warri0r45

To prove the Bible wrong? You shouldn't try to prove things wrong, you should seek the truth. Your last sentence makes no sense. The easiest way to seek the truth is to prove things wrong. Actually according to my world view the truth = Jesus as he says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Thus (implied) the easiest way to seek the truth is to seek Jesus and you will not find him in the tomb. How do you know that the Bible is the truth? If it is, how do you know that Jesus is saying the truth? And even if Jesus did say that, how do you know that the part of the Bible talking about the resurrection, etc. is true? Jesus may have been in that tomb... How do you it's not the truth? It's a question of beliefs. He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be. How do you know science is the truth? How do you know logic is correct? He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be. Would you say nature is wrong or lying to us? That's where we get proof from. It's not wrong because it's all we have i.e. it's the most objectively true/right thing you can get. I'm saying that you also have beliefs as I do. Science is not a belief. It's not based on faith like your views are. It's based on logical reasoning and what we can all clearly objectively see from nature. Here's a belief: You should stop letting your beliefs get in the way of science. Well you need to believe in the theory of empiricism to believe in science as "a central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based." Explain to me another objectively viable source of knowlege other than empricism.

Even if you do show that god is selective and biased through logic he won't want to hear it.

To prove the Bible wrong? You shouldn't try to prove things wrong, you should seek the truth. Your last sentence makes no sense. The easiest way to seek the truth is to prove things wrong. Actually according to my world view the truth = Jesus as he says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Thus (implied) the easiest way to seek the truth is to seek Jesus and you will not find him in the tomb. How do you know that the Bible is the truth? If it is, how do you know that Jesus is saying the truth? And even if Jesus did say that, how do you know that the part of the Bible talking about the resurrection, etc. is true? Jesus may have been in that tomb... How do you it's not the truth? It's a question of beliefs. He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be. How do you know science is the truth? How do you know logic is correct? He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be. Would you say nature is wrong or lying to us? That's where we get proof from. It's not wrong because it's all we have i.e. it's the most objectively true/right thing you can get. I'm saying that you also have beliefs as I do. Science is not a belief. It's not based on faith like your views are. It's based on logical reasoning and what we can all clearly objectively see from nature. Here's a belief: You should stop letting your beliefs get in the way of science.

To prove the Bible wrong? You shouldn't try to prove things wrong, you should seek the truth. Your last sentence makes no sense. The easiest way to seek the truth is to prove things wrong. Actually according to my world view the truth = Jesus as he says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Thus (implied) the easiest way to seek the truth is to seek Jesus and you will not find him in the tomb. How do you know that the Bible is the truth? If it is, how do you know that Jesus is saying the truth? And even if Jesus did say that, how do you know that the part of the Bible talking about the resurrection, etc. is true? Jesus may have been in that tomb... How do you it's not the truth? It's a question of beliefs. He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be. How do you know science is the truth? How do you know logic is correct? He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be. Would you say nature is wrong or lying to us? That's where we get proof from. It's not wrong because it's all we have i.e. it's the most objectively true/right thing you can get.

To prove the Bible wrong? You shouldn't try to prove things wrong, you should seek the truth. Your last sentence makes no sense. The easiest way to seek the truth is to prove things wrong. Actually according to my world view the truth = Jesus as he says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Thus (implied) the easiest way to seek the truth is to seek Jesus and you will not find him in the tomb. How do you know that the Bible is the truth? If it is, how do you know that Jesus is saying the truth? And even if Jesus did say that, how do you know that the part of the Bible talking about the resurrection, etc. is true? Jesus may have been in that tomb... How do you it's not the truth? It's a question of beliefs. He is inclined to conclude that it's not the truth because the bible has a lot of stories which have been found to be scientifically illogical or incosistant with nature. You are inclined to conclude it is the truth because you want it to be.

Edit: posted incorrectly, ignore this.

It's just the opposite. God becomes more personal the more we realize science can't fill the relationship-shaped void in our lives. Do you honestly think science is going to bring you fulfillment in life? Warri0r45-Not everyone needs god to have a fulfilled life. The Bible doesn't say God didn't create other beings. The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve are responsible for every being that ever existed either. Warri0r45-The bible dosen't say that 6 days were literal either. It dosen't say that evolution is wrong or that the earth is 6000 years old. Yeah, it dosen't say a lot of things.

If you read about the ascension it's not very likely that it was figuratively speaking. It would be an interpretation in which you assumed that Jesus body must be in a tomb somewhere. To me you can't compromise with the Bible, either it's the truth or it's nothing but a couple of well-written stories. I don't want this to turn into another Bible thread... but it's not like you have to be a fundamentalist to agree with the Bible. You can see the deeper meanings and not take it literally, and thus still believe in it :-s . I believe this falls into the category of "STOP THINKING THAT TO BE A CHRISTIAN YOU HAVE TO BE A FRIKKIN' EXTREME FUNDAMENTALIST!!!". Oh, and 'kay Warrior, I get what you're saying :P . Well, I'm not saying that you can't be a christian without being a fundamentalist. However, I don't think the Bible makes any sense unless it's the truth. Not true, if the bible is totally true then the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits it and it's the center of a tiny universe, look at this: http://www.fixedearth.com/ The Bible can't be held accountable for deluded people who misinterpret the Bible. I agree, they are at fault for being obviously wrong and misguided, but how would you interpret this statement: These people are deluded and docile puppets, but the literature they follow is partly to blame in that is states as clear as day to never question your faith in god's word. Here's a rather extensive Q&A: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178 Basically you can't just put your nose in a book and make all your conclusions from there. Look at the world around you and you will understand more about what's written in the Bible. Of course you shouldn't get all of your conclusions of life from a book. That dosen't stop some people doing it though.

If you read about the ascension it's not very likely that it was figuratively speaking. It would be an interpretation in which you assumed that Jesus body must be in a tomb somewhere. To me you can't compromise with the Bible, either it's the truth or it's nothing but a couple of well-written stories. I don't want this to turn into another Bible thread... but it's not like you have to be a fundamentalist to agree with the Bible. You can see the deeper meanings and not take it literally, and thus still believe in it :-s . I believe this falls into the category of "STOP THINKING THAT TO BE A CHRISTIAN YOU HAVE TO BE A FRIKKIN' EXTREME FUNDAMENTALIST!!!". Oh, and 'kay Warrior, I get what you're saying :P . Well, I'm not saying that you can't be a christian without being a fundamentalist. However, I don't think the Bible makes any sense unless it's the truth. Not true, if the bible is totally true then the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits it and it's the center of a tiny universe, look at this: http://www.fixedearth.com/ The Bible can't be held accountable for deluded people who misinterpret the Bible. I agree, they are at fault for being obviously wrong and misguided, but how would you interpret this statement: These people are deluded and docile puppets, but the literature they follow is partly to blame in that is states as clear as day to never question your faith in god's word.

If you read about the ascension it's not very likely that it was figuratively speaking. It would be an interpretation in which you assumed that Jesus body must be in a tomb somewhere. To me you can't compromise with the Bible, either it's the truth or it's nothing but a couple of well-written stories. I don't want this to turn into another Bible thread... but it's not like you have to be a fundamentalist to agree with the Bible. You can see the deeper meanings and not take it literally, and thus still believe in it :-s . I believe this falls into the category of "STOP THINKING THAT TO BE A CHRISTIAN YOU HAVE TO BE A FRIKKIN' EXTREME FUNDAMENTALIST!!!". Oh, and 'kay Warrior, I get what you're saying :P . Well, I'm not saying that you can't be a christian without being a fundamentalist. However, I don't think the Bible makes any sense unless it's the truth. Not true, if the bible is totally true then the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits it and it's the center of a tiny universe, look at this: http://www.fixedearth.com/ Excuse me everyone while I find a dumpster to throw up in. This web site truley disgusts me and is a clear example of how damaging blind faith can be that Satenza alluded to. I'm writing this sentence to myself to take a deep breath and not let my head explode in a sea of anger and fury. Calm. Blue. Ocean. Sorry. :oops:

Wewt. Number 7!! Come on Aussie come on, come on. Come on Aussie come on! (sorry ya'll it's an Aussie thing). :? :oops:

Are you sure hydrochloric acid blows up? I mixed hydrochloric acid with sodium bicarbonate today, and ironically, water was a product. Along with salt and and carbon dioxide --- Sorry for double post Sounds like a neutralisation reaction (where acid and base react to form a salt and water) as I think I remember hearing somewhere that sodium bicarbonate is basic.

:ohnoes: The wost thing I've had done to me with chemicalls is a few minor spills of silver nitrate { Ag(NO3)2 } which, if your familiar with the chemical, stains skin and takes sometimes weeks to get out.

God took Jesus and Mary straight up to Heaven so they wouldn't undergo the corruption of death. Look, it's not like I haven't thought about the fact that Jesus Christ might've not been the Son of God, but I believe that he was. Why? Because my faith is strong, which sounds really corny, but it's true. Theres nothing wrong with that, it's just people may be touchy at the way you word your belief. Of course you would realise a belief is not the truth, correct? That's why some people who don't share your belief may be a bit touchy.

So...you'd be bigtime against curing someone of a horrible degenerative disease before they were born? Wiping out diseases is one thing. But I simply do not trust the people who have this power to make the right decisions. It will eventually turn into Eugenics. And God help us all when that happens. Yet no medicine you have taken in your live has not served it's intended purpose? Medication can kill or make you act/behave in a certain way. If people haven't abused this, then I think people may not abuse genetic engineering. Although obviously, it would be incredibly risky to put your offspring into the hands of people who are potentially corrupt. Changing your genetic code would be like taking a specific medication permanantly. So it could be beneficial or it could be disasterous yet it could not be fixed or the 'dosage' removed. Risky? Of course. :?

Just wondering, but have you studied genetics? Each gene codes for one specific protien chain i.e. one trait, but genes can be inter-related (is that one word, two or hyphonated like I have it? :? ). One gene does not code for two protien strands. As is my understanding, a gene is a stretch of DNA which has x amount of codons and thus codes for one protien x amino acid subunits long.

To prove the Bible WRONG? You shouldn't try to prove things wrong, you should seek the truth. Can't argue with that. That's all I'll say on that. :anxious: But trying to find out what is and isn't Truth is seeking Truth :lol: . If there weren't so many alternative motivations for doing something like this, I'd probably be more open to the idea. Right now though it just seems like a hoax :? . I didn't want to aid in the derailment of this thread, but I was referring to those who constantly try to disprove evolution and an old earth etc. It's negative proof and isn't even scientific. Sure, truth can be uncovered when something else is disproven, but in science this dosent happen via a belief or having an agenda to keep. Back on the supposed Jesus tomb, It seems to me as another example of christians unwavering belief in the absolute word of the bible. Why couldn't Jesus' body and spirit rise to heavan figuratively? Why couldn't we just back off from thinking the words in the bible are like some unbreakable law? Seriously, if you can answer these questions, you're welcomed to.

That's basically my opinion in a nutshell. Although I don't believe in some of the more gloomy predictions of the outcomes of selective breeding on asthetics, although obviously this is only in theory as genetics can be exploited extremely horifically by society. Imagine multinationals getting hold of the genetic print of your prospective child and genetically modifying them to have an increased appetite. Mass havoc and a moral nightmare. So basically, genetic engineering would only be practical for practical reasons i.e. preventing devastating diseases. As for your morals on the issue Barihawk, I can see where you get them from and there's nothing wrong with that view, but would you agree that those who would want to do this purely to halt devastating diseases in thier children have morally good intentions?

To prove the Bible WRONG? You shouldn't try to prove things wrong, you should seek the truth. Can't argue with that. That's all I'll say on that. :anxious: As for the suspected Jesus tomb and his remains, we'll let time tell if that one can be proven a fraud or not. If it isn't proven a fraud or if it is even proven I sincerely wish that people of faith just don't dismiss it or try to ravage the science behind such a conclusion. Really, I do.

Interesting. I guess I'm a very stroopy person because I sucked at it. 0_o

Not quite. Scientists find it to be very possible due to the undisputed fact that DNA nucleotide mispairing is random as are the possibilities of a beneficial or a detrimental outcome to that offspring organism. You may have missed the point, sir. I said it is not possible fo Everything to happen by chance. Put it this way: If you spill ink on a paper 300 billion times, not once will you get a piece of modern literature. And I suppose if you put all of the pieces of a broken watch in a bag and shaked it 300 billion times you could expect to get a watch according to evolution, right? This, your example and everything like it is so far from an evolutionary evironment that it's been beaten up time after time after time. Seriously, try not to compare the chance of electronic interactions between fundamental particles, atoms and compounds to form more complex molecular systems with spilling ink on a page and miraculously forming writing. Think about this: Carbon (arguably the basis of life) has four electrons which can bond with other elements to fill thier outer shell and therefore stabalise its own outer shell. Due to this fact, compounds of a carbonacious nature number more than those any other element. Have a look at protiens for a second. The possibility of making different protiens is just about unlimited (far beyond any cosmological number) even though there are a limited number of protiens that are actually synthesised in life. Why? Because not all possible protiens you can make will actually have a biological function, in any organism. So no doubt your probably wondering what the hell I'm getting at here. The point is that biological systems are all so purposeful and so direct and determined at replicating themselves (i.e. via reproduction) that organisms came to be formed out of an organic brine (I don't intend to be politically correct here). Comparing such systems with spilling ink on a page to demonstrate your point on chance is just plain wrong as the ink has no chemically natural reason or action required of it to form words on a page miraculously. Just in case you're all wondering how many different protiens are possible, I'll give explaining it a shot. A small protien is 50 amino acid sub units long (a conservative estimate compared to the majority of protiens in your body that are longer than this). If each of these 50 can be one of 20 basic amino acids, then you have the possibility of 20^50 different protiens (or 50^20, forgive me, my maths isn't as good as my science so I welcome you to correct me). Now compare this example to that of an average protien which is around 300-400 amino acid sub units in length and you'll get many more possibilities than stars in the universe. So why aren't there this many protiens? Because not that many actually perform a function. I guess what I'm getting at here is that evolution is less about chance and more about what actually chemically works in the given system of compounds and thier interactions with others. Take from it what you will.

What it comes down to is whether you believe in God or not and his abiltity to work through humans and making sure that the Bible turned out the way he planned. And I believe that an allmighty God would be able to do so. If god would want his word to be taken seriously, it makes me wonder why he didn't send some obvious heavanly prophet-like creature incarnate to do it. The idea of having human write something godly, no matter how so aparrantly inspired they were, is just fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

Interesting topic. This fits in perfectly with an assignment I did on the question 'will humans continue to evolve?' for grade 12 biology. I'd say the biggest winners out of the continued evolution of the human race are Africans. I had many other possible evolutionary outcomes so I'll see if I can fit some of those in here at a later date or even post my assignment. Besides that, I'd definately agree with the idea that natural selection in western culture has taken a back step. Artificial selection is a nice modern term to use. Unfortunately (in terms of evolutionary progress made) aftrifical selection engages us to help every weak and feeble human with drugs, thereby giving them an opportunity to pass thier genes on. Now you may think of breeding dogs and crops when I say artificial selection. You'd be spot on, as cultures have been (without the modern science, of course) artificially selecting crops and animals for thousands of years. A good example of this is the cultivation of banannas. Wild banannas are small and have black rock hard seeds. Therefore, farmers chose the best of the crop and spred them down to furthur generations. Artificial selection in a nutshell. Sorry for trailling off a bit there or if I'm a bit too off topic by the way. :oops: As for the option I choose, I would like to offer a different one - The formation of multiple embryo's in a lab for every parent couple and then the mandatory choice of the one with the least genetic defaults (note that this has NOTHING to do with choosing the 'prettyest' embryo). Added to this, we could use the excess embryos for stem cell research. As a disclaimer directed at pro-lifers - I am fully aware of your position, so please, hold back comments of 'murderer' and so forth.

So by that reasoning, evolutionists have the facts right (considering its 95% or better of the scientific community who endorse evolution, which is a fair bit more than 'hundreds of eye witnesses'). I know this looks like I'm attacking your post, but the intention is purely to compare my point to yours (and yes, I know your post had nothing to do with evolution). Forgive me for questioning the unquestionable god, but this sounds like a dictatorship to me, even if it is intended to maxamise something as pure as love. Not quite. Scientists find it to be very possible due to the undisputed fact that DNA nucleotide mispairing is random as are the possibilities of a beneficial or a detrimental outcome to that offspring organism.

The kind of internet speak you refer to has lost just about every shred of meaning in my opinion. It screams cliche and just dosen't mean anything to me anymore. The only time I would ever use internet speak it to parody it.