Is God real post your thoughts!

[Rebdragon]

So what you're saying is, if one thing says it's not true, then it means all others are wrong? Use it for Evolution then: If one fundamentlistic Islamic site says Evolution is wrong, and thousands say it's right. Does it mean it's wrong because of one site?

 

 

 

It's not about the numbers, it's about the facts. And, quite frankly, the facts raped that legend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

P

 

 

 

E

 

 

 

D.

[NoMoreDead]

And second, NoMoreDead, if you really did study Ancient History, then you'd know that EVERY single civilization in the Bible has been discovered through digs and such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well DUH. Just because time periods and settings are correct does not validate the events that supposidly took place during/in them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, this is completely off-topic but not: My Bio teacher is actually my study block teacher also, and I asked her about Abiogenesis and such and she said, that with Abiogenesis, and evolution, there is proof to prove it. but She also said she found proof to disprove it, I'm not quite sure what she meant, though. But she said with 'Ready's Fly' experiments, that people did not observe the whole time, or something, how they said that Fly came from meat, but did not see that the flies had laid eggs which gave to maggots which gave to flies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your Science teacher can disprove evolution, I think she probably should talk to someone about claiming her Nobel prize that she will undoubtidly recieve after disproving evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, she said with Aristotle, that when he said he saw hay, then left and saw mice, he came to the conclusion the the mice came from the hay. Which she says that there was mice all along, but he left, and didn't see the whole conclusion. I'm really not trying to make a debate out of that, just putting it out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I won't make a debate out of that, simply because Aristotle lived long before many advances in modern science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And NoMoreDead, nothing you say makes any sense, and doyou really need to debate my grammatical errors?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite that fact that you put commas in the wrong places, spell numerous words incorretly, and fail to piece together a coherient sentence once every time you post, you still have the nerve to say that nothing I say makes any sense?

[warri0r45]

Also, this is completely off-topic but not: My Bio teacher is actually my study block teacher also, and I asked her about Abiogenesis and such and she said, that with Abiogenesis, and evolution, there is proof to prove it. but She also said she found proof to disprove it, I'm not quite sure what she meant, though. But she said with 'Ready's Fly' experiments, that people did not observe the whole time, or something, how they said that Fly came from meat, but did not see that the flies had laid eggs which gave to maggots which gave to flies. Also, she said with Aristotle, that when he said he saw hay, then left and saw mice, he came to the conclusion the the mice came from the hay. Which she says that there was mice all along, but he left, and didn't see the whole conclusion. I'm really not trying to make a debate out of that, just putting it out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saru, no one is saying that abiogenesis happens through the genius meat -> flies or hay -> mice models. Those example have been known as utter nonsense for some time now and are completely irrelevant to abiogenesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what abiogenesis is.

[Saru Inc]

Well, Warri0r, I'll tell you straight up, you're the only one I like to debate with. Because evn though I still have no idea how Abiogensis is even possible, you just seem more educated than othewr people. And NoMoreDead, you spelled 'incorrectly,' and 'coherent' wrong. Jst thought I'd say that. And also, NoMoreDead, even some atheistic scientisis I've talked too say some things about Evolution make no sense at all. I mean, really, do you think everything in Evolution is %100 no matyter what correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Warri0r, I clicked on that link, and it confused me, God I hate biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, Reb, I'd have to say you're a really annoying person, instead of simply putting the facts, you must do so in a [developmentally delayed]ed way. Why...? Why me never know, but you rarely have anything to say than "lolz [bleep] God" or "Christians are [developmentally delayed]s"

[Rebdragon]

I just put the facts all over that rape mate. Which I'd like for you to concede to, rather than turning around and attacking me for being my usually assholish self.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not even an atheist, and I've learned to like Christianity from learning about it objectively and from within by the right people. Rather than despising Christianity itself, it's the stupidity of some believers, pathetically clinging to legends and made up information to prove their "faith", that I can't stand.

[Cup Lion]

Reb, I can never take you seriously. Its unfortunate.

[warri0r45]

Well, Warri0r, I'll tell you straight up, you're the only one I like to debate with. Because evn though I still have no idea how Abiogensis is even possible, you just seem more educated than othewr people. And NoMoreDead, you spelled 'incorrectly,' and 'coherent' wrong. Jst thought I'd say that. And also, NoMoreDead, even some atheistic scientisis I've talked too say some things about Evolution make no sense at all. I mean, really, do you think everything in Evolution is %100 no matyter what correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Warri0r, I clicked on that link, and it confused me, God I hate biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, Reb, I'd have to say you're a really annoying person, instead of simply putting the facts, you must do so in a [developmentally delayed] way. Why...? Why me never know, but you rarely have anything to say than "lolz [bleep] God" or "Christians are [developmentally delayed]"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words. But can I ask, what have these scientists said about evolution that they say makes no sense? I'm curious.

[AlexDT]

- The Sun is a big burning ball of gas.

 

 

 

- I can throw a shot put ball at the Earth's escape velocity, and put it into orbit.

 

 

 

- God is real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cling to the first, concede the second, and therefore claim the third is correct. Haven't we forgotten what the title of this thread is?

[Saru Inc]

It's just all the jargon used, Warrior.

[monkeyboo2]

- The Sun is a big burning ball of gas.

 

 

 

- I can throw a shot put ball at the Earth's escape velocity, and put it into orbit.

 

 

 

- God is real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cling to the first, concede the second, and therefore claim the third is correct. Haven't we forgotten what the title of this thread is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:) good point Alex. First post in a while i've bothered to reply to.

 

 

 

Accurate knowledge/ science doesn't necersarily disprove/prove the existance of God but some current knowledge which contradicts the bible (atleast in some peoples eyes) which is why people endlessly debate and manipulate scientific facts.

 

 

 

Its about the credibility, accuracy, origin (and divinity) and purpose of the Bible... But I think after 84 pages of no agreement on the matter, Alex is right. You're arguing about scientific/religous theories without any particular point to make anymore and its not really going anywhere.

[Lenticular_J]

Rather than despising Christianity itself, it's the stupidity of some believers, pathetically clinging to legends and made up information to prove their "faith", that I can't stand.

 

 

 

Yeah. That's the point of "faith". Believing in something that can't be proven.

[Perakp]

God is not only useless, he is also harmful in some cases.

 

 

 

Without God we could more easily pass forevertaking arguments of right and wrong; death sentence, euthanasia, abortion etc.

 

 

 

Other than if he is or isn't, you should look at what he does, what kind of an effect he has and how the positive effect could be done without him, and the negative effects could be gotten rid of.

[NoMoreDead]

And NoMoreDead, you spelled 'incorrectly,' and 'coherent' wrong. Jst thought I'd say that. And also, NoMoreDead, even some atheistic scientisis I've talked too say some things about Evolution make no sense at all. I mean, really, do you think everything in Evolution is %100 no matyter what correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, Reb, I'd have to say you're a really annoying person, instead of simply putting the facts, you must do so in a [developmentally delayed] way. Why...? Why me never know, but you rarely have anything to say than "lolz [bleep] God" or "Christians are [developmentally delayed]"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you spelled 'just' wrong. Plus you actually said "Why me never know". Now spelling errors have nothing to do with the validity of a statement, but not being able to comprehend what you were trying to say hinders my ability to debate with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All you've given in terms of information is hearsay. You've given opinions from unknown and totally unreliable sources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU rarely have anything to say besides "I heard from someone that...". It seems a bit contradictory to tell people they don't supply facts when you do nothing of the sort.

[Rebdragon]

Reb, I can never take you seriously. Its unfortunate.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than despising Christianity itself, it's the stupidity of some believers, pathetically clinging to legends and made up information to prove their "faith", that I can't stand.

 

 

 

Yeah. That's the point of "faith". Believing in something that can't be proven.

 

 

 

No, other than the fact that it's somewhat illogical in a scientific sense, I have nothing against faith. It's when that faith propogates obviously false statements and ideas, resulting in the hindering of intellectual growth in those young and old, that I start getting ticked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, I have no problem with someone believing in God or any other deity, but when that belief results in a further advancement of the stupidity of both the person and the rest of the human race, that factor involved in the faith needs to be ended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- I can throw a shot put ball at the Earth's escape velocity, and put it into orbit.

 

 

 

No?

[Lenticular_J]

If Alex can throw a shotput into orbit, he's got some damned mad skills.

[Saru Inc]

And NoMoreDead, you spelled 'incorrectly,' and 'coherent' wrong. Jst thought I'd say that. And also, NoMoreDead, even some atheistic scientisis I've talked too say some things about Evolution make no sense at all. I mean, really, do you think everything in Evolution is %100 no matyter what correct?

 

 

 

But, Reb, I'd have to say you're a really annoying person, instead of simply putting the facts, you must do so in a [developmentally delayed] way. Why...? Why me never know, but you rarely have anything to say than "lolz [bleep] God" or "Christians are [developmentally delayed]"

 

 

 

And you spelled 'just' wrong. Plus you actually said "Why me never know". Now spelling errors have nothing to do with the validity of a statement, but not being able to comprehend what you were trying to say hinders my ability to debate with you.

 

 

 

All you've given in terms of information is hearsay. You've given opinions from unknown and totally unreliable sources.

 

 

 

YOU rarely have anything to say besides "I heard from someone that...". It seems a bit contradictory to tell people they don't supply facts when you do nothing of the sort.

 

 

 

Stop being an [wagon], I've already said this keyboard is broken, it has this wierd malfunction with it. We can't figure it out. Anyways, it in no way hinders any ability, you just can't debate so you resort to that. Plus, to my knowledge, only once did I say that. And you've shown me nothing to convince me.

 

 

 

 

 

And Warri0r, depsite me having a 100+ in Biology all year, and getting a really high score on the SOL, I just can't see how Abiogensis is possible. Even seeing that page, I just can't fathom how something can come from nothing without divine intervention.

[NoMoreDead]

Stop being an [wagon], I've already said this keyboard is broken, it has this wierd malfunction with it. We can't figure it out. Anyways, it in no way hinders any ability, you just can't debate so you resort to that. Plus, to my knowledge, only once did I say that. And you've shown me nothing to convince me.

 

 

 

And Warri0r, depsite me having a 100+ in Biology all year, and getting a really high score on the SOL, I just can't see how Abiogensis is possible. Even seeing that page, I just can't fathom how something can come from nothing without divine intervention.

 

 

 

Does your keyboard also make you place commas in the wrong places?

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from someone who actually believes that the sun stood in the sky for a day, and then provides biased sources which, much like the person posting links to them, provides no factual evidence to back up it's claim.

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from the person who thinks that having a good grade in high school Biology put him on par with top scientists around the world. "Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it can't exist", right?

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from the person who consistently provides hearsay evidence and proceeds to act like those sources are infallible. Without providing sound, scientific evidence your claims are nothing to the educated community.

 

 

 

I can't debate? This is coming from the person who has resorted to name calling more than any other person involved in the topic, and acts as if he's defeated the other person's point.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-def ... iogenesis/

 

 

 

Abiogenesis is NOT, NOT, NOT something coming from nothing. Modern science does not consider Aristotelian abiogensis to be the modern, working definition, as it is easily disproven.

 

 

 

"The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This is a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms."

 

 

 

Still don't understand? I suggest you read up. It's not acceptable to be willingfully ignorant of what's going on in the field of modern science, and debate as if you are well informed.

[Cup Lion]

God is not only useless, he is also harmful in some cases.

 

Without God we could more easily pass forevertaking arguments of right and wrong; death sentence, euthanasia, abortion etc.

 

Without God, we could forsake our moral principles easier! That's just what we want.

[warri0r45]

Even seeing that page, I just can't fathom how something can come from nothing without divine intervention.

 

 

 

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but who said anything about something coming from nothing? Abiogenesis is a gradualistic process of building up simple pre-cellular life forms over time. The modern understanding, although patchy at times, goes something like this:

 

 

 

1) Simple chemicals abundant in the universe (CH4, NH3, H2O, H2) and an energy source (e.g. lightning) can form amino acids, fatty acids and the precursors to nucleotides.

 

2) Nucleotides and amino acids self-polymerise on a mineral surface while a clay substance called montmorillonite facilitates the formation of simple lipid micelles (spherical containers) to encase the newly formed polymers.

 

3) Autocatalytic (self-replicating) polymeric systems form and survive best in the micelles.

 

4) Natural selection takes over and a protobiont (pre-cellular organism) starts to evolve; the most successful and prolific self-replicators survive best and take over.

 

 

 

God is not only useless, he is also harmful in some cases.

 

Without God we could more easily pass forevertaking arguments of right and wrong; death sentence, euthanasia, abortion etc.

 

Without God, we could forsake our moral principles easier! That's just what we want.

 

 

 

To be fair, I think he was talking more about specific moral principles which are more or less religiously based. E.g. opposition to stem cell research, abortion, homosexual relationships, euthanasia, etc. Without religion, we wouldn't turn into mindless savages with no ethics, we'd just reconsider moral stances on issues that most of the time religion has the moral monopoly over.

[AlexDT]

If Alex can throw a shotput into orbit, he's got some damned mad skills.

 

 

 

That's the point. I can't. Just like someone can't rise from the dead after being crucified.

 

Let me rephrase my analogy:

 

 

 

I'm going to write a book. It'll state the following:

 

- The sun is a big burning ball of gas

 

- Nobody ever actually does gardening, it's a hallucination on the gardener's part. Your roses are tended to by magical pixies

 

- God is real

 

 

 

My point is that even though the first is true, it does not validate the third. And conceding that the second is false should, if anything, weaken your belief in the third, because they're written in the same book. But in the end, we should look at the third and work out if it's valid on its own - that is, look for evidence. The authors of the Bible may well have known how many Earth days it takes Jupiter to complete its orbit, or that subatomic particles don't follow the laws of physics, but we know that now, and we haven't found any proof of god.

 

And if there's still any confusion, I'm an atheist.

[Obtaurian]

ITT: We debate using either faulty logic, knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

 

 

I didn't have to read this thread to know that everyone here is wrong.

[pennywise]

ITT: We debate using either faulty logic, knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

 

 

I didn't have to read this thread to know that everyone here is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

What?

[Obtaurian]

ITT: We debate using either faulty logic, knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

 

 

I didn't have to read this thread to know that everyone here is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Exactly.

[Obtaurian]

ITT: We debate using either faulty logic, knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

 

 

I didn't have to read this thread to know that everyone here is wrong.

 

 

 

OK, I feel as though I've spammed, so I'll post my thoughts on the subject.

 

 

 

I was raised in a Christian household. In my early teens I decided that I was not a practicing Christian, did not hold Christian values, and most importantly, I did not believe in a Christian God.

 

 

 

I went through my Atheist phase, telling everyone who would listen that their God is a farce, etc, etc. Then I came to the conclusion that I am completely ignorant as to whether or not there is a God or higher power. Thus, I declared my agnosticism.

 

 

 

I'm now pursuing a career in astrophysics, or more specifically, cosmology, which is somewhat of a religion in itself. I am a highly curious person, and I find the unknown or supernatural to be extremely interesting. It is my belief that if there is a higher power, it is nothing like any religious deity. If there is a creator, who created the creator, and so and so on? It's endless. Perhaps one day we'll figure it out. We'll know what went on before that speck of matter exploded into our universe. Until then, I'm happy to ponder, and reluctant to conclude.

[AlexDT]

ITT: We debate using either faulty logic, knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

 

 

I didn't have to read this thread to know that everyone here is wrong.

 

 

 

We're all wrong, are we? So there is a god, it's just that he exists in a different way than the one we understand? There isn't a god, but we're wrong about the concept of nonexistence? How can we all be wrong? Either there is a god or there isn't. And until we discover some sort of supernatural realm, the God hypothesis can be tested in this natural world, using scientific principles. And it's been done. And we haven't found anything.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.