7 days or 7 billion years?

pts

uprising wrote: »

So why do doctors give antibiotics for the flu virus, it does nothing but strenghten it

Listen, I'm getting very impatient with you as you make silly claims, then when you're shown to be wrong move on making new silly claims. Let me put it this way just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not true.

uprising

Alarm bells were going off way back in the 70's when antibiotics started being prescribed for just about everything under the sun including nonbacterial infections. The overuse acted to breed ever stronger germs by wiping out the weaker strains but leaving the more hardy ones to increase their resistance. It is truly a case of survival of the fittest.
In 1977, Doctor Michael Jacobs of South Africa, reported a strep pneumonia bacteria that resisted every known drug at the time. That was South Africa but today such strains are showing up in the U.S. and our existing pneumococcal vaccines likely won't stop them.
In 1981, Professor Stuart Levy of Tufts University, along with 200 other scientists and public health officials worldwide issued one of the first urgent public warnings about the misuse of antibiotics and the risk of germs becoming resistant to them.

lil'princess

keen wrote: »

I picked Natural Selection etc.

But I still don't understand what made it possible for natural selection to take place.

A bunch of random things happened and useful ones hung around.

Think of two giraffes living in an area with tall trees. One giraffe has a small neck and the other has a long neck. The long neck can reach the trees and eat so therefore survives to pass on it's genetic material. The short neck can't reach the leaves on the trees and therfore dies so doesn't pass on its genes. after awhile short necks die out. = natural selection in a some what dumbed down version but he it makes sense.

uprising

pts wrote: »

Listen, I'm getting very impatient with you as you make silly claims, then when you're shown to be wrong move on making new silly claims. Let me put it this way just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not true.

Your the sheep, you dont understand viruses, no-one does, if we did we wouldnt be dying from them, and so what if your getting impatient, what should i do? believe you waffling about something thats not understood by anybody especially you.

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

What are the indications?
There are more indications for there not to be a God.

Are there? I'm interested to see what your indications are. I have a brief list of indications in my signature. I want you genuinely to provide a list for the indications for why God does not exist though as it is very rare that an atheist in these parts actually lists them without trying to push questions on the Christian. I will read and give a response.

Twin-go wrote: »

All Faith by its nature is blind. It has no logical proof.

Interesting. Is atheism blind for the same reason? I disagree that blind faith depends on proof or not. If people manage to argue with reason for why God exists with reference to sources outside of the Bible I think one cannot but applaud someone for doing this.

I personally find agnostics more rational than atheists.

Twin-go wrote: »

Your getting into simantics here. Ok the fact is when you die there is no brain activity. You cease to exist. Where is your proof of the after life? Back to blind faith again.

We have no reason to exclude the possibility. As far as I'm concerned we could just as likely have existed prior to our birth as much as we couldn't have. It's up to people to make their case from this point.

Twin-go wrote: »

Sorry, you follow a guy that walked the earth 2000 years ago claiming to be the Son of God. If somebody was to do that now the would be sectioned under the mental health act.

If it was merely as much as Jesus claiming to be the Son of God I wouldn't believe. I found that Jesus has substantiated the Jewish scriptures and had fulfilled who the prophets had prophesied him to be on over 300 cases. So, yes, I would trust someone who passed such a robust test of who He claimed to be over the will of corrupt men.

These are just some of them.

Twin-go wrote: »

Does the Church not have the Ten commandments? Rules you must follow? Written by a man, Moses, to ensure his people adhered to social norms. Restricting their free will to whorship who/what they wanted.

Written by Moses, revealed by God. As for restricting their free will to worship. I think if I believed that Christianity or in Moses' case Judaism was the truth I would want as many people as possible to believe in the truth rather than mere fable.

Twin-go wrote: »

Just because somebody is not devoted to God does not mean they are devoted to the Evils of the world.

I would prefer a clear point of reference.

Twin-go wrote: »

If it was proven to you that God did not exist would you suddenly become Evil? Is That what you are saying? You need him so you stay on the streight and narrow.

Every man has sinned. Therefore every man is considered to have done evil before God. Ever wonder why the expression "born again" is used in Christianity? Well, it means that through baptism we accept Jesus' punishment as the punishment of our sins, and that we are raised to new life in Christ, leaving what sinful ways we have carried out in the present behind.

Twin-go wrote: »

The majorty of people no matter what there believes are, are good people.
Do you not think humanity can look after itself?
I think its sad you have no faith in humanity.

I disagree with this hypothesis. I don't agree with your definition of good. Everybody has sinned, therefore nobody is good on their own accord.

Twin-go wrote: »

I have seen many so called Christians that have not lived out their faith in honesty and integrity, but that is true of all walks of live. It's when the Church does its best the protect these evil people that live within its ranks I have a problem. Many crimes are commited in the name of religion, many people kill and have been killed in the name of religion (Northern Ireland, Middle East etc.). It's true that if there was no religion these people would find some other reason to fight. It may be easier for example if in the North there was no religion. The different communities may have inter-married by now and the divide be less apparent.

I agree with you on the crimes which have taken place in the name of religion. These are however a vast minority. I also could cite crimes which have taken place in the name of atheism throughout the world from the Enlightenment onwards.

Christianity overwhelmingly has a positive face on the world, and has overwhelmingly distanced itself from atrocities. That's what I am pleased at. In the modern world Christianity in general has been bearing fruit in the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately good deeds aren't as documented as well as the bad ones, and unfortunately some people regard corruption by man as being the same thing as God directly causing atrocities.

Twin-go wrote: »

China is a Communist country not an Atheist Country. Poland was a Communist country but yet 90% of its Population were Roman Catholic. Communism and Ateism are absolutly mutually exclusive. I'm am Atheist but I'm am not Communist. Its also possible to be Democrat and Atheist, Socialist and Atheist. let's as you say be "intellectually honest"

Sorry this is just wrong. In the 20th century a vast majority of communist nations enforced State Atheism on their populaces. Communism and atheism have been twined together since the time of Karl Marx. They are not mutually exclusive. It's very possible to be both an atheist and a communist. That's as intellectually honest as you will get.

Many atheists are not communists, but many are also.

Twin-go wrote: »

In many countries Religion causes oppression of minorities. Religions such as Islam and Christians think Homosexuality is evil. In Islamic states women are treated like second class citizens.

I disagree with the ethics of homosexuality, yet I still respect people I know who are gay and I still engage in a positive relationship with them by all means possible. Just because someone has a disagreement doesn't mean that one has to descend into hatred. I don't know how I could be considered to be "oppressing" anyone either as an individual believer.

Twin-go wrote: »

Athiesm does not oppress any group.

Many ideologies in history have given rise to oppression in the past. These ideologies when abused can cause hatred, and corruption. Atheism is included, Christianity is included, Islam is included, racism is included, as well as numerous other ideologies.

The point is that Jesus Christ never encouraged this, so it's pretty ridiculous to blame atrocities such as these on Christianity when they are clearly not a part of Christian belief in general.

Twin-go wrote: »

Religion was created by Man when Man was incapable of understanding His world. As we become more capable of understanding the world around us we will come to realise the folly of following a so called God.

This is merely a belief of yours. I respect your right to hold it but I cannot help but be convinced otherwise.

My name is URL

uprising wrote: »

Well please explain the concept, concept is an idea, early people had the idea if you sail out to sea you will fall off the side.

So i dont understand somebodys idea, but is it fact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJQ4EgFRNc&feature=channel_page

DTrotter

Jakkass wrote: »

Every man has sinned. Therefore every man is considered to have done evil before God. Ever wonder why the expression "born again" is used in Christianity? Well, it means that through baptism we accept Jesus' punishment as the punishment of our sins, and that we are raised to new life in Christ, leaving what sinful ways we have carried out in the present behind.
.

Why did jesus have to die again?

uprising

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJQ4EgFRNc&feature=channel_page

This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.

My name is URL

uprising wrote: »

This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.

Damn, I should have used Megavideo :pac:

Here's the same vid, in sh1t quality - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjpziQQnyNo&feature=related

philologos

DTrotter wrote: »

Why did jesus have to die again?

To fuflil Messianic prophesy. In Judaism to be considered the Messiah you had to be martyred. If Jesus did not die, Jesus would not have been the Messiah.

See Isaiah 53 for clarification.

There are also numerous other reasons I could list but this is probably one of the primary ones.

Of course you know however, that Jesus had victory over the grave through the Resurrection, and Christians according to Christianity have victory over sin (or have been set free from it) due to the new life they have in Christ.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
Jesus was crucified so that if we accept Him as our Saviour we may be passed over at the day of Judgement.

Likewise the lamb in Exodus 12 was on the door of the Israelites so that they would be passed over when God was punishing the Egyptians.

The Jews were freed from slavery to the Egyptians, the Christians were freed from the slavery to sin.

keen

Jakkass wrote: »

To fuflil Messianic prophesy. In Judaism to be considered the Messiah you had to be martyred. If Jesus did not die, Jesus would not have been the Messiah.

See Isaiah 53 for clarification.

There are also numerous other reasons I could list but this is probably one of the primary ones.

Of course you know however, that Jesus had victory over the grave through the Resurrection, and Christians according to Christianity have victory over sin (or have been set free from it) due to the new life they have in Christ.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
Jesus was crucified so that if we accept Him as our Saviour we may be passed over at the day of Judgement.

Likewise the lamb in Exodus 12 was on the door of the Israelites so that they would be passed over when God was punishing the Egyptians.

The Jews were freed from slavery to the Egyptians, the Christians were freed from the slavery to sin.

Who made God?

lil'princess

keen wrote: »

Who made God?

Theologically God simply is. God is not necessarily tied with creation. God is the source of his own being.

keen

lil'princess wrote: »

Theologically God simply is. God is not necessarily tied with creation. God is the source of his own being.

That's the bit I don't get. It seems a cop out for a question that can't be answered.

philologos

keen wrote: »

Who made God?

I don't think God is the source of His own being. However most traditional Christian positions have seen God as eternal, having always existed. Thomas Aquinas deals with this topic in a book I have, although I only dealt with his section on morality really, so I must get around to the chapter concerning God for his reasoning on it.

keen

Jakkass wrote: »

However most traditional Christian positions have seen God as eternal, having always existed.

I can't see how anyone could simple except that fact without question, if you think about for a bit it sounds completely absurd.

lil'princess

keen wrote: »

That's the bit I don't get. It seems a cop out for a question that can't be answered.

Thats what faith is, we don't know, there could be, so we believe.

dlofnep

I believe that we are the genetic experiment of space aliens from planet Zog. Although suprisingly, that was not an option in the poll.

philologos

keen wrote: »

I can't see how anyone could simple except that fact without question, if you think about for a bit it sounds completely absurd.

As absurd as saying the universe created itself?

It isn't anything that I accept without question, I'm open to alternative explanations if the are any. I personally don't know if God was created or not and I'm willing to have people prompt me to think about it more often.

Mrmoe

There is only one theory in this poll and that is the theory of evolution. The rest can not be called theories.

Dictionary: the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)


Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

keen

Jakkass wrote: »

As absurd as saying the universe created itself?

It isn't anything that I accept without question, I'm open to alternative explanations if the are any. I personally don't know if God was created or not and I'm willing to have people prompt me to think about it more often.

Yes I would say as absurd as saying the universe created itself.

I think nobody knows, it's a mystery too us all. God/Relegion is a easy way to explain a good chunk of it without addressing the difficult questions, when there asked faith is brought into the equation.

Evoultion gives us a fair view answers to how life formed/adapted on Earth but that's about, it still lacks answers in the same way religion does.

lil'princess

Mrmoe wrote: »

There is only one theory in this poll and that is the theory of evolution. The rest can not be called theories.

Dictionary: the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)


Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

For arguments sake:
number 6 of that definition proves that others well creationist are theory anyway - Genisis being the limited information that people take word for word as it is inspired by God

philologos

Interesting you say that because many have argued that the universe indeed did create itself.

lil'princess

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting you say that because many have argued that the universe indeed did create itself.

Well we'll know for sure if it did creat itself when they can get the multi billion dollar tube in Cern working and they find the Hicks particle.

Hagar

Well if God got 1 day off after working for 6 days I'd say fair enough but if he is on a 1 billion year holiday now it explains a lot.

j1smithy

Smart Bug wrote: »

It's 200 years since Darwin's birth & 150 since the publication of 'On the Origin of Species'.

So, how far have we come? Have we evolved or are we still superstitious idiots, hmm?

What's your view on life on earth & how it got here...

Why pose the question, then refer to people who don't adhere to your view idiots?

I do believe in Darwins theories but opening statements like that aren't conductive to rational debate.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting you say that because many have argued that the universe indeed did create itself.

Not only could the universe have created itself, but we know how it could have created itself (note this is the not the same thing as saying that is what happened).

It becomes a much less absurd idea when you realise that time can be "curved".

Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs-giving no first-cause.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997astro.ph.12344G

mobius42

It seems stupid to me to say that the Universe can't have created itself and then say that God doesn't have a creator. Why does the Universe need a creator but God not? Why not use Occam's razor and cut out an unneeded layer of complexity by saying that the Universe created itself?

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever discover what, if anything, created the Universe because the start of the Universe is time=0. Before that, nothing existed, by definition. However, who knows what future discoveries will be made?

uprising

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Words from the man himself.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So all you experts here know more than darwin, he confesses its absurd

bleg

pointless thread is pointless

mobius42

uprising wrote: »

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Words from the man himself.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

So all you experts here know more than darwin, he confesses its absurd

Nice try. You'll have to do more than misquote people to disprove evolution.

this quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."