Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as Nimon of M)
Posts: 1282/4773
Donated $9.31
(10-Jan-2004 at 02:57)


MAPS, exuse my language, but how the f*ck should we know what's perfect? You say God is perfect. Perfect in who's eyes? There is no such thing as perfect, it all depends on the person. And you can't just say "Perfect in every way", because that goes several ways. You can't be perfect in just the good stuff, if you are perfect in everyting. Then you are the perfect murderer, the perfect rapist, the perfect satan, you are everything, good or bad.

I suspect you are one of those christians that ignore everything, and refuse to think over what you believe.

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk

Last edited by Nimon, 10-Jan-2004 at 02:58.
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 527/728
(10-Jan-2004 at 03:04)
not only do you not know, but you can't know what perfection is, because all humans are flawed. Therefore, why bother worrying about it? Its just the same with god. We don't know what he wants, so why bother thinking about it. For all we know, he punishes people who waste their time praying to him.

_-^-_ OH NO! MY WOOLEN SUIT HAS NYLON IN IT! BETTER FIRE UP THE INCINERATOR AND GET MYSELF A GOAT! A female one...god doesn't want a male one...
#42  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 13/25
(10-Jan-2004 at 06:21)
Wow, this has to be the single most stupid thread I've ever seen. If you people want to rebuke the Bible, how about picking it up and reading it more than once.

Quote:
MAPS, exuse my language, but how the f*ck should we know what's perfect? You say God is perfect. Perfect in who's eyes? There is no such thing as perfect, it all depends on the person. And you can't just say "Perfect in every way", because that goes several ways. You can't be perfect in just the good stuff, if you are perfect in everyting. Then you are the perfect murderer, the perfect rapist, the perfect satan, you are everything, good or bad.

I suspect you are one of those christians that ignore everything, and refuse to think over what you believe.
First off, if you really suspect that then you're even more ignorant than i first thought... even if i don't agree with everything MAPS says. With that said, first look at this quote from him:
Quote:
It is impossible for him to do anything wrong. God cannot sin! Ever!
And since murdering, raping, and being "the perfect satan" just might be classified as sins, I don't think you can exactly base an argument on that. Now I'm not saying you don't and can't have an argument against what he said, only that the grounds you chose weren't the best ones on the list. And btw, when/if you do come up with a good argument, make sure to notify me so i can then refute *that* one


Quote:
not only do you not know, but you can't know what perfection is, because all humans are flawed.
Can we, as humans, fly?? But can we understand how and why a bird can fly? I'm in no way saying that God is anywhere equal to a bird, but even though the difference is great, it's not infinite.


Quote:
We don't know what he wants, so why bother thinking about it. For all we know, he punishes people who waste their time praying to him.
1) The Bible tells us what he wants (or at least what he wants us to do), 2)The Bible tells us to pray more times than i can count.

P.S. please let it be noted that everything I say is what I personally think... if you just so happen to think differently, feel free to tell me; I encourage it, really... just try not to be such an ass like all those before you
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by prize Add prize to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 530/728
(10-Jan-2004 at 14:19)
lol thats what u think...there is no evidence to back it up. For all we know, the bible might be all wrong. People pick religions to reflect themselves anyway, not the other way round. Hence the big religions tend to splinter into lots of little ones, eg the seventy-something christian denominations.

_-^-_ OH NO! MY WOOLEN SUIT HAS NYLON IN IT! BETTER FIRE UP THE INCINERATOR AND GET MYSELF A GOAT! A female one...god doesn't want a male one...
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Fighter)
Posts: 2490/4986
(10-Jan-2004 at 19:02)


PatrioticSpirit,

Quote:
PUBLIC NOTICE! I will respond to any question, statement, arguement, as I choose, or not at all if I choose!
Of course, but it's quite lame replying to only half of the arguments - ignoring the others which were very good as well.

Quote:
There is a big difference in reading the Bible and studying the Bible; At least in my opinion. Its the difference in reading the commandment that says don't kill and understanding it means don't murder; two different things.
Of course, Jahweh would never make a rule not to kill! What to do with all those people who are gay? Witches? Of other religions? Have premarital sex? Or just the occasional innocent baby just for the fun of it!

Studying the bible in your opinion means to explain it all from a positive view. I study the bible, and can only conclude that it is a very negative book. That does not mean I don't study it, that means I'm not agreeing with your fundie views.

Quote:
I believe (opinion) your hate (and others on these boards)for the Bible and God will not allow you to objectivly learn about the Bible and the teachings contained in it.
I believe (opinion based on facts) that you are for some reason blind to the truth. The bible shows how a cruel person God is, and that's looking at it objectively.

Quote:
Here is a test; What is the meaning of the teaching by Jesus to "turn the other cheek"?
It's contradicting Jahweh's nice advise : eye for an eye etc. Luckily it's already pointed out that this biblical advise would leave the whole world blind

Quote:
BF, let me explain something to you. God=GOD! Dont you get it? He is the all mighty, all knowing God of the entire universe! It is impossible for him to do anything wrong. God cannot sin! Ever! No matter how hard you try, you can not truthfully say that God can sin. It's not possible. everything God does is right. That is what defines him to be perfect. That is what defines him to be God! If God sins, he will cease to be God. If there is no God, there is no order, there is no light, there is no good. Nothing would exist. All that you know would cease to be. You keep saying that God is doing things wrong. But you fail to comprehend that God does not do things according to what you think is right. We are to do things according to what
God knows is right. He is our example, not the other way around. I don't care what it is. If God does it, it must be right. You can continue to believe what you want but I just had to attempt to explain this one more time!
It would be quite good if God actually was unable to mess up! Unfortunately he kills and tortures innocent people according to the bible. The God you are talking about here, is not the God from the bible.

If you say that God did not do anything wrong, then you are defending the killing of pregnant women, babies, little childeren, old people, homosexuals, witches etc.

Sure you can claim that God knows best, and that he is right. But I certainly say this : my morals are a whole lot better than the ones of your God!

God is nót all knowing, as the bible shows. God is nót perfect, as the bible shows. God is an ass, as the bible shows!

You really want to follow that God? You really think he is right? Based on the bible, you're rather following Satan than God!

And please don't say that nothing would exist without God, humanity kinda figured out the origins of life etc. already
#45  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 48/1288
(10-Jan-2004 at 20:30)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Black Fighter)
It's contradicting Jahweh's nice advise : eye for an eye etc. Luckily it's already pointed out that this biblical advise would leave the whole world blind
Eye for an eye is the law of Moses. It's the preporatory law. The Hewbrews were not ready for the law of God because they were still used to the law of Egypt. They could not make the transition to the law of God so they were given this preporatory law. It was a step up. It could be compared to the nicotine gum that helps people slowly quit smoking. This law was later replaced when Jesus came and instituted the law of God which states "turn the other cheek."

Quote:
(Originally posted by Black Fighter) It would be quite good if God actually was unable to mess up! Unfortunately he kills and tortures innocent people according to the bible. The God you are talking about here, is not the God from the bible.
We are talking about the very same God. We just have different views of him.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Black Fighter) If you say that God did not do anything wrong, then you are defending the killing of pregnant women, babies, little childeren, old people, homosexuals, witches etc.
When men do these things, they are sin. When God does these things they are not sin because God can't sin as I said.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Black Fighter) Sure you can claim that God knows best, and that he is right. But I certainly say this : my morals are a whole lot better than the ones of your God!
[SARCASM]Of course! You know EVERYTHING! You have a perfect knowledge of the past present and future of everything in the universe. There is no way your morals could be flawed![/SARCASM]

Quote:
(Originally posted by Black Fighter) God is nót all knowing, as the bible shows. God is nót perfect, as the bible shows. God is an ass, as the bible shows!
The bible shows: Matt 5 : 48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

By this, we see God is perfect. If you don't accept this to be true, then the bible must not be true. If the bible isn't true, everything you have presented against God using the bible is not true. Therefore, you have no evidence to back your claims that God is an ass.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Black Fighter) And please don't say that nothing would exist without God, humanity kinda figured out the origins of life etc. already
As I said before, [SARCASM]Humans know everything! There is no way people can make mistakes! Humans never thought the earth was flat either![/SARCASM]

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 538/728
(11-Jan-2004 at 01:09)
i don't think anyone believes that every word in the bible is false. Various groups just pick out the convenient bits to support their beliefs, so to disagree with someone, all you have to do is pick different bits, and you can still claim to believe in the bible. For example, there is a huge portion of christianity which doesn't take genesis literally, but follows the teachings later on in the text.

_-^-_ OH NO! MY WOOLEN SUIT HAS NYLON IN IT! BETTER FIRE UP THE INCINERATOR AND GET MYSELF A GOAT! A female one...god doesn't want a male one...
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1224/1421
(11-Jan-2004 at 05:25)


Quote:
When men do these things, they are sin. When God does these things they are not sin because God can't sin as I said.
Okay, this I just don't get. So the only reason god can't sin is because he's GOD? That's like saying an Alpha Wolf can meow just because he's the head of the pack. There is absolutley no sense in it what so ever, nor is it true.

First of all, yes, the bible isn't to be taken seriously at ALL times. But one thing Ive noticed is that if anything is pointing against the bible, its not to be taken literally, and yet anything that supports the bible in all way is to be taken literally. Seems to me like you are hiding from the truth.

And I agree with Rabbousamai. Isn't it so convient when you have a huge book that you can just pick bits and peices out of to support your argument?

(¯`·._.·[ ]·._.·´¯)
.: :. Lord Anubis .: :.
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt; born 28th of October 2004, died 28th of October 2004
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. ~ Thomas Jefferson
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Anubis Add Lord Anubis to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 550/728
(11-Jan-2004 at 05:31)
heh wish i had my time machine...could go back with a bit of penicillin, magically heal a few people, then write a book for everyone to follow.

_-^-_ OH NO! MY WOOLEN SUIT HAS NYLON IN IT! BETTER FIRE UP THE INCINERATOR AND GET MYSELF A GOAT! A female one...god doesn't want a male one...
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Duda EnD)
Posts: 40/100
(11-Jan-2004 at 06:25)


ANSWER THIS THEN YOU CRISTIANS

I challenge you cristians reading this below to meet it on the basis of (Common Ground).


1. Prove, or at least produce compelling evidence, that god exists and Prove, or at least produce compelling evidence, that you exist from God.

2. Prove, or at least provide compelling evidence, that this god is the god of the bible.

3. Do you believe that the bible is historically accurate?

If so, please produce credible evidence for the actual historical reality of the biblical creation accounts, the Flood and Noah's Ark, the Exodus, Herod's slaughter, and most importantly, the alleged magical undeadening of Jesus.

4. Produce evidence for the actual historical existence of Jesus.

5. Explain why the name "Jesus Christ" means "Savior Anointed".

6. Please harmonize the hopelessly contradictory magical undeadening accounts in the gospels.

7. Explain why there are many factual, scientific and even grammatical errors and absurdities in the bible if it truly is the "word of God".

8. Explain why there are hundreds or even thusands of contradictions in your allegedly "inerrant" bible.

9. Explain how a snake and a donkey can talk and why I should take the absurd biblical fairy tales associated with these talking animals seriously as literal history.

10. “Explain why I should believe that I and everyone who is not a Christian should take seriously the notion that we are deceived by a talking animal, or at least by an evil spook who takes the form of a talking animal”.

11. Prove your not a descendant of Apes or an Ape related Primate.

If the Bible is NOT TRUE, then answer these questions should not be a difficult task.

Nothing is impossible with god, right? Glory!

If your Troubled Just Remember the Bible, Just remember:
"Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

For Dedication, I shall Respect. For Honor, I shall Praise. For Love, I shall obey. For Justice I shall seek.
Duda - 173958394 - IHJ Consul of Diplomacy and Development.
#50  
View Public Profile Visit Duda IHJ's homepage Find more posts by Duda IHJ Add Duda IHJ to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 37/44
(11-Jan-2004 at 09:35)
Let me clarify something before I answer the dude above me.

Quote:
Okay, this I just don't get. So the only reason god can't sin is because he's GOD? That's like saying an Alpha Wolf can meow just because he's the head of the pack. There is absolutely no sense in it what so ever, nor is it true.
Maps explanation wasn't sufficient, I agree. I will explain. God can do this because he can judge his creation, an example of this is the flood. Think of it this way, you just spent hours building this huge sandcastle, if you wanted, you have the right to destroy it. Make sense? Oh and, before you go "Well humans are living things and a sandcastle is not a living thing, humans are though so that isn't fair for God to do the flood because they are alive and sandcastles are not!!!11" you must realise that we are NOT alive... well to God anyway. We are dead in our sins. That was the whole purpose for the flood in the first place.

Ok, now on with the "copy + paste questions" dude above me.

1. No one can prove that God exists and no one can prove that he doesn't. This is just a stupid question, if the answer were possible to prove the 'great mystery of life' would not be such a mystery now would it? This is where a word FAITH comes in. Yes, I have faith that God does exist (the Christian God, by the way), and you have faith that he does not. No matter what you believe it depends on faith. However, mine is not blind like yours.

That we exist from God...? Hmmm, slightly tricky, but let us consider the law of biogenesis, A.K.A, the cell principle, which states "life must come from life". Oh and, if you are an atheist evolutionist, which is what I am assuming, then this law of science is in direct contradiction to evolution, which requires the emergence of life from nonliving matter. One of them must be wrong... I would side with the one we have absolute proof of and is a LAW of science.... would you not agree?

Now considering this, if God is not the answer... then what was the first initial life that gave birth to what we now have here on Earth? The only other possible answer, now knowing that life must come from life, is that the universe had no beginning, it has always stretched for infinite, and there has always been life around for infinite, thus having no beginning. Then one time along the track another life form magically made its way down to Earth and produced asexually, and then taking away all the impossibilities of life forms randomly sorting each other out to create the huge array of diversity we currently have today, implement Darwin’s theory of evolution, throw in a few billion years, presto! Here we are...?

Even if you would assume to believe such things (which to me sounds completely absurd) then you would be in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics... which states that all things are wearing down, using up fuel, and will eventually come to an end. The very fact that we are now not in a state called 'heat death'... which implies there is no more available work to do or fuel to burn is evidence enough that the universe cannot possibly be infinite in age.

So, proof that we came from God? What other possibility is there? I would like to hear your suggestion... that doesn't violate any laws of science.

2. There is many a thing I could use to prove this one, but I will use the most obvious one, bible prophecy. There are approximately a total of 1000 bible prophecies which are continuously coming true... even today. All prophecies have came true, and NONE, when I say none I mean none, have not come true, all except revelation, the final book of the bible, which tells us of the end of all things.

I know alot of you will now be going "But people like Nostradamus have made prophecies and some have come true!!1" If a prophet has 99.99999% accuracy, but made one wrong prophecy, he is a false prophet, however the bible on this level is 100% accurate, unlike Nostradamus and many others.

Most critics would now assume that all of the prophecies must have been written after they were fulfilled (Like shooting an arrow and drawing the bulls eye where it landed). It would only be natural to assume such a thing, especially of the prophecies made by the prophet Daniel, which were fulfilled so freakishly right down to the very detail that historians had been extremely critical of it for many years. If you guys want me to go into a full blast proof of prophecies happening after they were written, I will. I will keep updating this post, because this is taking way to long... I will stop here for now.

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. – John 8;32
#51  
View Public Profile Find more posts by ReMaRQaBLe Add ReMaRQaBLe to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Fighter)
Posts: 2495/4986
(11-Jan-2004 at 09:53)


Quote:
Eye for an eye is the law of Moses. It's the preporatory law. The Hewbrews were not ready for the law of God because they were still used to the law of Egypt. They could not make the transition to the law of God so they were given this preporatory law. It was a step up. It could be compared to the nicotine gum that helps people slowly quit smoking. This law was later replaced when Jesus came and instituted the law of God which states "turn the other cheek."
The Law of Moses was directly given by Jahweh (if you believe what the bible says). This law included a whole lot of very cruel commands stated by God himself. Now you are blaming the Egyptians?

For 1500 years childeren who did not obey their parents should be killed. For 1500 years people worshipping other Gods should be killed. For 1500 years homosexuals should be killed. For 1500 years people having sex before marriage should be killed. For 1500 years 'an eye for an eye' counts.

Couldn't Jesus have come any sooner and stop these ridiculous laws from entering the bible, as they were only a 'step up' anyway? I think your argument that these ridiculous laws were a transition is one of the poorest attempts to explain Gods cruelty éver.

Quote:
We are talking about the very same God. We just have different views of him.
My views are based on the bible. If I read about a God who kills a litte baby, of only a few days old, then I read about a cruel and unfair God.

Quote:
When men do these things, they are sin. When God does these things they are not sin because God can't sin as I said.
O great, just call yourself God and you can go on killing and torturing all you want! Don't think about setting a bad example to humanity, just go out and have fun - the poor people won't care if you kill them since they know you're doing the right thing anyway!

Quote:
[SARCASM]Of course! You know EVERYTHING! You have a perfect knowledge of the past present and future of everything in the universe. There is no way your morals could be flawed![/SARCASM]
I have never said that I know everything. My morals however do not include killing people for these reasons, nor do my morals allow me to kill pregnant women, childeren and little babies.
I wish I had knowledge of the past, present and future of the universe - but that has nothing to do with my morals.
I never said my morals can't be flawed. Sure, I'm a big egoist just as any human being when it comes to it. I wouldn't kill a little baby though, like your God did.

Quote:
By this, we see God is perfect. If you don't accept this to be true, then the bible must not be true. If the bible isn't true, everything you have presented against God using the bible is not true. Therefore, you have no evidence to back your claims that God is an ass.
Of course the bible is not true. The God from the bible is an ass however. It is like showing Harry Potter is a nerd, based on the books. No-one would need to believe the books are real!

Next to that, the bible very often contradicts itself and makes quite some mistakes such as historical flaws.

Quote:
As I said before, [SARCASM]Humans know everything! There is no way people can make mistakes! Humans never thought the earth was flat either![/SARCASM]
I never said humanity knows everything. We do have overwhelming evidence for both the Big Bang and evolution and no-one can challenge all of that evidence. We know where we came from, and we are getting closer to finding out where the universe came from.

While the writers of the bible still clearly believed the Earth to be flat, more advanced civilizations had long figured out that it is round already.

Scientists in ancient times (before Christ) didn't all thinkt he Earth was flat, there was quite some evidence on it being round. The bible states that it is flat however, though I'm sure you will explain all those verses as poetic

Today, people are still defending the Earth is flat based on the bible.
#52  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1312/8194
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:03)
Quote:
(Originally posted by ReMaRQaBLe)
Maps explanation wasn't sufficient, I agree. I will explain. God can do this because he can judge his creation, an example of this is the flood. Think of it this way, you just spent hours building this huge sandcastle, if you wanted, you have the right to destroy it. Make sense? Oh and, before you go "Well humans are living things and a sandcastle is not a living thing, humans are though so that isn't fair for God to do the flood because they are alive and sandcastles are not!!!11" you must realise that we are NOT alive... well to God anyway. We are dead in our sins. That was the whole purpose for the flood in the first place.
Some people claim atheism gives a bleak view of existence, that we have no special purpose and only exist by chance. Then you read something like ReMaRQaBLe and realize that Christianity is far worse. What he writes is that we are nothing but toys of God to do with as he pleases. We may think we are important, but we aren't. Should he decide to end it all he can do so and it would all be for the best (by definition).

One of the contradictions in the bible is that it sometimes describe God as a father, while other times as a shepherd. This is contradictory, a father raises his children in the hope of giving them good lives, a shepherd keeps his flock for profit, killing them when he see fit. ReMaRQaBLe is firmly entrenced in the God as shepherd camp, it seems.

Quote:
That we exist from God...? Hmmm, slightly tricky, but let us consider the law of biogenesis, A.K.A, the cell principle, which states "life must come from life". Oh and, if you are an atheist evolutionist, which is what I am assuming, then this law of science is in direct contradiction to evolution, which requires the emergence of life from nonliving matter.
There is no law that says life can't appear from dead matter, at the contrary we have good reason to assume it did happen, even if we haven't been able to reproduce exactly how yet. Thus your arguments fail.

Quote:
2. There is many a thing I could use to prove this one, but I will use the most obvious one, bible prophecy. There are approximately a total of 1000 bible prophecies which are continuously coming true... even today. All prophecies have came true, and NONE, when I say none I mean none, have not come true, all except revelation, the final book of the bible, which tells us of the end of all things.
How can you both say that the prophesies are still coming true and say that they all have already come true at the same time? Or do you mean we are already in the revelations part? People have believed that before and turned out to be wrong.

Quote:
I know alot of you will now be going "But people like Nostradamus have made prophecies and some have come true!!1" If a prophet has 99.99999% accuracy, but made one wrong prophecy, he is a false prophet, however the bible on this level is 100% accurate, unlike Nostradamus and many others.
Nostradamus is 100% wrong. What he, and the bible, has done is to write prophesies that are so vague that they can be fit to any number of events. Those who wish to believe will then pick one of these and say that the prophesy has come true. *Which* event they match the prophesy to tend to vary, though.

Quote:
If you guys want me to go into a full blast proof of prophecies happening after they were written, I will. I will keep updating this post, because this is taking way to long... I will stop here for now.
Do give a couple of good examples.
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Fighter)
Posts: 2497/4986
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:32)


A bit of science

To elaborate on the ridiculous idea that there is a universal law saying life must come from life, I will argue in this post that abiogenesis is very likely.

This is in response to Remarqable, who said the following :

Quote:
Hmmm, slightly tricky, but let us consider the law of biogenesis, A.K.A, the cell principle, which states "life must come from life". Oh and, if you are an atheist evolutionist, which is what I am assuming, then this law of science is in direct contradiction to evolution, which requires the emergence of life from nonliving matter.
Anyone not interested in the scientific details can skip my post, it only shows that life originated from chemicals and is of no direct importance to the rest of the discussion (I think).

The Law of Biogenesis
There is absolutely no law saying that simple life forms can not come from dead matter. Pasteur disprooved the quite funny idea that mice and maggots could spontaneously appear.

If you take a bunch of molecules, and you then put it molecule for molecule together to form an exact copy of a cell you would get ... a cell! All living things are just a bunch of chemicals, and yes they can come together naturally.

The odds of life arising are incredibly small
This is an often used argument, but it is completely wrong.

- Biochemistry is definately not chance, so you can't calculate a probability.
- All over the Earth there would be trials all the time for millions and millions of years. It has been prooved that amino acids, the basis for life, form naturally. They are bound to form a self replicator eventually.
- The first life would have been much simpler, a single strand of 6 DNA nucleotides can self replicate already! Very big chance of that originating!
- There innumerable possible proteins and other molecules which give biological activity. Calculating just the one that eventually dominated life on Earth is quite short sighted.

Even the simplest life is very complex
- Life today is way more complex than the first life was. All of the very simple, first life forms, have been outcompeted by more complex forms : natural selection.
- "Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides [Sievers and von Kiedrowski, 1994]. This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin whether or not you call the molecules "life"."

Keep in mind that...
...amino acids have áll been formed in experiments simulating the Earth's original atmosphere. Amino acids are the base for life. That they are prooven to form naturally shows how inevitable the existance of life is under the circumstances which were on Earth long ago.
...biochemistry is not chance!
...the first life is likely to have been very simple. As said twice before, a single strand of 6 DNA nucleotides can self replicate already!

I am not sure why you seem to think that life can not come from dead material. It definately can, and even is very likely to. There's no law of biogenesis.

- Edit :

I almost forgot to give my great source; here you will find references to all experiments and books refuting the claims that abiogenesis is impossible and showing it is quite likely. (Under 'Biology')

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Last edited by Ki Intensity, 11-Jan-2004 at 10:36.
Edit reason: Giving the link
#54  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 38/44
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:34)
Quote:
Some people claim atheism gives a bleak view of existence, that we have no special purpose and only exist by chance. Then you read something like ReMaRQaBLe and realize that Christianity is far worse. What he writes is that we are nothing but toys of God to do with as he pleases. We may think we are important, but we aren't. Should he decide to end it all he can do so and it would all be for the best (by definition).
Dude I think you need to pick up the bible. I think thats most of the problems I see when I look at peoples responses...

Firstly, I will state from the bible (dont know what chapter/verse) "The soul that sins, dies". That was clearly demonstrated with the flood. They were warned, and they ignored, simple. I dont see the problem here. It was their own folly that destroyed them.

We are nothing but toys of God? If that was the case, we would be worthless, but we are not. He sent his son to die for us... which gave us a way to bargain our way out of eternal damnation... something you would not do for a 'toy' you did not think was important. However, God cannot stand sin, and the flood is but a taste of what judgement awaits for those that ignore his call to repent.

Quote:
One of the contradictions in the bible is that it sometimes describe God as a father, while other times as a shepherd. This is contradictory, a father raises his children in the hope of giving them good lives, a shepherd keeps his flock for profit, killing them when he see fit. ReMaRQaBLe is firmly entrenced in the God as shepherd camp, it seems.
lol, I like this one, it only demonstrates how little you actually know about the bible... ever heard of the trinity? The father (creator), son (shepard) and the holy ghost (teacher)? I guess not.

Quote:
There is no law that says life can't appear from dead matter, at the contrary we have good reason to assume it did happen, even if we haven't been able to reproduce exactly how yet. Thus your arguments fail.
Uh, yes there is, it is called the law of biogenesis which i stated earlier "LIFE MUST come from LIFE". Simple connection. This is a law of science. A very well established law. If you want me to rip the theory of evolution to bits I will, but this is not the appropriate thread is it?

Quote:
How can you both say that the prophesies are still coming true and say that they all have already come true at the same time? Or do you mean we are already in the revelations part? People have believed that before and turned out to be wrong.
Simple. All the ones that should have all happened by now (example, time constraints) have all come true, and those that are in revelation have not yet come to pass...

Quote:
Nostradamus is 100% wrong. What he, and the bible, has done is to write prophesies that are so vague that they can be fit to any number of events. Those who wish to believe will then pick one of these and say that the prophesy has come true. *Which* event they match the prophesy to tend to vary, though.
I agree with the Nostradamus thing. You only need to tell one false prophecy to be a false prophet, as I have already stated. So vague that they can be fit to any number of events? I must agree, about 30% are (example, there will be many earthquakes when the end is near... an earthquake is bound to happen eventually) but never the less they still come true. Now for the other 70%... they are so freakishly true and accurate it is not funny, which I will post in the post above shortly.

Quote:
Do give a couple of good examples.
Give me a few minutes.

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. – John 8;32
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by ReMaRQaBLe Add ReMaRQaBLe to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Fighter)
Posts: 2498/4986
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:39)


Quote:
lol, I like this one, it only demonstrates how little you actually know about the bible... ever heard of the trinity? The father (creator), son (shepard) and the holy ghost (teacher)? I guess not.
The Trinity is Church doctrine, it's not in the bible.

Quote:
Uh, yes there is, it is called the law of biogenesis which i stated earlier "LIFE MUST come from LIFE". Simple connection. This is a law of science. A very well established law. If you want me to rip the theory of evolution to bits I will, but this is not the appropriate thread is it?
I assume you were typing this before reading my last post. Do you really think life must come from life? There's no such law!

* goes down on his knees *

Please please please make a new thread and try to discredit evolution! Please!

And uhm, read my last post about abiogenesis.
#56  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 39/44
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:47)
Quote:
leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

With no rationale given, Wald goes on to accept the impossible odds of spontaneous generation rather than creation.

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. Ibid.

u “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.
Yes the law of biogenesis does exist. Do you know why it is a law? Because it has been observed. Life evolving from dead material has not been observed. Therefore it is not science.

It is alot complicated than that, by the way. Even the simplest of life forms have what is known as 'irreducible complexity', basically meaning, that parts of even the most simplest molecule must all be simultaneously in place before it can even survive. Thus simple functions evolving at interrelating times instantly in place ready to go makes it impossible. Now can I do the prophecy thing?

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. – John 8;32
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by ReMaRQaBLe Add ReMaRQaBLe to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 40/44
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:54)
Quote:
The Trinity is Church doctrine, it's not in the bible.
Very true. My bad. However, by reading the bible, you would know that Jesus is the shepard and God is the father. Besides the doctrine of the trinity makes more sense, otherwise some things dont make sense, like how Jesus accepted worship, etc.

I would make a thread disproving evolution... or I could wait ten years before it was so disproven that only a fanatic would keep believing in all the scientific impossibilities... either way, not making a thread saves me more time... unless i copy+paste the entire thing ;-)

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. – John 8;32
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by ReMaRQaBLe Add ReMaRQaBLe to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Fighter)
Posts: 2499/4986
(11-Jan-2004 at 10:59)


First - evolution is nót about the first life, it is about the origins of different species most likely from common ancestry.

Secondly - I have just pointed out that abiogenesis is very likely. Your only reply to all of my arguments is the old and weak 'irreducible complexity'.

Irreducible complexity is a failed argument used by creationists.

Read the following carefully :

"Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system which loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

- Deletion of parts.
- Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system [Pennisi, 2001].
- Change of function.
- Gradual modification of parts.

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common [Lynch & Conery, 2000; Hooper & Berg, 2003], and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible, but expected. In fact, it was predicted as early as 1939 [Muller, 1939].

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility was no obstacle to its formation [Melendez-Hevia et al, 1996]."

From this link : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

Also see this very good article "Irreducible Complexity Demystified" :

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

As you see, your argument is quite weak. Abiogenesis is supported by many different experiments such as the forming of amino acids. Calculation of odds is clearly wrong, and the argument of irreducible complexity has long been refuted as it was severely flawed as well.

I really recommend to look at those two links, I have no idea why you seem to think that there are any arguments against the widely assumed origins of life.
#59  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Black Fighter)
Posts: 2500/4986
(11-Jan-2004 at 11:07)


Quote:
I would make a thread disproving evolution... or I could wait ten years before it was so disproven that only a fanatic would keep believing in all the scientific impossibilities... either way, not making a thread saves me more time... unless i copy+paste the entire thing ;-)
What makes you think evolution will soon be disproven? Every day more findings back evolution up.
Evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science.

Ever since Darwin's book it has been claimed that evolution will soon be widely rejected, while in fact the contrary is happening.

I recently read a book by the Dutch creationist "Peter Scheele". On the books cover it is said "The end of the theory of evolution" (translated). I was really curious about the book, as so many christians had been advertising it and claiming it truly prooved how evolution was impossible.
What a disappointment...scientists have refuted all of the arguments used in the book - as happens with every work published with the flawed arguments of creationists.

Also see :

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html
#60  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 02:08.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.