i am a born again christian

[rlrose328]

you are plain wrong here :

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

Is abiogenesis possible?

You can have your own truth... and anything you post quoted from a creationism or religious site will be your own truth... but you cannot have your own facts.

Scientists have been working on creating life from nothing for years, that is quite true.  And they are very close to doing so.  There is plenty of scientific evidence for the big bang and the resultant evolutionary trail of life.  But... and pay attention closely here, my religious friend... there IS NO EVIDENCE for the creationism story.  NONE.  The fact that we exist is the only proof you have and that is not proof.  We're talking scientific proof here, not religious proof.

Religious proof is this:  "It's in the bible, therefore, it IS fact."  

Scientific proof is this:  "We have tested, retested, re-retested this information, using multiple disciplines and multiple sources, multiple tests and multiple methods.  We have come to the conclusion that, based on the information and evidence we currently have, this can be considered a theory, which is as close to fact as we are comfortable with at this time."

You see the difference?  I hope so.

[Squid]

order and complexity is always a evidence and sign of a intelligence behind it.

[Bella]

It's always interesting to see these people run themselves around in circles.

Angelo, you are still insisting that your God created everything without evidence (and trying to twist those Bible scriptures into evidence was just hilarious). You can believe whatever you want, but it seems rather um... dense... of you to register to an Athiest site, claim that you want to "educate" us, and then say, "I don't need proof, I just believe, neener neener". You seem unable to grasp what we are telling you. Read this sentance a few times, maybe it will dawn on you:

Just because we haven't been able to completely figure out Big Bang or evolution theories does not mean that your belief (for which you do not have the slightest bit of proof to back it up) is correct.

1. The Christians LET themselves be tortured and killed? LOL! Okay, here's a quote for you:
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death."
Go drink your purple kool-aid now.  :roll:

2. Along the same line of thought from number one... A lot of Athiests believe that a man named Jesus existed, but was not the son of God... people just claimed that he was.

3. That wasn't a stupid comaprision. There are all sorts of things that make people happy (since our thought and behavior is really based on firing neurons in our brains). Some pick lying to themselves about going to heaven when they die, some pick other things.

4. Oh, what a wonderful topic!   Are you aware that we are mocking you? Are you aware that "complexity and order" aren't always the best ways to describe the universe? Why did God create Tsunami's, huh? That was really lame of him.

7. I don't believe in God and my life is far from empty! Ugh, you don't even know me (or anyone else here), so don't tell US about our lives. I have wonderful family and friends, a good job, free time, and hobbies. I'll even have a kid one day which I've heard makes life FAR from empty! I'm tired of hearing THAT one, too. People who are wasting half of their lives sitting in church (which is worse than school), patting themselves on the back and telling themselves that they are happier than everyone else. Mind-control at it's finest.

I'm happier NOW than when I was tied down with the rules and hypocracy of religion. There ARE some people in this world who can accept life for what it is... short... and just enjoy it! Not everyone has to lie to themselves because they're afraid for what will happen when they die.

[angelosergipe]

Talking about "proofs" is senseless?  But reading the bible as the ultimate proof is logical, right?  Bah..

i didnt say the bible is a ultimate proof, but the ultimate truth, based on my faith and believe. its different.

There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists. ..

if you think so, don't believe in him.

..

Without god, nothing would exist?  Without Thor, nothing would exist.  Without Yahweh, nothing would exist.  Without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nothing would exist.  Without Zeus, nothing would exist...  ..

in fact, the truth is only one. i believe the God of the bible exists, and is the truth.

..

Order and complexity exist in many places without proof of a designer.  Just because something is orderly doesn't mean there HAS to be a designer!  How pompous are the religious!  "Things are nice and orderly, therefore, GODIDIT!"  Ugh.  :roll: ..

just see my post of DNA and RNA, and convince yourself.

[Bella]

There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists. ..

if you think so, don't believe in him.

 :bang:  

[angelosergipe]

It's always interesting to see these people run themselves around in circles.

Angelo, you are still insisting that your God created everything without evidence (and trying to twist those Bible scriptures into evidence was just hilarious)..

if you do not consider it valid evidence, then don't believe it. it's easy. in my opinion, its conclusive evidence. any other thinking and not believe in God, is , in my opinion, totally irracional.

.

You can believe whatever you want, but it seems rather um... dense... of you to register to an Athiest site, claim that you want to "educate" us, and then say, "I don't need proof, I just believe, neener neener". You seem unable to grasp what we are telling you. Read this sentance a few times, maybe it will dawn on you:

Just because we haven't been able to completely figure out Big Bang or evolution theories does not mean that your belief (for which you do not have the slightest bit of proof to back it up) is correct. .

sorry, but only the RNA and DNA facts are compelling and conclusive evidence. but if you dont think it is, so believe in something else.... you have anyway only a vague believe either, that god does not exist. however, once again, without god, nothing would exist, specially not live.


let me ask you something. What do you search here at this site ? and at this thread ? if you are so convinced, god does not exist, then just live your life, and dont bother yourself with these questions. and dont question others, that have their faith and belief, in what god it might be.

[Will]

this experiment has not taken important facts in consideration. first of all, why should these elements react without a external power and force, to behave exactly the way needed, to create live?

You're asking why naturally occurring elements may interact? It's so simple, I'm finding it hard to explain, so let me put it this way: have you ever taken a breath? What are you breathing in? I can tell you. You're breathing in nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and plethora of other elements and compounds. How do they come together? They are so prevalent that they eventually and statistically must occur in the same areas most of the time. Likewise, the water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), each compounds that are incredibly common on earth today just the same as they were several billion years ago, they statistically must combine, in fact they certainly combined often. This means that as these combined often, the created amino acids often. No external power and force was required for that combination just the same as no external power or force is required to have nitrogen and oxygen together in our atmosphere.
[quote author="angelosergipe"chance give billions of other possibilities, no one will have live as a result. why should chance choose exactly the right elements , combinations, complexity and order, to create live ? it is mathematically impossible. its not reasonable. [/quote]
Forgive me for saying so, but it's clear you do not have the scientific nor mathematical expertise to give an opinion on what may or may not be possible in the evolutionary processes.
[quote="angelosergipe"]it is highly improbable that someone would just invent a story, as the bible tells us. and if, people of the first century were not stupid. do you think thousends of christians, which lived in the roman empire, did let torture themself and be killed, just for a fictionary book ?[/quote]
The word is "fictional". And of course. Just like people have died for Judaism, Islam, roman and greek mythology. People like to die for their interpretation of the meaning of life, whether it's reasonable or not. Palestinian suicide bombers die because they may have had a family member's home bulldozed. American soldiers die because they are trying to secure a country that has natural resources. There are plenty of nonsensical reasons to die, and people die for them every day. Someone dying for something hardly makes it true.

these people had a real experience with god, same as christians today have. thats why their faith is so strong. all over the globe, even today, people are persecuted because of their christians faith. and these people do not give up their faith. why ?

Christians aren't persecuted. They don't give up on their faith simply because they've been brainwashed. It's a simple process.

you will be able doing it, but beeing highly irracional. in the book of daniel, he predicted the exact year, jesus would be crucified. how do you explain that ?

He predicted the death of a fictional character in a collection of books that was not assembled until 1000 years later or more. I'd call it evidence that the bible is fake.

this is a stupid comparison. it seems you do not want to take the hipotheses God seriously, want you ?

I think the word if hypothesis, but considering the usage I'm not really sure. I take god about as seriously as I take Zeus.

if you do not consider it valid evidence, then don't believe it. it's easy. in my opinion, its conclusive evidence. any other thinking and not believe in God, is , in my opinion, totally irracional.

The word is 'irrational'. Evidence isn't something that's subjective. Quite to the contrary, evidence is something that is definite. Scientific records are clear to anyone with an understanding of science.

sorry, but only the RNA and DNA facts are compelling and conclusive evidence. but if you dont think it is, so believe in something else.... you have anyway only a vague believe either, that god does not exist. however, once again, without god, nothing would exist, specially not live.

The word is "life". This quote is precisely why I fear Creationism being taught in schools. The misinformation decimated in order to support unscientific theories tends to lead people to believe in things that simply aren't true.

let me ask you something. What do you search here at this site ? and at this thread ? if you are so convinced, god does not exist, then just live your life, and dont bother yourself with these questions. and dont question others, that have their faith and belief, in what god it might be.

[Bella]

It's always interesting to see these people run themselves around in circles.

Angelo, you are still insisting that your God created everything without evidence (and trying to twist those Bible scriptures into evidence was just hilarious)..

if you do not consider it valid evidence, then don't believe it. it's easy. in my opinion, its conclusive evidence. any other thinking and not believe in God, is , in my opinion, totally irracional.

.

You can believe whatever you want, but it seems rather um... dense... of you to register to an Athiest site, claim that you want to "educate" us, and then say, "I don't need proof, I just believe, neener neener". You seem unable to grasp what we are telling you. Read this sentance a few times, maybe it will dawn on you:

Just because we haven't been able to completely figure out Big Bang or evolution theories does not mean that your belief (for which you do not have the slightest bit of proof to back it up) is correct. .

sorry, but only the RNA and DNA facts are compelling and conclusive evidence. but if you dont think it is, so believe in something else.... you have anyway only a vague believe either, that god does not exist. however, once again, without god, nothing would exist, specially not live.


let me ask you something. What do you search here at this site ? and at this thread ? if you are so convinced, god does not exist, then just live your life, and dont bother yourself with these questions. and dont question others, that have their faith and belief, in what god it might be.

You are NOW coming to an Athiest site and telling us not to belive in God. I DO live my life and I enjoy discussing my beliefs with others. However, we have to deal with people like you. Read this blog:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... nd-an.html
We have to deal with persecution and harrassment from people like you all of the time. Yea, newsflash for you: WE are the minority. WE are the persecuted ones. Once again, you should be ashamed of yourself. You also need to stop claiming that there can't be life without God. You have NOTHING to back that up other than your faith... which proves nothing. Hence, your claims mean nothing.
 
YOU have come to ME with your ideas of God, NOT the other way around. I don't question you, I simply think you are blind and stupid... no questioning necessary. All of that questioning is long behind me and I spent years converting from Jehovah's Witness to Athiest. You have nothing new to tell me or anyone else here. You have nothing substantial to say to any of our arguments and I'm ready for you to run back to the little hole from which you came. Why are you even here? Did you really think that Athiests are just lost people who haven't done their homework?! I don't "search" this site, I look at the most recent posts. I enjoy mocking religion with intelligent people (aka, not you) and I'm disgusted about the mob-mentality acts that religion glorifies.

"Don't bother myself with these questions". Oh, really? You have failed to respond to ANY of the biblical quotes that I have posted. Like I said, I could write a book. Trying to discuss religion with you is like trying to debate Nietzsche with a dalmation. When you can't plagerize someone else's words, you have nothing substantial to say (well, not like the other author did either... but at least he could form coherent sentances).

[angelosergipe]

this experiment has not taken important facts in consideration. first of all, why should these elements react without a external power and force, to behave exactly the way needed, to create live
You're asking why naturally occurring elements may interact??

It's so simple, I'm finding it hard to explain, so let me put it this way: have you ever taken a breath? What are you breathing in? I can tell you. You're breathing in nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and plethora of other elements and compounds. How do they come together? They are so prevalent that they eventually and statistically must occur in the same areas most of the time. Likewise, the water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2), each compounds that are incredibly common on earth today just the same as they were several billion years ago, they statistically must combine, in fact they certainly combined often. This means that as these combined often, the created amino acids often. No external power and force was required for that combination just the same as no external power or force is required to have nitrogen and oxygen together in our atmosphere.
[quote="angelosergipe"chance give billions of other possibilities, no one will have live as a result. why should chance choose exactly the right elements , combinations, complexity and order, to create live ? it is mathematically impossible. its not reasonable.
Forgive me for saying so, but it's clear you do not have the scientific nor mathematical expertise to give an opinion on what may or may not be possible in the evolutionary processes.

but one thing i can say, without need to have any expertise.  
there are endless combinations possible, why should exactly the ones have happened, that were needed to create live ? and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ? this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic.

[Bella]

^Because that's the way that evolution happened. If something happened differently, we could all have five heads or have gills. If you were sitting there with your four other heads, asking that same question, how would it be any different? If you do some research on Darwin's "natural selection" you'll see that it's all very random and THIS is just how it ended up. There doesn't have to be some magical "driving force". There just has to be enough reproduction. I know it can be hard to understand... but humans are not the center and only reason for the universe existing.

[SteveS]

there are endless combinations possible, why should exactly the ones have happened, that were needed to create live ?  and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ? this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic.

Ah - but there is a driving force.  It is called 'natural law'.  Here's video from youTube that addresses this subject of probabilities and the problem with looking backwards at end results, and in assuming that 'randomness' governs the progression of physical events:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

Since you have a fascination with order and design,

order and complexity is always a evidence and sign of a intelligence behind it.

and to flesh out the counter-example Squid posted, here's another video by the same presenter than deals with this problem:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0

One further pic, I always thought basalt columns were another good example of high order in the natural world:


Almost looks like a tile floor, doesn't it?

[Will]

but one thing i can say, without need to have any expertise.

Somehow I doubt it, but go on...

there are endless combinations possible,

Wrong. There's a finite number of outcomes and considering how prevalent all of the compounds and elements were, it was a statistical inevitability. It's not just possible, but it was absolutely probable. And not just once, but millions (billions? trillions?) of times. And it did happen. You see, we're both living proof.

and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ?

Again, you need to be more schooled before discussing this topic. You're reaching for conclusions without understanding the evidence. At all. And based on grammar and syntax, I would guess that you may be in middle school.  
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039306 ... C26PI6UA6B
This is one of my favorite books. It's a simple and clear presentation of verifiable scientific evidence that paints a beautifully simple picture.

this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic.

The word is rational. Again.

No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

[rlrose328]

There IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists. ..

if you think so, don't believe in him.

 :bang:  

LOL!  Yup... you'd think that was as obvious as the nose on his face, eh?  :roll:

[angelosergipe]

there are endless combinations possible, why should exactly the ones have happened, that were needed to create live ?  and.... why actually happened a evolutionary process , if there was no driving force behind it ? this makes no sense. the right alternative is : if there is no driving force , then , simply nothing happens. this is racional and logic

Ah - but there is a driving force.  It is called 'natural law'.  Here's video from youTube that addresses this subject of probabilities and the problem with looking backwards at end results, and in assuming that 'randomness' governs the progression of physical events:.

ok, and who put these natural laws in place ? to say: they just existed always is not a rational answer. and a natural law has no force to put something in a ordered and complex way in place. its the same as to say that the words of a book did be put in place randomly. that makes no sense either.

[angelosergipe]

No driving force is necessary for evolution, as it's a natural process that's perfectly explainable.

 english is not my native language. i made  a 3month english course. thats my base.

dna genome project tells you wrong :

Finally, the Human Genome Project, an attempt to draft a rough map of the human genome, was concluded and the details of the "genetic information," which highlighted how superior God's creation of living beings is, have been revealed to mankind. Today, everyone who considers the results of this project and finds out that a single human cell contains enough information to be stored in thousands of encyclopaedia pages, grasps what a great miracle of creation this is.

It is important to understand that, with more than one billion molecules and 1/3 (333+ million) of those being the programming molecules, there are more than 122.9637 x 10 to the 32nd power (sorry, I don't have super script on this software) possible different combinations in just one chromosome. That is 1,229,637 with 28 zeros behind it. Now multiply that times the 46 chromosomes you have in every cell in your body. It is easy to see how complex this can get.


http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html


For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?