Thread: God

If there was a God, wouldn't she ban the obnoxious pop up ads on this new site?. Anyway, whatever happened to the good old creation/evolution or Pakistan/India threads? You'd think this thread would bring 'em out of the woodwork...

Here is my two-thousand-rupes worth:

I do believe in a "god" so to speak. I do not believe that anyone is wrong in their beliefs, so long as they have something to believe. I think that the reason there are so many religions is so that there are many ways for people to find their way to heaven. The next life. Perfection. The top of the mountain. The eternal destination. Whatever you like.

On my theory of "god". We can never know what is right or wrong, and that is the substance that has held god etc. together even in this day and age. I have not settled between thinking that god is an imnioptent being who is just there, if He is one of some race of omnipotent beings who use us as some sadist game of life and death, or even if God is simply some higher-dimensional being who (like we can) creates whatever he wants down at OUR level of existance. This is the one that i am currently most interested in, as it has the most science behind it. Just as we can "create" on 3 and 2 dimensions, so could a, say, 10-th dimensional being create on the 2nd through 9th dimensions. By the way, we are 4-dimensional cbeings, 3 spatial dimensions, one chronological dimension. Who is to say that if i were a 10 dimensional being that i can't make a couple of humans, make a planet, and then add a few drops of time, just enough to give it a one way flow, and voila, we have the creation? Oh well. I like to think about it. Thanks for lostening.

~Inquirer

>reading a paragraph on a creationist website does not constitute "studying evolution".<

How did you logicaly come up that statment. Sorry unless you know everthing I did in my life. I like everyone else was taught evelolution in school, and even before I became a christiain I fault there was something wrong with it.

>With a single self replicating molecule, current theory suggests that this molecule was a "relative" of RNA (PNA). We already know that the building blocks of life can form spontaneously in environments simulating prebiotic Earth, (Miller's exp), and that thermal vents in the ocean could create the reducing environment needed for the organic chemistry that would have formed our initial replicator.<

Many people still remember the experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953 in which he mixed up some chemicals and a spark and got some very simple 'building blocks' of life. I read recently an interview with Stanley Miller in which he basically admitted that he hadn't gotten any further.

Well, that's what I call an honest man, because the original experiment of the sparking produced only certain amino acids. And they are all a mixture of left and right-handed forms. Life is made up only of left-handed forms so to get the mixture of left and right forms and expect only the left form to associate together to form proteins is just 'not on'.

I understand that there are other reasons why that experiment couldn't go any further.

Yes, if you keep on heating the mixture of amino acids it just produces a type of brownish gunk, non-biological polymers. So he had to stop the experiment after a few days.

In any case, the cell is made of more than just amino acids - also fats, carbohydrates, DNA, RNA and soon. The scientists who work on origin of life problems know very well that experiments designed to produce amino acids don't produce sugars. And those that produce sugars don't produce anything else, and so on. And there is of course a problem of preservation of the molecules. They just undergo random destruction unless they are protected, like in a cell.

What if you had all of the raw materials necessary to construct a cell and you just threw them together into a random jumbled pile, would it just assemble itself by its own properties?

No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That's why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non- Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won't work.

A biochemist called Sidney Fox heated up some dry amino acids which caused them to link together into small chains, then dropped them in some water and some little round things formed that got people excited because they looked like cells - and some of them even looked like they were dividing. He called them 'protocells'.

This is a misnomer - they are nothing to do with cells at all. They look like cells because they are round, but there are many round things which are not cells.

>Could you tell me the exact year the Bible says the world was created? I'm not positive on the date, but I know it somewhere from 6,000bce to 3,000bce. I know it's a fairly recent number, and it is impossible, based on that number, for all of those events to have taken place. The dinasours ruled the earth for thousands and thousands of years. A flood isn't what killed the dinasours either, because all land organisms would have died, as well. There is no way such a drastic event as the Ice Age could occur in such little time. Mountains can't change so greatly in such little time as the Bible suggests. Then after all of these changes, which must have occurred in a span of time of about 2-3 thousand years, the Egyptians start to flourish and create their pyramids. I was using the recent even of the pyramids to show exactly how much time must have been given for the rest of these huge events to have taken place. Don't you think it seems not only higly unlikely but impossible for all of those events to have taken place in such little time?<

This might shed light:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp


>Yes, intellignce has a lot to do with how you treat others. You don't kill another person for no reason at all, because you know that you won't benefit from it. Like Clyde said, working together as a society and using our combined intelligence is much more beneficial. Not harming another person when you gain nothing from it is pretty much simple logic.<

Benifts of wipping out the freshman in my high school
1. The school would be less crowed
2. Nummerios restrictions placed on us as a result of there actions would be lifted
3. Teachers that had freshman classes could be resingned other classes allowing for more diversity
4. No one likes them any ways

Logicly they provide no benifts, and add major disruptions and should be removed

>No, but do you think it's easy being a Jew in Israel? Do you think it was easy being a Jew during the Holocaust? IMO, if we're going to talk about people who were willing to risk their lives based on their religion, then lets talk about the Jews. Again this proves your point wrong that Christians are willing to risk themseleves more. It's not a matter of the religion; it's a matter of the strength and determination of the person's heart.<

Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy - death. The founders of other religions are all dead and their tombs venerated. The tomb of Christ is empty, and His bodily resurrection from the grave is the best proved fact of all history. The fact that He alone could overcome death demonstrates that He alone has all power. He Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

-Karl Marx

Read the book of Romans to see what I mean.


Likewise, very religious people statistically have longer lifespans and happier lives.

How did you logicaly come up that statment. Sorry unless you know everthing I did in my life. I like everyone else was taught evelolution in school, and even before I became a christian I fault there was something wrong with it

Hmmm... maybe we think that because you have no idea what you are talking about and have proven that on many occasions! You've provided no counterexamples nor said anything that shows you know what evolution is about. For someone to say he studied evolution and then turn around and say "So DNA knows when it needs to change?" shows that you know nothing! DNA mutating is THE FUNDEMANTAL idea of evolution, you cannot learn evolution without first learning this! For you to not know this shows that you don't know anything about evolution and thus have no basis to argue against it. It would be like me saying that I have studied Christianity, and through my studies I have come to the conclusion that it is false because of this question "How do you know all this stuff about Christianity, what is it in a book or something?" How stupid would I sound and how could you ever possibly listen to another one of my arguments against christianity? The fact that you are arguing against something that you know nothing about bodes very poorly on every other argument that you make!

And why did you avoid ALL of my questions this time? Still looking for that particular webpage that answers my question instead of figuring out the answers on your own? Very few of the opinions that you have stated have been your own, but instead somebody elses, and these opinions usually have nothing to do with the question asked (what usually happens when you quote somebody who the question wasn't directed to). I ask you for proof that evolution doesn't exist, you point me to a website that does indeed say evolution exists, just possibly faster. TechWins asks for an explanation as to why everything is much older than what you say, and you point us to a website that instead of answering this, instead is a debate as to what the bible meant by the word "day" - like the fact that it concludes "day" meant a solar day is gonna make us go "woah, the fact that the early bible writers really meant a solar day is all the proof I need that these mounds and mounds of scientific proof of fossils and radioactive dating are bogus!" Techwins goes on to ask what proof it is that Christians are willing to die for their beliefs when the Jews did so as well in the Holocaust and you quote a passage about Jesus conquering death which has nothing do with what he said! This is just in the last few posts, and I could pull up more examples if I dug a little deeper.

So what honest studying have you done of other religions outside Christianity that makes you say without a doubt Christianity is the one true religion? Quite likely you have done little to none (outside what Christianity taught you that is). And why do you expect other people from other religions to automatically do the same for your religion? Your faith is why you believe, as is their faith is why they believe their religion - you would never consider questioning your faith, so why do you expect them to do so for theirs?

And what do you have to say about radioactive dating?

I know people from close to Thailand who are mormens.
Buddhist are probably more accepting
of other religions than say being christian in afganistan

I agree that they are very accepting, but at the same time its very difficult to be against the norm there because it is so terribly against their culture to intentionally offend anyone - and Buddhism is a VERY strong belief that they have - although once they leave Thailand they have a much easier time becoming their own person.

There is nothing wrong with that statement. It all depends
on your vantage point

Ok, so I guess everything in life is just a theory because we can't proove anything. I don't agree with that statement, but I can't argue with it either.

BTW, I have nothing against what you say Nick (except for the fact that I don't agree ), you seem to know what you believe instead of just a "It's not what the bible says therefore it isn't true" belief system coupled with a few choice phrases heard from somewhere else.

Good point - if you look at all the religions, they're all very much the same. If you look at christianity, there's a certain degree of variation in the doctrines of each religion. It's the same outside of Christianity. I think all religions are basically the same religion, they just have different pieces. However, I'm not saying that we should all just accept every religiong. There's only one perfect way to do things, God is perfect (probably one of the few truths all religions share), and so God's religion will only be one religion. I'm not saying every religiong is wrong either. I think we should just look at every religion, see which one is closest to what we believe to be truth, and then stick with that.

And by the way - just so everybody knows and so we can avoid confusion ( I haven't seen it come up yet, but you never know), MORMONS ARE CHRISTIANS. Our proper name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We're just called Mormons beause it's a lot easier to say. Mormon was one of the Prophets in the Book of Mormon.

Well I didn't read all nine or so pages of this topic so I'll reply to the actual topic.

Do you belive in god...in the entity that is the greatest ..is perfect ... Well i dont its alll just a ****ty crap ...for ignorant people

That's a totally bias thing to say since there are probably a lot smarter people then you who believe in God. People like you make me sick.

Let's see what programmers (Community live in logical world) say:

Do you believe in God?