that leads me to believe there is no God. Most of the answers given to back up religion just do not make sense."
I have an answer to this! I do not beleive that God is trying to fool anyone, nor do i think that it is a test of faith as others have said. As a follower of Jesus, i believe that we have an enemy. the devil has been called the great deceiver. He decieved Adam and Eve, he deceives us every time we fall to temptation. He has even deceived himself into beleiving that he can defeat God, when was defeated the moment Jesus died for us. God does not deceive, it is not in His nature.
You give too much credit to the devil. He can decieve, yes, but only after asking permission. Look at Job, for one. God allows Satan to acts. Now, the question is, why? There are plenty of reasons out there, but I think there's only one that makes sense. It's a tough pill to swallow, and a lot of Christians seem to simply refuse to believe it. It is that this whole world, as it is now, is full of debauchery and sin. God allows this to exist for a time so that his full glory and power may be made known to all in the end times. It says in the Bible that every knee shall bow, and that all shall be made humble to the Lord. In other words, sin exists only that it may be shown to be inferior to God. God allows sin some victories, but only to highlight His glory and power in the end times. Many Christians, many people in general, are uncomfortable with that because it seems like God is just playing some big cosmic game; to some extent, He is. But if you are a Christian, it shouldn't be a problem because you are under His protection. If you are nto a Christian, why should you care? If you don't believe God exists, what effect could an imaginary figure have on you? It's really as simple as that.
__________________
o/ lolBeatrice \o
Quote:
Originally Posted by #sos-dan
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: And no, no happying. <.<
21:42 <Azu-nyan>: fapping*
21:42 <vonPreussen>: Freudian typos xD
Don't know if anyone still reads this thread, but I'll post anyways;
I consider myself a Christian, yet despise modern Christianity for many of the same reasons that Atheists have. However I have enough personal proof that God exists and have made an attempt to make sure I am informed enough to make a civil argument to believe. And maybe that is what people need to have before they believe. When I meet Atheists or Satanists or anything other than what I know for truth, I don't automatically offer to pray for them, I save that for my personal prayer time. Most Christians believe that God put the unbeliever in front of them as a test of the great commission (Matthew 28:16-20), however, I think it is a test of greatest commandment - To "love thy neighbor as thyself". The unbeliever doesn't have to know that I pray for them.
But enough of that, let's try scientific evidence against evolution and billions of years of the earth forming:
"Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form."
"Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years."
"Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past."
"World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10 to the power of 89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies."
I'm sorry but that answer completely disregards the issue. You cannot say that it is improbable that life came from nothing, and then say that God came from nothing, is eternal, etc. It can be argued from either side and cannot be used to justify either side.
I was just saying that you cannot use science to explain the beginning of the world because it is not scientifically possible for something to poof out of nowhere. But in Intelligent Design it is certainly possible to believe that a superior being was here and always has been here to create all of us.
To answer your other question, I believe that atheists get a much worse treatment, most likely since most people belong to some religion (most Christianity). It seems like a lot of people think you are a bad person if you are an atheist. I find that lots of people connect atheists to anti-god people and satanists. This is what I've come across in my everyday life.
I have some serious questions for the Christians on this board:
Why do you think that there is no tangible proof of God? If he exists, why doesn't he make himself known to us?
He doesn't make himself known for the sake of faith. If you knew without a doubt god was alive you would follow him out of fear, and not because of love. If you follow him out of faith and truly believe, that is the correct way to follow. Also, who says he hasn't been on earth. No one knows what he looks like he could come in many forms.
Why do you choose to believe some parts of the bible and disregard others? For instance, the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe, when we obviously know this is wrong. What's to stop everything else from being wrong?
The bible does not say the earth is the center of the universe. However, in the past, the catholic church did and tried to imprison people that believed otherwise.
Do you believe that humans were the first organisms on earth? That is what the bible tells us, but fossil records show that significant life existed hundreds of millions of years before humans walked the earth.
In the passage Genesis 1 it states that god had created beasts to walk the earth, land, air, and sea. Then He created man in his own image.
Do you believe in a virgin birth? An understanding of science and the reproductive cycle tells us this is impossible, yet we hear about it every year at Christmas time.
I believe it is definitely possible. There have been evidence some virgin births in animals. I am not to informed on the science part of it however, but I did find a Good Read
Why does the bible tell us that good atheists go to hell but bad Christians (as long as they repent) go to heaven. Why would an all loving god follow such rules when there is no tangible proof of his existence?
There are signs everywhere. Maybe not as tangible as you would like, but signs of spirituality and the need for god in harsh times is present everywhere. If you had a chance to hear the word of god and you deny it that itself is denying the ground you walk on and the air you breath that god has built for you.
First and foremost, let me address the fundamentals. You can explain the creation or the beginnings of earth through science.
The Earth and this solar system was created through dust consisting of various particles, floating around in our universe after the big bang. Now, you may ask what were the origins of the Universe and I will answer, what are the origins of God? Or I may state, that our science has not yet, reached a level of sophistication to answer this question. But the foundations are there. Also, assuming that an explanation existed, many religious people would refuse to believe this explanation, much like they refused to believe in the theory of Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin.
I will now explain the development of life from nothing. In, around 1960, Biologists in the Soviet Union decided to conduct an experiment. They gathered a solution of nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, and some other elements. And they left the solution in a warm place, with a sufficiently low temperatures. And, after a while Amino Acids formed, through the combination of various particles.
Life on Earth, developed in a similar manner, during a incredibly young earth. When the Earth cooled sufficiently, volcano's and simply the smoke from the Earth had formed an atmosphere and through the combination of atoms, and elements in the atmosphere, rain was formed. It fell to the Earth, and there formed Amino Acids, then proteins and then organisms themselves. So, therefore, something can form from nothing.
Also, those miracles you describe, are rare errors or fluctations, and their probabilities can be modelled by a curve.
Finally, the Need for god in harsh times, is merely the revival of hope within a human, a final desperate effort, to achieve something. In the end, it is merely the power of the human will through which one can achieve glory, or death.
Edit:
To the poster above me. Much of what you state has a reasonable explanation.
First, I would address the very nature of life. What is life? What do we consider to be life? Is Life simply a combination of various processes, beginning with one organism, which then split into many thousands and millions, and which later differentiated into the current diversity. Or is Life, a spiritual thing. Many, although subconciously associate life as the sum of all processes and the sum of all molecules that have combined to form an organism. Therefore, what I will state next is certainly true.
It is stated, even from a scientific perspective, that the population of the current Earth, was formed by two people. But purely from a biological perspective, that is impossible. I do not know the extent of scientific knowledge present upon these boards, and therefore I will explain the reason of the impossibility of the birth of humanty from two individuals. Adam and Eve, could not have established the population of the entire world due to a modified version of genetic drift. There is a small amount of genes or the genotypic characteristics, alleles, present within the population. Assuming a great deal of people were born, and interbred, this would create a insufficient diversity within the gene pool. The individuals would be similar physically, genetically, and this would lower their immunity to disease, create diseases and destroy variation. If the creation of the world's population, from two people, were true, then all of humanity would be similar to bacteria, who could easily be obliterated by the smallest change, or fluctation in the environment. The only way for genetic differentiation to occur would be through mutations, but the human genome is far too large, to be significantly altered by mutations. Therefore, the creation of the population of the Earth from two individuals is invalid.
You do realize that polonium - 214 could easily be present in the crystalline granite. Depending upon the environment in which the granite was developed, the amount of polonium - 214 would vary. Now, if during the production of granite huge amounts of polonium were created then the polonium would remain to this day. Also, assuming that the granite remains in it's natural environment, the polonium could be replenished by combinations of certain molecules, within the air, or water.
The magnetic field of the Earth fluctuates, and is, indeed, reduced as the Earth cools. However, the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field is so incredibly small, that compared to the huge mass of the Earth is insignificant. Much like the reduction of a person's own magnetic field functions.
Uh, I do not know, were you obtained the following absolutely outrageous and idiotic point:
"Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past."
You do realize that if this were true, then humanity would be extinct, we would not have the extensive layers of earth and rock as well as fossil beds in various levels of earth. Also, how would you account for Radiologic dating, dating Carbon 14, to millions and millions of years.
Also, what do you define as the recent past?
Finally, if we were to put the existence of the Earth into the perspective of one hour, the existance of a human would be equivalent to a second, dinosaurs to a minute, and life to 10 minutes.
Last edited by MercifulBoss; 04-23-2009 at 03:46 PM.
Why does the bible tell us that good atheists go to hell but bad Christians (as long as they repent) go to heaven. Why would an all loving god follow such rules when there is no tangible proof of his existence?
According to the Bible, everyone is welcome into the Kingdom of God. Sinners, Pagans, tax collectors, etc.
My answer to "what is life", may sound philosophical at best. You would be a fool to reduce the meaning of life to elements and events. Life is experiences, reactions, and many other things you would "reasonably describe" as electrical impulses flowing through a body made of carbon and water.
Calling the creation of the population of the earth to be invalid only proves you haven't done your homework. If life were created the way you think it happened, (by elements combining together and forming amino acids), Life as we know it, would not exist. Even in the event of volcanos and smoke filled atmosphere, you still have different environments that affect the forming of amino acids. There would be higher and lower elevations, thus different air combinations. There would be coastal regions and inland areas that effect the amount of humidity in the environment. And a myriad of other options that cause the amino acids to mutate into "life" in many, many, many......many different forms that could not interbreed (i'm speaking of only instinctual beings, and not thinking beings). Through time, today would not be what it is today. I could not procreate with someone from (for argument sake) China. Their reproductive organs would not be in the same place on their bodies as mine, and their bodies would greatly differ from mine as any canine or feline differs from a human. And to take your example even further, a pool of amino acid mutating into any resemblance of a multi-celled organism would then enable all people/animals/reptiles of today to have the ability to procreate with any other being to create whatever being we wanted. There would never be a variety of species on this planet that cannot interbreed.
The fact that there is polonium in granite, proves that granite did not cool over the millions of years "scientist" say it did. What I am hearing from you is, polonium could be replenished from air and water in a airtight, watertight vacuum of solid granite.
Sure the magnetic fields fluctuate, but you didn't even address the half life decay rate. The trend is on a decay rate that would have made it too strong 20,000 years ago. Economies fluctuate, and even in the current trend, there are days where it increases instead of the "trend" to decrease, but look at it in a time frame in years or centuries and you will see a constant decrease (that is the magnetic field decay rate, and not necessarily the economy).
First off, here is the reference for my "idiotic" statement: Dr. Carl Baugh, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)
Layers of rock and earth can be shifted and reformed quickly and efficiently, causing those who research it to think they are looking at millions of years of history. Take for example Mt. Saint Helens. Within 30 minutes of the eruption/explosion there were several new geologic sedimentary layers covering the surrounding former forests. And within days, when people were actually able to go back in, the area looked like a completely new place. After studying the layers upon layers of earth caused by explosions and flooding, geologists could not explain how in a few days there was now a land that seemed to take millions of years to create.
I know you probably won't even go research any of this, instead you'll just regurgitate whatever is in your evolutionary inspired text book as a rebuttal. And to quote you "Finally, if we were to put the existence of the Earth into the perspective of one hour, the existence of a human would be equivalent to a second, dinosaurs to a minute, and life to 10 minutes." That's a fine statement that neither supports nor denies the Creator, but shows that you simply like to argue.
My answer to "what is life", may sound philosophical at best. You would be a fool to reduce the meaning of life to elements and events. Life is experiences, reactions, and many other things you would "reasonably describe" as electrical impulses flowing through a body made of carbon and water.
Calling the creation of the population of the earth to be invalid only proves you haven't done your homework. If life were created the way you think it happened, (by elements combining together and forming amino acids), Life as we know it, would not exist. Even in the event of volcanos and smoke filled atmosphere, you still have different environments that affect the forming of amino acids. There would be higher and lower elevations, thus different air combinations. There would be coastal regions and inland areas that effect the amount of humidity in the environment. And a myriad of other options that cause the amino acids to mutate into "life" in many, many, many......many different forms that could not interbreed (i'm speaking of only instinctual beings, and not thinking beings). Through time, today would not be what it is today. I could not procreate with someone from (for argument sake) China. Their reproductive organs would not be in the same place on their bodies as mine, and their bodies would greatly differ from mine as any canine or feline differs from a human. And to take your example even further, a pool of amino acid mutating into any resemblance of a multi-celled organism would then enable all people/animals/reptiles of today to have the ability to procreate with any other being to create whatever being we wanted. There would never be a variety of species on this planet that cannot interbreed.
The fact that there is polonium in granite, proves that granite did not cool over the millions of years "scientist" say it did. What I am hearing from you is, polonium could be replenished from air and water in a airtight, watertight vacuum of solid granite.
Sure the magnetic fields fluctuate, but you didn't even address the half life decay rate. The trend is on a decay rate that would have made it too strong 20,000 years ago. Economies fluctuate, and even in the current trend, there are days where it increases instead of the "trend" to decrease, but look at it in a time frame in years or centuries and you will see a constant decrease (that is the magnetic field decay rate, and not necessarily the economy).
First off, here is the reference for my "idiotic" statement: Dr. Carl Baugh, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)
Layers of rock and earth can be shifted and reformed quickly and efficiently, causing those who research it to think they are looking at millions of years of history. Take for example Mt. Saint Helens. Within 30 minutes of the eruption/explosion there were several new geologic sedimentary layers covering the surrounding former forests. And within days, when people were actually able to go back in, the area looked like a completely new place. After studying the layers upon layers of earth caused by explosions and flooding, geologists could not explain how in a few days there was now a land that seemed to take millions of years to create.
I know you probably won't even go research any of this, instead you'll just regurgitate whatever is in your evolutionary inspired text book as a rebuttal. And to quote you "Finally, if we were to put the existence of the Earth into the perspective of one hour, the existence of a human would be equivalent to a second, dinosaurs to a minute, and life to 10 minutes." That's a fine statement that neither supports nor denies the Creator, but shows that you simply like to argue.
I was not attempting to discover the meaning of life, I was simply asking as to what is the definition of life. My definition still stands, as you failed to produce any counterevidence, to attempt to counter my points. And never, ever, do I reduce the meaning of life to elements and atoms.
First off, it seems to me as if you have not done your homework. You state that Amino acids mutated into life, that statements on it's own is false. Amino Acids combine to form proteins, which in turn could combine to form little molecular structures that resemble cells in that they are entirely self replicating, self regulating, but not living. These, molecules are called thermal proteinoids and require water, Ammonia, Nitrogen, Carbon to form. The requirements to form thermal proteinoids were proven to have existed on a primeval earth, and the process for creating proteinoids is simple. All that is required is a bonded polypeptide chain, that would form on it's own through electral impulses caused by lightining. Once these are formed, they will tend to have their phospholipid bilayer oriented in a spherical shape with the phosphorous hydrophilic heads being oriented towards the water due to the polar attraction of water, and the hydrophobic fatty acid tails oriented away from the water as their charges are simply incompatible. After the spherical orientions of numerous proteins occur, then these proteins will all be attracted together, much like all the attraction of oil in water. Thermal proteinoids have the ability to self replicate, however it occurs constantly and with no intervals. After, thermal proteinoids formed, two essential amino acids were also formed, Glycine and Alanine, the backbones of DNA molecules. Although, Thermal Proteinoids share many similarities with living prokaryotic cells, such as larger proteinoids engulfing smaller ones, etc, they are not considered living for they lack the ability for controlled self replication. The nucleus of a cell, and the DNA within it was formed in a process similar to that of a thermal Proteinoid, and was engulfed by the proteinoid, as it was a smaller particle, and had a similar composition as the proteinoid. Therefore, Amino Acids did not mutate, but life was formed from non living organisms.
Although, there were different environments, a certain combination of environmental factors was required to form life. Therefore, if higher or lower elevations lacked the correct environmental factors, life could not form. There are a number of ways to form life, but they all have the same result.
Thermal proteinoids, and prokaroytic organisms after them underwent a process called natural selection. And it is due to this process, that all organisms on this planet cannot interbreed. For example, a prokaryotic cell split producing two new daughter cells. However, one of the two daughter cells had a gene that mutated during transcription (transcriptinal error), which provided it with some new distinct feature, which offered it an advantage over other prokaryotes. Or a prokaryotic organism engulfs another organism, which produced ATP molecules (mitochondria), due to the production of ATP, the mitochondria is not digested, and you get a new cell with a new advantage, that will be more likely to survive and reproduce. And thus through the cumalative effect of many different mutations, you get many new species, that are unable to reproduce due to differing genetics, and chromosome numbers.
Uh, I believe I have addressed the reason and the rate of decay in my previous post. The fluctation of Earth's magnetic field, causes it to decay, thus addressing the problem in itself. When someone, states the half life of a substance is 20000 years that means it is the amount of time that will take for the substance or radiation levels, etc to reach half of their original amount. Therefore, based upon your theory it would take, approximately 40000 years for Earth's magnetic field to reach it's end life. The Earth is enormous and has a huge mass, and thus the fluctuation within it's magnetic field is small enough to be rendered insignificant. Now, assuming that you are correct and that every 40000 years the magnetic field of the Earth reaches it's "end" life, this raises a legitmate question. What happens when the magnetic field of the planet reaches its end, does the planet, or the galaxy for that matter, simply cease to exist? Or does something else occur? Now, before I address this question, we will observe the amount of time that life has existed on our planet. If we assume that the planet was created at the same time as all of the life on it, then this planet will date to millions and millions of years old, based upon skeleton and fossil evidence of early dinosaurs, animals and our own human ancestors. Now, in order for the half life of Earth's magnetic field to be 20000 years, something must occur for the Earth's magnetic field to regenerate. The answer is truly simple, the magentic poles of the Earth would switch, and the process would restart. As I mentioned previously, the sheer mass of the Earth ensures that the Earth decay's very slowely and in small amounts, but when the magnetic field entirely decays, the poles will simply switch. Therefore, you are incorrect.
The fact that polonium is in granite, does not prove that granite forms quickly. I have explained in my previous post how it functions. Also, the half life of polonium is incredibly small when exposed to oxygen. However, generally, granite is found underground in areas with little to no oxygen and thus it could be present for large periods of time. As an experiment, try to form granite in your home, for based on your logic, if Polonium has a small half life granite, will also form quickly. You will generally notice, that nothing will occur, in that short time. Or you can research the amount of time it takes for granite to form, and in what environment it forms.
Okay, assuming that the land shifted in such proportions that it was utterly unrecognizable and shifted all of Earth's rock, mineral and soil strata's, after the eruption of mount St Helens, how would you account for the ability to Radiological, Carbon, and phosphorous and numerous other dating techinques. For, dating based upon location in Earth's geological strata's is merely an aide and could provide an approximation, but all specimen that are discovered, undergo extensive testing, rendering the point idiotic.
I have researched your statements, and have come up with the conclusions listed here. And regarding regurgitation, I could also say that you will simply regurgitate is whatever is in your religion textbook or a statement that some religious person states. Hopefully, I have provided sufficient evidence, to refute the existance of the Creator.
Last edited by MercifulBoss; 05-02-2009 at 09:16 AM.
Let me start by saying that, we are both in agreement that you (merciful) have read more books than I.
Of course I have regurgitated, that's why in my first post, I put the comments in quotes. We live in a world where not everyone has to be a research scientist to believe something. But it does take a little time and patience to rebut someone who has taken the time to learn something (even if I believe it to be untrue).
I went to public school and was force fed the same evolution/mutation theories as most of the free world. It wasn't until I was became an adult that I learned about creation science. And doing a little more reading from people who have spent years and decades studying science with a biblical worldview, I have come to the conclusion that creation science should be studied, and taken more seriously.
Merciful, I am not backing down from the argument, but I am backing off due to the fact that, like I stated earlier, you have read more and different books than I. I do not believe it makes you right, and in all honesty, it sounds like your logic is deeply flawed. I attempted in my second post to further establish my origin beliefs with some explanation.
Also you attack me, saying these are my theories, they are not, but they are theories of well established scientists, and I have given you names, but you have not returned in kind.
In this post, I am going to give a small explanation to rebut, based on beliefs and not scientific fact, however, because of the small amount of time I have studied creation science, they can be backed up by someone who has done their "homework".
The definition of Life is: Human, or any other object that is animated by it's own accord.
Amino Acids: I apologize for assuming that you were on the same page with me when I jumped from the forming of amino acids all the way to life. Natural selection still does not account for variations coming from contaminants in the pools, you would (today) still have multiple species of humans that were unable to interbreed. And explain the odds of a lightning bolt striking pools of amino acids, maybe your friends in Russia could zap theirs and make life form?
Magnetic field: Yes I believe the magnetic field to be gone after 40000 years. Not being a christian who studies prophecy, I don't expect you to understand.
Granite/Polonium: reread my first post, I was simply trying to make light of the fact that granite formed immediately and over a time span of millions of years, stop going off topic.
Mt St Helens: How do you account for carbon dating after the explosion, stating that elements that weren't there 3 days before the explosion, show that they had been there thousands of years.
It all comes down to this, I have learned Evolution/mutation theories, and creation science, why don't you try the same?
Let me start by saying that, we are both in agreement that you (merciful) have read more books than I.
Of course I have regurgitated, that's why in my first post, I put the comments in quotes. We live in a world where not everyone has to be a research scientist to believe something. But it does take a little time and patience to rebut someone who has taken the time to learn something (even if I believe it to be untrue).
I went to public school and was force fed the same evolution/mutation theories as most of the free world. It wasn't until I was became an adult that I learned about creation science. And doing a little more reading from people who have spent years and decades studying science with a biblical worldview, I have come to the conclusion that creation science should be studied, and taken more seriously.
Merciful, I am not backing down from the argument, but I am backing off due to the fact that, like I stated earlier, you have read more and different books than I. I do not believe it makes you right, and in all honesty, it sounds like your logic is deeply flawed. I attempted in my second post to further establish my origin beliefs with some explanation.
Also you attack me, saying these are my theories, they are not, but they are theories of well established scientists, and I have given you names, but you have not returned in kind.
In this post, I am going to give a small explanation to rebut, based on beliefs and not scientific fact, however, because of the small amount of time I have studied creation science, they can be backed up by someone who has done their "homework".
The definition of Life is: Human, or any other object that is animated by it's own accord.
Amino Acids: I apologize for assuming that you were on the same page with me when I jumped from the forming of amino acids all the way to life. Natural selection still does not account for variations coming from contaminants in the pools, you would (today) still have multiple species of humans that were unable to interbreed. And explain the odds of a lightning bolt striking pools of amino acids, maybe your friends in Russia could zap theirs and make life form?
Magnetic field: Yes I believe the magnetic field to be gone after 40000 years. Not being a christian who studies prophecy, I don't expect you to understand.
Granite/Polonium: reread my first post, I was simply trying to make light of the fact that granite formed immediately and over a time span of millions of years, stop going off topic.
Mt St Helens: How do you account for carbon dating after the explosion, stating that elements that weren't there 3 days before the explosion, show that they had been there thousands of years.
It all comes down to this, I have learned Evolution/mutation theories, and creation science, why don't you try the same?
Well, sorry about the attacks, you know the heat of debate and everything.
The thing lies in the fact that, I do not believe that Science and Religion should not be mixed. Reminiscent of Religion and Politics in history.
In a sense, Natural selection does account for the formation of one species of humans that are able to interbreed. All existing life forms, upon this planet are basically derived from one common ancestor, one prokaryotic bacterium, that differentiated from others and obtained an advantage. Read my last post. For you see, depending upon the location of these bacterium and the environment and it's fluctuations, caused the bacteria to develop various traits and characteristics. Then, some bacteria began forming colonies as it could help them survive, by providing them with protection, and food. These first colonies lived near volcanic sea vents, and were gooey, brown iciles hanging off of rocks, and other overhangs that obtained food from water filtration. These primitive complex organisms, are called rusticles and are present in the Titanic, and are our distant anscestors. Eventually as competition increased, bacteria and the rusticles formed into different colonies and organisms, (this is a incredibly simplified explanation) and eventually as they spread formed humans.
Most of the Earth was covered in Water, and lightning strikes would carry over huge distances providing electric charges to millions upon millions of amino acids, and allowing them to bond.
Magnetic fields of the planet do not disappear, but instead reverse and thus replenish periodically, read previous post.
Regardless, of the explosion, the carbon, phosphourus, potassium, etc, within bones and fossils would have remained and allowed us to measure the age of the age of the organism, again read last post. The strat's of the Earth are only intended to be used as dating aides, to obtain an approximate date.
I was born to a Christian Orthodox family, and was baptized as an Orthodox, and if you like I can attempt to disprove creation and the existence of God, through religious teachings.
Alright Merciful,
I have had a week to mull it over, and I want to take you up on your offer to disprove the Creator and Creation using the bible. If you can, use verses in context of their passages. I read your post perfectly, and I know it says "through religious teachings" but, being the christian I am, I take the bible as the ultimate religious teaching. All other "doctrines" are false, especially those that stem from catholicism.
So please humor me with this request.
Alright Merciful,
I have had a week to mull it over, and I want to take you up on your offer to disprove the Creator and Creation using the bible. If you can, use verses in context of their passages. I read your post perfectly, and I know it says "through religious teachings" but, being the christian I am, I take the bible as the ultimate religious teaching. All other "doctrines" are false, especially those that stem from catholicism.
So please humor me with this request.
Certainly. I will attempt to employ common sense with as little bible refrences as possible, to disprove the existance of the Creator.
Now imagine this hypothetical situation, wherein on your date of birth your parents gave you away to another family, and somehow managed to monitor your life, punishing you when you deserve punishment and rewarding you when you deserve reward. You only know about the existance of these hypothetical parents, however you doubt their existance for they have never shown themselves to you, and you have no evidence or proof to justify their existence. Suddenly one day your parents appear, and manage to prove the fact that they are ones parents, would you follow, believe and love them due to fear or due to the fact that they are your parents, they gave you life. For that reason, if god existed he would show himself, for people would love him not because of fear, but rather due to love, for he is our parent and gave is life.
A user on this forum entitle, EndUknown, has a interesting quote by Marcus Aurelius in his signature, I will post it here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Now, in order for a person to obtain the "ultimate reward", one must have a devout belief in the Lord, or burn for eternity in the fiery pits of hell. If god existed, why would he allow a mass murder who has killed many people, andis a devout believer in god, the ultimate reward, if he truly repents at the end of his life, whilst condemning a person who has lived a life of virtue, of splendour who saved many lives and eased many sufferings, and is not a believer to endure the eternal fires of Hell? I would never bow down before such a unjust entity. God is omniscient and thus he would judge people on virtues, rather than faith, if he existed.
Assuming, one wished to obtain the "ultimate reward" they must put faith, or believe in God's existence, to go to heaven. Now, if everything is based upon belief, or faith, then one can simply, devoutly deny God, Heaven and Hell, and instead have faith in oneself, and substitute God's Heaven, with one's own. For, if one is rejected and cannot be imprisoned in neither heaven nor hell, he, through devout belief will be able to forge his own utopia.
As was mentioned before by others, if God created me in his image, and gave me the ability to reason, for independant and rational thought, why must I be punished for using it, to believe or doubt His existence. Also, if all is a matter of faith then I am a entity which has forged all other Universes, but this, and I compell you to obey. Otherwise I will punish, and punish with impunity. Call me God, and you will be forced to obey or to suffer the consequences.
I have attempted to disprove the existance of the creator through Common Sense and Logic, rather than the Bible.
Last edited by MercifulBoss; 05-10-2009 at 12:42 PM.
Also, while I'm fairly certain that no modern pope condones indulgences, I'm fairly certain that extra tithing is supposed to help those in purgatory, no? It's hard to tell when the entire Bible can be reinterpreted by one man. :p
