If God created everything...

[Seven]

Then why did he make such a vast universe?

Let's go back to the beginning
*flashbackmusic*

Two things could be going on:
1: Nothing exists
2: Only a/some god(s) exist(s)

Situation 1:
Ok, so, now, we're 15 billion years in the past, and there is nothing. No matter, no nature laws. Nothing. How did the Big Bang material come to exist then? Maybe "nothing" is unstable, creating "something". Nothing+something could react to each other, and, voila, the Big Bang.

Situation 2:

God created everything, including the vast universe as it is. Why? Why would he do it? Why would he create extrasolar planets? Planets where nothing can live?
The universe is too big too explore for the human race, and that won't probably change. Heck, we can't even get to the nearest star for a very, very long time. Why were these stars created? Why are stars created that we can't see?
It's not testing material, because God is perfect, right? Could it mean, that everything in the universe is God in itself? Meaning we are God, the trees are God, the sun is God?

---------
The first option doesn's sound very likely. But the second one isn't exactly what religions say.

Ideas anyone?

[Ferret]

Creation eh?

*laughs*

[Seven]

Creation eh?

*laughs*

Creation of mankind is out of the quetion I thin. But creation of the universe...? I don't really know what to think of the universe
That's why I'm asking/putting it up for debate ^^;

[Alakazam]

Creation eh?

*laughs*

Ferret, don't flame; your post is a perfect example of why we have the 'four word post' minimum rule. If you're going to refute something, say it, don't just flame.

--

Anyway, I've thought much about this, and I'm not really sure. I'd like to think that God incited the Big Bang, but I can't really be sure. Anyway, I really don't want to hear long arguments about this, so I'm not going to post anymore in this thread.

*leaves*

(Zam just doesn't like debating creation/evolution)

[masaki]

I think we evoled from apes. But in a different way like. God created the big bang. 2 apes fell from the sky... sooo I agree with you if I understood zam.

[Neo Pikachu]

God created the world for the same reason that we create things. Humans have created music, art, poetry, something that was never there before and now exists to be enjoyed by many. This is the same reason why God created the universe and the Earth. Simply, to be enjoyed by many, as well as Himself.

"Then God said, "Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky." And so it happened: God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was, and God blessed them, saying "Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth." (Genesis 1:20)

God created the world and was satisfied with His creation, just like you and I are after we accomplish something, something that others can experience and enjoy. What we write or piece together isn't always for our own benefit, in fact, most of the time it is for other people. Why would anyone bother writing a song if there is no one there to hear it? What difference would it make if they kept their inner music inside of them?

God created the world for the benefit of all living creatures, including you and I. Man creates music, poetry, and millions of other things for the same reason, simply to benefit the rest of mankind and influence inspiration among others. How would you feel if you created something such as a novel or a piece of art, and your talent was enough to drive someone to express themselves in the same way? Wouldn't that be a great feeling to have? That was the same reason God created the world. It wasn't just a planet to host life. There was a reason as to why God created man. To not only give life to human beings, but to give them something to feel inspired by, something to drive them to accomplish more and help them realize that there was something there that they hadn't seen before. It was something to feel motivated by, to be insipired by and to be influenced to create something man could call their own. There was a reason why God had given man this amazing power to experience.

And that may very well be the meaning of life...

[Seven]

God created the world for the same reason that we create things. Humans have created music, art, poetry, something that was never there before and now exists to be enjoyed by many. This is the same reason why God created the universe and the Earth. Simply, to be enjoyed by many, as well as Himself.

"Then God said, "Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky." And so it happened: God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was, and God blessed them, saying "Be fertile, multiply, and fill the water of the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth." (Genesis 1:20)

God created the world and was satisfied with His creation, just like you and I are after we accomplish something, something that others can experience and enjoy. What we write or piece together isn't always for our own benefit, in fact, most of the time it is for other people. Why would anyone bother writing a song if there is no one there to hear it? What difference would it make if they kept their inner music inside of them?

God created the world for the benefit of all living creatures, including you and I. Man creates music, poetry, and millions of other things for the same reason, simply to benefit the rest of mankind and influence inspiration among others. How would you feel if you created something such as a novel or a piece of art, and your talent was enough to drive someone to express themselves in the same way? Wouldn't that be a great feeling to have? That was the same reason God created the world. It wasn't just a planet to host life. There was a reason as to why God created man. To not only give life to human beings, but to give them something to feel inspired by, something to drive them to accomplish more and help them realize that there was something there that they hadn't seen before. It was something to feel motivated by, to be insipired by and to be influenced to create something man could call their own. There was a reason why God had given man this amazing power to experience.

And that may very well be the meaning of life...


Aha.. I see what you mean.
But why do neutron-stars exist? Or black holes? Or planets 4 times the size of Jupiter?
Who enjoys those kind of things? Humans don't, and I doubt a god/God will either.
Not bashing, just asking ^^

[Ferret]

Exactly.

There is definatly other life in the universe,very definatly, if the universe is infinate then there is a 1 in 1 chance of other life.
Not just unintelligent, I'm talking life way in advance of ours. Infact, in terms of the universe we are a very young species.
For the Bible to specifically say man is his greatest creation, mwuh, that's stupid. Tomorrow, we could all be wiped out, and we would have no power over it. Where would God be with his brilliant creation then? Thank you almightly lord.:shifty:

The Bible and God and Christianity was created and devised by humans, it's a fact. Everything in that little book is a figment of your imagination.

I personally can't wait till I die. Purgatory? *laffs* We'll see.

[§avage])]

There are alot of questions to why God does alot of things... you should read the book of JOB for a good explination...

possibly are minds are not capable of understanding Gods intent... like why bad things happen to good people?... and if God created everything then why create Evil?


But its the most logical answer... big bang does not make sence since there is no first cause... no unmoved mover(God)... there is nothing to set the universe in motion... And the only argument for it is an infinate regress, which defies just about every scientific law we have.

[Ferret]

)']But its the most logical answer... big bang does not make sence since there is no first cause...
Well done, you have just completly disproved your own God theory. :clap:
See how contradictory Christianty is?

"Oh there can't have been a big bang because nothing caused it."
"So how did God get there?"
"Errr...:doh:"

[§avage])]

no, you dont quite grasp the concept of God...

God is the only possible Uncaused cause... there has to be sumthing that is not affected by time/space/physics... In order for things to start... God is is God because nothing greater can be concieved... God is the force that set the motion into play, and cannot be moved. Maybe you understand it better... there is no begining or end for God

[Ferret]

In that case, what is to stop God being the cause of the Big Bang?

You can't disprove either theory.

[§avage])]

Oh dont get me wrong, I have no problem with the big band, as long as it involves a God... its a very smart theory, but cannot get around the first cause.

Its just sometimes people take it as a proof that existence did not need God, when its not

[Seven]

)']
possibly our minds are not capable of understanding Gods intent... like why bad things happen to good people?... and if God created everything then why create Evil?

Why is it that when earthy business and power are the subject, God intended this and that - if we should believe the Church(who is following the Bible) - but when it comes to things that don't really fit in the Bible/Christian Religion, we aren't capable of understanding them?
-_-;;

Oh wait, that had nothing to do with God existing or not ^^;. Meh, I'm open to a God, but the Bible and Church >> :hand:

BTW, how would it affect your life when intelligent alien life was found?
I'm curious ^^;.

[§avage])]

I wasn't refering to stuff in the bible, but stuff that everyone knows...

and I think you get me wrong, I'm not a by the book person myself... I think the bible has great knoledge, but I'm not 100% with everything in there, since I dont know everything about the bible.

If alien life were to be found, well, it wouldn't change my beliefs much... I'm not going to go worship some alien lol

[Ferret]

BTW, how would it affect your life when intelligent alien life was found?
I'm curious ^^;.It would prove me correct. :surprised

[Crimson Spider]

There are certain times that I come to these boards only to find myself angry. Not at the un-informed posts of others, but the in-ability to counter them from the opposing members. Here is an example.

Exactly.

There is definatly other life in the universe,very definatly, if the universe is infinate then there is a 1 in 1 chance of other life.
The universe isn't infinite. This is mistake number 1: The universe is expanding, yes. Infinant? Nope.

For the Bible to specifically say man is his greatest creation, mwuh, that's stupid. Tomorrow, we could all be wiped out, and we would have no power over it. Where would God be with his brilliant creation then? Thank you almightly lord.:shifty:
How un-informed is this specific indevidual? #1: Man was his greatest creation because it has the ability to interpret, reason, understand. Man alone didn't conjure the notion of eliminating an indevidual that they don't like. If you knew about the origins stated in the Bible, you would know how baseless this statement is.

The Bible and God and Christianity was created and devised by humans, it's a fact.
Have you ever been to a high-school history class? You should have, seeing as you are a few months older than me.
Ladies and gentlemen, a man who was claimed to have reached enlightenment walked the earth before Christ under the changed name of Bhudda. There are multiple non-religious accounts of this indevidual. Then, at the set time of 2004 years ago (each time they try to date the birthday of Jesus, they always come up with a different number each time, slightly off of 2000), who walked around Rome, did a bunch of miracles, sparked Christianity, and was cruicified. There are 22 non-religious written records of Jesus's existance, and all of his miracles. Then at about 500 AD, a man said to have been instructed by the Ark-Angel set out and started up Islamic religion. This man's name was Mohummed (forgive my spelling). There are non-religious written accounts of this man, and what he did.

What you claim as fact is actually mere aetheistic propoganda. Are you going to claim the Jesus slept with Marry next?
Everything in that little book is a figment of your imagination.
Covered this above.

I personally can't wait till I die. Purgatory? *laffs* We'll see.
And what is your alternative? Evolution? Heh heh heh ha ha ha! That theory was made on shaky grounds and assumptions by a mere guess. This theory that has not been proven, and even it's own maker found it to be completely inaccurate.

There is only 1 reason why man excepted it so easily (which astouned Darwin himself, as he said it was amazing how people excepted a lie.) Take a good guess.

Answer: The United States was horney.

Moving on from my little rant:

But why do neutron-stars exist? Or black holes? Or planets 4 times the size of Jupiter?
Who enjoys those kind of things? Humans don't

I do. I enjoy these things. Many people do. Such as Astronomers. That's why they get the job. The Universe makes a pretty picture, don't it?

Notice something: other planets are not nearly as diverse (excluding life) as Earth is. Why do you think that? Do you know what's under the clouds of Jupiter? Not much.


Next statement on why God created man: I'm sure he enjoyed it, but there was a little dispute up there. God created man, and claimed that the devil wouldn't be able to tempt him into eating the forbidden fruit (not an apple). So we were kinda made off of a bet.

Well done, you have just completly disproved your own God theory.
See how contradictory Christianty is?

"Oh there can't have been a big bang because nothing caused it."
"So how did God get there?"
"Errr..."

Do you know what the EXACT big-bang theory is? Blatenly: No one does. There are multiple disputes on how it could occure. This new one of "something from nothing" (which in itself is an actual defiance since the universe is composed of what is labeled as "dark matter'). Some people say that it came from one atom. Some people claim it came from only 5. Some claim it came from one of each of the indevidual natural-occuring elements out there. Some claim it came from a moon-sized existance that had all the matter in the known universe compressed. Some say it came from one Giant Atom about the size of a planet. They change their theory daily. BUT if a third party source were involved... it's as possible as all get-out. I mean, we see miracles, unexplained occurances that have valuable claim that spirits were their cause. Not just written in the Bible, but every-day experiences. So what is to say that we are not mere beings in a videogame like existance of which a third party can easily manipulate us? What is everything in a videogame constructed of? 0's and 1's. What is everything in our universe made of? Atoms and particles.


The Bible itself has been changed to suit the wants of multiple people. Such as how John Calvin added in pre-destination during the time that Luther posted up the 95 thesis against the Roman-Catholic church. And how purgatory was added into the catholic church's personal Bible to give power to the priests. Also writings such as the Book of Mormon, or the book made by Jehova's witnesses. Take the book of Mormon, which was said to be just an add-on while it contradicts everything in the Bible, such as the claim that Jesus was the Reincarnation of the Ark Angel while Jesus actually had spoke with the Ark Angel, so that couldn't possibly true.

Getting your hands on a non-altered copy is extreamly difficult if not impossible.

You know what would be funny? If when we found aliens, they came to Earth and said "So this is the planet Jesus died on!" But I doubt that Aliens could ever exist, because the evolutionary start of the cell, and eukaryotic cells was proven to be impossible by guys who were trying to prove it was.

There's plenty of scientific evidence to back-up religion. Give the word, and I'll post some up.

[§avage])]

LOL!!! I love this guy :lol: Good points :clap:

I honastly never knew that part of the big bang theory had to do with dark matter.

and no offence but Muslim religion has some jokes to, cause Mohamed basically copied the first half of the bible, and then the rest just screwed up... like some stuff makes no absolute reason at all. and he considered Jesus a prophit... whats dum is why would he consider Jesus a prophit if he claimed to be the son of God... To mahamed that would be a lie.

and that alien part reminds me of the Simpsons, when the aliens say something about they're all powerfull leader, GOD... and then they do the sign of the cross lol

[Crimson Spider]

Lets try to not discourage other religions not in discussion. Not only does it lable us as hypocrites, but we do not have the right to dictate what a person believes and doesn't believe. The only time we would have the right to do so is if they were to attack us.

[Raine]

Preech on CS! I'm with ya on everything ya say... Nobody in Other Disscussion has ever been more right or had better points.

[Evanna]

Lets try to not discourage other religions not in discussion. Not only does it lable us as hypocrites, but we do not have the right to dictate what a person believes and doesn't believe. The only time we would have the right to do so is if they were to attack us.

Yeah we shouldn't do that... But I think Savage is right on that one.


Human kinda came here from itself... The little seacreatures weren't humans yet, weren't they?
Can you imagine this world didn't exist once? I think the universe was here all along, and that god made the Big Bang happen. The rest is proven scientifically.
Maybe it wasn't god itself, maybe it was boeddha or something (Don't blame me... Boeddha is way older than the christian religian), but it must have been something!

[Tamer Marco]

Ferret you think there is no god.



You a simple human think you have the power to control a unknown force!

Dude have you ever thought of all these questions?


If there was a big bang how could destruction bring upon something beatiful?
If god did exist would he wipe out us in one day?
If it says in the bible that the bible was carved into special stone rocks all over the planet would you try to find proof.

So right now you can't say a thing until you are dead. Then you can determin if god is real.

[plasmaball3000]

Well, no one really has concrete proof of anything, but that's what faith is all about: believing in something, even if others don't share your beliefs.

[Seven]

I do. I enjoy these things. Many people do. Such as Astronomers. That's why they get the job. The Universe makes a pretty picture, don't it?

Notice something: other planets are not nearly as diverse (excluding life) as Earth is. Why do you think that? Do you know what's under the clouds of Jupiter? Not much.

(...)

There's plenty of scientific evidence to back-up religion. Give the word, and I'll post some up.

That's not entirely true. That we haven't found Earth-like planets, doesn't mean they don't exist. Rockplanets like Earth, that contain fluid water are probably the size of Earth too. With current techniques we can't see them, because their gravity doesn't affect the gravity enough to make it visible too is. NASA will launc a new type of telescope in 2006 or 2007 that will be able to see these kind of planets - provided they exist.
oh, and you're right, the unvierse is a beautiful thing, I've been fascinated by it ever since I was 4 ^^;.

I'd like too see some scientific evidence to back religion up ^^. I'm really curious ^^;.

[Shining Arcanine]

I didn't bother to research this but from what I understand in the universe there are several constants that are always the same. Scientists have calculated that if any one of those constants were off even the slightest, the universe would have never existed.

This reminds me of a story. One day, an old woman sat under a tree and looked at the apples on the tree's big branches and pumpkins on the short stems. She thought to herself "God really did things backwards, the apples should be on the short stems and the pumpkins should be on the big branches." Then she went to sleep and when she woke up, something fell and hit her on the head. It was an apple. She then thought "maybe God was right after all."

[Crimson Spider]

That's not entirely true. That we haven't found Earth-like planets, doesn't mean they don't exist. Rockplanets like Earth, that contain fluid water are probably the size of Earth too. With current techniques we can't see them, because their gravity doesn't affect the gravity enough to make it visible too is. NASA will launc a new type of telescope in 2006 or 2007 that will be able to see these kind of planets - provided they exist.
oh, and you're right, the unvierse is a beautiful thing, I've been fascinated by it ever since I was 4 ^^;.
The Earth is WAY more complicated than that.

We have ourselves a great variance in temperature from the polar Ice-caps to the equater. This temperature remains in constant balance within one-another to create a constantly changing ecosystem with rain, hurricanes, storms, snow and Ice.

The planet would first have to have a certain amount of water so it doesn't get dried up, or completely cover the planet in a cloud. The planet would also have to be at a higher-than-mathematically percise calculation of the angle of it's rotation around it's respective star to have itself the ability to have the correct temperatures. Along with this, the atmosphere would have to be specially constructed to block out UV radiation from the sun, as distance does not.



I'd like too see some scientific evidence to back religion up ^^. I'm really curious ^^;.

http://www.yfiles.com/

Which includes this statement:


*In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand, if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the processes of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10 to the 60th power. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davis of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away and hitting the mark!

[Blazyken]

As for all of those extra planets and stars and black holes and such, we don't even fully(meaning 100%)know for sure that those things exist. With that said, the Bible teaches that everything happens for a reason, and I'm sure that if those things are in existence then they are there for a reason. If God created all of those things, isn't that impressive? Did Budda make a Mars or a Sun? Did Allah make a moon or a Comet? Did they evolve from animals? No, it's just rediculous. God made those things for us to enjoy. (EX: A midnight walk under the stars and moon, it would be pretty dark without them, right?) As for aliens and ET's, God created us, and only us, in his image so that we could enjoy the company of each other. As for evil, it came into the world through a fallen angel named Satan, 'nough said. And to "seven", God is more improtant than church, I know it can be hard because, lets face it, there are people there. But when you believe in Christ, God's Son, you will want to be in the church with other believers. And Christ also gives the ultimate gift, Heaven. If you believe in Christ, you will go to heaven when you leave this Earth. Who wouldn't want that? It is a challenging life, but Heaven will surely pay it off! :biggrin: And to find more information, check out the Bible or talk to a local Christian church's Pastor.

[|}{|Seph|}{|]

I think we evoled from apes. But in a different way like. God created the big bang. 2 apes fell from the sky... sooo I agree with you if I understood zam.

We didnt evolve from apes genetics doesnt work like that we all share traits from tons of other species our DNA is just incredibly closley related with apes and chimps like 99.999999999999%. i am not bashing because you are entitled to your opinion to wut happened.

i aggree wit wut crim said it is incredibly complicated. i say it all depends on preference, i think what most scientist say about the galaxies expanding which is causing the vastness of the universe, and as for cetian events like blackholes and stars its all just a cycle, of a star getting superbig going supernova and the pressure and heat from the remaints creating a new star, blackhole massive star collapsing on itself, and all that crap.

so i guess i am on the scientific side for the vastness of the universe, but then agian i am a beliver in god so i guess i am a hypocrite (sp)

but it all is preference to me.

[Seven]

The Earth is WAY more complicated than that.

We have ourselves a great variance in temperature from the polar Ice-caps to the equater. This temperature remains in constant balance within one-another to create a constantly changing ecosystem with rain, hurricanes, storms, snow and Ice.

The planet would first have to have a certain amount of water so it doesn't get dried up, or completely cover the planet in a cloud. The planet would also have to be at a higher-than-mathematically percise calculation of the angle of it's rotation around it's respective star to have itself the ability to have the correct temperatures. Along with this, the atmosphere would have to be specially constructed to block out UV radiation from the sun, as distance does not.



I'm not saying Earth-like planets are a common thing, but do you know how many planets there are? And they don't have to be an exact copy of Earth, just for the greater part.
Earth wasn't meant for life either (IMO), but there still is.

And earthlike planets doesn't necessarily mean life-supporting planets. Mercurius, Venus, and Mars also fit in the description of earthlike planets.

[Raine]

This post is at Ferret...

If there wansn't a God, how did we get here? If there wasn't a God, how does anything exist? If there wasn't a God, then how did time begin?

I think you say God isn't there just because you can not comprehend that. God was always there. You may say something like "Well who created God?" but nobody did. He was always there and it is hard to understand but it is true. Something HAD to have always been there. You will NEVER know the answer to how he was always there simply because our tiny human minds could never understand something so complex. Try to answer it yourself. You would be there all day trying to figure out. I tried it once before and it took a while and I said "scrap this, it's never ending".

God is there and that's how we are here.

[Agent Orange]

This post is at Ferret...

If there wansn't a God, how did we get here? If there wasn't a God, how does anything exist? If there wasn't a God, then how did time begin?

I think you say God isn't there just because you can not comprehend that. God was always there. You may say something like "Well who created God?" but nobody did. He was always there and it is hard to understand but it is true. Something HAD to have always been there. You will NEVER know the answer to how he was always there simply because our tiny human minds could never understand something so complex. Try to answer it yourself. You would be there all day trying to figure out. I tried it once before and it took a while and I said "scrap this, it's never ending".

God is there and that's how we are here.


Wow. Really good point. :smile:

[Seven]

This post is at Ferret...

If there wansn't a God, how did we get here? If there wasn't a God, how does anything exist? If there wasn't a God, then how did time begin?

I think you say God isn't there just because you can not comprehend that. God was always there. You may say something like "Well who created God?" but nobody did. He was always there and it is hard to understand but it is true. Something HAD to have always been there. You will NEVER know the answer to how he was always there simply because our tiny human minds could never understand something so complex. Try to answer it yourself. You would be there all day trying to figure out. I tried it once before and it took a while and I said "scrap this, it's never ending".

God is there and that's how we are here.

How we got here is a story of eolution. How life itself got here is physics combined with chemistry.
How time and the universe itself came to exist, I don't know. Nobody knows. But that does not mean that it must be made by God than. It's a possibility, among a lot of other possibilities. And why should it be made by the christian God, and not by Shiva :S.

[Raine]

How we got here is a story of eolution. How life itself got here is physics combined with chemistry.
How time and the universe itself came to exist, I don't know. Nobody knows. But that does not mean that it must be made by God than. It's a possibility, among a lot of other possibilities. And why should it be made by the christian God, and not by Shiva :S.
And you know this evolution theory is true? You saw it for yourself did you? I'm not exactly saying that there must be a God but rather it makes more sense than any other thing these pathetic excuses of researchers have come up with. It may not be completly understanable but completly logical for me. Just my faith won't allow me to believe we come from a damn monkey. Prehaps some of you humans with lower inteligence but not me.

You may be tempted to ask me if this theory on God is true and if I saw it for myself and what makes me believe. There are many stories I could tell of my life. Past expieriences make me 100% sure that my religion and my beliefs are like. All you have to do is ask me and I'm sure that I can proove to you anything.

Tell me this story of evolution. I'm curious to know. I doubt it would make any sense however. You ppl who say that this evolution theory is right, you are all sadly mistaken. For if it was then monkeys today would still be evolving. As much as I know, this evolution would have never stoped in the first place. If it did we would be evolving enough until we are so smart that your minds would finally realize what you are doing to the Earth. Some would prehaps be evolving into much higher inteligence to have ultimate knowledge and see what was truly happening. If you think this evolution theory is right then you are blind.


If you want some stories and reasons I believe in God, then just give the word.

[Sutiivun]

And you know this evolution theory is true? You saw it for yourself did you? I'm not exactly saying that there must be a God but rather it makes more sense than any other thing these pathetic excuses of researchers have come up with. It may not be completly understanable but completly logical for me. Just my faith won't allow me to believe we come from a damn monkey. Prehaps some of you humans with lower inteligence but not me.

You may be tempted to ask me if this theory on God is true and if I saw it for myself and what makes me believe. There are many stories I could tell of my life. Past expieriences make me 100% sure that my religion and my beliefs are like. All you have to do is ask me and I'm sure that I can proove to you anything.

Tell me this story of evolution. I'm curious to know. I doubt it would make any sense however. You ppl who say that this evolution theory is right, you are all sadly mistaken. For if it was then monkeys today would still be evolving. As much as I know, this evolution would have never stoped in the first place. If it did we would be evolving enough until we are so smart that your minds would finally realize what you are doing to the Earth. Some would prehaps be evolving into much higher inteligence to have ultimate knowledge and see what was truly happening. If you think this evolution theory is right then you are blind.


If you want some stories and reasons I believe in God, then just give the word.I fully agree with you Elk. Wouldn't apes still be evolving today? I don't see any apes that are part human and part ape, do you? I also believe in God and I don't believe any of this evolution crud. It's merely based on a guess that will never be proven true. It's falsehood to say man came from ape because then there wouldn't be many if not ANY apes in the world.

[Seven]

And you know this evolution theory is true? You saw it for yourself did you?
And I suppose you saw the whole Creation happen :rolleyes:.I never said it was a fact. I just think it's true.


I'm not exactly saying that there must be a God but rather it makes more sense than any other thing these pathetic excuses of researchers have come up with. It may not be completly understanable but completly logical for me. Just my faith won't allow me to believe we come from a damn monkey.

ROFL. You say researches come up with pathetic excuses, but yet, you don't think that a God who created everything is a lame excuse. And just for your info, we don't come from apes, and nobody ever said that. Apes and humans have the same ancestor. And that's something completely different.

Perhaps some of you humans with lower inteligence but not me.

You don't really expect people to seriously react to such a dumb, ignorant and stupid remark, do you? And I know I just did. *Can't let it go* I suppose you have an extremely high intelligence? In fact, I think you are the most intelligent person ever to exist. It's good to have people like you, to solve the problems of us dumb people. I wish I knew everything like you do. Oh well...I always have bad luck :sad:.


You may be tempted to ask me if this theory on God is true and if I saw it for myself and what makes me believe. There are many stories I could tell of my life. Past expieriences make me 100% sure that my religion and my beliefs are like. All you have to do is ask me and I'm sure that I can proove to you anything.

I don't really see the point of asking you things. You'll just say it proves your religion right, ignoring other possibilities. Or you'll name thing I don't know the answer to either.


Tell me this story of evolution. I'm curious to know. I doubt it would make any sense however. You ppl who say that this evolution theory is right, you are all sadly mistaken. For if it was then monkeys today would still be evolving. As much as I know, this evolution would have never stoped in the first place. If it did we would be evolving enough until we are so smart that your minds would finally realize what you are doing to the Earth. Some would prehaps be evolving into much higher inteligence to have ultimate knowledge and see what was truly happening. If you think this evolution theory is right then you are blind.

Don't they teach evolution in your school. Really, you're being so ignorant. I'd love to explain it to you, but I don't feel like looking up all the terms that I don't know in English. So, volunteers?

Evolution takes millions and millions of years. Apes are still evolving, we just won't live to see major changes.
Humans are still evolving too. It goes really gradually, it doesn't work like X-men :rolleyes:

Don't you think it's silly to first not know what the evolution theory is, and then claim it's stupid to believe in it? I sure do.


If you want some stories and reasons I believe in God, then just give the word.
Please, spare me. I really couldn't care less, and I have enough religious friends already who are always telling me about why they believe in God.

And last:

I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying:

Universe: maybe
Life: no

I'm not trying to personally attack you or anything, altough it may seem like that.But please! Think about what you post before you post it. IO'm not saying you have to agree with me..but you just say: "God made us and everything and every theory that claims otherways is for dumb people".

[Sutiivun]

I must admit, many people may choose their own paths as they like. No one should decide for them and no one should call them dumb for believing in something else.

Anyway, I don't want to explain the theory because I don't believe in it but here is the simple evolution of man:

austrilopithecines>> homo habilis>> homo erectus>> neanderthals and/or cro-magnons>> homo sapiens (today) -_-

I personally don't like the theory. It still hasn't been proven but hey, nothing has been proven yet. But I think this doesn't have a very good chance. It's also pretty sad how the theory says that neanderthals had bigger brains than we do today! -_-

Whatever, I'm still a Christian and it's still biased to me. I'm bored so I'll end this post right now. :wink:

[Crossfire Chaos]

You're all the same reacting in the same way. God is your all powerful lord, without him you think nothing could have happend. Science/physics is your powerful-lord-thingymajig, without it you think that nothing would exist.

I am a Athesit- a person who does not belive in god yet i see that both of you seem to not know everything (I for one know nothing but what I see in front of me.)
When someone says something that you can't anser you both say that humans can't learn/understand/comprehend it.

Mabey spiders have the most advanced brains so that is why they act stupid, to make humans not bother them as much, yet we don't know it.

I think that just because the bible says this and it says that does not mean anything. Just beacuse my book of Harry Potter says something doesn't mean its true, does it?

Mabey we live in the Matrix or something yet we don't know it.

The world is too complex for any one person/thing to have created it.

And if life on other plants were as civilized as us ,but a lot smarter, if we met we's all be examined like ants or killed or treated as slaves.

I do not believe in god because i just cannot see how one being could have created everything in the universe.

One more thing: Nothing can be disproven as easly as it can be proven. remember that.

You can laugh at me, yet try to understand my neanderthal tongue "Oh almighty bringers of smartness."

[Sutiivun]

Was that a flame post? I don't care if you're an athiest. I never said I was perfect. NO HUMAN IS!!!! I was trying to explain if you're Muslim, Athiest, Christian, I don't CARE!!!!! If you read my post I never flamed any different religions.

Faith is when you believe in something with your heart and no one can change it. All of us have different beliefs that will probably never be changed. No matter what!

Okay! I don't like to have people flame me just because I said I'm a Christian!

[Crossfire Chaos]

Sry i didn't mean to flame, I'll go ahead erase what i said about religon, I just got carried away. I never said it was bad to belive in god.

[Sutiivun]

Thanks. I didn't want to start flaming uncontrollably. The fact is we're all humans with different thoughts. No one should laugh at others for their religion. That's prejudice acts right there. I might erase some stuff that may look offensive to others. :wink:

[KenshinU]

Okay, I'm not a religious person, what so ever; therefore, whatever I say, don't take it personally. These are just my opinions... ^_^o

I think we evoled from apes. But in a different way like. God created the big bang. 2 apes fell from the sky... sooo I agree with you if I understood zam.

I don't think it's possible for two apes to fall from the sky. ^-^o I just think that they evolved from reptiles and lizards that evolved from fish, trilobites and other small water creatures... and those came from even smaller organisms that were no bigger than just a few cells... over millions of years... >_>

Aha.. I see what you mean.
But why do neutron-stars exist? Or black holes? Or planets 4 times the size of Jupiter?
Who enjoys those kind of things? Humans don't, and I doubt a god/God will either.
Not bashing, just asking ^^

In my opinion, planets, stars, etc. were all made by an accident... including the Earth and all living species on it... the gasses and chemicals in space just happened to mix by an accident in the right way to form all of it.

)']There are alot of questions to why God does alot of things... you should read the book of JOB for a good explination...

possibly are minds are not capable of understanding Gods intent... like why bad things happen to good people?... and if God created everything then why create Evil?

I don't think that there really is Evil... Different people just choose what they want to do... There is no bad or good... There were just these laws made by countries stating that taking another person's life is wrong...-_- I don't think it's wrong. If you want to go around killing people, go for it. Though I'm having a hard time believing this, since it's kind of unspeakable, I still think it's true... ^_^o

BTW, how would it affect your life when intelligent alien life was found?
I'm curious ^^;.

I wouldn't be surprised... I'm pretty sure that creatures can adapt to anything... So earth shouldn't be the only place where they can live. ^-^

And what is your alternative? Evolution? Heh heh heh ha ha ha! That theory was made on shaky grounds and assumptions by a mere guess. This theory that has not been proven, and even it's own maker found it to be completely inaccurate.


Then how do you explain the fossils of those prehistoric people and animals?

And I don't know that much about the religious stuff, but isn't the theory about humans popping out of nowhere also pretty absurd and inaccurate?

Ferret you think there is no god.



You a simple human think you have the power to control a unknown force!

I think that there is no god. And why is that a bad thing? :confused: That guy never shows himself, so who should I believe in those stories that were written by humans? ^^; How should I know that they didn't just make up the stories about gods? >_>

This post is at Ferret...

And at me. ^_^o

If there wansn't a God, how did we get here? If there wasn't a God, how does anything exist? If there wasn't a God, then how did time begin?

I think you say God isn't there just because you can not comprehend that. God was always there. You may say something like "Well who created God?" but nobody did. He was always there and it is hard to understand but it is true. Something HAD to have always been there. You will NEVER know the answer to how he was always there simply because our tiny human minds could never understand something so complex. Try to answer it yourself. You would be there all day trying to figure out. I tried it once before and it took a while and I said "scrap this, it's never ending".

God is there and that's how we are here.

Like I said before, we are here by an accident. But I understand... It is kind of hard to believe that universe was always here... But god? I don't know... <_<

How we got here is a story of eolution. How life itself got here is physics combined with chemistry.
How time and the universe itself came to exist, I don't know. Nobody knows. But that does not mean that it must be made by God than. It's a possibility, among a lot of other possibilities. And why should it be made by the christian God, and not by Shiva :S.

I'm on your side, Seven. :smile: All of that is so true, in my opinion. ^_^


I fully agree with you Elk. Wouldn't apes still be evolving today? I don't see any apes that are part human and part ape, do you? I also believe in God and I don't believe any of this evolution crud. It's merely based on a guess that will never be proven true. It's falsehood to say man came from ape because then there wouldn't be many if not ANY apes in the world.

How god created humans is also a guess, isn't it? But I think that it sounds even more pathetic. How is something capable of appearing out of nowhere without any chemical reactions taking place in that process? Sounds pretty inane to me...



...


*Sighs* okay.... >_>o ...you can start flaming me now, peoples... >_<

[Sutiivun]

I'm not going to flame you Kenshin. You have your good points but still, I think God created Earth and the whole universe.

Or maybe he didn't. What if he just organized the Earth and didn't create it? Maybe he made all of the different life forms but what if he didn't create the universe? These are some questions to consider so, think of them.

I think that all of our ideas will never be changed in this thread so I just want to see people answer this question. I'm still a Christian though. :shifty:

I still say maybe God is testing our faith by staying devoted to him even if he doesn't. In the bible, there's a guy called Malachi. He was one of the only people that still believed in God after hundreds of years. People kept doubting God because he showed up for their ancestors, but not them. They all thought that he was a made up fairy tale. And who knows, it MIGHT be happening today. Probably a 1% or something like chance but it can still happen.

*Prepares to be flamed*

[Tamer Marco]

Err... Kenshin chemical reaction? You've been watching too much anime. 1) If god didn't create the world, what did. I hate the big bang theroy, because how can utter destruction bring something so beautiful like earth?! Thats my 2 cents on it and i'm waiting to be dissed.

[Khashoggi]

Err... Kenshin chemical reaction? You've been watching too much anime. 1) If god didn't create the world, what did. I hate the big bang theroy, because how can utter destruction bring something so beautiful like earth?! Thats my 2 cents on it and i'm waiting to be dissed.
It's called science, Junior. And, er, what do chemical reactions have to do with anime? o.O And it's very much a matter of opinion (and in any case, purely human perception) that our Earth is beautiful.

Science can explain everything but what came first. Being an agnostic, I'm not inclined to take sides, however, it seems to me that the main scientific theory of creation has a lot more evidence than there is of any religion. In philosophy, there are infinite possibilities, each more appealing to one individual than another. None can be proved and none can be disproved.

Elk: You need to check your facts. Anyone believing in the theory of evolution will tell you that all living matter is still evolving today.

[Pyrochu]

It's called science, Junior. And, er, what do chemical reactions have to do with anime? o.O

Erm... good story telling?

Science can explain everything but what came first. Being an agnostic, I'm not inclined to take sides, however, it seems to me that the main scientific theory of creation has a lot more evidence than there is of any religion. In philosophy, there are infinite possibilities, each more appealing to one individual than another. None can be proved and none can be disproved.

Amen to that. But I'll only dispute one point; exactly how is there more evidence that the big bang actually occured than some deity like god creating the cosmos?

[Khashoggi]

Amen to that. But I'll only dispute one point; exactly how is there more evidence that the big bang actually occured than some deity like god creating the cosmos?
I'm not a scientist, so I can't really give an intelligent answer to that ... Just things like the fact that the universe is still expanding, and if, as scientists believe, it has been for millions of years, then it must have started out pretty small in any case.

Well, really, I can't answer that satisfactorily without looking through a couple of reference books. In my opinion, though, an explosion seems more likely to have happened, existed, whatever you want to call it, than an all-powerful God or Gods.

[§avage])]

In order for an explosion to occur, exactly what particles are needed?

you cant just say an explosion, cause where would it come from? if it was, then what was the first cause to set it in motion.... FIRST CAUSE, no one can argue that

[Deoxys0003]

Dry Ice... an explosion like the big bang would be almost impossible and it would make no sense. Where did those particles come from that made the big bang? Nowhere. God has always existed. Something cannot come from nothing... so the big bang theory IMO is already wrong there.

I also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that things go from order to disorder. If the big bang theory were to occur, things would go from disorder to order. The second law of thermodynamics is a SCIENTIFIC LAW, it cannot be broken EVER.

I've got some other stuff too, just too lazy. :P

[Seven]

Dry Ice... an explosion like the big bang would be almost impossible and it would make no sense. Where did those particles come from that made the big bang? Nowhere. God has always existed. Something cannot come from nothing... so the big bang theory IMO is already wrong there.

I also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that things go from order to disorder. If the big bang theory were to occur, things would go from disorder to order. The second law of thermodynamics is a SCIENTIFIC LAW, it cannot be broken EVER.

I've got some other stuff too, just too lazy. :P

And how would you know if it's impossible? ANd why would it make no sense? You're saying a God makes sense?
As you say, something cannot come from nothing. But yet, God has always existed, as you claim.
As for the second thermodynamics law, this is what that is:
"With the possible amount of states of a system, a disorderly sytem is more likely to occur than a orderly system. The disorder in a closed system always inclines towards disorder, provided there is no energy increase."

Nowhere does it say what you claim. There is a very clear example on the site where I got this from, but I don't feel like translating it ow. But if you insist, just ask...

[Deoxys0003]

Okay, first off, I apologize for making my opinion a fact. My bad.

Next, I said it was almost impossible. It makes no sense to me because the people who believe in it do not have any explanation of where the particles come from. If you don't even know how it started, how can you call it a theory (IMO)?

I am a Christian, so I believe God is all powerful, eternal, etc. He always was and always is. That's all I can say. I know it's hard to understand, but it's what I believe. It helps me to believe in a God because I have things that happen to me and have had a personal testimony told to me that make me believe that a God exists.

Look at how complex the earth is. If it was placed almost anywhere else, we would all die. A sunset. How do you explain it? Some random particles just blew up? How about the sun? Where did that come from? The human body. How did that come to be? Why do you have a thumb? Try picking something up without your thumb. It's incredibly hard. Howcome we can only live on planet earth? What if we all started on Venus? We'd all die.

About the Thermodynamics thing... where did you get that? Can you give me that clear example please? Thanks.

[Kenny_C.002]

Look at how complex the earth is. If it was placed almost anywhere else, we would all die. A sunset. How do you explain it? Some random particles just blew up? How about the sun? Where did that come from? The human body. How did that come to be? Why do you have a thumb? Try picking something up without your thumb. It's incredibly hard. Howcome we can only live on planet earth? What if we all started on Venus? We'd all die.

About the Thermodynamics thing... where did you get that? Can you give me that clear example please? Thanks.

Okay. i'm here to just say the theories there.

It is factual that Mars is habitable by humans. Excavations have begun and they do suspect WATER exists or existed at one point on Mars. Also, the atmosphere of Mars is filled with CO2/N2, meaning that all we basically have to do is pollute Mars to warm it up, stick plants in there, and Earth 2 will be born (given that water exists, this is entirely possible). Also, one of the Solar System moons is also habitable by humans.

Sunsets are caused by the rotation of the earth along its axis. I'm sure you know that one.

The sun was theorized to be created like all white dwarfs (high pressure, etc. Don't want to go there) are created now. The sun then basically matured into the yellow star now. btw, it's hydrogen.

The human body is theorized to be part of evolution. What strongly disproves the creator theory was that humans are nowhere near perfect. In fact, we would be nearly at the bottom of the perfection scale if we count. We have pretty much the most design errors of the animals. Besides, we're not the most successful species: parasites are.

The thumb is part of an evolutionary trait. It's observed in monkeys also.

We started on Earth because archaebacteria were here. Nothing of existance came onto Venus that we know of yet. Again, evolution and trial and error. This theory is challenged as how did the archaebacteria GET THERE? The major theories now are the comet theory and the spontaneous theory (note that both are valid because it is entirely possible to create all the components of the cell using lightning).

Second law (apparently there are counter examples to this "law", but for the 99.9 repeated% of the examples, the entropy of universe is greater than 0) of thermodynamics can easily be seen in human activity:
What's easier:
- breaking or making glass?
- neat things up, or mess things up?
- contstruct anything or destroy anything?
- ammonia breaking down or forming ammonia?

Here are examples of this:
- explosions of ANY kind
- burning of ANY kind
- anything that breaks down and releases heat
- the universe expanding for that matter

btw, full definition of the second law:
"The amount of entropy in the universe is increasing"

According to Gibb's Free NRG:
dG = dH - TdS, where
dG = Gibb's Free NRG
dH = change in enthalpy
T = temperature in Kelvin
dS = change in entropy

if dG is greater than 0, then the reverse reaction is spontaneous.
if dG is 0, the reaction does not occur.
if dG is negative, then the reaction is spontaneous.

(If you don't get it, it's because it's grade 12 chemistry. don't ask me, just take my word for it.

btw, the order of the planets/stars/moons is done orderly due to gravity and energy input from the big bang (theory).

I hope this was educational! :P

[Crimson Spider]

I'm back and in the mood to complain.

[color=#265EBB]
In my opinion, planets, stars, etc. were all made by an accident... including the Earth and all living species on it... the gasses and chemicals in space just happened to mix by an accident in the right way to form all of it. According to the theory of the big bang, all of the matter of the universe was compacted into a small space. The actual size of this space is in debate, but they for some odd reason decided to explode. If all of the matter in the universe was already compacted into a solid ball of mass, then they couldn't have just "Mixed". There would have to be an outside stimulation in order to get the very dimensions of existance to expand into such a great amount.

I don't think that there really is Evil... Different people just choose what they want to do... There is no bad or good... There were just these laws made by countries stating that taking another person's life is wrong...-_- I don't think it's wrong. If you want to go around killing people, go for it. Though I'm having a hard time believing this, since it's kind of unspeakable, I still think it's true... ^_^oWithout a third person perspective to define what indeed may be evil or not, there wouldn't be an Evil. You see, there IS a bad or good, arguable on ANY grounds of origins (got into a debate on this on another board. Fierce competition indeed). I doubt you have the propper knowledge of the cultivation of humanity, since you state that good and bad is just laws made by countries, where it is far more complicated than that.

Then how do you explain the fossils of those prehistoric people and animals? You know, I'm thanking my sister for making a report on this. First of all, the fossil records are messed up, changed around, and are always in debate of authenticity of what they are. For instance, what they claimed to be Homo-Erectus had a strange almost-round hole in it's skull that they couldn't explain. When a forensics scientist examined this, he determined that it was a bullet wound. Now, he had to have been shot while he was alive, because I seriously doubt that someone would dig up a skull, shoot it without shattering the whole "pre-historic" thing and making a rather even hole through the skull. So our pre-historic man must've been shot by the aliens then.

And I don't know that much about the religious stuff, but isn't the theory about humans popping out of nowhere also pretty absurd and inaccurate?Humans didn't just pop out of nowhere. That's why the theory is inaccurate.



I think that there is no god.Then by semantics you are not Aethiest, but Agnostic.
And why is that a bad thing? :confused: That guy never shows himself,Yes he does. You just refuse to see it, as many refuse to see a good idea due to the common paradigm.
so who should I believe in those stories that were written by humans? ^^; How should I know that they didn't just make up the stories about gods? >_>Again I question your knowledge on the source. Firstly, There was a man who went under the pseudonym of Bhudda when he reached Nirvhana, and preached what he did to the common. There was a man named Moses who liberated the Hebrew Slaves, and crossed the red sea to a large clearing where a nearby mountian has an unexplainably black top. A man named Jesus Christ was born, preached against the corruption that was in the Jewish religion, and was killed for it, starting christianity. A man by the name of Mohummed went on a Journy inspired by the Arch Angel to be a prophet of god. These are not made up by man, because they all actually happened. There are countless non-bliblical referances to each one of these.


Like I said before, we are here by an accident. But I understand... It is kind of hard to believe that universe was always here... But god? I don't know... <_<The universe wasn't always here. Until the big bang happened, the entire confinds of the universe was compacted into a small area by any standards. The universe we exist in today is not made up of nothing. It is made up of a mysterious almost non-existant material known as dark matter that physics-breakingly holds it together. The entire blackness you see is all dark matter. It's a big science thing I don't feel like getting into, unless you want me to. Do you?

How god created humans is also a guess, isn't it?It's not how, it's if.
But I think that it sounds even more pathetic. How is something capable of appearing out of nowhere without any chemical reactions taking place in that process? Sounds pretty inane to me...Easy. Something that does not exist in the constraints of our universe could easily have done this. I related this to the human imagination, and the manipulation of video-games previously. The physics brought onto us from the universe make it so it's accidental forming would be impossible.

Entering contestant Number 2
You're all the same reacting in the same way. God is your all powerful lord, without him you think nothing could have happend. Science/physics is your powerful-lord-thingymajig, without it you think that nothing would exist.Baseless, empty generalization based on incomplete data and mere speculation about something you probably know little about (I hear these comments on a daily basis. They all fit this description). You see, God didn't predestine every little thing that we do. Me mispelling a word can occur without God doing anything directly, simply because that is the plain of rules that I am allowed to manipulate under the base dimensions of existance and properties of my occurance in life previded by him.

I am a Athesit- a person who does not belive in god yet i see that both of you seem to not know everything (I for one know nothing but what I see in front of me.)
Seeing something in front of you is not knowing.

When someone says something that you can't anser you both say that humans can't learn/understand/comprehend it.That doesn't mean that it is false. Humans don't have a clue about certain organelles in the cell. They know their there, but they can't understand it. And every question can be answered. Just because one person doesn't know an answer doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. I have yet to see anything close to an undebatable or even strong statement against religion.
Mabey spiders have the most advanced brains so that is why they act stupid, to make humans not bother them as much, yet we don't know it.Then we move onto the "life is all nothing more than a perception" ideal. Ladies and gentlemen: we've studied a spiders brain. They, in fact, aren't the smartest animal on earth because they sparsely even have a brain, and can't do the simple tasks the higher animals can. There IS an absolute truth, and absolute fact, an absolute everything. Even if it is that there isn't an absolute truth due to what it is, there is an absolute. Do not forget that.

I think that just because the bible says this and it says that does not mean anything. Just beacuse my book of Harry Potter says something doesn't mean its true, does it?Someone forgot the purpose and origins of what the Bible is. Harry potter is a fictional tale made by someone who wants to entertain people. The various religous books for any denomination were made by people who took into account the occurences of their life and decided to write the teachings of another down. Bhudda. Jesus. Mohummed. None of them wrote their own stuff. The Bible is basically three things: History, Preferable ways of living life, and how to reach salvation. That is NOT what Harry Potter is, and doesn't have any grounds to be one.

Mabey we live in the Matrix or something yet we don't know it.This isn't the movie theatre.

The world is too complex for any one person/thing to have created it.And that is from your heindsight influenced perspective alone, and not someone elses. I know people who say that chess is too complex for someone to fully comprehend all the strategies. It happens, because by definition of existance there IS a limit on a base set of rules, which we are givin right now. When God made the Earth, it was nothing like it was today. There weren't as many annimals. The landscaping was much more simple. Everything was a lot easier. Under the base set of rules with some intervention of the big guy up top, things got more complicated.

I once saw a five-year-old with the most complex and vivid imagination out there. It was almost amazing what this kid, or any kid for that matter, could think of. Much better than my own. Since the mental constraints that you have can't fully comprehend it, doesn't mean someone else can. I mean, when you look at chess, you would NEVER guess it could be so strategic and complicated. And that is a bunch of simple rules.

[Crimson Spider]

And if life on other plants were as civilized as us ,but a lot smarter, if we met we's all be examined like ants or killed or treated as slaves.Someone once again can't comprehend difference in other views.

I do not believe in god because i just cannot see how one being could have created everything in the universe.Good thing I can :D.

One more thing: Nothing can be disproven as easly as it can be proven. remember that.I can beg to differ.

You know, not one person has come close to succeding in almost partially causing me to think otherwise about religion. I find the arguements against it to be rather... empty. Anywho, time for the next bowling pin.

How time and the universe itself came to exist, I don't know. Nobody knows. But that does not mean that it must be made by God than. It's a possibility, among a lot of other possibilities. And why should it be made by the christian God, and not by Shiva :S.Why shouldn't it? You forget that having no proof is not proof against.

Next up
And how would you know if it's impossible? ANd why would it make no sense? You're saying a God makes sense?That is the definition of scientific law. It being impossible to break. And BTW: God DOES make sense.

As you say, something cannot come from nothing. But yet, God has always existed, as you claim.
Unfortunatly he is forgetting to mention the restraints and rules of existance that we are under today. You see, under the dimensions givin, something can't come from nothing, because there is simply always something there. If we were to find where there is nothing, the universe would collapse in on itself. Comparing creation to imagination again: he is sitting on a third-party-perspective, being able to change things to his whim, as anyone can change their imagination around.
As for the second thermodynamics law, this is what that is:
"With the possible amount of states of a system, a disorderly sytem is more likely to occur than a orderly system. The disorder in a closed system always inclines towards disorder, provided there is no energy increase."

Nowhere does it say what you claim. There is a very clear example on the site where I got this from, but I don't feel like translating it ow. But if you insist, just ask...I bolded where it supports him. Energy is always existant, because it is either gained, or lost. It cannot be destroyed, or eliminated. If you take the nature of the universe we exist in, no energy could arrive, because it simply was always existant in a limited amount.

And for yet another person to talk to. I just happen to be excelling at my Chemistry honors class.

It is factual that Mars is habitable by humans. Excavations have begun and they do suspect WATER exists or existed at one point on Mars.
O.K. I'll point out a few things. The existance of LIQUID water is supsected under shaky and extreamly biased grounds without seeing an opposite side to their statements.
Also, the atmosphere of Mars is filled with CO2/N2,At a different pressure and consistancy than of earths.
meaning that all we basically have to do is pollute Mars to warm it up, stick plants in there, and Earth 2 will be born (given that water exists, this is entirely possible). Also, one of the Solar System moons is also habitable by humans.Polluting mars to a point of which it would warm up to inhabitable temperature would require so much dangerous exhaust and chemicals it would literally poison the atmosphere beyond repair. Mars is much colder than us. MUCH colder. It also has different air pressure than earth, meaning that the greenhouse effects of gasses wouldn't build up as quickly because the atmosphere of Mars wouldn't concentrate them to a point that they would preserve the heat set off by the sun. And if the plants were to survive the pollution, they NEED oxygen in the first place to break down chemical energy. Sure, they could make it themselves, but not at the amount needed in the circumstance of which they live to survive. If liquid water currently exists now, however.

Sunsets are caused by the rotation of the earth along its axis. I'm sure you know that one.

The sun was theorized to be created like all white dwarfs (high pressure, etc. Don't want to go there) are created now. The sun then basically matured into the yellow star now. btw, it's hydrogen.

The human body is theorized to be part of evolution. What strongly disproves the creator theory was that humans are nowhere near perfect. In fact, we would be nearly at the bottom of the perfection scale if we count. We have pretty much the most design errors of the animals. Besides, we're not the most successful species: parasites are.I fail to see how perfection of something more complicated than any condension of hydrogen and helium burning at an intesity of pressure and temperature. And define perfection for me? We were made special aside from other animals. We were made to be different. How our bodies have changed over 10,000 years does not debunk the ideal of "perfection". It gives variance and diversity which developes over time. So claiming that creationism couldn't exist because of what a person sees as perfection isn't what we are hardly holds any meaning. I didn't see anywhere written that we had to be perfect, or perfection was an order of the universe itself. The theory of evolution is that animals slowely change to better their enviroment, while as humans destroy it as savagly as a parasite would it's host. So by the defnition of evolution, humans don't fit anywhere.

The thumb is part of an evolutionary trait. It's observed in monkeys also.And Koalas. And certain other Bears. According to creationism, God made man first, and everything else second. Or should I say, designed him first.

We started on Earth because archaebacteria were here. Nothing of existance came onto Venus that we know of yet. Again, evolution and trial and error. This theory is challenged as how did the archaebacteria GET THERE? The major theories now are the comet theory and the spontaneous theory (note that both are valid because it is entirely possible to create all the components of the cell using lightning).I believe a theory was that a bunch of non-living amino acids were concentrated into a pool of water and combined to form a chain that can be classified as a prokaryotic cell known as the archaebacteria. The creation of the components of a cell using lighting is a theory, because under controlled circumstances, the construction of what would be a prokaryotic cell is darned near impossible, let alone in an uncontrolled enviroment where as lighting would have to strike (if it somehow did in some next to impossible way) an exact location with an exact intensity at an exact time while the acids were lined up in the exact right spot, and they somehow NOT dying out. About a 1 x 10 to the 120th power of the acids aligning on their own occuring. Combine that with the 1 x 10 to the 60th power of the universe forming, and that all the occurances in our lives to be nothing more than mere coincidence, and the conditions of which both of these would have to occur, you get an unpercivably impossible number.

Second law (apparently there are counter examples to this "law", but for the 99.9 repeated% of the examples, the entropy of universe is greater than 0) of thermodynamics can easily be seen in human activity:
What's easier:
- breaking or making glass?
- neat things up, or mess things up?
- contstruct anything or destroy anything?
- ammonia breaking down or forming ammonia?

Here are examples of this:
- explosions of ANY kind
- burning of ANY kind
- anything that breaks down and releases heat
- the universe expanding for that matter

btw, full definition of the second law:
"The amount of entropy in the universe is increasing"

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
Are the definitions of entropy. Meaning that the energy in the universe avaliable to do work is decreasing, and not the amount of thermal energy.

According to Gibb's Free NRG:
dG = dH - TdS, where
dG = Gibb's Free NRG
dH = change in enthalpy
T = temperature in Kelvin
dS = change in entropy

if dG is greater than 0, then the reverse reaction is spontaneous.
if dG is 0, the reaction does not occur.
if dG is negative, then the reaction is spontaneous.

(If you don't get it, it's because it's grade 12 chemistry. don't ask me, just take my word for it.

btw, the order of the planets/stars/moons is done orderly due to gravity and energy input from the big bang (theory).

I hope this was educational! :P
Atleast I finally know what the Gibbs formula I heard about once or twice is. And I'm glad you pointed out that the order of planets/stars/moons is nothing more*than a mere theory. Be glad though. Atleast you have more than just mere preferances and perceptions to back up your statement.

[Kenny_C.002]

O.K. I'll point out a few things. The existance of LIQUID water is supsected under shaky and extreamly biased grounds without seeing an opposite side to their statements.

Yes, and you have to notice that the "fact" of gods also exist within biased grounds. Just because historically Jesus preaches to the people, doesn't mean he's the "son of God" (I can neither prove or disprove that). But it is on biased grounds that he was named the "son of God".


I can beg to differ.

Actually, the Nature of science is not to disprove anything, but to replace any theories currently used.

At a different pressure and consistancy than of earths.

Correct, but at enough rates that nitrogen still dominates the atmosphere.

Polluting mars to a point of which it would warm up to inhabitable temperature would require so much dangerous exhaust and chemicals it would literally poison the atmosphere beyond repair. Mars is much colder than us. MUCH colder. It also has different air pressure than earth, meaning that the greenhouse effects of gasses wouldn't build up as quickly because the atmosphere of Mars wouldn't concentrate them to a point that they would preserve the heat set off by the sun. And if the plants were to survive the pollution, they NEED oxygen in the first place to break down chemical energy. Sure, they could make it themselves, but not at the amount needed in the circumstance of which they live to survive. If liquid water currently exists now, however.

The fact that we can put archaebacteria into the sulfurous planet after pollution will then basically reverse the harm of polution, leaving only enough oxygen for algae to grow, thus giving birth to Mars. Of course, it's theory.

I fail to see how perfection of something more complicated than any condension of hydrogen and helium burning at an intesity of pressure and temperature. And define perfection for me? We were made special aside from other animals. We were made to be different. How our bodies have changed over 10,000 years does not debunk the ideal of "perfection". It gives variance and diversity which developes over time. So claiming that creationism couldn't exist because of what a person sees as perfection isn't what we are hardly holds any meaning. I didn't see anywhere written that we had to be perfect, or perfection was an order of the universe itself. The theory of evolution is that animals slowely change to better their enviroment, while as humans destroy it as savagly as a parasite would it's host. So by the defnition of evolution, humans don't fit anywhere.

According to some religions, "we were created perfect". Of course, perfection is only mathematical and impossible to acheive. Perfection would be proving the inscribed angle theorem (the inscribed angle within a circle is exactly one-half of the angle to the centre of the circle with the same arc). It's mathematical, and it's perfection, unattainable by a non-perfect universe. This is much like the reason why entropy is never 0, because it is mathematical perfection. I am not pointing at whether God said we were perfect or not, but I'm there only to counter what was said before.

99.9% of parasites do not kill their host. It it in their genetic make-up to allow their host to survive through their suffering until they reproduce, in which they either die or continue to reproduce (commonly observed in flukes and tapeworms). The counter point that you would be making would obviously be malaria, HIV, and trypanosomiasis. First I would eliminate trypanosomiasis, because it's pretty much harmless to the human body in general. HIV is next line: it's a virus, not a parasite. Malaria is the most problematic one to humans, as they reproduce within their host and would not basically leave the person through conventional means. Therefore malaria will certainly kill their host before they can reach another host. The reasoning behind it is that malaria tends to surface at the tops of blood streams in order for mosquitoes to catch them. The more numbers, the eaiser to transfer. Thus malaria is programmed to divide rapidly within the red blood cells. We humans evolve to have sickel red blood cells to counter the malarian parasites (and children with sickle cell anemia tends to survive malaria). Thus I have proven basically that malaria is still following the same principles of parasitism, but you can say it's more "extreme" of a case. Also, evolution also has been shown here with malaria.

And Koalas. And certain other Bears. According to creationism, God made man first, and everything else second. Or should I say, designed him first.

And according to us, it's a common evolutionary trait so we mammals can grab stuff.

I believe a theory was that a bunch of non-living amino acids were concentrated into a pool of water and combined to form a chain that can be classified as a prokaryotic cell known as the archaebacteria. The creation of the components of a cell using lighting is a theory, because under controlled circumstances, the construction of what would be a prokaryotic cell is darned near impossible, let alone in an uncontrolled enviroment where as lighting would have to strike (if it somehow did in some next to impossible way) an exact location with an exact intensity at an exact time while the acids were lined up in the exact right spot, and they somehow NOT dying out. About a 1 x 10 to the 120th power of the acids aligning on their own occuring. Combine that with the 1 x 10 to the 60th power of the universe forming, and that all the occurances in our lives to be nothing more than mere coincidence, and the conditions of which both of these would have to occur, you get an unpercivably impossible number.

And the Earth had more than 3 billion (sorry if I'm mixing up million with billion again) years to get that.

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
Are the definitions of entropy. Meaning that the energy in the universe avaliable to do work is decreasing, and not the amount of thermal energy.

entropy is defined as the randomness of a closed system. Obviously the only true closed system would be the universe itself. We can only theorize that the expanding of the universe is due to an increase in entropy since there is no "energy" input.

Atleast I finally know what the Gibbs formula I heard about once or twice is. And I'm glad you pointed out that the order of planets/stars/moons is nothing more*than a mere theory. Be glad though. Atleast you have more than just mere preferances and perceptions to back up your statement.

Thanks. This gets interesting with ppl backing up to both sides with real stuff.

Tho in closing, my opinion hovers toward the scientific field as much as you are to the omnipotent field. The problem here is that there are enough solid evidence to prove both sides correct and both sides incorrect, just in preference to what your POV is.

[Crimson Spider]

Yes, and you have to notice that the "fact" of gods also exist within biased grounds. Just because historically Jesus preaches to the people, doesn't mean he's the "son of God" (I can neither prove or disprove that). But it is on biased grounds that he was named the "son of God".
You also have to notice that the "fact" of evolution also exists within biased grounds. Unbiased doesn't exist here, and is an extremely rare thing.
Jesus did more than just preach to people, and claimed that he was the son of God. He wasn't named that by someone else.

Actually, the Nature of science is not to disprove anything, but to replace any theories currently used.This is ambiguous. I can define proving something right to disprove something. That is why there is always so much offense against eachother in religions. And often times science isn't really the base point, but rather being used.



Correct, but at enough rates that nitrogen still dominates the atmosphere.By which percentage?



The fact that we can put archaebacteria into the sulfurous planet after pollution will then basically reverse the harm of polution, leaving only enough oxygen for algae to grow, thus giving birth to Mars. Of course, it's theory.It's a shaky theory.



According to some religions, "we were created perfect".Some religions. I don't recall ever reading in the Bible that I read that we were perfect, or if we were, to stay perfect.
Of course, perfection is only mathematical and impossible to acheive. Perfection would be proving the inscribed angle theorem (the inscribed angle within a circle is exactly one-half of the angle to the centre of the circle with the same arc). It's mathematical, and it's perfection, unattainable by a non-perfect universe. This is much like the reason why entropy is never 0, because it is mathematical perfection. I am not pointing at whether God said we were perfect or not, but I'm there only to counter what was said before.So under mathematical perfection set on the rules givin to a 10-base numbering system we aren't perfect.

99.9% of parasites do not kill their host.
You must've done a WHOLE lot of research in order to find this out. While most parasites don't kill humans, there are quite a few that kill other animals.
It it in their genetic make-up to allow their host to survive through their suffering until they reproduce, in which they either die or continue to reproduce (commonly observed in flukes and tapeworms). The counter point that you would be making would obviously be malaria, HIV, and trypanosomiasis. First I would eliminate trypanosomiasis, because it's pretty much harmless to the human body in general. HIV is next line: it's a virus, not a parasite. Malaria is the most problematic one to humans, as they reproduce within their host and would not basically leave the person through conventional means. Therefore malaria will certainly kill their host before they can reach another host. The reasoning behind it is that malaria tends to surface at the tops of blood streams in order for mosquitoes to catch them. The more numbers, the eaiser to transfer. Thus malaria is programmed to divide rapidly within the red blood cells. We humans evolve to have sickel red blood cells to counter the malarian parasites (and children with sickle cell anemia tends to survive malaria).
Sickle Cell anemia unless in a malaria-infested area is strictly a burden. And it does occur in non-malaria infested areas.
Thus I have proven basically that malaria is still following the same principles of parasitism, but you can say it's more "extreme" of a case. Also, evolution also has been shown here with malaria.Or specific design. One of the two. What you are refering to here is called micro-evolution. No scientist would argue with this, because it obviously exists. I, myself, have a thinner blood than your average person since I natively and actively live in a desert. This type of evolution exists, but the theory that something would evolve onto a mass-scale such as growing wings over time is what is in debate at this time.
And the only reason why certain things such as the flu don't kill us is because of our modern achievements in medical technology. Back 500 years ago, the flu was a deadly son-of-a-gun.

And according to us, it's a common evolutionary trait so we mammals can grab stuff.[/qoute]I used to know of a certain... I believe it was either a frog or a lizard... that had thumbs, too. But our dis-agreement is obvious on this matter.

[quote]And the Earth had more than 3 billion (sorry if I'm mixing up million with billion again) years to get that.Not nearly that much time, assuming that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old which is a shaky and unproven date. In order for evolution to mass-out, it would've had to occur about somewhere over 2 billion years ago. Most likely around the mid-year That would mean that at most, the Earth had 2.5 billion years to do this. Take the time it would for the earth to fully form, and for it to cool off, and it to release water into the atmosphere, liquify, erode around so the acids and materials necessary to make these acids, and for lighting to strike a pool of water at the same time that all the necissary amino acids would line up, and somehow not be in motion or die, and that 2.5 billion, which itself is an extreamly small number compared to the other one, would be chopped down a lot.


Thanks. This gets interesting with ppl backing up to both sides with real stuff.

Tho in closing, my opinion hovers toward the scientific field as much as you are to the omnipotent field.
Who said that those fields have to had been seperate?
The problem here is that there are enough solid evidence to prove both sides correct and both sides incorrect, just in preference to what your POV is.
You know, I said this once before in a topic on the boards before we moved.

[Kenny_C.002]

You also have to notice that the "fact" of evolution also exists within biased grounds. Unbiased doesn't exist here, and is an extremely rare thing.
Jesus did more than just preach to people, and claimed that he was the son of God. He wasn't named that by someone else.

I'm certain that Jesus died on a cross, coming to a realization that historically this would have been impossible. Roman traditions dictate the posts are already on the gladiatorial stadiums (dug up, mind you), thus the the "cross" Jesus died on was only a capital "T". Thus this leads to me saying that historically he was named "son of God", but not necessarily one, if the cross "theory" has been disproven.

This is ambiguous. I can define proving something right to disprove something. That is why there is always so much offense against eachother in religions. And often times science isn't really the base point, but rather being used.

But you are discounting that the nature of science is not about disproving anything, rather to prove things. I indirectly disprove something, but it is not that I go deliberately disprove something. To disprove something is easy, mind you, since you can prove that 1 + 1 = 0 (I have yet seen a replication of this since grade 9, and therefore I cannot base solid proof on this). To indirectly disprove something is different. I means that you've proven something else to begin with.

By which percentage?

To tell you the truth, I have yet done any solid and hard "cold" facts on such matter. Thus u can say that this is "not directly proven" and discount it.

It's a shaky theory.

All theories are shaky until proven.

Some religions. I don't recall ever reading in the Bible that I read that we were perfect, or if we were, to stay perfect.
So under mathematical perfection set on the rules givin to a 10-base numbering system we aren't perfect.

We aren't perfect because perfect is impossible. Obviously perfect requires a basis, which in this case I chose to use a mathematical equation (not a 10-base numbering system).

You must've done a WHOLE lot of research in order to find this out. While most parasites don't kill humans, there are quite a few that kill other animals.
Sickle Cell anemia unless in a malaria-infested area is strictly a burden. And it does occur in non-malaria infested areas.
Or specific design. One of the two. What you are refering to here is called micro-evolution. No scientist would argue with this, because it obviously exists. I, myself, have a thinner blood than your average person since I natively and actively live in a desert. This type of evolution exists, but the theory that something would evolve onto a mass-scale such as growing wings over time is what is in debate at this time.
And the only reason why certain things such as the flu don't kill us is because of our modern achievements in medical technology. Back 500 years ago, the flu was a deadly son-of-a-gun.

Parasitism has a law in which the less deadly it is, the more chances it can have to reproduce. If a parasite kills its host right off the bat, it's completely worhtless, as they will die as well. Their principle states that the more scarce the population, the less chances of it spreading, thus the less deadly it is. Assuming the current astate of the animal kingdom, the population density of any given organism (aside from the VERY few) has decreased durastically. This leads to the parasites being much less deadly as before. Thus I arrive to the conclusion that parasites do not kill their hosts in short time as they might have ages ago.

I used to know of a certain... I believe it was either a frog or a lizard... that had thumbs, too. But our dis-agreement is obvious on this matter.

What's the disagreement on? That we have thumbs?

Not nearly that much time, assuming that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old which is a shaky and unproven date. In order for evolution to mass-out, it would've had to occur about somewhere over 2 billion years ago. Most likely around the mid-year That would mean that at most, the Earth had 2.5 billion years to do this. Take the time it would for the earth to fully form, and for it to cool off, and it to release water into the atmosphere, liquify, erode around so the acids and materials necessary to make these acids, and for lighting to strike a pool of water at the same time that all the necissary amino acids would line up, and somehow not be in motion or die, and that 2.5 billion, which itself is an extreamly small number compared to the other one, would be chopped down a lot.

And by chance this may happen even if it is a short time. Remember that chance is chance. IT could happen on the first try still. 2.5 billion is short, but it could be enough. For all that mattered, it could have happened on the 1.6 billionth year. Yes it's shaky, but it's the best we have.

Who said that those fields have to had been seperate?

I'm thinking you're saying that the field shouldn't have to be separated. It's just the nature of it all that makes it feel as tho there are conflicting arguments which separate them in this particular issue. It doesn't mean that they have to be completely separate in general.

You know, I said this once before in a topic on the boards before we moved.

You did? I never knew that. :tongue:

[Techno Treecko]

There are certain times that I come to these boards only to find myself angry. Not at the un-informed posts of others, but the in-ability to counter them from the opposing members. Here is an example.

The universe isn't infinite. This is mistake number 1: The universe is expanding, yes. Infinant? Nope.


How un-informed is this specific indevidual? #1: Man was his greatest creation because it has the ability to interpret, reason, understand. Man alone didn't conjure the notion of eliminating an indevidual that they don't like. If you knew about the origins stated in the Bible, you would know how baseless this statement is.


Have you ever been to a high-school history class? You should have, seeing as you are a few months older than me.
Ladies and gentlemen, a man who was claimed to have reached enlightenment walked the earth before Christ under the changed name of Bhudda. There are multiple non-religious accounts of this indevidual. Then, at the set time of 2004 years ago (each time they try to date the birthday of Jesus, they always come up with a different number each time, slightly off of 2000), who walked around Rome, did a bunch of miracles, sparked Christianity, and was cruicified. There are 22 non-religious written records of Jesus's existance, and all of his miracles. Then at about 500 AD, a man said to have been instructed by the Ark-Angel set out and started up Islamic religion. This man's name was Mohummed (forgive my spelling). There are non-religious written accounts of this man, and what he did.

What you claim as fact is actually mere aetheistic propoganda. Are you going to claim the Jesus slept with Marry next?

Covered this above.


And what is your alternative? Evolution? Heh heh heh ha ha ha! That theory was made on shaky grounds and assumptions by a mere guess. This theory that has not been proven, and even it's own maker found it to be completely inaccurate.

There is only 1 reason why man excepted it so easily (which astouned Darwin himself, as he said it was amazing how people excepted a lie.) Take a good guess.

Answer: The United States was horney.

Moving on from my little rant:



I do. I enjoy these things. Many people do. Such as Astronomers. That's why they get the job. The Universe makes a pretty picture, don't it?

Notice something: other planets are not nearly as diverse (excluding life) as Earth is. Why do you think that? Do you know what's under the clouds of Jupiter? Not much.


Next statement on why God created man: I'm sure he enjoyed it, but there was a little dispute up there. God created man, and claimed that the devil wouldn't be able to tempt him into eating the forbidden fruit (not an apple). So we were kinda made off of a bet.



Do you know what the EXACT big-bang theory is? Blatenly: No one does. There are multiple disputes on how it could occure. This new one of "something from nothing" (which in itself is an actual defiance since the universe is composed of what is labeled as "dark matter'). Some people say that it came from one atom. Some people claim it came from only 5. Some claim it came from one of each of the indevidual natural-occuring elements out there. Some claim it came from a moon-sized existance that had all the matter in the known universe compressed. Some say it came from one Giant Atom about the size of a planet. They change their theory daily. BUT if a third party source were involved... it's as possible as all get-out. I mean, we see miracles, unexplained occurances that have valuable claim that spirits were their cause. Not just written in the Bible, but every-day experiences. So what is to say that we are not mere beings in a videogame like existance of which a third party can easily manipulate us? What is everything in a videogame constructed of? 0's and 1's. What is everything in our universe made of? Atoms and particles.


The Bible itself has been changed to suit the wants of multiple people. Such as how John Calvin added in pre-destination during the time that Luther posted up the 95 thesis against the Roman-Catholic church. And how purgatory was added into the catholic church's personal Bible to give power to the priests. Also writings such as the Book of Mormon, or the book made by Jehova's witnesses. Take the book of Mormon, which was said to be just an add-on while it contradicts everything in the Bible, such as the claim that Jesus was the Reincarnation of the Ark Angel while Jesus actually had spoke with the Ark Angel, so that couldn't possibly true.

Getting your hands on a non-altered copy is extreamly difficult if not impossible.

You know what would be funny? If when we found aliens, they came to Earth and said "So this is the planet Jesus died on!" But I doubt that Aliens could ever exist, because the evolutionary start of the cell, and eukaryotic cells was proven to be impossible by guys who were trying to prove it was.

There's plenty of scientific evidence to back-up religion. Give the word, and I'll post some up.

Honestly CS, I can't get enough of you. You are by far the best debater, especially on Religious debates, on this forum. I haven't found one post by you on debate that I have disagreed with yet. Thumbs up! :smile:

[Crimson Spider]

I'm certain that Jesus died on a cross, coming to a realization that historically this would have been impossible. Roman traditions dictate the posts are already on the gladiatorial stadiums (dug up, mind you), thus the the "cross" Jesus died on was only a capital "T". Thus this leads to me saying that historically he was named "son of God", but not necessarily one, if the cross "theory" has been disproven.Reminds me of an assignment I am doing on the NCLB act. Yes, I heard that the cross was a T, but I'm going to look into the shape of roman lettering, and if it was what they called a Cross actually was a T, or if the shape changed around from the T to a + sign, or if it was a + sign all along and that is the conclusion that someones research came up with and everyone stole.
Also Historically, he wasn't named the Son of God. He called himself the son of god, and it was others who believed it. Historically, he was named a great religious leader. (wasn't it in a few recent history books that he did die on a cross?)

But you are discounting that the nature of science is not about disproving anything, rather to prove things. I indirectly disprove something, but it is not that I go deliberately disprove something. To disprove something is easy, mind you, since you can prove that 1 + 1 = 0 (I have yet seen a replication of this since grade 9, and therefore I cannot base solid proof on this). To indirectly disprove something is different. I means that you've proven something else to begin with.
It isn't always the nature of science that it is being used for. Often the nature of man. And the nature of man would seek to prove one thing to disprove another, using scince. The "prove things" lable is to what I find a mechanical-response. A reaction, like saying OW when you step on a thumb tack. When asked, a person automatically devulges this information, and refuses to remove their opinion from it, much similar to how people adheive to what is said in the Bible as absolute fact, while I tell them that it was added by some guy in the 1400's who sought his own personal benifit. Their lable of the "nature" is the same, whilst deviated from actual fact. I see no difference in the comfort of the "to prove" lable as with the religious problems I occasionally see.

To tell you the truth, I have yet done any solid and hard "cold" facts on such matter. Thus u can say that this is "not directly proven" and discount it.Or lower the base of which it is on. It is still countable. Just not as appealing to the eyes of the onlooker.


All theories are shaky until proven.Glad you agree with me on it. But the shakyness of one theory juxtaposed to another often times find a "shakier" theory.


We aren't perfect because perfect is impossible. Obviously perfect requires a basis, which in this case I chose to use a mathematical equation (not a 10-base numbering system). The referance to the 10 base numbering system is the order of which we arrange numbers to aquire certain values. If this base-numbering system were to change, the simple math would only be slightly altered while the more complex math, such as tangents, would be completely discombobulated (probably not a word). What I am addressing here is that mathematic perfection is only perfection under a system that we devised on our own, and thus under our own system perfection is impossible. Reminds me of The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe.

Parasitism has a law in which the less deadly it is, the more chances it can have to reproduce. If a parasite kills its host right off the bat, it's completely worhtless, as they will die as well. Their principle states that the more scarce the population, the less chances of it spreading, thus the less deadly it is. Assuming the current astate of the animal kingdom, the population density of any given organism (aside from the VERY few) has decreased durastically. This leads to the parasites being much less deadly as before. Thus I arrive to the conclusion that parasites do not kill their hosts in short time as they might have ages ago. Not always. The execution of it's host to reproduce (such as a parasite found in certain snails) often helps it's reproduction cycle. Are you referring to the overall effect of Parasites on the population of a species, or just a single body itself?

What's the disagreement on? That we have thumbs?[/qoute]Our disagreement is evolution in the matter of our thumbs.

[quote]And by chance this may happen even if it is a short time. Remember that chance is chance. IT could happen on the first try still. 2.5 billion is short, but it could be enough. For all that mattered, it could have happened on the 1.6 billionth year. Yes it's shaky, but it's the best we have.So you admit that the nearly inconcieveably small number is what you are standing on right now. From my perspective, Divine intervention is a whole lot more probable in the existance of our planet rather than all chance. One of those determining numbers is actually the chance that every religious and paranormal act to ever occur throughout history was but a mere chance.

I'm thinking you're saying that the field shouldn't have to be separated. It's just the nature of it all that makes it feel as tho there are conflicting arguments which separate them in this particular issue. It doesn't mean that they have to be completely separate in general.
The way you were talking was as if the belief of religious roots and the belief of evolutionary roots were completely seperate. I felt the need to address that.

Well, TT. I find this board to be much easier than my other one. People over there are down right vicious, and also underhanded backstabbers and liars. They aren't able to percieve the concept that majority doesn't mean right, or the concept of understanding from the opposing views. It's almost scary comparing that place to this toned down, more relaxed atmosphere.

[Techno Treecko]

Well, TT. I find this board to be much easier than my other one. People over there are down right vicious, and also underhanded backstabbers and liars. They aren't able to percieve the concept that majority doesn't mean right, or the concept of understanding from the opposing views. It's almost scary comparing that place to this toned down, more relaxed atmosphere.

Heh, knowing your opposing skills, I'm sure you're beat down over there, lol. BTW, what's the link to this other board that you go to (j/w)?

[Kenny_C.002]

Reminds me of an assignment I am doing on the NCLB act. Yes, I heard that the cross was a T, but I'm going to look into the shape of roman lettering, and if it was what they called a Cross actually was a T, or if the shape changed around from the T to a + sign, or if it was a + sign all along and that is the conclusion that someones research came up with and everyone stole.
Also Historically, he wasn't named the Son of God. He called himself the son of god, and it was others who believed it. Historically, he was named a great religious leader. (wasn't it in a few recent history books that he did die on a cross?)

No. A roman letter has a capital "T". Since the Latin does not contain any small letters, a "t" would not exist, "t" being something most similar to a cross. THis lettering is found with men like Tiberius, using the capital "T". Since it's the Greek who use the plau sign you are speaking of, it would not be possible for the T-shaped structure to be known as a cross.

I don't know where you are getting your sources, but mine had said he was named teh Son of God. I have to find the medium first before I can specifcally say to you. The only thing that I can say is historian discrepency, thus none of our accounts can eb 100% correct.

It isn't always the nature of science that it is being used for. Often the nature of man. And the nature of man would seek to prove one thing to disprove another, using scince. The "prove things" lable is to what I find a mechanical-response. A reaction, like saying OW when you step on a thumb tack. When asked, a person automatically devulges this information, and refuses to remove their opinion from it, much similar to how people adheive to what is said in the Bible as absolute fact, while I tell them that it was added by some guy in the 1400's who sought his own personal benifit. Their lable of the "nature" is the same, whilst deviated from actual fact. I see no difference in the comfort of the "to prove" lable as with the religious problems I occasionally see.

Recall that science comes from the latin base word "scio" meaning to know (okay scio means I know). Science is just the knowledge, and the nature of science is not to disprove. The nature of man is to disprove, but not the nature of science.

Or lower the base of which it is on. It is still countable. Just not as appealing to the eyes of the onlooker.

True. But even a 40% composition of Nitrogen should be enough to sustain life.

Glad you agree with me on it. But the shakyness of one theory juxtaposed to another often times find a "shakier" theory.

I agree. Thus one tends not to use two shaky theories to form a third "shakier" theory.

The referance to the 10 base numbering system is the order of which we arrange numbers to aquire certain values. If this base-numbering system were to change, the simple math would only be slightly altered while the more complex math, such as tangents, would be completely discombobulated (probably not a word). What I am addressing here is that mathematic perfection is only perfection under a system that we devised on our own, and thus under our own system perfection is impossible. Reminds me of The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe.

The basis of mathematics is where any numbering system would work. If you take a look at any high-level Calculus, algedbra, finite, etc. maths, you will notice that it is all Greek...literally. Thus math is not a numbering system, rather a universal law in which ANY numbering system would work well in. Obviously finding the third derivative of 11010101x^4 - 100110x would be a "torture", but again under the Greek alphabet was, it's entirely the same (it's because it's all greek that this happens, we would us "a" or "b", complete variables). So perfection is not a numbering system, or a basis of a numbering system, it's universal.

Not always. The execution of it's host to reproduce (such as a parasite found in certain snails) often helps it's reproduction cycle. Are you referring to the overall effect of Parasites on the population of a species, or just a single body itself?

And you will notice that 99% of snail parasites do not kill the snails themselves so they can get into their next host. Notice that the "zombie snails" you are referring to ALL survive the parasitism. In fact, they tend to live LONGER this way. It's not symbiotic for sure, but you are telling me exactly what I'm trying to prove.

Anotehr example of this would be "zombie crabs", they for the crabs to spread their young, but the crabs will not die from preditorial interactions, they tend to die from how a normal crab would usually die. This allows the parasite to essentially breed and re-breed many times to ensure their survival.

Biologists don't look at the population as they did years ago to check on the health of the ecosystem. They now check for parastism. The more parasites, the better. Note again that ALL of the creatures in a healthy ecosystem have enough parasites in them to make one puke. If that is the case as you were saying, it would mean that the entire population of a healthy ecosystem would completely die out in a matter of months. This is not the case, the ecosystem is healthy, and the parasites prove it. You're thinking literally of that 1% of parasites that actually kill.

Our disagreement is evolution in the matter of our thumbs.

Okay. you're saying that God has given us all thumbs (including certain animals by their heirarchy), but there is also evidence that it is converging evolution. If an animal needs to grab to survive, they will have thumbs. They evolve to do such things. You're saying God just created them perfectly for their environment at this specific time period, as degeneration of such?

So you admit that the nearly inconcieveably small number is what you are standing on right now. From my perspective, Divine intervention is a whole lot more probable in the existance of our planet rather than all chance. One of those determining numbers is actually the chance that every religious and paranormal act to ever occur throughout history was but a mere chance.

Actually, I feel that divine intervention is AS farfetched as the idea I am proposing.

The way you were talking was as if the belief of religious roots and the belief of evolutionary roots were completely seperate. I felt the need to address that.

Yes, you're saying God created everything, and I'm saying they've evolved this way. Those are completely different thoughts. Basically, you're trying to prove that Darwin's Finches were all created as they were and I'm saying that they've come to adapt to their environemtn through evolution. I'm betting my money on evolution.

Well, TT. I find this board to be much easier than my other one. People over there are down right vicious, and also underhanded backstabbers and liars. They aren't able to percieve the concept that majority doesn't mean right, or the concept of understanding from the opposing views. It's almost scary comparing that place to this toned down, more relaxed atmosphere.

That's nice. It's just wrong to have no fact to prove, just a majority ruling. Makes things seem so Fascist. And the board should be interesting (I want to see what they say).

[art]

If God created all this for all of us to enjoy INCLUDING Himself, he wouldn't let us destroy it piece by piece. and if mankind is His greatest creation, how come we are the most flawed ones? If the world was full of animals, it'd be a much better place, for there would not be polution and such.

[Tamer Marco]

If God created all this for all of us to enjoy INCLUDING Himself, he wouldn't let us destroy it piece by piece. and if mankind is His greatest creation, how come we are the most flawed ones? If the world was full of animals, it'd be a much better place, for there would not be polution and such. Humans also help the earth too. We can destroy the earth and such because God gave us free will. With stuff like trees being cut down it's not a big deal. People plant every day and when a plant dies you know it gives it seed to the ground. Eventually, the seed will sprout into a flower then in time it will become a tree. Humans hunt for food and sport. The only animal that humans actually hunt a deer and they are almost over populated. And the species of deer that are nearly extinct are protected in wildlife reserves. The world would be a chaotic place if it belonged to animals though. Thats why one reason god created humans. They were the rulers of animals. And you can't blame god for anything because he gave us FREE WILL. Dat's my 2 cents.

EDIT: If humans weren't flawed we'd all be the same. And at this time satan is the ruler of earth.

[Seven]

Humans also help the earth too.

But humans destroy(ed) more.


We can destroy the earth and such because God gave us free will.

That's just a cheap way out :rolleyes:. You honestly think that if God created the earht, he'd let it be destroyed, and just think "Well, I gave them free will, so whatever".


With stuff like trees being cut down it's not a big deal. People plant every day and when a plant dies you know it gives it seed to the ground. Eventually, the seed will sprout into a flower then in time it will become a tree.
[/quote
Yes, in a perfect world. In certain areas, people do this. But in the rainforests, aka the lungs of the world, people simply don't.

[quote]
Humans hunt for food and sport. The only animal that humans actually hunt a deer and they are almost over populated.

You're saying people only hunt for deer?! -_-; That is just a lie. People hunt for all sorts of animals, like bearsm tigers, rhyno's, elephants, lions. You name it, we hunt it.


And the species of deer that are nearly extinct are protected in wildlife reserves.

They are endangered because they were overhunted by humans. So much for you overpopulation story as well.


The world would be a chaotic place if it belonged to animals though. Thats why one reason god created humans. They were the rulers of animals.

Have you ever been to a forest? Guess you haven't. In no way is something 'chaotic' when it is left to animals. ANd BTW, humans aren't chaotic, with wars, cutting down trees, terrorism?
And I thought God was supposed to rule everything, not humans.


And you can't blame god for anything because he gave us FREE WILL. Dat's my 2 cents.

Nobody blamed God for anything. It was simply put forward that God doesn't exist in someone's eyes.


EDIT: If humans weren't flawed we'd all be the same. And at this time satan is the ruler of earth.
With flaws, deceases and stuff were meant.
Your second statement is purely opinion.

[Ironshell Blastoise]

Ok, I'm going to give my views from the aethiestic point of view...


We are a natural species of the earth. Therefore, everything we do is TECHNICALLY natural. The things we judge things as being un-natural are things that would not have happened to the earth if humans weren't around.

So, to look back at the Earth's history, there have been 5 mass extinctions. We are creating the next one, though there are many guesses to exactly how. So, we are just continuing the cycle. Nothing we do will prevent the next mass extinction, because there is NO such thing as a perfect human society where everything is recycled and what is recycled is 100% pure, etc.

While the world as we know it will end sometime within the next 1000 years (unless humans can REALLY clean up, etc), the end of the actual world isn't for about another like...4 billion-200million years from now. Our galaxy will spiral at an angle into another galaxy forgot what it was called). Over millions of years, the two will combine and destroy one another, due to gravity, etc etc etc. If I recorded that damn show I watched, I'd have more detailed info :-\

Deer aren't endangered ONLY because we hunt them, its because other species also hunt it. Not all species will last forever, other species contribute to its end. We are just the one thats caused the most extinctions. I'm not saying it is right, since we are the most intelligent species on the earth, but we are only another type of organism destined to die off also.



I'm not gonna conflict with anyone's beliefs, because Christianity is too separated to be REALLY thought of as one religion. So I won't go too far to one belief of one of the sub-divisions of Christianity, because I don't know what beliefs pertain to what sub-division. I do STRONGLY disagree with pre-determination. Thats a load of ****. Whats the point in living if our life is already planned out exactly? There would be no point in living... :rolleyes:

Free will is part of our intelligence. Many other species have free will, but they don't have quite the intelligence to go as far as we have. Chimpanzees and other primates, squid, and dolphin have lesser forms of free will. While many of their behaviors derive from instinct, some of their actions take place because they have the ability to make decisions. Humans have instincts too, and its horseshit how everyone expects us to be perfect. Its the instincts of primates to act on anger, and while instinct can't be an excuse for every fight you get into, it can be for when people just "snap"...they lose all self control and, yeah, someone gets their ass beat. :neutral:


It would be incredibly narrowminded for people to think that the earth is the only orb of matter in this infinite universe to sustain or once sustained life. Looking at it mathematically, the universe goes on forever. And from what research has told us, there are other planets/matter everywhere. This leaves us INFINITE opporunities to have any one of the very numerous natural reactions and actions of atoms to take place. While there are a lot (more than a billion), a billion is still less than infinite.


I can't explain how matter came into being, and I get a headache from thinking about infinity. The universe never ends, and that is easy to just think of in a second, but impossible to completely understand.


I will post more later, I just wanted to reply to some earlier statements, and make my own.

[Crimson Spider]

No. A roman letter has a capital "T". Since the Latin does not contain any small letters, a "t" would not exist, "t" being something most similar to a cross. THis lettering is found with men like Tiberius, using the capital "T". Since it's the Greek who use the plau sign you are speaking of, it would not be possible for the T-shaped structure to be known as a cross. I was rambeling off a bunch of possibilities from the top of my head. And our definition of a Cross doesn't mean that the Romans had the same definition. Remember, the Bible in english is a translation of a translation that was the edited version of a translation. Mere modern day semantics and changing definition doesn't change what happened. The "T" shape could've easily been translated eventually into Cross.


I don't know where you are getting your sources, but mine had said he was named teh Son of God. I have to find the medium first before I can specifcally say to you. The only thing that I can say is historian discrepency, thus none of our accounts can eb 100% correct.Why, multiple versions of the Bible of course. He says it all up and down the thing, and is usually the backing for some of the statements he makes. That, and I get my stuff from Prentice Hall Highschool and College World History. That's the one who named him a religious leader, and said he died on a cross.


Recall that science comes from the latin base word "scio" meaning to know (okay scio means I know). Science is just the knowledge, and the nature of science is not to disprove. The nature of man is to disprove, but not the nature of science.Il doit se répéter que je devine. I'll highlight the important parts.
It isn't always the nature of science that it is being used for. Often the nature of man. And the nature of man would seek to prove one thing to disprove another, using scince. The "prove things" lable is to what I find a mechanical-response. A reaction, like saying OW when you step on a thumb tack. When asked, a person automatically devulges this information, and refuses to remove their opinion from it, much similar to how people adheive to what is said in the Bible as absolute fact, while I tell them that it was added by some guy in the 1400's who sought his own personal benifit. Their lable of the "nature" is the same, whilst deviated from actual fact. I see no difference in the comfort of the "to prove" lable as with the religious problems I occasionally see.
Hopefully I've made myself clear.

[quote]True. But even a 40% composition of Nitrogen should be enough to sustain life.Life on earth doesn't rely on nitrogen gas.

The basis of mathematics is where any numbering system would work. If you take a look at any high-level Calculus, algedbra, finite, etc. maths, you will notice that it is all Greek...literally. Thus math is not a numbering system, rather a universal law in which ANY numbering system would work well in. Obviously finding the third derivative of 11010101x^4 - 100110x would be a "torture", but again under the Greek alphabet was, it's entirely the same (it's because it's all greek that this happens, we would us "a" or "b", complete variables). So perfection is not a numbering system, or a basis of a numbering system, it's universal.Who made it doesn't change what it is: a system that WE devised, and mathematics were made that APPLY to that system. If we had made an 11 base system, the mathematics over time would be made to go for that system. And I'll state this again: I didn't see anywhere that it said the universe had to be perfect, or anything in it had to be perfect.

And you will notice that 99% of snail parasites do not kill the snails themselves so they can get into their next host.That means that at minumum, there are 100 snails, and atleast 1 kills the snail.
Notice that the "zombie snails" you are referring to ALL survive the parasitism. In fact, they tend to live LONGER this way. It's not symbiotic for sure, but you are telling me exactly what I'm trying to prove.I don't see how the inability to reproduce, sleep, and sparsely eat, along with being constantly stretched by a parasite that's larger than you inside you. The parasite that I was talking about DOES kill the snaill itself. It just moves from snail to snail (same parasite, not offspring) by preditors eating it. I don't even know if we are talking about the same parasite.

Anotehr example of this would be "zombie crabs", they for the crabs to spread their young, but the crabs will not die from preditorial interactions, they tend to die from how a normal crab would usually die. This allows the parasite to essentially breed and re-breed many times to ensure their survival.

Biologists don't look at the population as they did years ago to check on the health of the ecosystem. They now check for parastism. The more parasites, the better. Note again that ALL of the creatures in a healthy ecosystem have enough parasites in them to make one puke. If that is the case as you were saying, it would mean that the entire population of a healthy ecosystem would completely die out in a matter of months. This is not the case, the ecosystem is healthy, and the parasites prove it. You're thinking literally of that 1% of parasites that actually kill.Assuming that the most common parasites that are in these creatures are the ones that kill. That is not my claim. My claim is that there are parasites that do not fit into the ecosystem, and actually DO harm it. Not every ecosystem lives on, you know.

Okay. you're saying that God has given us all thumbs (including certain animals by their heirarchy), but there is also evidence that it is converging evolution.
God designed us with thumbs, and then decided that it would be a nice attribute to a few other animals out there.
If an animal needs to grab to survive, they will have thumbs.Well, obvoiusly if they needed thumbs and didn't have them, they wouldn't be around too long, now would they ;D. I saw on a nature show that there is a bird, relatively parot sized, that uses it's beak and feet to climb a tree, because it for some unexplained reason cannot fly. An animal can grab and not have thumbs.
They evolve to do such things. You're saying God just created them perfectly for their environment at this specific time period, as degeneration of such?God created them relatively well suited for their enviroment at a time period back then. Most species are extinct, and many of the ones now just plain aren't up to what they should be. And according to evolution, they would have to evolve thumbs over a period of millions of years, were as the strange growth that they are having on their hand would be useless, and that they would stay perfectly suited for their enviroment for all that time. That's why I think evolutions description of how birds came abou to be EXTREAMLY REDICULOUS!

Actually, I feel that divine intervention is AS farfetched as the idea I am proposing.I don't.

Yes, you're saying God created everything, and I'm saying they've evolved this way. Those are completely different thoughts. Basically, you're trying to prove that Darwin's Finches were all created as they were and I'm saying that they've come to adapt to their environemtn through evolution. I'm betting my money on evolution.I'm betting my money on God. I'm saying that the finch was givin enough intelligence and programmed that it would pic up a needle and gore out fly larvae to eat, or have the intelligence to think of it. Crows figured out how to crack walnuts on sidewalks.

That's nice. It's just wrong to have no fact to prove, just a majority ruling. Makes things seem so Fascist. And the board should be interesting (I want to see what they say).

As a thumb rule (sorry, TT), I don't give out the location of other forums I go to. It affects the natural developement of the forum. But it is on Vbulliten.

[Crimson Spider]

If God created all this for all of us to enjoy INCLUDING Himself, he wouldn't let us destroy it piece by piece. and if mankind is His greatest creation, how come we are the most flawed ones? If the world was full of animals, it'd be a much better place, for there would not be polution and such.
Um... both man and God ARE enjoying the world.

BTW: Satan doesn't rule anything. Though his influence has made quite a way in the world, the bad is almost always seen by the opposing side, rather than the good. People refuse to realize that a very large sum (about half) of the world are good people. Satan got his butt beat red a little under 2000 years ago, and right now everything he does has to go through the big guy atop.

You see, often times, I attack the notion of predestination, which many of you are using and stating as an arguement, although I felt I made a point that it isn't the case, so I'm going to set a few things strait.

Firstly, most of the stuff that happens: WE do it. Not God. Not Satan. If we feel like buying a box of Oranges, then by gum we are going to do it. He does intervine occasionally (I'm gonna make him buy this box of oranges so the clerk can get a good paycheck this week), but only when he really needs to. If we cut down all the trees in the world and he lets us screw ourselves, then that was us, and he let us do it. But if he wants a forest to live, then he's going to get rid of the resources funding the cutting down of it, and set up political acts against it, which will preserve it. He created all this stuff for US, and barely anything for himself. That's why he lets us mess with it.

We are a natural species of the earth. Therefore, everything we do is TECHNICALLY natural. The things we judge things as being un-natural are things that would not have happened to the earth if humans weren't around.
I've heard this one before. It's pretty intricate.

So, to look back at the Earth's history, there have been 5 mass extinctions. We are creating the next one, though there are many guesses to exactly how. So, we are just continuing the cycle. Nothing we do will prevent the next mass extinction, because there is NO such thing as a perfect human society where everything is recycled and what is recycled is 100% pure, etc.Don't forget the nature of how a mass extinction came about.

While the world as we know it will end sometime within the next 1000 years (unless humans can REALLY clean up, etc), the end of the actual world isn't for about another like...4 billion-200million years from now. Our galaxy will spiral at an angle into another galaxy forgot what it was called). Over millions of years, the two will combine and destroy one another, due to gravity, etc etc etc. If I recorded that damn show I watched, I'd have more detailed info :-\Firstly, there is quite the possibility that humans won't destroy the earth. Second, the proposed end of the earth is said to occur about 4 billion years from now, when the sun expands because it's run out of it's fuel. Third, the motion of which the galaxies are moving is irregular to the max.

Deer aren't endangered ONLY because we hunt them, its because other species also hunt it. Not all species will last forever, other species contribute to its end. We are just the one thats caused the most extinctions. I'm not saying it is right, since we are the most intelligent species on the earth, but we are only another type of organism destined to die off also.
Irregularity is the cause for this instinction. You see, the notion of evolution commonly accepted by our everyday agnostic/aethiest is that species evolve to better themselves to suit their own enviroment. However, the human race (according to evolution) has bettered itself needlessly, and to a point that it would actually ruin the enviroments that were once balanced. Though it can all be classified as part of the natural evolution of the planet, it's the most radical, unusual, and irregular change. To such a point that it actually defies what evolution is.
I'm not gonna conflict with anyone's beliefs, because Christianity is too separated to be REALLY thought of as one religion. So I won't go too far to one belief of one of the sub-divisions of Christianity, because I don't know what beliefs pertain to what sub-division. I do STRONGLY disagree with pre-determination. Thats a load of ****. Whats the point in living if our life is already planned out exactly? There would be no point in living... About time someone else realizes this. Good ole "white man's curse" is so rediculess that I find it very puzzeling how a person would believe it.

Free will is part of our intelligence. Many other species have free will, but they don't have quite the intelligence to go as far as we have. Chimpanzees and other primates, squid, and dolphin have lesser forms of free will. While many of their behaviors derive from instinct, some of their actions take place because they have the ability to make decisions. Humans have instincts too, and its horse**** how everyone expects us to be perfect. Its the instincts of primates to act on anger, and while instinct can't be an excuse for every fight you get into, it can be for when people just "snap"...they lose all self control and, yeah, someone gets their *** beat.
Watch the mouth. O.K. Species, pretty much all of them, have free will. It is instinct that manipulates how they chose to use their free will. The great thing about humans is that what is defined as instincts is so blurred it is rediculous. What we have that is defined as instincts is rather the results of our upbringing, and the non-intellectual parts of our design.

It would be incredibly narrowminded for people to think that the earth is the only orb of matter in this infinite universe to sustain or once sustained life. Looking at it mathematically, the universe goes on forever. And from what research has told us, there are other planets/matter everywhere. This leaves us INFINITE opporunities to have any one of the very numerous natural reactions and actions of atoms to take place. While there are a lot (more than a billion), a billion is still less than infinite.You'll be suprised how many aethiests/agnostics believe that we are it. You see, this number that I have spoke of before is actually larger than the number of planets out there. Billion is a mere dot on an "i" compared to this number. Mathematically, only 30% of the universe is light matter, or the existance that we are on right now. The dark matter expanditure is of a rather strange particle that has little to no properties what so ever, and does not have the diversity to be a lifeform, and is scarcely proven to exist at all. So we have ourselves a more large opertunity for life on another planet.

[Kenny_C.002]

I was rambeling off a bunch of possibilities from the top of my head. And our definition of a Cross doesn't mean that the Romans had the same definition. Remember, the Bible in english is a translation of a translation that was the edited version of a translation. Mere modern day semantics and changing definition doesn't change what happened. The "T" shape could've easily been translated eventually into Cross.

This however is possible, since with every "pass" of the story, things get more farfetched (on average, e.g. Journey to the West in Chinese). It may be that the "T" eventually made it past and them transformed into a cross somehow. Same with the "him calling himself son of god" versus "people calling him son of god". I have no reason to deny your responses as both can be interpreted as the "truth".

Why, multiple versions of the Bible of course. He says it all up and down the thing, and is usually the backing for some of the statements he makes. That, and I get my stuff from Prentice Hall Highschool and College World History. That's the one who named him a religious leader, and said he died on a cross.

Okay. See above.

Life on earth doesn't rely on nitrogen gas.

No it doesn't, it only plays as an important sorce of nutrients via fixation.

Who made it doesn't change what it is: a system that WE devised, and mathematics were made that APPLY to that system. If we had made an 11 base system, the mathematics over time would be made to go for that system. And I'll state this again: I didn't see anywhere that it said the universe had to be perfect, or anything in it had to be perfect.

You can view mathematics as something one created or you can view mathematics as a part of the natural world, created and only to be discovered (as laws and theorems are discovered and not created in mathematics).

That means that at minumum, there are 100 snails, and atleast 1 kills the snail.

I mean 99% of the types of parasites within snails don't kill them. It's such a majority that parasites are harmless that you're telling about the most minute of the types of parasites. Should you really categorize all parasites as the dangerous ones just because 1 out of every 100 (give or take a few) types of parasites can kill? So you're sayingthe 300 or so "killing" parasites should be enough to say all 30000 known parasites are dangerous?

I don't see how the inability to reproduce, sleep, and sparsely eat, along with being constantly stretched by a parasite that's larger than you inside you. The parasite that I was talking about DOES kill the snaill itself. It just moves from snail to snail (same parasite, not offspring) by preditors eating it. I don't even know if we are talking about the same parasite.

I'm thinking you're thinking of a different one (like the odd one out), where the parasite dulves in the stomach of the snail at its infant stage, within a cyst. Once the snail is eaten, the cyst breaks and the parasite enters the bird to continue the cycle.

The one I'm saying is the "zombie snail" one, where they dwell on the tenticles of the snails, causign the birds to only eat the tenticles and no actual harm to the snails themselves. As I say, this one causes the snails to live longer for some apparent reason. It also does not affect the snails' breeding/eating/sleeping metabolism as they take over once a day for short periods of time.

Assuming that the most common parasites that are in these creatures are the ones that kill. That is not my claim. My claim is that there are parasites that do not fit into the ecosystem, and actually DO harm it. Not every ecosystem lives on, you know.

Actaully, these parasites that "do harm" tend to aim for the big predators, keeping their numbers down so that the ecosystem can sustain itself with less of that predator to kill all of the guys at the earlier tropic levels. Even if it is a parasite at a lower tropic level, it is only a treat to the fungi and vegetation, which is just recycling organic matter in the first place.

God designed us with thumbs, and then decided that it would be a nice attribute to a few other animals out there.

And i'm saying that it is converging evolution, where animals that require a thumb, to do something they cannot do, evolve to have a thumb.

Well, obvoiusly if they needed thumbs and didn't have them, they wouldn't be around too long, now would they ;D. I saw on a nature show that there is a bird, relatively parot sized, that uses it's beak and feet to climb a tree, because it for some unexplained reason cannot fly. An animal can grab and not have thumbs.

See my response from above. Also, I think I saw taht show too, but I dont' remember it.

God created them relatively well suited for their enviroment at a time period back then. Most species are extinct, and many of the ones now just plain aren't up to what they should be. And according to evolution, they would have to evolve thumbs over a period of millions of years, were as the strange growth that they are having on their hand would be useless, and that they would stay perfectly suited for their enviroment for all that time. That's why I think evolutions description of how birds came abou to be EXTREAMLY REDICULOUS!

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?

I'm betting my money on God. I'm saying that the finch was givin enough intelligence and programmed that it would pic up a needle and gore out fly larvae to eat, or have the intelligence to think of it. Crows figured out how to crack walnuts on sidewalks.

So you're saying that the finch taht eats insects are programmed that way. The one that eats seeds are programmed that way. The one that eats fruits are programmed that way. But they are all the same finches with only slight changes in their beaks. This would support the evolution theory more than the divine intervention theory.

As a thumb rule (sorry, TT), I don't give out the location of other forums I go to. It affects the natural developement of the forum. But it is on Vbulliten.

Yeah, I guess so. It's all good still. :P

[Crimson Spider]

This however is possible, since with every "pass" of the story, things get more farfetched (on average, e.g. Journey to the West in Chinese). It may be that the "T" eventually made it past and them transformed into a cross somehow. Same with the "him calling himself son of god" versus "people calling him son of god". I have no reason to deny your responses as both can be interpreted as the "truth".
As I've said before, the nature of his statements, and how he said stuff, and what he said all bases around as if he was the Son Of God, and thus the passing of the story that gets*slightly changed up due to semantics of our modern day verses the semantics of 100 years ago does not invalidate it.

No it doesn't, it only plays as an important sorce of nutrients via fixation.
Haven't seen this anywhere. You might be right, however. So that would mean that with the lower percentage of nitrogen gas, along with the atmosphere on mars being 100 times thinner than on earth, means that there isn't enough to support life.


You can view mathematics as something one created or you can view mathematics as a part of the natural world, created and only to be discovered (as laws and theorems are discovered and not created in mathematics).As they are discovered from the created number system.

I mean 99% of the types of parasites within snails don't kill them. It's such a majority that parasites are harmless that you're telling about the most minute of the types of parasites. Should you really categorize all parasites as the dangerous ones just because 1 out of every 100 (give or take a few) types of parasites can kill? So you're sayingthe 300 or so "killing" parasites should be enough to say all 30000 known parasites are dangerous?So there are 100 different parasites at minimum who intrude into a snails body? I am finding the nature of what you call to be parasites different from what I call parasites. I am refering to those who act like a disease: intrude into the body and harm the victum that way, such as viruses and bacteria. These parasites do not fit*into the nich formed in areas, and the area could live much better if those parasites would leave. I'm sure that the majority of what can be classified as non-lethal, but the majority can be classified as dangerous, and a good some of that can be classified as lethal.

I'm thinking you're thinking of a different one (like the odd one out), where the parasite dulves in the stomach of the snail at its infant stage, within a cyst. Once the snail is eaten, the cyst breaks and the parasite enters the bird to continue the cycle.Actually, no. The one I'm talking about (can't find the blasted name, but saw it on the discovery channel) enters the snail, matures into a full adult (which completely takes up the inside of the snail, killing it.) in the snail, and then either the snail dies, and lets off it's eggs into the enviroment around it, or gets eaten, and lets off it's eggs into the fecies øf the preditor. The parasite doesn't continue to live in the preditor.

The one I'm saying is the "zombie snail" one, where they dwell on the tenticles of the snails, causign the birds to only eat the tenticles and no actual harm to the snails themselves. As I say, this one causes the snails to live longer for some apparent reason. It also does not affect the snails' breeding/eating/sleeping metabolism as they take over once a day for short periods of time.Yep. We're talking about different parasites. That specific parasite can also be seen as a symbiant, rather than a parasite.


Actaully, these parasites that "do harm" tend to aim for the big predators, keeping their numbers down so that the ecosystem can sustain itself with less of that predator to kill all of the guys at the earlier tropic levels. Even if it is a parasite at a lower tropic level, it is only a treat to the fungi and vegetation, which is just recycling organic matter in the first place.The big preditors of the parasites I'm think of are just the ones that Happen to get it, and not necissarily to keep their numbers down, meaning that a sudden outbreak of these parasites (don't die off as quickly for some reason) would actually ruin the ecosystem that would be better off without it. Some of these larger preditors include humans, too.

And i'm saying that it is converging evolution, where animals that require a thumb, to do something they cannot do, evolve to have a thumb.And what about the animals who don't need something and have it anyway? I will continue to say that it is design:* the animal was made to have a thumb, so it could do certain things easier than if it didn't have a thumb. Many actions can still be preformed. Just not as easily.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?You claimed that God had to have created the creatures to fit the enviroment perfectly at the time we are right now. I was pointing out how that was not the case.


So you're saying that the finch taht eats insects are programmed that way.
Or givin the inginuity to do that. One or the other.
The one that eats seeds are programmed that way. The one that eats fruits are programmed that way. But they are all the same finches with only slight changes in their beaks. This would support the evolution theory more than the divine intervention theory.Not dvine intervention: Divine creation. Over time, the Finch which was originally made would have slight offshoots of what it is, like how certain people are built more atheltically than others. Over time as the landscape changes, the finches would change slightly aswell. Like how I have a thinner blood than you, since I actively live in the Mojave Desert while you live in Canada. What you are talking about is called Micro Evolution, which isn't the evolution on the grand scale that scientists talk of being the origin of life. I won't deny mirco-evolution. I'm denying macro-evolution, which is the changing from one species to a different one.

EDIT: Why the crap are stars appearing all over my posts?

[Ironshell Blastoise]

Um... both man and God ARE enjoying the world.

BTW: Satan doesn't rule anything. Though his influence has made quite a way in the world, the bad is almost always seen by the opposing side, rather than the good. People refuse to realize that a very large sum (about half) of the world are good people. Satan got his butt beat red a little under 2000 years ago, and right now everything he does has to go through the big guy atop.

You see, often times, I attack the notion of predestination, which many of you are using and stating as an arguement, although I felt I made a point that it isn't the case, so I'm going to set a few things strait.

Firstly, most of the stuff that happens: WE do it. Not God. Not Satan. If we feel like buying a box of Oranges, then by gum we are going to do it. He does intervine occasionally (I'm gonna make him buy this box of oranges so the clerk can get a good paycheck this week), but only when he really needs to. If we cut down all the trees in the world and he lets us screw ourselves, then that was us, and he let us do it. But if he wants a forest to live, then he's going to get rid of the resources funding the cutting down of it, and set up political acts against it, which will preserve it. He created all this stuff for US, and barely anything for himself. That's why he lets us mess with it.

Because I am aethiest, I don't want to get in the whole big argument over what God does or doesn't want us to do, and anything else directly pertaining to religion.


Firstly, there is quite the possibility that humans won't destroy the earth. Second, the proposed end of the earth is said to occur about 4 billion years from now, when the sun expands because it's run out of it's fuel. Third, the motion of which the galaxies are moving is irregular to the max.

Unless you as well as the low percentage of poeple who look to better and save the planet as long as possible, there is in no way possible for us not to destroy the earth. Humans are naturally selfish and narrowminded, on a broad point of view. Resources will run dry, wars will break out, famine will sweep accross the planet. The question isn't who will die, its how long nations can hold off war and famine that determines how long the human race can survive.
Ah yes, the sun part of the equation...I guess my mind slipped and I began focusing more on the solar system than just our planet. Yes, the sun will run out of hydrogen (right) to continue fusion of its molecules, so it will slowly expand and retract, but generally growing larger after each expansion. The outer gasses will have wiped out the inner planets before the astroid belt long before the sun goes into nova, supernova, and/or (is it white dwarf?) stages. The galaxies WILL meet at a certain angle. The galaxies are like planes in geometry. The two planes will meet, and the centripical motion, along with gravity, will cause the two galaxies to fuse, totally destroying everything in both, only to become the birthplace of new planets and stars. billions and billions of years after they collide, which is billions of years from now (phew). :oops:


Irregularity is the cause for this instinction. You see, the notion of evolution commonly accepted by our everyday agnostic/aethiest is that species evolve to better themselves to suit their own enviroment. However, the human race (according to evolution) has bettered itself needlessly, and to a point that it would actually ruin the enviroments that were once balanced. Though it can all be classified as part of the natural evolution of the planet, it's the most radical, unusual, and irregular change. To such a point that it actually defies what evolution is.

Our evolution is unprecedented. Yes, we are the oddballs of the planet. We like to think we are superior to animals (in fact we forget we ARE animals). In many ways, we are superior to other animals, but the fact remains that our evolution to become to intellectually superior species will lead to our demise. We strive for perfection, and striving for perfection only results in chaos. Our evolution went off the scale, and while I don't think we are the most intelligent life forms in the entire universe, we as a whole are ignorant to think that any life forms beyond earth are at or above our intelligence level. I don't think we'll get far, but if we ever make contact, most likely it will be a radio signal or space shuttle long forgotten thousands of years from now. CONTACT (the movie)...think about that, only expand the time for everything to happen over hundreds of years.


About time someone else realizes this. Good ole "white man's curse" is so rediculess that I find it very puzzeling how a person would believe it.

Sorry for being slow at the moment, but what exactly were you talking about? I'd like to think I said something you were pleased to see, but what I said that you are referring to, I have not a clue.


Watch the mouth. O.K. Species, pretty much all of them, have free will. It is instinct that manipulates how they chose to use their free will. The great thing about humans is that what is defined as instincts is so blurred it is rediculous. What we have that is defined as instincts is rather the results of our upbringing, and the non-intellectual parts of our design.

Whether we like to think about it or not, we still have instincts that drive us. We may have to reach extreme measures for them to kick in and override our sense of stableness or self control, but we still have instincts. It is natural instinct of humans to flee when scared or frightened. It is natural instinct to think of one's own behalf and to neglect others when the environment that surrounds that person is at such a low that merely having ANYTHING to eat is the sole purpose of living for that period of time.


You'll be suprised how many aethiests/agnostics believe that we are it. You see, this number that I have spoke of before is actually larger than the number of planets out there. Billion is a mere dot on an "i" compared to this number. Mathematically, only 30% of the universe is light matter, or the existance that we are on right now. The dark matter expanditure is of a rather strange particle that has little to no properties what so ever, and does not have the diversity to be a lifeform, and is scarcely proven to exist at all. So we have ourselves a more large opertunity for life on another planet.


Dark matter, black holes, and infinity are all things we know to exist but can't prove or comprehend. Black holes fascinate me. Eh, to stay on topic, those who believe we are the only ones are indeed either undereducated on the matter, and/or are narrowminded on issues pertaining to this subject. I believe that more than once, during an immeasurable amount of time before the "Big Bang", the universe was composed of galaxies and solar systems, and, (yeah, hard to follow unless you are REALLY trying to understand) over another immeasureable amount of time, their gravity pulled them in together in the clump of matter that created the Big Bang.

Another topic that gives me a headache to truly think about is where every proton, neutron, electon, quark, etc came into existance and how. And also, to think that once BILLIONS of years ago, the very atoms of your existance and the atoms of the objects surrounding you were once part of an inorganic cloud of dust. Trying to think about where one atom of your body was 5 billion years ago, is well, rather difficult. One of the atoms that composes you could very well have been in a bond or came into contact with an atom that makes up the sun or another planet, or even a comet...or another person =0

It is difficult to understand what a percentage of infinity is, when infinity goes on forever. Hell, there are an infinite amount of values before you REALLY reach one, so how do we truly reach the value of one when there are infinite amounts of numbers between 0 and 1?

And to finish this up, I will re-state what I said in another thread...
It is a fact that humans made religion to explain the unexplained. While some religions went to bizarre means of explanation (the Greeks for example), many others find peace and condolance in the sheer fact that God did it or God made it. Not to strike the nerve of anyone who follows this belief, but religion has so many blank points, it tries to explain everything that can't be tangibly explained through the human senses. It calms the nerves of those to think that God did it because then they have a reason, and they can move on with their lives. What I'd like to ask you is...how did God come about? Did he just pop out of nowhere and say "Hey, I'm god, I'll make everything..." etc etc etc? Science may not have answers to everything, but seeking answers through a religious point of view is very strict and narrow. There is no room for debate, and the answer is always the same. Science changes, and science examines. Religion just states and expects you to believe.

[Kenny_C.002]

As I've said before, the nature of his statements, and how he said stuff, and what he said all bases around as if he was the Son Of God, and thus the passing of the story that gets*slightly changed up due to semantics of our modern day verses the semantics of 100 years ago does not invalidate it.

True. But it also does not invalidate my claims either, which is what I've been trying to say.

Haven't seen this anywhere. You might be right, however. So that would mean that with the lower percentage of nitrogen gas, along with the atmosphere on mars being 100 times thinner than on earth, means that there isn't enough to support life.

I thought it was 50 times. Either way, the percentage of nitrogen gas may be an important factor in the growth of Mars itself. It's probable that nitrogen can be somehow increased (tho I have not done enough research on it for anything conclusive, so I will respect or try to respect that). With taht said, as long as water exists or existed on Mars, we can inhabitate it. Tho the time required to strengthen the atmosphere, which in turn increase planet temperature by a highly significant amount, will be great either way. So the basis of our arguments, which can be made of broken (either one) about water on Mars will be whether there are oxide stones within the craters.

As they are discovered from the created number system.

They are always discovered using complete variables. This is so the proof is 100% accurate, whereas the use of ANY numbering system may create a leak within the proof. The restrictions, however, are still followed, such that circles have infinite vertices. Also infinity is not a number.

So there are 100 different parasites at minimum who intrude into a snails body? I am finding the nature of what you call to be parasites different from what I call parasites. I am refering to those who act like a disease: intrude into the body and harm the victum that way, such as viruses and bacteria. These parasites do not fit*into the nich formed in areas, and the area could live much better if those parasites would leave. I'm sure that the majority of what can be classified as non-lethal, but the majority can be classified as dangerous, and a good some of that can be classified as lethal.

You have to know that parasitic you must take all parasitic organisms into account when you are talking about parasites. The reason is that parasites create such a category that people often just see the harmful few against the non-harmful majority. While you are referring to the small minority, I am referring to the entire category of parasites, and leaving none behind, which is supposed to be done when you try to categorize them all.

Perfect example of the most common parasite in man. Fact is that if you have a cat, was an ear a cat in any point in your life, was near anything related to cats, or you have headachesthat can't be explained, you have toxoplasma. It's not even lethal...in fact, it doesn't do anything to you except for a headache once in a while. You compare that with soemthing like malaria, a strong few compared to a parasite that everyone has (okay almost everyone). Is it fair to say that the behaviours of this malaria is enough to say that toxoplasma is dangerous?

Also, all parasitic organisms must fit into a niche somehow. The "disease" parasites tend to be known as predators within the ecosystem, because they do what predators do, they kill to survive.

I'm sure that the majority of what can be classified as non-lethal, but the majority can be classified as dangerous, and a good some of that can be classified as lethal."

I feel that this is a contradiction in itself that a majority is not dangerous and dangerous, and some are lethal.

Actually, no. The one I'm talking about (can't find the blasted name, but saw it on the discovery channel) enters the snail, matures into a full adult (which completely takes up the inside of the snail, killing it.) in the snail, and then either the snail dies, and lets off it's eggs into the enviroment around it, or gets eaten, and lets off it's eggs into the fecies øf the preditor. The parasite doesn't continue to live in the preditor.

no of course no. The parasite only enters the predator to mate and continue the cycle. If I can recall, I think the parasite you're talking about also allows the birds of prey to pick off the snails so easily that the bird often prefer the snails with the parasite inside. And from past research, I think this helps control the snail population and allow the birds to easily pick off an otherwise hard to reach snail.

Yep. We're talking about different parasites. That specific parasite can also be seen as a symbiant, rather than a parasite.

No, still a parasite because of its behaviours. What we don't understand is WHY the snails have a longer lifespan (as clearly loss of antenae is a parasitic behaviour).

The big preditors of the parasites I'm think of are just the ones that Happen to get it, and not necissarily to keep their numbers down, meaning that a sudden outbreak of these parasites (don't die off as quickly for some reason) would actually ruin the ecosystem that would be better off without it. Some of these larger preditors include humans, too.

You have to note that the parasites are so limited that this happens never. The only two that I can think of that are close enough to this are malaria and trypanosomiasis (east african). Those, if a problem rises, can be hard to control. Screening works, also the trypanosomiasis just got a godly (and I say godly because it can treat ANY POSSIBLE PATIENT) medicine working against it (thus I have to discount trypanosomiasis this way). Malaria got the human evolution against it, also. Again, the ecosystem ruining from parasites dont' occur at all since usually a virus/bacteria would be the one doing the killing BEFORE the parasites anyway...if any to begin with.

And what about the animals who don't need something and have it anyway? I will continue to say that it is design:* the animal was made to have a thumb, so it could do certain things easier than if it didn't have a thumb. Many actions can still be preformed. Just not as easily.

And I'm saying taht they evolved to do it because they require that efficiency. I have not said taht an animal that doesn't need something has it.

You claimed that God had to have created the creatures to fit the enviroment perfectly at the time we are right now. I was pointing out how that was not the case.

Really? I have always said that they evolved this way to fit theif environment in the past also. So I'm thinking it's a miscommunication of some sort.

Or givin the inginuity to do that. One or the other.
Not dvine intervention: Divine creation. Over time, the Finch which was originally made would have slight offshoots of what it is, like how certain people are built more atheltically than others. Over time as the landscape changes, the finches would change slightly aswell. Like how I have a thinner blood than you, since I actively live in the Mojave Desert while you live in Canada. What you are talking about is called Micro Evolution, which isn't the evolution on the grand scale that scientists talk of being the origin of life. I won't deny mirco-evolution. I'm denying macro-evolution, which is the changing from one species to a different one.

Just saying I have thin blood too because I'm from an equatorial region. (like a slight off-shoot thing that has nothing to do with anything)

So you're denying basically how the the walrus and the seal are different from an evolutionary POV (like marco-evo). Gotcha.

I have to say that the mitochondrion is enough to support the macro-evolution POV. COuld you explain why the mitochondrion divides by itself andthat they hae their own genetic material? You'd think taht God would create a cell that can basically work with every part of itself.

From our POV, it's macro evolution, where a cell took in the mitochondrion cell and evolved to have it afterwards, thus explaining the stuff I just said. (Sorry if my explaining skills are worst than usual today).

[/quote]EDIT: Why the crap are stars appearing all over my posts?[/QUOTE]

I don't see them stars...

[Crimson Spider]

Unless you as well as the low percentage of poeple who look to better and save the planet as long as possible, there is in no way possible for us not to destroy the earth. Humans are naturally selfish and narrowminded, on a broad point of view. Resources will run dry, wars will break out, famine will sweep accross the planet. The question isn't who will die, its how long nations can hold off war and famine that determines how long the human race can survive.
Doesn't matter what humans naturally are. What matters is what humans turn out to be. Apparently a little under half of the world turns out to be good, even with the assumption that humans are naturally selfish and narrowminded.

Ah yes, the sun part of the equation...I guess my mind slipped and I began focusing more on the solar system than just our planet. Yes, the sun will run out of hydrogen (right) to continue fusion of its molecules, so it will slowly expand and retract, but generally growing larger after each expansion. The outer gasses will have wiped out the inner planets before the astroid belt long before the sun goes into nova, supernova, and/or (is it white dwarf?) stages. The galaxies WILL meet at a certain angle. The galaxies are like planes in geometry. The two planes will meet, and the centripical motion, along with gravity, will cause the two galaxies to fuse, totally destroying everything in both, only to become the birthplace of new planets and stars. billions and billions of years after they collide, which is billions of years from now (phew). :oops:
The difference between a plain and a galaxy is that a plain is infinate while a galaxy only occupies a brief spot on that plain, along with having a direction and a concept of distance and time.
Our evolution is unprecedented. Yes, we are the oddballs of the planet. We like to think we are superior to animals (in fact we forget we ARE animals). In many ways, we are superior to other animals, but the fact remains that our evolution to become to intellectually superior species will lead to our demise. We strive for perfection, and striving for perfection only results in chaos. Our evolution went off the scale, and while I don't think we are the most intelligent life forms in the entire universe, we as a whole are ignorant to think that any life forms beyond earth are at or above our intelligence level. I don't think we'll get far, but if we ever make contact, most likely it will be a radio signal or space shuttle long forgotten thousands of years from now. CONTACT (the movie)...think about that, only expand the time for everything to happen over hundreds of years.
That's the thing. The properties of evolution say that that can't happen. A species only evolves in order to better suit its enviroment, not to better themselves. According to evolution, our intelligence would've evolved to a point, then stopped. Basically, according to the theory of evolution, this billion year process had an "accident" with the human race.

Sorry for being slow at the moment, but what exactly were you talking about? I'd like to think I said something you were pleased to see, but what I said that you are referring to, I have not a clue.
Predestination was called the white-mans curse for awhile.

Whether we like to think about it or not, we still have instincts that drive us. We may have to reach extreme measures for them to kick in and override our sense of stableness or self control, but we still have instincts. It is natural instinct of humans to flee when scared or frightened. It is natural instinct to think of one's own behalf and to neglect others when the environment that surrounds that person is at such a low that merely having ANYTHING to eat is the sole purpose of living for that period of time.
It's upbringing for humans to flee when scared or frightened. It's upbringing to think of ones own behalf and neglect others. If you were to go back into the 1900s, what you said doesn't apply. I've seen a whole lot of exceptions to what you've just stated. There is a large amount of diversity between people's personalities, even at birth. You can pratically tell which baby will be a problem next to which one is calm and quiet.
Dark matter, black holes, and infinity are all things we know to exist but can't prove or comprehend. Black holes fascinate me. Eh, to stay on topic, those who believe we are the only ones are indeed either undereducated on the matter, and/or are narrowminded on issues pertaining to this subject. I believe that more than once, during an immeasurable amount of time before the "Big Bang", the universe was composed of galaxies and solar systems, and, (yeah, hard to follow unless you are REALLY trying to understand) over another immeasureable amount of time, their gravity pulled them in together in the clump of matter that created the Big Bang.The perception of uneducation is only determined by a dis-agreement from another person. You see, all these things we CAN prove. We proved the existance of Black holes, stumbleded on Dark Matter by accident, and finally realized that infinity exists in certain properties. And you are the first person I've met who has that theory of the big bang.

Another topic that gives me a headache to truly think about is where every proton, neutron, electon, quark, etc came into existance and how. And also, to think that once BILLIONS of years ago, the very atoms of your existance and the atoms of the objects surrounding you were once part of an inorganic cloud of dust. Trying to think about where one atom of your body was 5 billion years ago, is well, rather difficult. One of the atoms that composes you could very well have been in a bond or came into contact with an atom that makes up the sun or another planet, or even a comet...or another person =0I'm not aethiest. One atom of my being didn't exist billions of years ago. (aren't quarks theoretical?). I never really thought of that before. Nor do I care.
It is difficult to understand what a percentage of infinity is, when infinity goes on forever. Hell, there are an infinite amount of values before you REALLY reach one, so how do we truly reach the value of one when there are infinite amounts of numbers between 0 and 1?You see, the universe isn't infinite. It's expanding, yes. Not infinate. The amount of light matter in the universe is limited. Light matter is the existance that we are on right now. Since light matter isn't expanding, there is a set amount o funiverse to explore.

And to finish this up, I will re-state what I said in another thread...
It is a fact that humans made religion to explain the unexplained.
Aww hell no its not! People say that religion was made up to explain the unexplained because they don't like it. That's like saying that people made up evolution because they wanted justification for their actions of that time. Let me know once you can differenciate perception from fact.
While some religions went to bizarre means of explanation (the Greeks for example), many others find peace and condolance in the sheer fact that God did it or God made it. Not to strike the nerve of anyone who follows this belief, but religion has so many blank points, it tries to explain everything that can't be tangibly explained through the human senses.
You seem to forget the small percentage of people who seek proof, and are not just content. This includes me, BTW. You see, the "blank points" of religion come from people who twist around modern day semantics to try to disprove it. When you look at it, it is, actually, quite complete. People seem to just try to "why" away religion, when they realize that everything they've ever said, done, or known can be "why"'d away.
It calms the nerves of those to think that God did it because then they have a reason, and they can move on with their lives. What I'd like to ask you is...how did God come about?[/qoute]I didn't even read the next part and then you do exactly what I was talking about. Oh well: God always is. He always existed, just as aethiests and agnostics claim that the universe and matter always existed, and had no beginning.
[quote] Did he just pop out of nowhere and say "Hey, I'm god, I'll make everything..." etc etc etc?
You never read the bible I see.
Science may not have answers to everything, but seeking answers through a religious point of view is very strict and narrow.
So is seeking answers from an aethiestic/agnostic point of view. When a scientist came to my sister's school, he said literally that science would not accept god, even if he's out there and it's the only feasable explanation.
There is no room for debate, and the answer is always the same. Science changes, and science examines. Religion just states and expects you to believe.Again I find the close-mindedness of you annoying. Little fact here: science doesn't change. Science stays the same. One man came up with evolution, and science has stayed that way ever since. Some man didn't come up and say "Hey! Lets make up some super-natural thing and say it explains everything!". Religion was around long before any civilization ever came about. Long before people shared ideas. Strange enough, all of the little groups of people and cave paintings and junk like that are eerily similar. And people like you chose to just dis-regard this little fact that apparently some how some way everyone believed almost the exact same thing and had the same ideas long before the first city ever came about, or just call it some abnormal fluke.

[Lightning]

Exactly.

There is definatly other life in the universe,very definatly, if the universe is infinate then there is a 1 in 1 chance of other life.
Not just unintelligent, I'm talking life way in advance of ours. Infact, in terms of the universe we are a very young species.
For the Bible to specifically say man is his greatest creation, mwuh, that's stupid. Tomorrow, we could all be wiped out, and we would have no power over it. Where would God be with his brilliant creation then? Thank you almightly lord.:shifty:

The Bible and God and Christianity was created and devised by humans, it's a fact. Everything in that little book is a figment of your imagination.

I personally can't wait till I die. Purgatory? *laffs* We'll see.

I haven't read any posts past this, but this one made me fume, and I didn't want to read past this, I just had to post immediately.

None of those things are true. We did not create Christianity, the Bible, or God. That is absolutely NOT A FACT!!!!!!!!

No one knows the real reason why God created Earth, and I am almost certain that no one will find out until the Judgement Day. The reason no one knows is because we can't even imagine at our highest point how great God's wisdom is. I forgot the exact verse, and the exact wording, but it goes something like this:

"Even in God's foolishness, God's wisdom is so much greater than man's at man's highest point of wisdom."

[Crimson Spider]

True. But it also does not invalidate my claims either, which is what I've been trying to say.
What you've been saying is that him being called the son of God was added in. What I'm saying is that that isn't the case, and he called himself the Son of God. You went on saying that the concept of "Cross" in modern day disproved that he claimed he was the Son of God. I'm saying that even with the changing of one language over time, that the general concept remains the same, and that he called himself the son of God. You admit this, and then say it doesn't invalidate what you've been saying. Then what the crap does it do then? Because from what I see, it does.

I thought it was 50 times. Either way, the percentage of nitrogen gas may be an important factor in the growth of Mars itself. It's probable that nitrogen can be somehow increased (tho I have not done enough research on it for anything conclusive, so I will respect or try to respect that). With taht said, as long as water exists or existed on Mars, we can inhabitate it. Tho the time required to strengthen the atmosphere, which in turn increase planet temperature by a highly significant amount, will be great either way. So the basis of our arguments, which can be made of broken (either one) about water on Mars will be whether there are oxide stones within the craters.I heard it from a space-exploration show. They were talking about how a fixed wing craft wouldn't be able to fly on mars since it's atmospehere is 100 thinner than ours, and that we would have to resort to a dragon-fly like design.

They are always discovered using complete variables. This is so the proof is 100% accurate, whereas the use of ANY numbering system may create a leak within the proof. The restrictions, however, are still followed, such that circles have infinite vertices. Also infinity is not a number.
What the heck is a complete variable? My definition isn't making sence in this statement. True that the number of verticies in a circle is infinate, but that is from physics. Not math.

You have to know that parasitic you must take all parasitic organisms into account when you are talking about parasites. The reason is that parasites create such a category that people often just see the harmful few against the non-harmful majority. While you are referring to the small minority, I am referring to the entire category of parasites, and leaving none behind, which is supposed to be done when you try to categorize them all.I could've sworn I read in a book that most organism that you define as parasites were called symbiants, or a few other colorful scientific names.

Perfect example of the most common parasite in man. Fact is that if you have a cat, was an ear [shot of ] a cat in any point in your life, was near anything related to cats, or you have headaches that can't be explained, you have toxoplasma. It's not even lethal...in fact, it doesn't do anything to you except for a headache once in a while. You compare that with soemthing like malaria, a strong few compared to a parasite that everyone has (okay almost everyone). Is it fair to say that the behaviours of this malaria is enough to say that toxoplasma is dangerous?The characteristics of malaria do not apply for toxoplasma. Toxoplasma gives headaches, so obviously it is harmful. Can it be dangerous? Probably not. But it is giving you a headache (I thought that was a virus/bacteria/something else other than a being capable of being called a parasite).

Also, all parasitic organisms must fit into a niche somehow. The "disease" parasites tend to be known as predators within the ecosystem, because they do what predators do, they kill to survive. (looks back a few pages). The comparision with parasites is that they destroy their current enviroment, such as a virus does. The amount of viruses/parasites that kill any sort of animal is irrelivant, as long as there is atleast one comparison with the humans nature in the destruction of their local enviroment. Sure, the universe is unharmed, but we are destroying our planet as things are going right now. The malaria virus, classified as a parasite though I think of it more of a disease, destroys its enviroment more than it would help it, and thus doesn't fit into the ecosystem.

I feel that this is a contradiction in itself that a majority is not dangerous and dangerous, and some are lethal.Um... what?

no of course no. The parasite only enters the predator to mate and continue the cycle. If I can recall, I think the parasite you're talking about also allows the birds of prey to pick off the snails so easily that the bird often prefer the snails with the parasite inside. And from past research, I think this helps control the snail population and allow the birds to easily pick off an otherwise hard to reach snail. That's the one. The preferance of the bird wasn't stated, but what was stated is that it makes it easier for the birds to eat the snail, thus spreading the virus to infect more snails. The existance of the parasite is almost uneeded, because if the population of snails were to grow, the population of it's preditors would grow, too.

No, still a parasite because of its behaviours. What we don't understand is WHY the snails have a longer lifespan (as clearly loss of antenae is a parasitic behaviour).I guess it can be called as a parasite, even though it strangely benifits both the parasite and the host.

You have to note that the parasites are so limited that this happens never. The only two that I can think of that are close enough to this are malaria and trypanosomiasis (east african). Those, if a problem rises, can be hard to control. Screening works, also the trypanosomiasis just got a godly (and I say godly because it can treat ANY POSSIBLE PATIENT) medicine working against it (thus I have to discount trypanosomiasis this way). Malaria got the human evolution against it, also. Again, the ecosystem ruining from parasites dont' occur at all since usually a virus/bacteria would be the one doing the killing BEFORE the parasites anyway...if any to begin with.Malaria has a deficiancy fluke against it. It just happened that sickle-cell-anemia happens to hinder the parasite (not stop it) while it also hinders the host. Since Sickle-cell-anemia isn't restricted to only African inhabited areas with malaria, and arises pretty much everywhere, it's more of a hinderance than a prevention.

[/quote]And I'm saying taht they evolved to do it because they require that efficiency. I have not said taht an animal that doesn't need something has it.[/quote]I was pointing out that certain animals have an "adaptation" for no apparent reason. The "efficiancy" is in the eye of the beholder.

Really? I have always said that they evolved this way to fit theif environment in the past also. So I'm thinking it's a miscommunication of some sort. You said that animals had to evolve (macro evolution) in order to fit their enviroment. I said that they were designed that way. You said that they must have been designed that way exactly in our time for it to not work. I point out that this isn't the case, and that they were made generally fit, and just turned out that way. You don't understand it. I do a little recap, and you say that you always said that they evolved that way to fit in the environment in the past, where as you had claimed previously that they had to have evolved that way to fit in the present to try to debunk my statement that they weren't designed exactly for the now, and that they were desigend generally and versitially in the past. So now your confusing me. Let me say this: there were most likely quite a few finches around that area, and another one or so just happened to pop up around some time, because God had allowed it. Just like he allowed the making of a Mule.

Just saying I have thin blood too because I'm from an equatorial region. (like a slight off-shoot thing that has nothing to do with anything)I was pointing out micro-evolution. The kind that can happen in one generation, and change in mid-existance.

So you're denying basically how the the walrus and the seal are different from an evolutionary POV (like marco-evo). Gotcha.Wait... um... don't quite understand what your saying here. But the Walrus and the Seal are different animals. Their similar body style was made, but they do not have the same body style, and have quite a few differences. They wasn't one swaelrus that split into two.

[Crimson Spider]

I have to say that the mitochondrion is enough to support the macro-evolution POV. COuld you explain why the mitochondrion divides by itself andthat they hae their own genetic material? You'd think taht God would create a cell that can basically work with every part of itself.Is it just me, or is your post quality dropping as time goes on? Anywhoo, the mitochondrion supports creationsim, too. More solidly than evolution, BTW. BTW I missed the part that said that God had to create a cell that would work with every part of itself. Could you remind me where is written please? Though it does have it's own DNA, it still works with the cell, and does nothing for itself. It a very complex organell, but alas, it still works with every part of the cell.
From our POV, it's macro evolution, where a cell took in the mitochondrion cell and evolved to have it afterwards, thus explaining the stuff I just said. (Sorry if my explaining skills are worst than usual today).That explains what you were getting at. You know, I try to keep ideas together and not seperate them with a return. From my POV, the cell was made that way. Sure, people theorize that a cell absorbed another one in order to produce it's own energy, but why after all this time would it have different DNA instead of the same? Wouldn't it have evolved into the same DNA? Simply put: It's like almost no other organel in the cell. It requires a different DNA in order to do it's job.

Now, do me a favor, and tell me what centrioles do. Because the modern Geneticist can't.


About the stars,
*******************
Little things like those were appearing unexplainably in oddball places in my posts, like* this. Don't know w*hy they were poppping up (those ones I made on purpose).

I haven't read any posts past this, but this one made me fume, and I didn't want to read past this, I just had to post immediately.You should. You see, he was the first person I straitened up.

I'll go on about him later, but there is a few things I don't agree with you on.

No one knows the real reason why God created Earth, and I am almost certain that no one will find out until the Judgement Day.Um... dude... I do. It does say why in the Bible. Though we can't comprehend it, we can know what happened.

You see, Ferret is what I like to call the downtrodden when it comes to religious discussion. Arrogent, foolish, stupid. These are the ones that I have a big problem with, and are Ironically the ones I put up with the most in real life. They refuse to listen, and never will listen even if you strapped a loudspeaker to their ear. They hypocritically go around putting down religion where as they are worse than what they say.

[Kenny_C.002]

What you've been saying is that him being called the son of God was added in. What I'm saying is that that isn't the case, and he called himself the Son of God. You went on saying that the concept of "Cross" in modern day disproved that he claimed he was the Son of God. I'm saying that even with the changing of one language over time, that the general concept remains the same, and that he called himself the son of God. You admit this, and then say it doesn't invalidate what you've been saying. Then what the crap does it do then? Because from what I see, it does.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it could be either way in terms of WHAT was written there in the first place. Nobody can prove that what is written NOW is what was written in the first place, thus it is only a variable, not exact.

I heard it from a space-exploration show. They were talking about how a fixed wing craft wouldn't be able to fly on mars since it's atmospehere is 100 thinner than ours, and that we would have to resort to a dragon-fly like design.

I think I heard it from Daily planet about the dragonfly design. As I'm saying, the atmosphere can be built up, as OUR atmosphere was built up to what it is now due to the archaebacteria (God creation or not, this is set).

What the heck is a complete variable? My definition isn't making sence in this statement. True that the number of verticies in a circle is infinate, but that is from physics. Not math.

Complete variable is what it states. No matter what numbering system you use, no matter what number you choose, no matter what existing numbering system you use, it will always hold true. Thus it is a complete variable, tentative symbol for this can be "x".

I could've sworn I read in a book that most organism that you define as parasites were called symbiants, or a few other colorful scientific names.

Nope. It causes HARM to the host in some way or another in its own gain.

The characteristics of malaria do not apply for toxoplasma. Toxoplasma gives headaches, so obviously it is harmful. Can it be dangerous? Probably not. But it is giving you a headache (I thought that was a virus/bacteria/something else other than a being capable of being called a parasite).

Malaria is a full fledged organism; viruses are not capable of being parasites. Actually, if you think about it, the characteristics of Toxoplasma and malaria are almost identical. They both use the T-cells within our immune system to "control" themselves. The side effects of Toxoplasma, however, is just less sever than malaria.

(looks back a few pages). The comparision with parasites is that they destroy their current enviroment, such as a virus does. The amount of viruses/parasites that kill any sort of animal is irrelivant, as long as there is atleast one comparison with the humans nature in the destruction of their local enviroment. Sure, the universe is unharmed, but we are destroying our planet as things are going right now. The malaria virus, classified as a parasite though I think of it more of a disease, destroys its enviroment more than it would help it, and thus doesn't fit into the ecosystem.

The comparison between parasitistology and virology is not correct. First, viruses are non-living, thus reproduction is not necessarily "needed" as they can survive for any given period of time. Prarsites must allow the host to survive in order to reproduce (as they need one of the opposite gender STILL), and they cannot survive without the host, so to speak. Thus if a parasite behaves like a virus, as you are stating, they would be extinct long before it can do anyhting damaging.

That's the one. The preferance of the bird wasn't stated, but what was stated is that it makes it easier for the birds to eat the snail, thus spreading the virus to infect more snails. The existance of the parasite is almost uneeded, because if the population of snails were to grow, the population of it's preditors would grow, too.

Actually, the birds would be extinct without the parasite, because the amount of infected snailseaten compared to the number normal snails eaten is such a great difference that basically the parasites put the snails outside for the birds to eat, whereas the hidden snails would be next to impoosible for birds to eat. Thus the parasite is symbiotic to the birds, but parasitic to the snails.

I guess it can be called as a parasite, even though it strangely benifits both the parasite and the host.

Yes, as the loss of the antenae clearly is not a good thing for the snails. We don't know why still. lol

Malaria has a deficiancy fluke against it. It just happened that sickle-cell-anemia happens to hinder the parasite (not stop it) while it also hinders the host. Since Sickle-cell-anemia isn't restricted to only African inhabited areas with malaria, and arises pretty much everywhere, it's more of a hinderance than a prevention.

This is microevolution which is to combat malaria. Most of Asia and Africa (like that area and a little east) have the large malarian span. We, however, are lucky not to have it, but it is STILL a prevention method against malaria. If we head to Africa, this is no longer a hinderence, is it?

I was pointing out that certain animals have an "adaptation" for no apparent reason. The "efficiancy" is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes it is...aside from photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Either way, if it is easier for that animal to have the thumb than without,then they may need it. If so, they may evolve for it.

Then again, signs of evolution can be helped out here with our appendix. We needed it back in the day. :P

You said that animals had to evolve (macro evolution) in order to fit their enviroment. I said that they were designed that way. You said that they must have been designed that way exactly in our time for it to not work. I point out that this isn't the case, and that they were made generally fit, and just turned out that way. You don't understand it. I do a little recap, and you say that you always said that they evolved that way to fit in the environment in the past, where as you had claimed previously that they had to have evolved that way to fit in the present to try to debunk my statement that they weren't designed exactly for the now, and that they were desigend generally and versitially in the past. So now your confusing me. Let me say this: there were most likely quite a few finches around that area, and another one or so just happened to pop up around some time, because God had allowed it. Just like he allowed the making of a Mule.

Okay. Iguess I should clear up also. macro-evolution currently takes millions of years to derive, even hundreds of billions. The fact taht they evolved to have a characteristic that most fits in the past makes sense now, because evolution is so slow that it cannot be measured. Also, our environment right now is changing too fast to begin with (like the human era right now), and therefore the evolution for the adaption of the environment now would have then been obselete and requires more evolution to "keep up".

I was pointing out micro-evolution. The kind that can happen in one generation, and change in mid-existance.

Sure. I think I can accept that. It's still microevolution tho.

Wait... um... don't quite understand what your saying here. But the Walrus and the Seal are different animals. Their similar body style was made, but they do not have the same body style, and have quite a few differences. They wasn't one swaelrus that split into two.

No, I'mnot saying there was a swaelrus that split into two. I mean that their similar-ish body structure has come from a common ancestor dating really far back. Thus evolutionary adaption caused them to be "different".

Also, please explain how a fin of a whale, paw of a cat, hand of a human, etc. all have 5 digits.

That explains what you were getting at. You know, I try to keep ideas together and not seperate them with a return. From my POV, the cell was made that way. Sure, people theorize that a cell absorbed another one in order to produce it's own energy, but why after all this time would it have different DNA instead of the same? Wouldn't it have evolved into the same DNA? Simply put: It's like almost no other organel in the cell. It requires a different DNA in order to do it's job.

Now, do me a favor, and tell me what centrioles do. Because the modern Geneticist can't.

Sorry, I tend to do such things. It's a habit.

Theoretically the reason why the DNA of the mitochondrion has been separate from our cells is because the mitochondrion had its own DNA in the first place, thus if it kept its DNA, it can continue its genetic road. As a symbiotic relationship, the host cell "respected" taht (it had no choice in the first place), thus the mitochondrion can depend on the host to get what it needed while helping the cell out. So in evolution, the mitochondrion and the host cell both required each other as they evolve together. Again, sorry for the blab.

As for centrioles, the theory is that it was created to organize the chromatic substances and has no other purposes (similar to the ___<--forgot name for the flagellum).

[Kenny_C.002]

1 more thing. I think the religion thing would be soemthing ofr humans to explain the unexplainable. Example would be the Roman Empire, Egypt, Greece, etc., which all use divine intervention as a way to explain WHY things happen, such as day and night, seasons, and other things that science has proven to be planetary motion, or other things. Again, there's not other reason for Ra to exist according to your comments, CS, whereas the Egyptians did use him to explain the Sun. Also, they believe that divine intervention can sway battles, such as Mars, god of war. Again, Vesuvius was explained via divine intervention (they say that the gods wanted the people of Pompei to die), whereas now we know it's pyroclastic flows. Tehy explained the winds with god, whereas we know why they exist (air current, atmosphere stuff). So yes it's valid to say that peopel created a god to explain the unexplained. It's also valid to say that there is a god to intervene in the first place that created these natural things (well, I'm opposing this, but I'm just saying that I'm not discarding what you may be saying as "people made it up"). I'm just saying the people DO create gods to explain what they cannot explain, as you are saying this is not particularly true.

[Steven]

If we're so great that we need a god to have created us... who created him? It can go back like that forever, which is why it is useless. Maybe there was a kind of god... Here's my example.

Scientists can create atoms, although they haven't been known to last long.
Atoms have a nucleus with electrons going around
Universe have a Sun with satelites going around

It's the same concept, except bigger, and we could have been created by a scientist in a bigger world. I mean it is very possible. Time has no limits. A lifetime to us could be a second to them... who knows.

I also think the whold heaven/hell thing is dumb because you will go to hell in many other religions while you go to heaven in only one. I mean if christianity is right, then all the greeks went to hell or purgatory. I mean that's a bunch of bull ****, I'm sorry, but how could a god that's so great punish someone for not doing anything wrong? I mean that's one fricked up god...

[Ironshell Blastoise]

Matter cannot be formed or destroyed, only changed.

And yes, I agree, if all people who followed the "wrong" religion, where did they go? As far as I have been told, they go to hell.

One thing that really pisses me off is how a team will say "We want to thank God for helping us to win today." or other crap like that. Why does God favor one team over the other? WTF. Its that crap that makes me sick. I'm not saying they are right, but the majority of the population says comments similar to that in similar situations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
And no, Christianity wasn't thought up by numerous but separated people. Christianity isn't even the oldest religion. Hinduism is. And religion dates back to when Neanderthals and other Homo species were on the earth. I don't think they were Christians. They worshipped other Gods/God. Christianity grew from a small group and spread around the world. Religion only dates back to when time started to be counted and kept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes, science changes. Just because the theories and statements that rule the science world don't change every damn day doesn't mean they have always been there. Someone didn't just come up with scienctific facts and theories, and thats how they've always been. No, there is always arguments on which side is "correct" and views on different subjects have always changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What most likely keeps me from following a religion is that there is no real "proof" of anything. What we know about God was written by man. Yes, science was written by man, but its based on fact and research.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, upbringing most likely has an effect on how people react in extreme situations. But you can't tell me that EVERYONE is comepletely and perfectly civilized to the point that the "right" upbringing will cause them to make unselfish decisions and stay cool and level-headed.

[Crimson Spider]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it could be either way in terms of WHAT was written there in the first place. Nobody can prove that what is written NOW is what was written in the first place, thus it is only a variable, not exact.The original writings didn't dissapear off the face of the earth. Because of them, I partially know what the story behind "I am" is.

I think I heard it from Daily planet about the dragonfly design. As I'm saying, the atmosphere can be built up, as OUR atmosphere was built up to what it is now due to the archaebacteria (God creation or not, this is set).I don't see how it's set. It would take Archaebacteria a LONG time to build up mars.

Complete variable is what it states. No matter what numbering system you use, no matter what number you choose, no matter what existing numbering system you use, it will always hold true. Thus it is a complete variable, tentative symbol for this can be "x".So the complete variabe is a set existance that gets represented in a problem. Got it.

Nope. It causes HARM to the host in some way or another in its own gain.O.K... so symbiant relationships can cause harm to their host?

Malaria is a full fledged organism; viruses are not capable of being parasites. Actually, if you think about it, the characteristics of Toxoplasma and malaria are almost identical. They both use the T-cells within our immune system to "control" themselves. The side effects of Toxoplasma, however, is just less sever than malaria.The non-comparable part is the severity. Many organism could do similar things, but have many different effects.

The comparison between parasitistology and virology is not correct. First, viruses are non-living, thus reproduction is not necessarily "needed" as they can survive for any given period of time. Prarsites must allow the host to survive in order to reproduce (as they need one of the opposite gender STILL), and they cannot survive without the host, so to speak. Thus if a parasite behaves like a virus, as you are stating, they would be extinct long before it can do anyhting damaging.The comparison isn't between a parasite and virus. It's the behavoir of destroying their current enviroment avaliable to them that I was using as a comparison with human behavoirs.

Actually, the birds would be extinct without the parasite, because the amount of infected snailseaten compared to the number normal snails eaten is such a great difference that basically the parasites put the snails outside for the birds to eat, whereas the hidden snails would be next to impoosible for birds to eat. Thus the parasite is symbiotic to the birds, but parasitic to the snails.Or be fewer in number. One of those. "What if"'s can be made all day.

This is microevolution which is to combat malaria. Most of Asia and Africa (like that area and a little east) have the large malarian span. We, however, are lucky not to have it, but it is STILL a prevention method against malaria. If we head to Africa, this is no longer a hinderence, is it?That is, of course, assuming that we go to Africa/Asia into an enviroment than exposes us to the Malaria parasite. Even though it is microevlution, it would've gone away in an area that doesn't need it.

Yes it is...aside from photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Either way, if it is easier for that animal to have the thumb than without,then they may need it. If so, they may evolve for it.

Then again, signs of evolution can be helped out here with our appendix. We needed it back in the day. :PSo God designed us with an Appendix because we would've needed it back then. We weren't the technological giants back then, or even organized so much. Now we don't need it.

Okay. Iguess I should clear up also. macro-evolution currently takes millions of years to derive, even hundreds of billions.
4.5 is not devisible by 100
The fact taht they evolved to have a characteristic that most fits in the past makes sense now, because evolution is so slow that it cannot be measured.
Um... dude... not quite. Adaptations to their enviroment occur in a matter of a few generations. This whole "millions of years" thing right now is being doubted by some of the more informed evolutionists, as there aren't nearly as many transitional species as are "claimed" to have been found, and that the configuration of the projected past of the earth would've made it impossible for the existance of... well... IT for quite awhile, let alone liquid water. A more sped-up method of evolution is being proposed, which makes the description of how the bird came about to be not-as rediculous, though it still sounds that way to me.
Also, our environment right now is changing too fast to begin with (like the human era right now), and therefore the evolution for the adaption of the environment now would have then been obselete and requires more evolution to "keep up".So that's saying there won't be evolution anymore?

No, I'mnot saying there was a swaelrus that split into two. I mean that their similar-ish body structure has come from a common ancestor dating really far back. Thus evolutionary adaption caused them to be "different".So that common ancestor dating really far back according to what I was saying isn't a swaelrus, though you say it coudl've split into two? Though the mammal-like body style shape is similar, one is built a lot more for retaining fat, while the other is more slick and streamline. One has massive tusks in many species, while the other doesn't. I find it easier to say that someone could design one, then designe another like it, like making houses.

Also, please explain how a fin of a whale, paw of a cat, hand of a human, etc. all have 5 digits. Digits? The fin of dolphins do have finger-like bone structures in them, which evolutionists tried to explain as a creature went from being on land, then moving into water again. The paws of a cat... (goes to check his two cats)... only has 4 fingers. I'm lost: what are you talking about.

Theoretically the reason why the DNA of the mitochondrion has been separate from our cells is because the mitochondrion had its own DNA in the first place, thus if it kept its DNA, it can continue its genetic road. As a symbiotic relationship, the host cell "respected" taht (it had no choice in the first place), thus the mitochondrion can depend on the host to get what it needed while helping the cell out. So in evolution, the mitochondrion and the host cell both required each other as they evolve together. Again, sorry for the blab.According to evolution, this wasn't anything like the changing from a fish to an amphibion. This "evolution" has about as much time as the when cells first came into existance. But atleast I know the story behind it. But they are making quite an assumption from just a little piece of data.

As for centrioles, the theory is that it was created to organize the chromatic substances and has no other purposes (similar to the ___<--forgot name for the flagellum).Until they removed the two criss-crossing centrioles from the chromosome and found that the cells had no problem dividing.

[Crimson Spider]

1 more thing. I think the religion thing would be soemthing ofr humans to explain the unexplainable.
Religion comes from a belief of what things are, and what you should do in life. The explanation comes from the story of what happened, and not to explain things. I seriously doubt that everyone who wrote what Jesus had said, and comprised all the Bibles thought it would hold so much scientific ground in modern day it would be rediculous.
Example would be the Roman Empire, Egypt, Greece, etc., which all use divine intervention as a way to explain WHY things happen, such as day and night, seasons, and other things that science has proven to be planetary motion, or other things.
The idea (possibly not fact) that the Greek Empire/Egyptian empire had created gods and divine intervention to explain WHY things happened does not mean that every single religion ever made and religion in general did not come around soley because man needed an explanation. Religion is applied to many things to explain how they came about and how it happens, such as the mulitude of supernatural and scientifically unexplained and impossible occurences that I and many others I know experience thoughout our existance than relate ludicrously to religion.

Again, there's not other reason for Ra to exist according to your comments, CS,Please outline the comment that made you assume that my logic would apply to what you are saying.
whereas the Egyptians did use him to explain the Sun. Also, they believe that divine intervention can sway battles, such as Mars, god of war. Again, Vesuvius was explained via divine intervention (they say that the gods wanted the people of Pompei to die), whereas now we know it's pyroclastic flows. Tehy explained the winds with god, whereas we know why they exist (air current, atmosphere stuff). So yes it's valid to say that peopel created a god to explain the unexplained.Generalization to the extreme. The ONE does not speak for the many! Just because you have one bad experience with a black man does NOT mean that the entire african/american culture is bad.

It's also valid to say that there is a god to intervene in the first place that created these natural things (well, I'm opposing this, but I'm just saying that I'm not discarding what you may be saying as "people made it up"). I'm just saying the people DO create gods to explain what they cannot explain, as you are saying this is not particularly true.
I'm saying that the entire concept of religion didn't come around to explain things.

If we're so great that we need a god to have created us... who created him? It can go back like that forever, which is why it is useless. Maybe there was a kind of god... Here's my example.That is why it is useless completely for each and every single theory out there. "Why" has no end.

Scientists can create atoms, although they haven't been known to last long. Scientists cannot create atoms. Scientists can re-arrange items, and change the polarity of atoms.

Atoms have a nucleus with electrons going aroundThe matter than an electron is a particle is mere theory. They cannot prove or deny the existance of the particle electron, though it does act a whole lot more like a wave or energy.

Universe have a Sun with satelites going around

It's the same concept, except bigger, and we could have been created by a scientist in a bigger world. I mean it is very possible. Time has no limits. A lifetime to us could be a second to them... who knows.
You know, a day in Heaven is a thousand years?

I also think the whold heaven/hell thing is dumb because you will go to hell in many other religions while you go to heaven in only one.
Little note here: there is more than one religion with heaven and hell.

I mean if christianity is right, then all the greeks went to hell or purgatory.Someone did NOT read the Bible! A person could be born-again before Christ came. Though he is a doorway (his existance was stated multiple times in the Tora/Old Testimate, which is before he came around) in prayer, that does not mean that a person couldn't go to heaven before Christ came.

I mean that's a bunch of bull ****, I'm sorry, but how could a god that's so great punish someone for not doing anything wrong? I mean that's one fricked up god...Little point here: You have to be born again to exist in heaven. Otherwise, you can't. The concept of "doing wrong" is not true. When you go to get Judgement passed on you, you aren't getting every sin you ever made flashed before your eyes. You are cleansed daily for your sins. If you are not born again, you cannot enter.

[Crimson Spider]

Matter cannot be formed or destroyed, only changed.

And yes, I agree, if all people who followed the "wrong" religion, where did they go? As far as I have been told, they go to hell.Which religion you follow doesn't matter as much as being born-again. There are multiple groups that are dubbed as "Christianity".


One thing that really pisses me off is how a team will say "We want to thank God for helping us to win today." or other crap like that. Why does God favor one team over the other? WTF. Its that crap that makes me sick. I'm not saying they are right, but the majority of the population says comments similar to that in similar situations.
Because one team has more than one team praying for them ;D. You can thank God for giving you the strength and determination for winning, but he didn't Divinely intervine just to make you win.

And no, Christianity wasn't thought up by numerous but separated people.Christainity came from the teachings of Christ back 2000 years ago. Christainity is basically a Jew who believes that Christ was the messiah.
Christianity isn't even the oldest religion. Hinduism is. And religion dates back to when Neanderthals and other Homo species were on the earth. I don't think they were Christians. They worshipped other Gods/God. Christianity grew from a small group and spread around the world. Religion only dates back to when time started to be counted and kept.
Where did you get that from? The historical acknowledgement of religion came around as soon as man could draw. Hinduism was the first ORGANIZED religion. Religious beliefs came around long before then.

Quiz of the day: Which religion was practiced by Adam and Eve's immediate children?

Answer: NONE! There wasn't a "religion" out there. There was existance, and fact. The definition of Religion would mean that it came around when people came out with beliefs contrary to the truth farther than just mere preferance.

There was one core religion, or one truth. Over time, it split up into many, but none-the-less, I think that Christanity is the one. There is just way too many personal experiences that I have encountered to make me think that everything was an accident. I KNOW that Christianity came around when Christ came, but Jesus was a Jew, which is part of another religion, and so on and so forth until it comes back to Adam and Eve.


And yes, science changes. Just because the theories and statements that rule the science world don't change every damn day doesn't mean they haven't always been there. Someone didn't just come up with scienctific facts and theories, and thats how they've always been. No, there is always arguments on which side is "correct" and views on different subjects have always changed.I bolded what I think you meant. The facts of science existed for aslong as the Universe has, yes, but the fact that Science adheives to it's first assumptions so strongly... it's like, how can progress towards the truth be made if you stick with a lie?

What most likely keeps me from following a religion is that there is no real "proof" of anything. What we know about God was written by man. Yes, science was written by man, but its based on fact and research. What makes a person follow a religion is personal experiences. There is plenty of proof. You just happen to not accept it. What is written by man is what we were told. Bhudda, Mohummed, Jesus. All have something in common: they preached about truths, morals, lessons, and pretty much everything else strait from their mind, and nothing more. They also never wrote down what they said. Other people did. Either they were A) brilliant minds beyond comprehension to come up with stuff that still strongly applies hand holds ground even in modern day, or B)They were who they claimed, and that there is a God. The second one seems more real to me.


Yes, upbringing most likely has an effect on how people react in extreme situations. But you can't tell me that EVERYONE is comepletely and perfectly civilized to the point that the "right" upbringing will cause them to make unselfish decisions and stay cool and level-headed.
I can't tell you that everyone isn't either. Let me know when you know a little more about psychology, and then you will realize that upbringing has more do to with a man/womans life than anything else.

[Kenny_C.002]

The original writings didn't dissapear off the face of the earth. Because of them, I partially know what the story behind "I am" is.

No it didn't. I'm saying it could have been slightly altered through time. Example would be "Journey to the West", an ancient Chinese novel. As time passed, the story was slightly altered with each version. Digging back, we can see two different versions of the same story, written times earlier than the current. Same theory here.

I don't see how it's set. It would take Archaebacteria a LONG time to build up mars.

It took several million years on Earth to do it, as Earth had a thinner atmosphere than now. I'm not sure on the exacts here, tho.

O.K... so symbiant relationships can cause harm to their host?

It's a parasitic relationship still (like in this case), we just don't know why a snail just happens to live longer than normal this way.

The non-comparable part is the severity. Many organism could do similar things, but have many different effects.

The comparison isn't between a parasite and virus. It's the behavoir of destroying their current enviroment avaliable to them that I was using as a comparison with human behavoirs.

Sorry. My bad. Well, as I was saying, parasitic organisms do not kill off all of a spieces like a virus can. This is due to its lack of dependency for other organisms, thus if the host species die, so do they. The adaption for the parasite to adjust from one immune system to the next would be different than viruses to a cell. (this is just like a clearing up thing for everyone)

Being that parasites cannot destroy the environment is what I'm saying here, tho. It's a rule that parasites follow. If it is difficult or impossible for the parasite to reed and continue its life cycle, it will not kill its host ever. I'm saying 90% of the snails have the parasite taht kills them. When the snail count drops, the parasites would hold back on its activation against the snails so their population would grow again. This is also observed in humans with trypanosomiasis, where screening is used to prevent people from getting it, thus the parasites become less violent (like this is observed).

Or be fewer in number. One of those. "What if"'s can be made all day.

Yes "What ifs" can be made all day, but they all point to the same conclusion, which is not fabricated.

That is, of course, assuming that we go to Africa/Asia into an enviroment than exposes us to the Malaria parasite. Even though it is microevlution, it would've gone away in an area that doesn't need it.

Yes, but one cannot "de-evolve" from a genetic mutation. It's just not possible to do that, thus we are "stuck" with it because of malaria.

So God designed us with an Appendix because we would've needed it back then. We weren't the technological giants back then, or even organized so much. Now we don't need it.

Well I can say that we evolved from a species that needed it in the beginning, after evolution, the appendix is a "tracer".

4.5 is not devisible by 100
Um... dude... not quite. Adaptations to their enviroment occur in a matter of a few generations. This whole "millions of years" thing right now is being doubted by some of the more informed evolutionists, as there aren't nearly as many transitional species as are "claimed" to have been found, and that the configuration of the projected past of the earth would've made it impossible for the existance of... well... IT for quite awhile, let alone liquid water. A more sped-up method of evolution is being proposed, which makes the description of how the bird came about to be not-as rediculous, though it still sounds that way to me.
So that's saying there won't be evolution anymore?

Wow. I never read about this speed evolution thing that you've proposed. I don't understand the part about "liquid water". Anyway, as for the evolution speed thing. Even speed evolution cannot keep up with dramatic yearly changes of 0.2 Celcius in climate and also other human population factors. I'm saying that the environemtn is changing too fast for evolution to keep up, not necessarily not happen.

So that common ancestor dating really far back according to what I was saying isn't a swaelrus, though you say it coudl've split into two? Though the mammal-like body style shape is similar, one is built a lot more for retaining fat, while the other is more slick and streamline. One has massive tusks in many species, while the other doesn't. I find it easier to say that someone could design one, then designe another like it, like making houses.

I could also say that due to environmental needs, the two animals of similar type split off into two different animals with different adaptations. I've never said that it could've split into two, I meant that.

Digits? The fin of dolphins do have finger-like bone structures in them, which evolutionists tried to explain as a creature went from being on land, then moving into water again. The paws of a cat... (goes to check his two cats)... only has 4 fingers. I'm lost: what are you talking about.

Yeah, digits, sorry. And if I recall, the last "finger" of a cat cannot be observed with the naked eye or something like that.

According to evolution, this wasn't anything like the changing from a fish to an amphibion. This "evolution" has about as much time as the when cells first came into existance. But atleast I know the story behind it. But they are making quite an assumption from just a little piece of data.

Yes, as much as an assumption that God created everything.

Until they removed the two criss-crossing centrioles from the chromosome and found that the cells had no problem dividing.

Interesting. I'm not sure whether the cells actually retain everything possibly needed or we need a better microscope. I mean it, maybe we're missing some data on it. Maybe the centriole is like the appendix, needed at one point intime for something but no longer needed. I don't know. Just hypothesis.

Hey where's the reply on the "people creating god" subject that I made? :P

[Kenny_C.002]

Religion comes from a belief of what things are, and what you should do in life. The explanation comes from the story of what happened, and not to explain things. I seriously doubt that everyone who wrote what Jesus had said, and comprised all the Bibles thought it would hold so much scientific ground in modern day it would be rediculous.

The idea (possibly not fact) that the Greek Empire/Egyptian empire had created gods and divine intervention to explain WHY things happened does not mean that every single religion ever made and religion in general did not come around soley because man needed an explanation. Religion is applied to many things to explain how they came about and how it happens, such as the mulitude of supernatural and scientifically unexplained and impossible occurences that I and many others I know experience thoughout our existance than relate ludicrously to religion.

I didn't say that all religions are created solely to explain the unexplained, rather that people DO created gods to explain the unexplained. They do doesn't mean that they ALWAYS do, rather it is the way they choose to explain what happens. This has absolutely no connection with what you've been arguing about.

Generalization to the extreme. The ONE does not speak for the many! Just because you have one bad experience with a black man does NOT mean that the entire african/american culture is bad.

I didn't say that. To begin with, people DO create gods to explain the seasons back in tiems Before Christ. It's not whether the concept of religion comes fromexplaining things,but people use this concept of religion to create divine beings to explain such things.

I'm saying that the entire concept of religion didn't come around to explain things.

I never said that. I said that people CREATED gods to explain things, not necessarily that people created RELIGION to explain things. Please stop makign assumptions on things I never said or argued about.

[Crimson Spider]

No it didn't. I'm saying it could have been slightly altered through time. Example would be "Journey to the West", an ancient Chinese novel. As time passed, the story was slightly altered with each version. Digging back, we can see two different versions of the same story, written times earlier than the current. Same theory here. When I say original, I mean original The first texts that were ever around. A need for editing to the scripts came when the printing press was made, and they started to translate the Bible.

It took several million years on Earth to do it, as Earth had a thinner atmosphere than now. I'm not sure on the exacts here, tho.If I remember correctly, the earths atmosphere currently is thinning. Anyway, a million years is a long time to speculate how long it would take to oxygenate mars, and have it's atmosphere reach a breathable density one molecule at a time.

It's a parasitic relationship still (like in this case), we just don't know why a snail just happens to live longer than normal this way.But the fact is, it does live longer.

Sorry. My bad. Well, as I was saying, parasitic organisms do not kill off all of a spieces like a virus can. This is due to its lack of dependency for other organisms, thus if the host species die, so do they. The adaption for the parasite to adjust from one immune system to the next would be different than viruses to a cell. (this is just like a clearing up thing for everyoneHumans aren't killing off all of the universe either. Just one planet.

Being that parasites cannot destroy the environment is what I'm saying here, tho. It's a rule that parasites follow. If it is difficult or impossible for the parasite to reed and continue its life cycle, it will not kill its host ever. I'm saying 90% of the snails have the parasite taht kills them. When the snail count drops, the parasites would hold back on its activation against the snails so their population would grow again. This is also observed in humans with trypanosomiasis, where screening is used to prevent people from getting it, thus the parasites become less violent (like this is observed).Understandable...

Yes "What ifs" can be made all day, but they all point to the same conclusion, which is not fabricated.The conclusion that the species would die off? Or the conclusion that the existance of the parasite helps the birds to survive, thus helpling out the enviroment?

Yes, but one cannot "de-evolve" from a genetic mutation. It's just not possible to do that, thus we are "stuck" with it because of malaria."Looks at Dolphin". Um... yeah... well... I heard from more than one source that if a part of an animal, whether an apendage or organ, isn't used, it gradually shrinks in size until it dissapears. Thus, genetically passed traits, such as sickle-cell anemia or an extra muscle in the jaw, would deteriorate until it eventually dissapears. This is, of course, assuming that sickle-cell anemia originated in malaria-infested areas.

Well I can say that we evolved from a species that needed it in the beginning, after evolution, the appendix is a "tracer".Our disagreement is obvious here.



Wow. I never read about this speed evolution thing that you've proposed. I don't understand the part about "liquid water". Anyway, as for the evolution speed thing. Even speed evolution cannot keep up with dramatic yearly changes of 0.2 Celcius in climate and also other human population factors. I'm saying that the environemtn is changing too fast for evolution to keep up, not necessarily not happen.I bet you never heard that the mars rock was fake until several years after it. About the liquid water thing: the distance between the earth and the sun, along with the atmosphere would have to reach a point that the vast majority of the earth no longer reaches a temperature close to 212 farinheight (water in the middle of the ocean evaporates with it's 100 degree temperature), or at a good enough distance for liquid water to be able to exist long enough for life in some extremely unlikely situation to occur, and then keep that mass of water for a very long period of time. 0.2 celcius? I could've sworn it was 0.02, since they talk of the temperature only rising... like... 2 or 3 degrees in a span of 100 years.


I could also say that due to environmental needs, the two animals of similar type split off into two different animals with different adaptations. I've never said that it could've split into two, I meant that.Enviromental needs point to the eradication of the un-adepted, similar to how after Britian was industrialized, the soot-covered trees provided cover for the recessive black butterfly of that area, and the dominant white butterfly (same species) which used to thrive began to dwindle in population. So I find one species splitting into two to be unlikely.


Yeah, digits, sorry. And if I recall, the last "finger" of a cat cannot be observed with the naked eye or something like that.
Well, I didn't see it.

Yes, as much as an assumption that God created everything.
The assumption that God created everything has more solid back than a changed DNA code.

[Crimson Spider]

I didn't say that all religions are created solely to explain the unexplained, rather that people DO created gods to explain the unexplained. They do doesn't mean that they ALWAYS do, rather it is the way they choose to explain what happens. This has absolutely no connection with what you've been arguing about.
Then what the crap is this then: 1 more thing. I think the religion thing would be soemthing ofr humans to explain the unexplainable.

[quote]I didn't say that. To begin with, people DO create gods to explain the seasons back in tiems Before Christ. It's not whether the concept of religion comes fromexplaining things,but people use this concept of religion to create divine beings to explain such things.Furthing a point that I was making, since many people do have one speak for the Many. Besides, that was what was being implied. Whether you say it or not doesn't change the fact that I'm going to mention this. Understanding the creation of things and explaining things is one idea, but morals, what you should and shouldn't do, "regulations"... that's a different story. Those don't quite seem like the thing that a bunch of ancient people would just make up, and have hold so much ground in the current.


I never said that. I said that people CREATED gods to explain things, not necessarily that people created RELIGION to explain things. Please stop makign assumptions on things I never said or argued about.
You also never said you weren't saying that. And people DO say that. These are things that I like to bring up when another person doesn't. You never mentioned that not all religions do it. BTW: you did say some of those things, as the little first statment you made is the thesis while the rest of you post is the supporting arguement.

[Kenny_C.002]

When I say original, I mean original The first texts that were ever around. A need for editing to the scripts came when the printing press was made, and they started to translate the Bible.

I see. I can understand where you come from. But sicne the Bible is written by people and not god himself, the actual original may have been slightly altered from reality. I mean, can a human possibly remember every single detail exactly? I doubt it.

If I remember correctly, the earths atmosphere currently is thinning. Anyway, a million years is a long time to speculate how long it would take to oxygenate mars, and have it's atmosphere reach a breathable density one molecule at a time.

Yes, the atmosphere is currently thinning due to the amount of CFC's in the atmosphere (that cannot be removed). I believe the mesosphere is going to be first to go and then probably the atmosphere above it.

But the fact is, it does live longer.

Yes. also the fact is that the snails are damaged in the process. I know this might sound strange, but it might actually be a "symobiotic parasite". I'm not sure if this is possible, but this is the only logical explanation for BOTH to happen at the same time.

Humans aren't killing off all of the universe either. Just one planet.

Yup. We're the crappy parasites of this planet, as some say (sorry, I had to paraphrase rather than quote because I forgot the actual quotation and who said it).

The conclusion that the species would die off? Or the conclusion that the existance of the parasite helps the birds to survive, thus helpling out the enviroment?

The latter. Obviously parasites would help the birds. I'm thinking right now that this is another "symbiotic parasite"...

"Looks at Dolphin". Um... yeah... well... I heard from more than one source that if a part of an animal, whether an apendage or organ, isn't used, it gradually shrinks in size until it dissapears. Thus, genetically passed traits, such as sickle-cell anemia or an extra muscle in the jaw, would deteriorate until it eventually dissapears. This is, of course, assuming that sickle-cell anemia originated in malaria-infested areas.

Yes. But the fact that a slight change in organic coding isn't going to be deteriorating. You see, the coding for normal red blood cells and sickle-cells are literally 1 RNA code different, it's a substitution on the 5th or 6th code that causes the animo acid to be slighty altered. Having said this, you have to literally change the DNA structure of the human to "lose" sickle-cell anemia, which may or may not have an overall impact on the species itself.

Our disagreement is obvious here.

Yup. lol

I bet you never heard that the mars rock was fake until several years after it. About the liquid water thing: the distance between the earth and the sun, along with the atmosphere would have to reach a point that the vast majority of the earth no longer reaches a temperature close to 212 farinheight (water in the middle of the ocean evaporates with it's 100 degree temperature), or at a good enough distance for liquid water to be able to exist long enough for life in some extremely unlikely situation to occur, and then keep that mass of water for a very long period of time. 0.2 celcius? I could've sworn it was 0.02, since they talk of the temperature only rising... like... 2 or 3 degrees in a span of 100 years.

Really? I recalled it was 0.2 after the industrial revolution versus 0.02 before it. Of course, different sources point to different things, thus the information can only be tentative and subject to change.

Enviromental needs point to the eradication of the un-adepted, similar to how after Britian was industrialized, the soot-covered trees provided cover for the recessive black butterfly of that area, and the dominant white butterfly (same species) which used to thrive began to dwindle in population. So I find one species splitting into two to be unlikely.

Well maybe I didn't take the best of examples lol. But a species, when separated,can split into two different species because of their own needs. e.g. green crabs, the ones living on one side of the NA coast is different from the other side. We can, however, find identical "fossil crabs" from the past on both sides. Although this might signal extinction of a species, the similarities between the fossil and each green crab are enough to say that they came from that same fossil.

Well, I didn't see it.

I think you can find it in like a textbook or something. Well at least in the crappy Grade 12 Biology book that I had.

The assumption that God created everything has more solid back than a changed DNA code.

Sorry, but this is a highly POV argument to say that one has more "back" than the other. This is due to significant evidence on both sides, causing an essentailly split argument.

As ofr the "people" and religion thing. I guess I should rephrase instead.

People create gods to explain certain unexplainable subjects. Arguments: Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, (I think, I'm not too updated with my own religion lol) Buddhists. However, the principle of ethics, which is the basis of religion (I'm interpreting this from you), remains unchanged even though the creation of gods is thus.

[Lord Mullet]

Edit: 1. (I deleted it. Someone else had already said, and I must have must have missed it.)

2. For the sake of argument, God exists, and is omnipotent and omniscient. God could therefore do anything He wanted, including creating watertight, undeniable proof that He does not exist. Since he knows everything, he could doubtless have some divine reason for doing so (or doing anything, for that matter) that makes perfect sense when all factors are taken into account.

3. Bible = Load of BS:
Mt 27:46-50 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Lu 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Those were all his last words. Bible was written by people, people make mistakes:
De 14:11-18 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
And every raven after his kind,
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


And the Book of Job is the worst of the lot. Why would God do that, just to prove a point? Why would he need to prove something to Satan? Why does the devil's opinion matter so much to him?

Speaking of Satan: In the Old Testament, Satan was not the devil. There was no devil. It was simply a 'wise serpent' who tempted Eve. Satan was an angel who did God's dirty work, like tempting people when they went for 40 day famines in the desert. Jews don't believe in the devil. In fact, there is a school of thought that says that the devil was invented in the Sixth Century AD to scare pagans into becoming Christians (you don't worship our God, you go to hell). All this = Bible cannot be trusted.
Note: Not to say God does not exist.

5. As I recall (from textbooks, not personal experience), the Big Bang happened like this: all the matter in the universe is compreessed into really tiny space (I'm not sure whether it was possible to exist outside that space at this time). This is making a whole lot of energy. Enough energy for stuff to exist in sub-sub-sub-molecular dimensions. All this energy = instability = eventuall, explodes, that is, spreads outward, in the form of Hydrogen or Helium gas. The energy then makes everything 'mix together in just the right way' so that eventually, the universe as we know it is made.

Why did God make all that stuff we'll never know about? I have a pretty good reason, that makes perfect sense. Just for the heck of it.

Watching "God, the Devil and Bob" has really given me some insights.

Edit: Matter cannot be formed or destroyed, only changed
Matter + antimatter = no more matter, no more antimatter. This has been observed.

[gamevoid]

(I should really ome to this section of the board before all the opions are all ready given lol)

I belive in both theroys(big bang and creation) I think that god made the big bang happen(thus creatinog light dark whater whater) and then just left every thing be and let what happens happens nowing that someday there would be life. As for the galaxy(sp?) We dont know how big it is for all we know it could just be like a box and when you go out of one side your automaticaly on the other side like a demension rip or something that you cant see and we dont know cause we havent gone that far yet.

[Magare]

Matter + antimatter = no more matter, no more antimatter. This has been observed.

Antimatter doesn't really exist. That matter + antimatter thing you say is entirely theoretical. In nature matter can not be disappear. It can only change shape...


And on the topic. Why did God do this? Why did God do that? You have to look at it this way. Does an ant know why you did something? No. Well, we can undestand God as much as ants can understand us. Or in other words, we cant...

[Lord Mullet]

Positron (+1, 1) Positive counterpart or, "anti-particle" to the electron. Predicted theoretically by P. A. M. Dirac in 1928 and first discovered in cosmic rays by C. D. Anderson in 1932. When positrons and elctrons collide, they usually annihilate eac other and turn into (gamma)-rays; consequently, positrons only last about 10^-10 seconds within ordinary matter, but are stable in isolation.
Anti-proton (-1, 1836.1) Negative anti-particle of the proton. Its existence was long suspected. Artificially produced and detected for the first time in 1955. Will react with the proton to produce pions and kaons

I didn't realise that if things happened, they were still considered theoretical.

[Magare]

First of all, anti-proton and anti-matter are two completely different things.

And second, like you said yourself, the anti-proton was Artificially produced. And I said those things dont exist in nature...

[Crimson Spider]

I see. I can understand where you come from. But sicne the Bible is written by people and not god himself, the actual original may have been slightly altered from reality. I mean, can a human possibly remember every single detail exactly? I doubt it.The Bible is composed of more than just 1 persons account. They are from multiple believer and non-believer POVs. Only the new testimate is made from multiple accounts of something that happened.

Yes, the atmosphere is currently thinning due to the amount of CFC's in the atmosphere (that cannot be removed). I believe the mesosphere is going to be first to go and then probably the atmosphere above it.... O.K....

Yes. also the fact is that the snails are damaged in the process. I know this might sound strange, but it might actually be a "symobiotic parasite". I'm not sure if this is possible, but this is the only logical explanation for BOTH to happen at the same time.
A symobiotic relationship was defined in the book I read to be a relationship in which both creatures benifit from eachother. Nowhere did it say that one would be hurt in it's benifit.

[/quote]Yes. But the fact that a slight change in organic coding isn't going to be deteriorating.
[/quote]Depends if it's frame-shift mutation or single-replacement mutation.
You see, the coding for normal red blood cells and sickle-cells are literally 1 RNA code different, it's a substitution on the 5th or 6th code that causes the animo acid to be slighty altered. Having said this, you have to literally change the DNA structure of the human to "lose" sickle-cell anemia, which may or may not have an overall impact on the species itself.
[quote]The structure had to be changed for it to "gain" sickle-cell anemia.

[quote]Well maybe I didn't take the best of examples lol. But a species, when separated,can split into two different species because of their own needs. e.g. green crabs, the ones living on one side of the NA coast is different from the other side. We can, however, find identical "fossil crabs" from the past on both sides. Although this might signal extinction of a species, the similarities between the fossil and each green crab are enough to say that they came from that same fossil.
Like the Galapogos Iguanas and a certain jumping spider. The existance of a identicle fossil crab does not mean 1 split into two. That is speculation made from an already existant theory. What can be concluded is that this crab lived on both the coasts of NA. The fossilized structure of a crab also does not mean that they are the same. Their colorations could be completely different, and we wouldn't know the wiser.

Sorry, but this is a highly POV argument to say that one has more "back" than the other. This is due to significant evidence on both sides, causing an essentailly split argument.
Hard to imagine I said the same thing in another arguement in the past.


As ofr the "people" and religion thing. I guess I should rephrase instead.

People create gods to explain certain unexplainable subjects. Arguments: Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, (I think, I'm not too updated with my own religion lol) Buddhists. However, the principle of ethics, which is the basis of religion (I'm interpreting this from you), remains unchanged even though the creation of gods is thus.
The principle of ethics changes from religions quite vastly, or very little. Depends on who's viewing it. What is O.K. in one religion, the next would be strictly against. The fact that along with these "only made to explain things" god(s) came a list of morals, prinicples, along with punishments, rewards, physics, and a whole lot of other stuff is very interesting, seeing as if they were to make up gods for only the explanation of how something happens. Makes you think that they didn't make them up to explain things.

[Crimson Spider]

2. For the sake of argument, God exists, and is omnipotent and omniscient. God could therefore do anything He wanted, including creating watertight, undeniable proof that He does not exist. Since he knows everything, he could doubtless have some divine reason for doing so (or doing anything, for that matter) that makes perfect sense when all factors are taken into account.Someone over-estimates Gods omnipotence. There are a few things that God cannot do. Like make a boulder so big he couldn't lift it himself, or even on the main point: lie.

3. Bible = Load of BS:
Mt 27:46-50 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Lu 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Those were all his last words. Bible was written by people, people make mistakes:
And people tell the truth. Doesn't change the fact that one of them is right, and the other ones are all very closely related. Second, do not forget translation errors.
De 14:11-18 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
And every raven after his kind,
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

I keep getting the strong feeling that you are getting this from somewhere, and are not reading it yourself. I've heard some pretty interesting stuff, like one person saying that Eve wasn't the first woman. Anyway, when you eat these birds, there is some sort of reprocussion, like how pork is bad for you. It isn't a sin to eat these birds. It's just advice.
And the Book of Job is the worst of the lot. Why would God do that, just to prove a point? Why would he need to prove something to Satan? Why does the devil's opinion matter so much to him?It was not him it mattered to. It was everyone else.

Speaking of Satan: In the Old Testament, Satan was not the devil. There was no devil. It was simply a 'wise serpent' who tempted Eve. Satan was an angel who did God's dirty work, like tempting people when they went for 40 day famines in the desert. Jews don't believe in the devil. In fact, there is a school of thought that says that the devil was invented in the Sixth Century AD to scare pagans into becoming Christians (you don't worship our God, you go to hell). All this = Bible cannot be trusted.
Note: Not to say God does not exist.
Satan was originally named lucifer, who gained power, then got arrogant. The definition of "devil" was added on later through translations, and there are still many rumors that circle about around him. You take some of the radical information about some creed, and use it in a broad and false generalization to try to classify the Bible into not being able to be trusted. This is the same act that your common racists do: take on example, and go on that. It's almost as if every word I've said just goes in one ear, and out the other.

5. As I recall (from textbooks, not personal experience), the Big Bang happened like this: all the matter in the universe is compreessed into really tiny space (I'm not sure whether it was possible to exist outside that space at this time).
This was known as the big crunch, as dubbed by Albert Einstien. This point was debatable, and exisance outside of the universe was called impossible.
This is making a whole lot of energy.
The matter composed in this tightly packed ball consisted of quarks, lepons, and another thing that I cannot remember. Thus, the very ball was the building blocks of matter. Energy was only assumed into existance here.

Enough energy for stuff to exist in sub-sub-sub-molecular dimensions. All this energy = instability = eventuall, explodes, that is, spreads outward, in the form of Hydrogen or Helium gas.
The outward spread was not of hydrogen and/or helium gas. The spread was of the pure 3 particles, two of which I listed above. It is believed that after only some time did they from together to form atoms of matter in an extremely random way. The reason why these particles did not form into matter when condenced is still in theory, but many believe that it was because they were so tightly packed together that they couldn't form together, or existed in other dimensions. 11, actually. They were theorized to collapse into the 3 we know when the big bang occured.

Why did God make all that stuff we'll never know about? I have a pretty good reason, that makes perfect sense. Just for the heck of it.We know about it. That is why God made it. It's pretty easy to see that we would grow smart and find out about this stuff. And how else would he do it. If god wants to give me 15 bucks, he isn't going to make them appear out of thin air. He's going to have me do an unusual amount of chores over a weekend against my will, and then have my father change his mind about my lazyness and pay me for it.


About matter: antimatter is nothing more than negative matter, which when combined with matter, changes them into their 3 basic particles again to be reformed into other atoms later. Electrons change into lepons, which then shoot out in gamma radiation.

[Steven]

Creation eh?

*laughs*
I think it is like a circle that has no ends, that ends upon itself like I mentioned in the space thread. I think that time is perception and that things happen, and time is just a way of knowing where the world is. Evolution happens as nature tries to improve on itself, and everything happens how it's supposed to and there is no point, just happening for the sake of itself because there is no meaning to life. You can make a difference, but it won't matter. Everyone will die, and when you die you froget, so there is no difference, it just is. Sadly enough things will happen, and there is no control, although that doesn't mean that things won't happen to counteract other things, and choice is a perception. I mean you might as well do anything you want, but sometimes I think about choice and think about trying to do something that I'm not, but since I did it, I can't. For example I want to go one way, but instead I move another. My destiny was to think about going one way but move the other, and I can't change that meaning that the past present and future are one, and we can't change it, we can make decisions, but that is what we were going to do anyway before we even chose... Very strange to think about but we only think we choose what we do when it was in a way predetermined, except that it wasn't. Think of it like the present is the future and the past is the present. And you can't change the past... And when you think of time machines, shouldn't they slow down to go into the future, like freezing, cause I don't see how they could warp. It's just like sitting in there and not knowing and waking up thinking you slept a day when you slept for a long time.

[Kenny_C.002]

I've jsut read something quite interesting about evolution.

In summary, basically what the article is saying is that evolution is a struggle for the survival of a particular gene rather than the population itself. Thus, the genes evolve to outpace other genes.

It sounded quite weird, but it might be crazy enough to work.

[Bashaamo]

Well, thats been the basic theory for a long time. If an individual of a certain species has a genetic mutation that helps them survive and produce, that gene and that family line reproduce more and survive better, so over time those individuals beomce the entire species.

Forgive meif you were mentioning something different.

-Bashaamo

[Kenny_C.002]

Well, thats been the basic theory for a long time. If an individual of a certain species has a genetic mutation that helps them survive and produce, that gene and that family line reproduce more and survive better, so over time those individuals beomce the entire species.

Forgive meif you were mentioning something different.

-Bashaamo

no. It's the competition between genes rather than the animals themselves. It's a strange concept, quite farfetched that it just might work.

[§avage])]

I've jsut read something quite interesting about evolution.

In summary, basically what the article is saying is that evolution is a struggle for the survival of a particular gene rather than the population itself. Thus, the genes evolve to outpace other genes.

It sounded quite weird, but it might be crazy enough to work.


LOL, who ever came up with that... its crazy enough to work :oops:



but you guys dont forget the design theory... the only argument for that is that we evolved to fit the surounding environment... so technechaly our genes are themselves trying to survive, instead of the actual species.

but then if everything works in proper balance, like every species' genes have worked exactly right to create a perfect ecosystem... then there must be a design for that, if the end result is what we have today... minus the humans

and with a design, there must be a creator

[Kenny_C.002]

Technically speaking, the perfection you speak of, minus the humans, doesn't exist to begin with, SD.

[Inferno]

There's always room for improvement, especially when there's competition. And due to competition between genes to be the best and greatest, and evolve over time, all the points of evolution, and what Kenny C. has mentioned is highly believable. and perfection is not something that exists. and never will exist on earth in real life, only in our dreams and belief of afterlife, most of the time.

but the creation of the world and existance is something that totally baffles me and I think it is up to everyone to have their own beliefs and for everyone to accept that fact, because I don't think it's possible to find the actually means of creation, and if we do, I think it may be the end.

[akdude]

Geez, I wish I found this thread sooner!!!

God did create all. And the bible is not just the word of many men. God spoke to those men and told them to write it down. In the New Testoment, everything that Jesus spoke and said is in red. All that he did is true. And we did not evolve from monkeys, God made us in his image. And here is the quote to prove it:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Genesis 2:7

So u see, we were formed of the dust of the ground. And if we did evolve from monkeys, God still had a part of it. The Bible has stories of what happend, what was, and what's to be. I can tell that some of u rn't believers, but how could u not believe after what Christ has done for u? It was the most amazing this anyone could ever do for us, and we don't even believe that he died, decended into the place of the dead, then arose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God. How could u not believe after all the miricles he's done.

I am a believe in Christ (incase u haven't noticed), I believe in what he has done and what happened to him and believe that he arose from the dead. And I will argue about my religion and my beliefs til the day I die. Which wont be too soon b/c the rapture is coming.

Ak has spoken.

[Inferno]

Why ARGUE beliefs? If you truely believe somehting you should be comfortable enough to accept the fact that your way is the way you chose and you believe whole-heartedly in it, and there's nothing that should stray you otherwise, but to argue is stupid and gets nowhere.
And what you have said is great and proves that if you believe and take the word of the bible literally, and trust the word of the men who wrote god's word, then men came form dust held by the hands of God, which he gave life.
But if someone does not believe that, and instead truely believes that is false, that proves nothing to them.
So there is no need for arguements, just please make your statement.

... Inferno has spoken... lol
and so have 100 people before you

[§avage])]

Geez, I wish I found this thread sooner!!!

God did create all. And the bible is not just the word of many men. God spoke to those men and told them to write it down. In the New Testoment, everything that Jesus spoke and said is in red. All that he did is true. And we did not evolve from monkeys, God made us in his image. And here is the quote to prove it:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Genesis 2:7

So u see, we were formed of the dust of the ground. And if we did evolve from monkeys, God still had a part of it. The Bible has stories of what happend, what was, and what's to be. I can tell that some of u rn't believers, but how could u not believe after what Christ has done for u? It was the most amazing this anyone could ever do for us, and we don't even believe that he died, decended into the place of the dead, then arose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God. How could u not believe after all the miricles he's done.

I am a believe in Christ (incase u haven't noticed), I believe in what he has done and what happened to him and believe that he arose from the dead. And I will argue about my religion and my beliefs til the day I die. Which wont be too soon b/c the rapture is coming.

Ak has spoken.

Amen to that brother


and Kenny... when I was talking Perfect... I was simply talking about the number factor that goes into all Nature... and that it is not randomness... but actually is based on growthrates and equations

[Steven]

If there was no evolution then there would be no technology. Man and other species thrive upon getting better, cause if they don't they will die. It's instinct, and all it is is happening on a smaller level, similar to how planets go around the sun and protons go around a nucleus.

Also, what's the point of god. The only reason is to have a way so that people can have good morals. That's good, but I mean it had to start somewhere, and having it start with god is dumb. I mean it should just start with us, and not some made up story. I'm thinking that the Bible was just a story book, one complex story written by people who just were good at making up stories, just like leonardo da vinci, socrates, or even shakespere... They were just the people of their time. Back to the god creating things, why doesn't god have a creator, and then him having a creator... it just goes on forever when it's more easier just to say it started with us...

I'd like to see Crimson Spider pull this apart, just because I think this is pretty solid, except maybe some of the last part.

Also, if he exists, why isn't he here helping us and telling us he exists? I mean any excuse like "He has some divine reason" is crap... Why make so many people go to hell, and why have hell in the first place? People should be given a second chance (and none of this reincarnation crap, cause you won't know that it is a second chance) cause someone who sends you to a bad place for eternity must not really forgive. I mean if I was to go to hell, I'd be the right hand man of the devil and I'd try to overthrow god. I mean anyone that is so cruel that they send you to a horrible place forever must be bad... And I really never thought of the devil as bad, just a gate keeper to the bad souls and monsters of the underworld... I mean I'm a good person, I just don't believe in god, even though I have no proof of his existence,and seeing as he made me, he probably set me up for falure... I mean I don't do bad stuff, just don't believe in him, and if he sends me to hell for that, then I'd like to create my own world, for good people that god doesn't accept... cause that's stupid to do that... No one that good would do something so bad. Maybe god will see this post and get a transfer to all those people in hell to paradise, except it'd have to be super paradise, but then again there are already people who are perfectly set there anyway... so you can't renew your mistakes god, which is probably why he wont change it. Plus transfering all those people from hell must be hell... looking at everyone's life to see if they were good... everyone from now all the way back to the creation of time. Especially the greeks... hello... they didn't have you around back then... and then there are so many religions... not making sense to me, cause most likely if there is a right one, you're worshipping the wrong one...

I asked a friend who is a christian if he'd pray to the same god if he was born in Rome. He said yes... how ignorant, especially because your parents decide what religion you have, but later you can change it, but most people don't.

[Inferno]

Wow, Steven, I think we see things the same, only I am a more passive person, not so extreme, and we were also brought up differently I bet. But I do believe in my God. I believe it keeps me sane. Maybe that's what God is for. That's why we have God or gods. To keep the weak minded sane. To keep them striving for something, to keep progressing as good people in the world. But I believe in my God and I congratulate all who have faith in their God and/or creator.
But I have thought this many times, and Steven makes a valid argument with the Bible. It seems as though it is possible that the Bible is a compilation of stories or a collection of other books based on teaching morals to... more kids than anything, because that's who seem to benefit most from it. If you are taught stories from the Bible when you are young you carry the story, or atleast the lesson from it, with you for a long time. And in result you most of the time a lead a "good" life because you know the right things to do in life.

But my God is not a punishing god and he does give all worthy second chances.
I thought about it in the shower for a few minutes and I can see how man could create God. Try to think back to "cavemen" days. A man goes out hunting and is then tracked by a sabretooth cat. The man runs into a cave, more a crevice in a rock wall, in the side of a mountain. But he goes there for safety. The tiger comes after him. He's stuck there, he ahs no where to go, there is but one outlet, and that is covered by the furocious beast. So the caveman comes to the realization that death is near, he has seen it many times before. His buddies go out hunting, come across a big cat... then with a few swipes they are killed. So the caveman thinks... what is there to live for?
At this point he could go a multitude of a different ways. He could say, okay, I'm gonna die, and run screaming at the cat... and unfortunately he'll probably be eaten alive, because he has given up in his mind, so he will not fair well. Another way he could go, he could think about a place that he goes to after this cat takes this life. So he comes up with a second life, an afterlife. So now he has hope, he has a place after he dies, so what he's done so far isn't a total failure. And he's been good, so he deserves it. So, now no worries, he will have a place to go even after this thing eats him. Or he might even go a little crazy,a nd like many people stranded, he might begin to talk to himself. He might even make up another person, but a stronger person, someone who knows what to do, someone he can get info from, someone that will help him, someone that will give him strength. This certain someone couldn't be just any ordinary man, he's seen too many ordinary men die before him, this man is great, this man is good, this man is God. So from this "imaginary friend" he gets the strength and will power to face that ferocious beast outside the cave. Now before he might've went running at the cat, screaming adn yelling because he was scared, but no... he has God and God has given him the strength and told him the right way to go. He's more composed, more thought out, and he has HOPE and FAITH, two big things that people get from God. So if he runs out this time, it's because he is confident he knows how to beat this thing now. So eh runs, screaming and yelling, only this time he attacks harder with the strength God has given him... he defeats the tiger and has food and fur fro his family. He did this all with the help of God. So what ahs he learned for this? That there is an afterlife... so his life... when he dies, is not a total failure. Also, ordinary man is not great without the extra help of God, and he should go to God in a time of need. Now, I'm not saying this is where God came from, or this ahs anything to do with creation, but if many men do this for many years, and evolution and instinct kick in... this is highly believable to be... but who created everything? That's what this thread is about...

[Crimson Spider]

If there was no evolution then there would be no technology. Man and other species thrive upon getting better, cause if they don't they will die. It's instinct, and all it is is happening on a smaller level, similar to how planets go around the sun and protons go around a nucleus.Evolution isn't false. Macro-Evolution is. Micro evolution is the slight changes over time, like how someone from Los Angelis would have a higher tolerance for smoke than someone from Idaho. Macro evolution is the changing from one species to a complete other, like a fish turning into an amphibian.

Second, you cannot forget the nature we are born with. Man seeks out somethings which mimmicks what you are calling evolution: Comfort. Whether this comfort arrives from pride, accomplishment, acceptance, or food, or anything else, we seek it. Like a computer programmed to carry out it's job, man comes up with technology to do the basic instinct that we are seeking.

Third, not every species seeks to improve itself.

Also, what's the point of god. The only reason is to have a way so that people can have good morals.God made us, helps us out. Good morals come from teachings. You may meet the most arrogant bastard in existance, but he may still be born-again.

That's good, but I mean it had to start somewhere, and having it start with god is dumb.Having it start with nothingness and coming from nowhere else is dumber. Keep your opinions like this to yourself.

I mean it should just start with us, and not some made up story.
Define "us". Inane statement, really. It seems more logical to me that someone outside of our plain of existance made it, rather than it for some unexplained reason it was always there.

I'm thinking that the Bible was just a story book, one complex story written by people who just were good at making up stories, just like leonardo da vinci, socrates, or even shakespere...
Someone doesn't realize that each and every single "story" is based on true information. Each and every one. There was a Marry, Jesus did walk the earth, Moses did free the Hebrews from Egypt, and a Whale swollowed up Joan and ended up spitting him out back near land half-digested.
They were just the people of their time. Back to the god creating things, why doesn't god have a creator, and then him having a creator... it just goes on forever when it's more easier just to say it started with us...Why do we see the sky blue instead of green? Why do we like one food more than another? Why do atoms seek stability, and obtain it when they reach an 8 electron outer shell? Answer to all this is simple: We just do. That's just how it is. You say that it was just us. I say it isn't that the universe that we live in always existed, or came from nothingness. You can say "why" to every theory until they eventually reach a point where the answer is: it just is.

[qutoe]Also, if he exists, why isn't he here helping us and telling us he exists?[/quote]He is. You are just refusing to see it. Like that episode of Family Guy where he calls himself a great religious person. The last thing he wanted to believe, and last thing he admitted, is that God was punishing him. He refused it until the end.

I mean any excuse like "He has some divine reason" is crap... Why make so many people go to hell, and why have hell in the first place?
Only crap to you. Keep light on those opinions. Let me tell you a little true story: Once a preacher and his brother were going to go preach to a city. On the way there, the brother dies. While at the funeral, he began to speak about his brother, and what they were going to do, and other preachers joined in... and began to spread the word around. More people were converted than any possible way that him and his brother could.

And about hell: There are MANY theories on this. Whether it's a place, or a state of mind, or we stay here as a hell, or after this universe is gone you stay here, or the gap of existance between heaven and our current plain of existance, no one is certain. Well, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless you are born again. Hell exists as the other end, as both an alternative, and a punishment. There is not one hell. There are different layers, and a lot of them. Enough to accomidate each and every single difference and variance of exactly how evil a person could be, assuming that it is a place at all. Each person is judged independantly. Anywhere from burning eternally in a rediculess amount of pain and depression, from just getting an hourly slap on the wrist.

People should be given a second chance (and none of this reincarnation crap, cause you won't know that it is a second chance) cause someone who sends you to a bad place for eternity must not really forgive.I take it you do not know how you are judged. Like I said: your sins are washed away. You are not going to have your sins flashed in front of you. You are judged on the condition of your soul, and what you have done that is from pure compassion. Second point: The Bible does say that he will create a new heaven and a new earth. Perhaps that is the second chance you speak wish for. Besides, you do have no excuse to not believe.

I mean if I was to go to hell, I'd be the right hand man of the devil and I'd try to overthrow god.Again you exercise ignorance in the matter. lucifer isn't going to rule hell. He's suffereing with you. He lost 2000 years ago.
I mean anyone that is so cruel that they send you to a horrible place forever must be bad... And I really never thought of the devil as bad, just a gate keeper to the bad souls and monsters of the underworld...
He doesn't send you there. You go there yourself. Lucifer works through deception, trickery, lies, hate. He's the one who gets that bully to pick on kids. He's the one who gets everything to go eerily wrong when you plan things. Ever heard of murphies law?


I mean I'm a good person, I just don't believe in god, even though I have no proof of his existence,and seeing as he made me, he probably set me up for falure... I mean I don't do bad stuff, just don't believe in him, and if he sends me to hell for that, then I'd like to create my own world,
That's the problem: you just don't believe in God. You cannot enter the kingdom of heaven then. You have no choice. And you set yourself up for failure. Predestination isn't true. You cannot create a world in hell.

for good people that god doesn't accept... cause that's stupid to do that... No one that good would do something so bad.
I don't see it as bad.
Maybe god will see this post and get a transfer to all those people in hell to paradise, except it'd have to be super paradise, but then again there are already people who are perfectly set there anyway... so you can't renew your mistakes god, which is probably why he wont change it.
That's the problem: you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. And unless you are born again, the condition of your soul could only do one thing: get worse.

Plus transfering all those people from hell must be hell... looking at everyone's life to see if they were good... everyone from now all the way back to the creation of time. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Especially the greeks... hello... they didn't have you around back then... and then there are so many religions... not making sense to me, cause most likely if there is a right one, you're worshipping the wrong one...Mis-informed apparently. I'll stress this again: When Adam and Eve were having children, what religion was there? Answer: there wasn't one. There was only truth. "Religion" come from people who didn't want to believe that, and made up their own, and then called the other side religion. Man has had religious beliefs since before man learned how to draw.

I asked a friend who is a christian if he'd pray to the same god if he was born in Rome. He said yes... how ignorant, especially because your parents decide what religion you have, but later you can change it, but most people don't.
If he was still Christain, he would. You see, christianity didn't come around until Christ came. Guess what Christ was? A Jew. It keeps going back until the truth. One belief. Somewhere, it split into two.

Also, people do change their religion. People change it like nuts.

[Crimson Spider]

Why ARGUE beliefs? If you truely believe somehting you should be comfortable enough to accept the fact that your way is the way you chose and you believe whole-heartedly in it, and there's nothing that should stray you otherwise, but to argue is stupid and gets nowhere.
And what you have said is great and proves that if you believe and take the word of the bible literally, and trust the word of the men who wrote god's word, then men came form dust held by the hands of God, which he gave life.
But if someone does not believe that, and instead truely believes that is false, that proves nothing to them.
So there is no need for arguements, just please make your statement.

We argue believes because people incite us to. Also, we get some sick pleasure from being right. People also do horrendus actions just to prove their point. Kinda like how pro-abortion groups fight to the death, saying that as long as their is one toe inside the mother, it can be aborted. We find this a constant nusiance.


EDIT: Don't have time, but I'll sum this up really quickly:

Insert really long post including cavemen.


O.K. The Bible was made for adults. It's not for entertainment. Basically it's a religious law book, and law books include history if I'm not mistaken.

Second, there are certain things which are absolute determining factors. One of them, is being born again. Once you are born again, there is nothing that can make you question your faith, because you know for a fact. You see, hear, touch. it's like knowing that there is a touch-lamp next to my computer. I know for a fact that there is one, but until you get to my house, you are just going to have to assume it's there, or it isn't there.

[Kenny_C.002]

Why do we see the sky blue instead of green? Why do we like one food more than another? Why do atoms seek stability, and obtain it when they reach an 8 electron outer shell? Answer to all this is simple: We just do. That's just how it is. You say that it was just us. I say it isn't that the universe that we live in always existed, or came from nothingness. You can say "why" to every theory until they eventually reach a point where the answer is: it just is.

Just as a side note (i.e. extra information for those who like it):
The sky is blue due to reflection of light onto the atmosphere

Atoms seek stability in ways other than having 8 electrons within its outer shell. For example, Nitrogen is highly stable relative to oxygen due to the fact that all of its P orbitals have 1 electron within, giving a more solid structure. Oxygen then has a lower ionization NRG than Nitrogen.
Also, atoms like gold is highly stable due to the fact that they have a solid structure of d's, p's and s orbitals (from electron configurations) that allow such a thing.

Also on the topic of hell:

According to the Chinese religion, there are 18 levels. The frist 2 levels are for the good (level 1 is entrance and the "judging" area, level 2 is where the souls dwell until they reincarnate), and the rest are for the bad (and you go lower as your crimes get worse). Notice in the Chinese Relgion (Buddhism), there is no such thing as heaven. Our ways of communicating with the dead is done by burning of materials directed at that person (e.g. we burn money so they have currency there). They speak to us in dreams.

If that is the case, then I will be going to hell for no believing in Christ. But I would not be penalized for it (rather I will be reincarnated).

[Inferno]

How do you know for a fact that that lamp is there? It could very well all be in your mind, it could be a figment of your imagination creating this unbeleivable illusion of a lamp. And if you want to go deeper with that, how can you be sure anything is there, why can't it all be in your mind? Why can't your the world... and heaven... and God all be in your mind. Figments of your imagination? When people dream, it is highly believable to them, they can see, hear, touch everything in that dream. So, whats to say that this isn't one big dream and that's what heaven will be? If I live a pure and good life and I'm satisfied completely and souly with the results of my life when I die and my imagination takes me to this afterlife, then I think everything that I have learned about heaven up until that point might take hold and give me this great, highly believable feeling of being in an area that is so whole and so pure and so delightful. You see how heaven could be a figment of my imagination after I die? Why can't the world and life all be like that?

And arguing because you get a great deal of satisfaction from being right seems a little weird, sick, and wrong. Because if you're arguing then there kinda seems like you might have doubt in your own beliefs, meaning that theres a chance you might not be right, in your head atleast, and so you could be arguing a wrong point... so if you get a sense of satisfaction from arguing a "right" point... that seems like a false-high. You very well could be wrong... so you get a satisfaction form arguing a wrong point? or you just get satisfaction from arguing and you have no idea why?

[Magare]

And if you want to go deeper with that, how can you be sure anything is there, why can't it all be in your mind?

Dont go Matrix on us. Its a bad movie, and an even worse lifestyle...

And arguing because you get a great deal of satisfaction from being right seems a little weird, sick, and wrong.

Why would arguing for something you think is right be weird? I enjoy being right. And I enjoy when someone tries to convince me of something when I know I'm right (and I'm not talking here about God, I'm talking in general, anyone can have their belief)...

One other person kept convincing me that if I dont keep replying to what someone says I agree that guy is right. So, if I dont reply I'm wrong, and if I do reply I'm weird? :rolleyes:

People should be given a second chance

Lets get one thing clear. I am a Christian, I do believe in God, but I do not think murderers should get a second chance. EVER!!!!!! And whatever Hell is they deserve to rot in it for eternaty.

That's the problem: you just don't believe in God. You cannot enter the kingdom of heaven then

You are wrong there CS. You can not blame a person for being born in a islamic or budistic family. When the end comes, you wont be judged by your religion, but by the actions you did. Or did not to....

[Seven]

Dont go Matrix on us. Its a bad movie, and an even worse lifestyle...

XD. The second part was one of the worst movies I've ever seen...
But that aside >>
What lifestyle? *seriously wondering*


Lets get one thing clear. I am a Christian, I do believe in God, but I do not think murderers should get a second chance. EVER!!!!!! And whatever Hell is they deserve to rot in it for eternaty.

The unforgiven nature of Christianity is one of the things I hate most about it. You're gay > hell. You kill > hell. You steal > hell. You cheat > hell. you're female > can't work in church ( in some thingies (dunno the word, but ya know what I mean) ).

=\. When a priest does something wrong, suddenly it's all ok. As long as you kill in the name of God you'll go to heaven =\.


You are wrong there CS. You can not blame a person for being born in a islamic or budistic family. When the end comes, you wont be judged by your religion, but by the actions you did. Or did not to....
Too bad not many think the same way.

[Inferno]

I didn't really like Matrix. I only saw the first one. But I don't know what you're talking anyway. How is it a lifestyle? Anyway.

You just said you take pleasure in being right and debating it. That's sick. That's a weird type of high you're getting from thinking like that. That's why that's weird, it's not healthy. That's what's wrong with it. But it doesn't matter, I'm not going to debate whether I think you're mentally unstable or not. I don't take pleasure in being right, because I don't know if I am or not

"You can not blame a person for being born in a islamic or bhuddist family. When the end comes, you wont be judged by your religion, but by the actions you did. Or did not do.... "

That's one of the smartest things I've heard yet.

If everyone thinks they are right and everyone that thought they were right debated, nothing would be settled... a lot like this thread. It's not going to be settled. That's why it was created, to see how far it would go.

Now I forgot what I was going to say, crap. Anyway, how you feel when you die and what you believe affects the outcome of whether or not you go to heaven, in my eyes.

[akdude]

I don't know if I posted here before...But let's go over this from the top...

The big debate about the Big Bang is true and false. According to the Law of Conservation of Matter, matter cannot be destroyed nor created. So the big question is...where did the big planet come from. Well there's always a scientific answer for most things....but no one includes this into their thought....First God created the planet...then the big explosion. It's the only TRUE explanation for it all.

Ok we've gone through the Big Bang theory. Now for Evolution. Everyone thinks we evolved from monkeys/aps. But here's the big question for this one...How were the monkeys and aps created? We might have evolved from them, but God created us into His image, so He might have had something to do with it. But no one ever considers where everything did come from. Like I said...Nothing can be created out of thin air. So therefore, there is a God, and He ALONE creates and governs over all.

And for yalls info....In my belief, there's no Gods. Just one God and His son. As he said in Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega; the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last" dwell on the quote for a bit and get back to me.

Ak

P.S. I hope non of this offends any of u.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002
I'm certain that Jesus died on a cross, coming to a realization that historically this would have been impossible. Roman traditions dictate the posts are already on the gladiatorial stadiums (dug up, mind you), thus the the "cross" Jesus died on was only a capital "T". Thus this leads to me saying that historically he was named "son of God", but not necessarily one, if the cross "theory" has been disproven.

Ok Kenny, let's talk about this shall we. Jesus did die on a cross b/c it's impossible to be hung by a capital "T" There is proof that Jesus did die on the cross. They found the sheet that he was wrapped up in and on it, it showed how he was crusified. And the tradition isn't true. It's actually fake. Many things have been altered over the centuries so there's no way that that right there could be true. And he was historically named the "Son of God". He was consived of the Holly Spirt. Born of the virgin Marry. When He was born, there was a bright star in the Sky indicating His birth. So tell me...how could He historically be named the "Son of God"? Here is only one historically proof that He is the "Son of God"...Is the Bible.

[Kenny_C.002]

Ok Kenny, let's talk about this shall we. Jesus did die on a cross b/c it's impossible to be hung by a capital "T" There is proof that Jesus did die on the cross. They found the sheet that he was wrapped up in and on it, it showed how he was crusified. And the tradition isn't true. It's actually fake. Many things have been altered over the centuries so there's no way that that right there could be true. And he was historically named the "Son of God". He was consived of the Holly Spirt. Born of the virgin Marry. When He was born, there was a bright star in the Sky indicating His birth. So tell me...how could He historically be named the "Son of God"? Here is only one historically proof that He is the "Son of God"...Is the Bible.

Okay. You contradicted yourself by saying that the tradition itself is false at that time period because you cannot be completely sure of it. But because you are not completely sure of it, and that modern arhchaeology did find T-shaped posts used for cruicification, that you can't prove that it is false. For what mattered it made this T-shape MORE true. And if it is true, than it would be impossible for Jesus to die on a cross, since Romans did not see him as anything that is "superior".

Also, the Bible itself is written in many different versions. Though I do not study the Bible, I have reason to believe that these different versions DO have differences in them (that's why they are different versions). Does that mean that they all speak the truth, even though they speak of the situations differently?

[akdude]

Okay. You contradicted yourself by saying that the tradition itself is false at that time period because you cannot be completely sure of it. But because you are not completely sure of it, and that modern arhchaeology did find T-shaped posts used for cruicification, that you can't prove that it is false. For what mattered it made this T-shape MORE true. And if it is true, than it would be impossible for Jesus to die on a cross, since Romans did not see him as anything that is "superior".

Also, the Bible itself is written in many different versions. Though I do not study the Bible, I have reason to believe that these different versions DO have differences in them (that's why they are different versions). Does that mean that they all speak the truth, even though they speak of the situations differently?

Kenny, I'm sorry to say...But the cross....Is a T. U just don't relize that. And Romans had different ways of crusifing people. And it's not impossible for anything. And it's called faith my friend...learn it.

As for the Bible. There r a few different versions...The King James version somewhat reworded it to make more sence to most ppl. And those that actually rewrote the whole thing....Had something bad happen to them b/c nothing can be taken out or added in. And yes they all speak the truth. It's God's word, of course it's the truth. Y wouldn't it be? Kenny, try lookin it from a Christains POV. Everything in the Bible, every word of God spoken, is true. No matter what others think, say, or do. And the only reason u're saying what u r, is b/c they banned the Bible from public schools. So, techically, there's no way to be sure that u're right either.

[Kenny_C.002]

Kenny, I'm sorry to say...But the cross....Is a T. U just don't relize that. And Romans had different ways of crusifing people. And it's not impossible for anything. And it's called faith my friend...learn it.

Are you saying that I don't have faith? That's in some ways derogitory to a Buddhist man.

Anyway, Romans probably don't have anything universal in the ways of crcification, I can assume (which is unlike the Roman Army, but I won't go there). And I'm not doubting that Jesus might be on a cross, but I'm just not completely sure, thus I am skeptical (I've done research on the Roman language and the small "t" does not exist, which would have been a possible solution to this...).

As for the Bible. There r a few different versions...The King James version somewhat reworded it to make more sence to most ppl. And those that actually rewrote the whole thing....Had something bad happen to them b/c nothing can be taken out or added in. And yes they all speak the truth. It's God's word, of course it's the truth. Y wouldn't it be? Kenny, try lookin it from a Christains POV. Everything in the Bible, every word of God spoken, is true. No matter what others think, say, or do. And the only reason u're saying what u r, is b/c they banned the Bible from public schools. So, techically, there's no way to be sure that u're right either.

Exactly. There's no way to be sure that you are absolutely correct. THAT is what I've been trying to push for. I'm not saying that I'm right for sure, but I'm saying that you aren't necessarily right either.

[akdude]

Are you saying that I don't have faith? That's in some ways derogitory to a Buddhist man.

Anyway, Romans probably don't have anything universal in the ways of crcification, I can assume (which is unlike the Roman Army, but I won't go there). And I'm not doubting that Jesus might be on a cross, but I'm just not completely sure, thus I am skeptical (I've done research on the Roman language and the small "t" does not exist, which would have been a possible solution to this...).



Exactly. There's no way to be sure that you are absolutely correct. THAT is what I've been trying to push for. I'm not saying that I'm right for sure, but I'm saying that you aren't necessarily right either.

Well, I think I am right. I mean, when u think about it...It all comes down to faith and what u believe. Going online and doin research is ok, but it doens't do u any good really. To have the faith that I have, u must believe with ur heart that it actually happened. And I believe with all my heart that Jesus died on a cross, not a "T" or "t" but a cross. And being a Buddhist I'm sure u have a lot of faith in a different "God", but it's not the faith that I have for mine.

[Chris]

Debating this is pointless, IMHO because we really don't know anything about creation that can be supported with substantial evidence. It's a stalemate. :goofy:

[Matthew]

Debating this is pointless, IMHO because we really don't know anything about creation that can be supported with substantial evidence. It's a stalemate. :goofy:

lol Chris... that is somewhat true. This debate is really based on faith... and people are stubborn when it comes to faith... so in the end... no side is the victor because people are stubborn when it comes to faith :eek: :clap:

The End... lol.

[Chris]

lol Chris... that is somewhat true. This debate is really based on faith... and people are stubborn when it comes to faith... so in the end... no side is the victor because people are stubborn when it comes to faith :eek: :clap:

The End... lol.

When you think about it, everyone will have their opinion about creation but no one will be the wiser without evidence. There is scientific evidence for the big bang, but then what caused that? No one can really prove anything.

[Steven]

I'd like to know how there can be more than one religion. I mean everyone seems to think their god is the only right god, and everyone else is a sham. Otherwise they wouldn't have their religion seperate from the others.

[Inferno]

There is one explanation that I can think of, right off the bat, but I'd rather not state it at this moment. I have pissed off a few people lately, I should probably start watching what I say. :lol:
There could be more than one religion because there are many ways to salvation or means of reaching afterlife.

[akdude]

lol Chris... that is somewhat true. This debate is really based on faith... and people are stubborn when it comes to faith... so in the end... no side is the victor because people are stubborn when it comes to faith :eek: :clap:

The End... lol.


I'm sorry to say this but....The only freakin point u made it comes to faith...and u just basically repeating everything over and over again. Makes no sence to me. U gotta have another point to say than that.

Man! I thought we'd finish this by now! C'mon ppl. Stop arguin about this. There r different religions b/c ppl have different out looks on God and on their Bible. But either way...there is a God.

Now let's get pass this and move on.

[Matthew]

I'm sorry, but wht I was repeating IS my point -_-

This debate isn't over yet BECAUSE of that...

[Chris]

But either way...there is a God.

Um, so we're supposed to accept this as fact? lol

Back it up. You can't. Exactly my point as I said earlier.

[Inferno]

So now, this is going to be a thread of repetition. If we're just going to repeat oursleves... well, we could read the first 5 pages for that. No need to repeat a point unless it was missed. And if your view was debated then it was not missed.
The new subject, I believe, was "how can there be more than one right religion" or something like that.