Is God real post your thoughts!

[D Jay99]

It's not just about the words, it's about meaning it. Just like an apology, what is the point of it if you don't mean it?

 

Of course you're going to be truly sorry for whatever you have done if you're otherwise going to hell. Except for people who actually want to go to hell, to see if it exists. Those people are seriously screwed if it does, though. :mrgreen:

[Saru Inc]

Of coruse not, Atheists see Miracles too, they just don't want to br proved wrong, so they label it 'science.'

 

What miracles would these be?

 

 

 

A rainbow? Is the refraction of light from the Sun as it hits a liquid (rain) and enters a medium with a different density to air, and again as it leaves. A fairly simple phenomenon that can be repeated manually by man using a glass triangular prism and a single beam of light, or if you're on a shoe-string budget, by sticking a straw into a glass full of water.

 

 

 

I can't see any evidence of a "miracle" there, and hence, the existence of a higher being.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, sorry I wasbn't saying the rainbow was a miracle. :lol:

 

 

 

But Satenza what I meant was, that they do not know what it is, so they label it science. Even though, science cannot explain everything. I mean, sure some things Jesus did could be explained by science, I'm not gonna deny it. But others simply can't; and I doubt some of them will be able to be explained. Like water into wine, and such.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Apart from written accounts of the event, which can always be manipulated and are more reliable in gaining an opinion rather then a factual sequence of events, there's no evidence to suggest Jesus did turn water into wine.

 

 

 

I'm more likely to believe the stories about Jesus in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, but are metaphors to illustrate guidelines the Bible means to convey. For example, the miracle of the fish and the bread. I don't believe for one minute he fed the masses on such a ridiculously low amount of food, however, I'm prepared to believe the hidden moral was that he taught people how to share food fairly amongst everyone, rich and poor, so as few people as possible starved to death.

 

 

 

Come to think it, that's all I see Holy Books as being: guidelines. There's a very good reason why Muslims are told to prepare meat in a certain way, given the hot climate in the Middle-East, even if you don't believe Allah exists.

[NoMoreDead]

But Satenza what I meant was, that they do not know what it is, so they label it science. Even though, science cannot explain everything. I mean, sure some things Jesus did could be explained by science, I'm not gonna deny it. But others simply can't; and I doubt some of them will be able to be explained. Like water into wine, and such.

 

 

 

You are so obviously wrong that it can hardly be put into words. Just because something cannot be explained by science at this moment in time does not mean that it won't ever be explained. There is no reason to label something "supernatural" or "devine" when, odds are, it will be disproven in a matter of weeks. So far, nothing has ever been tested that goes against what science leads us to believe about the world, it's origins, and the diversity of life.

 

 

 

And lastly, as I stated earlier, 90% of people in here can't debate, yet, no one is actually pointing out my mistakes, except for spelling ones. I only think about 3 total people can actually debate (atheists and Christians combined.)

 

 

 

THIS is the ultimate bit of irony. You provide little to nothing in terms of sources when you make a point. You never even answered my post directed towards you telling me that I couldn't debate. I really suggest you get a reality check and realize that your detrimental to your own side.

[Lenticular_J]

I wonder what blindly following something is. You know, when you believe it's the only thing that could be right and everything else must be wrong.

 

 

 

And even if it isn't right yet, it will be.

[Igor]

I don't think so. Life sucks in general for so many people that it makes it impossible to believe that there's a 'kind, loving, omnipotent being' who just doesn't care enough to help us with poverty, pollution, etc.

 

 

 

And i don't even bother thinking about it. Though it seems sort of bs-ey to me.

[Cup Lion]

Poverty and pollution (the latter might be debatable) both result in the actions of human beings. Life "sucks" for these people not because God made it that way for them, but because human beings did that to them. Most problems on this earth are related to human beings. That's the way I see it.

[BlueLancer]

Poverty and pollution (the latter might be debatable) both result in the actions of human beings. Life "sucks" for these people not because God made it that way for them, but because human beings did that to them. Most problems on this earth are related to human beings. That's the way I see it.

 

 

 

Exactly.. Countries aren't rich or poor by 'destiny'. Some countries rise out of poverty by suddenly discovering oil fields. Some countries became prosperous through hard word, blood and tears after WW2 and became very succesful (example: Japan).

 

 

 

There are countries where children & innocent people die of poverty, easily curable diseases, hunger... It doesn't happen because they deserve it or a 'God' is punishing them...

 

 

 

It happens because they have no sanitation, low access to medication, no clean drinking water, scarce food resources, lack of education to perform abstract work/construct infrastructure/provide medical aid, possibly robbed of natural resources by multinational companies (which, again, are run by humans & not God).

 

 

 

Although I don't expect some problems can be ever solved naturally. I've seen with my own eyes what countries like Somalia look like. There's simply too many people, too few resources to live on, and too many people becoming paranoid to control each other to survive... What else is going to happen than religious radicalisation, famines and wars?

 

 

 

Heck, it's not even limited to Africa. It can, and will happen anywhere where similar conditions are met. Just look back 15 years and see what happened in Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia during that time after Yugoslavia collapsed and people were driven to dire poverty.

[NoMoreDead]

Poverty and pollution (the latter might be debatable) both result in the actions of human beings. Life "sucks" for these people not because God made it that way for them, but because human beings did that to them. Most problems on this earth are related to human beings. That's the way I see it.

 

 

 

So if you're born into wealth, power, or any pleasant living situation, god is to be praised, but if you're born into poverty and struggle, god is NOT to blame?

[Saru Inc]

But Satenza what I meant was, that they do not know what it is, so they label it science. Even though, science cannot explain everything. I mean, sure some things Jesus did could be explained by science, I'm not gonna deny it. But others simply can't; and I doubt some of them will be able to be explained. Like water into wine, and such.

 

 

 

You are so obviously wrong that it can hardly be put into words. Just because something cannot be explained by science at this moment in time does not mean that it won't ever be explained. There is no reason to label something "supernatural" or "devine" when, odds are, it will be disproven in a matter of weeks. So far, nothing has ever been tested that goes against what science leads us to believe about the world, it's origins, and the diversity of life.

 

 

 

And lastly, as I stated earlier, 90% of people in here can't debate, yet, no one is actually pointing out my mistakes, except for spelling ones. I only think about 3 total people can actually debate (atheists and Christians combined.)

 

 

 

THIS is the ultimate bit of irony. You provide little to nothing in terms of sources when you make a point. You never even answered my post directed towards you telling me that I couldn't debate. I really suggest you get a reality check and realize that your detrimental to your own side.

 

 

 

Infact, no, I don't think that some things will EVER be explained by science. You obviously can't comprehend this, so I'll move on.

 

 

 

 

 

And which post was this? Re-post it please.

[NoMoreDead]

 

Infact, no, I don't think that some things will EVER be explained by science. You obviously can't comprehend this, so I'll move on.

 

 

 

And which post was this? Re-post it please.

 

 

 

Show me one phenominon that can't be explained by science that also disproves the theories of either evolution or the big bang and I'll be beyond impressed.

[skillerman84]

When I think of God I think of a kid and puppets with a big play house, in this case a world. He's playing with us dolls and we're doing the actual actions.

 

I still haven't figured out how he gets us all to move at one time though. Still my theory.

 

Oh yea and Heaven..I don't like the fact that we may be up there for thousands of years..in the same place..doing the same thing..

 

We'd have no reason to sleep-or worry because there's a hell where all the "bad" people go. So in Heaven does that mean everyone's happy all the time? Uber Scary... :shock:

 

gah I just freaked myself out.. :cry:

[Lenticular_J]

Poverty and pollution (the latter might be debatable) both result in the actions of human beings. Life "sucks" for these people not because God made it that way for them, but because human beings did that to them. Most problems on this earth are related to human beings. That's the way I see it.

 

 

 

So if you're born into wealth, power, or any pleasant living situation, god is to be praised, but if you're born into poverty and struggle, god is NOT to blame?

 

Funny thing is, the wealthy are a lot more likely to be atheists. Need to find the study, I don't remember the percentage. Although it does make sense.

 

 

 

Hehe, Skiller, the puppet thing made me giggle. I think of thatevery time I play the Sims.

 

 

 

Do you ever think if we make artificial intelligence and don't do anything, they'll wonder if there's a God? I don't, but I suppose it's possible.

[Saru Inc]

 

Infact, no, I don't think that some things will EVER be explained by science. You obviously can't comprehend this, so I'll move on.

 

 

 

And which post was this? Re-post it please.

 

 

 

Show me one phenominon that can't be explained by science that also disproves the theories of either evolution or the big bang and I'll be beyond impressed.

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Umm... Creation...

[NoMoreDead]

 

Infact, no, I don't think that some things will EVER be explained by science. You obviously can't comprehend this, so I'll move on.

 

 

 

And which post was this? Re-post it please.

 

 

 

Show me one phenominon that can't be explained by science that also disproves the theories of either evolution or the big bang and I'll be beyond impressed.

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Umm... Creation...

 

 

 

Creation is not testible. Creation is an amazingly broad thing, anyway. Yet again you fail to provide testible, proven evidence.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

[tryto]

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

 

 

 

 

 

Study up on meiosis. That ensures variety in organisms that use it. That's a fairly basic concept, you'd probably study it in high school bio.

 

I believe warrior mentioned abiogenesis several times, but that's a newish theory, I believe. I don't know all that much about it.

 

 

 

EDIT: Guy below me has much more details :)

[skillerman84]

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

 

*gets into nerd mode* :ugeek:

 

-Well it's hard to explain really. I'll try and keep it sure but it may be hard not to write a novel. I do only know of 3 though.

 

 

 

-(1.)Many people believe many things. Some people believe in Spontaneos Generation.

 

[hide=Spontaneous Generation]About 2300 years ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle made observations of the natural world. During and after his lifetime, people thought that living things followed a set of natural rules that were different from thosefor nonliving things.They also though that special "vital" forces brought some living things into being from nonliving material (ex. rocks). About 400 years ago, some people began to challenge these ideas.

 

 

 

-For centuries people accepted the explanation for the sudden appearance of some organisms, that somehow "arose" from nonliving matter. Scholars of the day even gave a name to the idea that life could possibly arise from nonliving material-spontaneous generation. In today's terms it's considered a hypothesis.[/hide]

 

-(2.)The first living organism was not created; it was formed in the process known as Abiogenesis. [hide=Abiogenesis]The most likely scenario (using Earth as the obvious example) runs like this:-

 

For the first billion years of the Earth's existence the atmosphere was known as a "Reducing Atmosphere", containing chemicals such as Methane, Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Ammonia with no free Oxygen.

 

 

 

-Heat from both the Sun and from Geothermal activity heated these and many other chemicals causing billions upon billions of chemical reactions to take place every second in every litre of water on the planet. Frequent lightning strikes also energised the various reactions. Under such conditions a wide variety of chemical compounds are formed, including nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, oils and carbohydrates. Because of the reducing atmosphere these are much more stable than they are in an oxygen-rich environment and so both accumulate and also participate in further reactions.

 

 

 

-The accumlated organic compounds in effect compete, not only to be formed but also to remain in existence. Some of these compounds, such as Ribonucleic Acid (RNA), especially in association with proteins are capable of self-replication whereby they become templates for formation of similar or identical molecules and also catalyse such reactions.

 

 

 

-Such self-replicating molecules will now compete for substrates and survival - and some may be capable of breaking down rival molecules and incorporating them into their own structures. As self-replication is never perfect, a number of rivals will produce a situation where natural selection will ensure the perpetuation of those molecules most capable of self-replication.

 

 

 

-Some molecules became entrapped in bubbles of oil (liposomes) which protected them from the digesting effects of rival "predator" molecules. This, in effect is the most primitive cell, someone akin to a virus or simple bacterium. As time progressed these simple cells acquired a greater biochemical repertoir and were able to synthesise their own cell membranes and many other chemicals that enable them to survive in the most varied and hostile environments. To this day, bacteria are far more biochemically versatile than any other living things.

 

 

 

-Just as bacteria were formed by the self-replicating RNA (later to become DNA) being coated in an oily membrane, so bacteria grouped together and became coated in a further oily membrane to formed the first Eukaryotic cells. Even today it is possible to identify a number of formerly free-living bacteria which now form essential organelles within our cells - for example, Mitochondria and the Golgli Apparatus (and Chloroplasts in plants).

 

 

 

-The whole process took place over at least a billion years - and only had to produce the first living thing once in all that time. With a billion years and a billion chemical reactions taking place every second in each of the billions of litres of liquid water on the Earth even the most improbable event (which Abiogenesis isn't) becomes not just likely but inevitable.[/hide]

 

-(3.)God.

 

[hide=God]Many people believe God created all living things, animals, plants, etc. Adam and Eve cam and..yeah I'm hoping you already know or have heard of this so I don't have to explain this also.[/hide]

 

 

 

Tryto beat me to the post-I went into detail and explained everything though. 8-)

 

Edit:spelling errors.

[warren211]

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

 

 

 

There is some evidence that indeed, all creatures of the world are linked and share a common origin. Like the cycle of ATP and ADP, which provides the energy necessary for all creatures to carry out chemical reactions.

 

 

 

Poverty and pollution (the latter might be debatable) both result in the actions of human beings. Life "sucks" for these people not because God made it that way for them, but because human beings did that to them. Most problems on this earth are related to human beings. That's the way I see it.

 

 

 

So if you're born into wealth, power, or any pleasant living situation, god is to be praised, but if you're born into poverty and struggle, god is NOT to blame?

 

 

 

This is where things get murky. Some would agree with you, God is to be praised when you're wealthy, but it's not his fault when you're poor. If you ask me that's pretty ridiculous. Now, I do think it's perfectly fine to praise God if you lead a happy life. However, numerous quotes in the Bible show that your status in this world doesn't matter in the afterlife. God works more on you're life after death than your present status. The Beatitudes show this rather well.

[Saru Inc]

 

Infact, no, I don't think that some things will EVER be explained by science. You obviously can't comprehend this, so I'll move on.

 

 

 

And which post was this? Re-post it please.

 

 

 

Show me one phenominon that can't be explained by science that also disproves the theories of either evolution or the big bang and I'll be beyond impressed.

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Umm... Creation...

 

 

 

Creation is not testible. Creation is an amazingly broad thing, anyway. Yet again you fail to provide testible, proven evidence.

 

 

 

Well, in that case, many things aren't testible, Aliens aren't, for one. Anyways, you didn't read my first post, somethings will never be able to be explained, thus why they are miracles, and not acts of nature. Somethings, like the sun, are acts of nature, science can explain them, I'm not debating that.

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp

 

 

 

That's not really for or against Creation, but it was an interesting read.

 

 

 

And this also, isn't for Creationism exactly, but for the Bible in general:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

 

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.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

 

 

 

Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if you click here you will see one of many online Scientific websites that list the element Pulonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now this, I think you guys disproved, I forget what you guys said, just posting it.

 

 

 

 

 

Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. 13The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the link:

 

 

 

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

 

 

 

 

 

And lastly, I can see how people think of the Big Bang, because the Universe is expanding, but I don't know why it is.

 

EDIT:

 

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

 

 

 

There is some evidence that indeed, all creatures of the world are linked and share a common origin. Like the cycle of ATP and ADP, which provides the energy necessary for all creatures to carry out chemical reactions.

 

 

 

Yea, well, according to the Bible, there was Adam, then Eve, then everyone else.

[skillerman84]

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

 

 

 

There is some evidence that indeed, all creatures of the world are linked and share a common origin. Like the cycle of ATP and ADP, which provides the energy necessary for all creatures to carry out chemical reactions.

 

 

 

Yea, well, according to the Bible, there was Adam, then Eve, then everyone else.

 

Technically he wants the "real" answer. And the real answer(s) have to do with evolution and you are not supposed to bring religion into evolution; which you just did. Look at my post two(2) above yours. Those are what he is looking for but probally too lazy to read them since they are long(not meaning to call you out lenticular because I probally wouldn't read them either, depending on how desperate I am to know the answer). :thumbsup:

[Saru Inc]

"tl;dr" gotta agree with you there. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

But I was just showing the religious side of it.

 

 

 

In fact, there's a crazy long line of genealogy in the Bible, in this one book, I forgot which though. =D> #-o #-o

 

 

 

The one thing I can't understand, is after Noah, how did the Earth populate so fast. And, how did Noah's family commit incest, and not becoming mentally [developmentally delayed]ed (unlike the Hasburgs) :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

I still don't think it makes sense. Call me a romantic, but I don't think that A) An organism (or even cell) just sprung up out of nothing, and B) That we humans just one day were drinking from a pond and actually saw ourselves. I think something else - I call Him God - had a hand in it.

[Saru Inc]

Lent, read the link I gave 'AnswersInGenesis' it's quite good, I imagine even an Atheist may like it.

[warri0r45]

I don't understand how the first organism just became. What did it evolve out of? And since we've all divided from that one cell, wouldn't that literally make every single person and living thing on the planet, well, the same?

 

 

 

Skillerman explained abiogenesis fairly well. The only thing I'd fault him on is that endosymbiotic theory doesn't state that the Golgi apparatus came from bacteria (you don't really need to worry about that because it has nothing to do with the formation of the first cell).

 

 

 

Alternately, you can check out this website.

 

 

 

As for the second question, we're not the same because of mutations in the replication of DNA. Every time a cell divides, the DNA must be replicated; in essence it needs to form a clone of itself. The problem is that life isn't perfect, and every now and then mistakes creep in. A mutation can be the insertion or deletion of a single nucleotide or the substitution of one nucleotide for another.

 

 

 

Assuming you don't know highschool bio (sorry if you do), a nucleotide is the basic building block of DNA and it comes in four types - A, G, T and C. So when the sequence "AGGTTCA" is replicated, on a rare occasion it may result in the copy being "AGCTTCA" or even "AGGTTTCA". These changes are passed down the cell generations and in organisms like us, to our sperm and eggs. Essentially, mutations are the foundation of evolution.

 

 

 

Alternately, a broad class of processes called genetic recombination can cause more significant changes in DNA. For example, when our chromosomes are copied, the copies line up along the equator of a dividing cell before being partitioned into the two daughter cells. It's at this time that the clones can exchange information with each other, or the maternal copy can exchange information with the paternal copy. That's called crossing over, and unequal crossing over can result in one cell with extra information and the other with "deleted" information. This facilitates another process called gene duplication, which then leads to the evolution of gene families. Ok, I'll not go off on a tangent too much. You can ask me more about that if you like.

 

 

 

Another means of attaining genetic identity between organisms comes with genome duplication, which, not unlike the crossing over scenario, results in both copies of all chromosomes entering the one daughter cell. This process is called nondisjunction, and it can also lead to duplication of entire individual chromosomes. Some of these changes are biologically feasible, while others aren't. You can think of Down Syndrome as an example here - they have an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. Again, the reason for that is a failure of cell division to partition the chromosomes properly, i.e. nondisjunction.

 

 

 

Well, that deals with change, but something else I'm getting from your question is why aren't we more similar if we all came from a common origin. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your question, but I'll answer it anyway.

 

 

 

Warren essentially touched on this point in his post - at the fundamental level, all life is remarkably similar. Firstly, all life uses DNA as the genetic material (made of the same four nucleotides, no less), and its function in all organisms is the same - to direct the production of proteins via the genetic code. Speaking of the genetic code, it is very similar across all life on earth and identical across most species, hence why we can express human proteins in E. coli, for example (diabetics probably know what I'm talking about as they get their insulin through that technology). The next logical observation here is that all life uses the same subset of 20 amino acids to make proteins. There are some exotic outliers like selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, but those fundamental 20 are the main ones by far.

 

 

 

The next point of similarity would be metabolism, where all organisms utilise glucose as their main metabolic fuel and shunt it through the glycolysis pathway to generate energy. The majority of organisms (save for some families of bacteria that rely only on glycolysis) then input the products of that process into the citric acid cycle, which provides energy to fuel another fundamental metabolic process - oxidative phosphorylation. Some bacteria get tricky and use sulphates, nitrates, hydrogen gas, etc, as final electron acceptors whereas we animals use oxygen gas for that purpose.

 

 

 

And as Warren said, all organisms use the same energy currency to drive our chemical reactions - ATP.