Do you think that God actually exists?

[LordOVchaoS]

If hairychris didn't have a Blackmachine I think I'd have to start flaming him

I've never read so many words that amount to nothing. Your points aren't any more valid than they were with your blanket statement of a first post in this thread.

I don't really have time to get into it, I'm on my lunch break. I may have time to debate Sunday See you then if it's still heated in here

 

[Sick Michael]

Nice thread.

 

[Telephant]

without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[bill]

Well put

 

[Speed_Racer71]

the thing i think about a lot is, what if i dont get it right in this life and have to come back down here and do the shit all over again until i do get it right. with all the bs the world has going on i sure dont want to have to come back again and again ya know i think once is enough

 

[soc_monki]

Nope sorry. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count in each species is fixed. For this reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. Again I think my point stands and is valid that belief in the the unproven is evident even in science.


Please do yourself a favor and stop bringing up the Catholic Church and what they have supposedly done or havnt done. They by no means speak for all Christians and is why I ignore your references to that.

actually there is...within our (human) DNA. genetics and elevolution show that we came from apes, and we share more than 90% of our DNA with chimps. you can find those anywhere. what is LESS known (because scientists admittedly dont say much about their discoveries to the general public) is that we have less chromosomes than chimps and other apes...yet we descend from them (through common ancestors). how can this be?

well the reason is that 2 of the ape chromosomes merged! thus changing the number of chromosomes (mutation), yet we are here! so we can reproduce just fine, right? theres your proof that it can happen, and has happened.

heres Kenneth Miller talking about it (a christian AND scientist...and a brilliant man!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[ejecta]

Nope sorry. There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count in each species is fixed. For this reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. Again I think my point stands and is valid that belief in the the unproven is evident even in science.


Please do yourself a favor and stop bringing up the Catholic Church and what they have supposedly done or havnt done. They by no means speak for all Christians and is why I ignore your references to that.

actually there is...within our (human) DNA. genetics and elevolution show that we came from apes, and we share more than 90% of our DNA with chimps. you can find those anywhere. what is LESS known (because scientists admittedly dont say much about their discoveries to the general public) is that we have less chromosomes than chimps and other apes...yet we descend from them (through common ancestors). how can this be?

well the reason is that 2 of the ape chromosomes merged! thus changing the number of chromosomes (mutation), yet we are here! so we can reproduce just fine, right? theres your proof that it can happen, and has happened.

heres Kenneth Miller talking about it (a christian AND scientist...and a brilliant man!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Thanks for the link! One thing he has to presupose common ancestory in the first place to come up with his conclusion about #2. Also there is proof that human chromosome #2 and ape chromosome #13 are not alinged with the centromere.

 

[Cflat96]

Everyone in this thread is wrong. The answer is obvious. It's a combination of both sides. The Bible IS Truth. That crazy shit in the Bible DID happen. It's just the translation that is incorrect. And they will return.

Someones been reading Zacharia Sitchin eh?

Yes. Some of his ideas are hard to believe. But here's the funny part;
When I look at all of this as objective as I can, it makes more sense than most of what's been posted in this thread.

I still think we don't know shit. We didn't know shit then. We know a little more shit now, but it's still shit. Does anybody honestly think we've hit the wall?
Do you remember learning about ancient civilizations, like the Aztek? Remember reading about ancient Greece? THAT is our fate. To be studied in schools of the future, and to be thought of as "cute" for believing what we did. Just like every civilization before us. Teh Humble Police need to smack some bitches, fo realz.

 

[defpearlpilot]

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

No, it didn't happen only once in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

Thanks for posting that and I have read that before. The only thing is from my study of the Jews and thier strict religion is this seems to overlook a simple fact: No respectable Jew especially one like Paul who was a pharisee (very eduacted keeper of Jewish law) would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian/Egyptian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of his/her Messiah. Especially since the Egyptians enslaved them for such a long time and treated them rather brutally. Is it possible? Sure, but again I wonder is it probable. I really dont think so. Lastly, if a false story of a simular event comes before an actual event, that doesnt necessarily negate the reality of the later event nor does it prove that one copied from the other.

But the Jews weren't waiting for a Messiah. They are/were waiting for a King.

 

[Xabiche]

I had to force myself to not read this thread. This topic always ends up aggravating me.

I will say this: I think as long as you live with love in your heart and you're a good person, nothing else matters.

I stayed away for awhile but had my usual lapse in judgment, too

What you said should be enough. To me THAT is an absolute truth.

 

[ejecta]

But the Jews weren't waiting for a Messiah. They are/were waiting for a King.

Not according to this Jewish professor from Wales who says that have for over 4000 years.

http://www.imja.com/rufeisen.html

 

[defpearlpilot]

But the Jews weren't waiting for a Messiah. They are/were waiting for a King.

Not according to this Jewish professor from Wales who says that have for over 4000 years.

http://www.imja.com/rufeisen.html

From what I know, most translations from Hebrew said it was a king. I took classes on the bible in college from a Jewish professor. But then again, this is one of the fundamental problems with taking truth from a book. I'm surprised that the King James version of the bible has so much clout since it's been extremely bastardized from original texts.

 

[ejecta]

But the Jews weren't waiting for a Messiah. They are/were waiting for a King.

Not according to this Jewish professor from Wales who says that have for over 4000 years.

http://www.imja.com/rufeisen.html

From what I know, most translations from Hebrew said it was a king. I took classes on the bible in college from a Jewish professor. But then again, this is one of the fundamental problems with taking truth from a book. I'm surprised that the King James version of the bible has so much clout since it's been extremely bastardized from original texts.

Oh I agree with you on the KJV. I too took Bible classes in a college much later in my life when I went to finish my degrees....... KJV = scary. That said everything Ive read has said that they have been looking for a Messiah for a long time and even those who dont think Jesus is the Messiah are still looking. This makes me really suspect to all these theories who claim that the Jews borrowed form previous religions.The Jews dont seem to me be ones who just change thier beliefs so easily.

 

[GRK]

if god exists, then he plays mesa.

/end

 

[Phishphood]

if god exists, then he plays mesa.

/end

No he either plays a krank or a madison divinity

 

[TheAmazingBlob]

Do I think that God exists?


No, I don't.

 

[shredhead666]

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

No, it didn't happen only once in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

All ancient tall-tales my friend. Virgins were considered more divine and of course glorified. Surely someone's savior couldn't have come from an "unclean" woman. Not to mention the punishment for adultery was death by stoning. Easy enough just to lie about it, right?

Now then, if Jesus was born of a single set of DNA, wouldn't he have been an exact clone of Mary (and hence NOT a man)?

 

[soc_monki]

Thanks for the link! One thing he has to presupose common ancestory in the first place to come up with his conclusion about #2. Also there is proof that human chromosome #2 and ape chromosome #13 are not alinged with the centromere.

they did presuppose common ancestry...and wondered why we had less chromosomes than other primate species...science predicted that 2 chromosomes must have fused to do that, or we arent primates at all. well, we found that #2 has telomeres in the middle, where theyre not supposed to be, so thats where the 2 chromosomes went. you cant really presuppose common ancestry...its pretty clearly shown that we did have common ancestors.

and with the chromosomes not being aligned with the centromere...not everything is going to stay exactly the same after hundreds of thousands of years. just as those chromosomes merged, other things happen as well. theres enough proof to show that we are related to other primate species IMO. evolution ftw!

disclaimer : this is purely scientific speak, and i in no way say that there is or isnt a deity that could have influenced the path of evolution. just wanted to make that clear! LOL

 

[soc_monki]

The virgin birth is impossible if we know human biology. For this to happen, there has to be a PHYSICAL causation (eggs and so-on are physical entities and respond to the relevant physical laws) that somehow bypasses the normal route of physics, chemistry and biology. And this happened only once in human history. Hm. You're trying to apply an unknown causation to a known physical result - namely a child - of a process that we are intimately knowledgable of across many mammallian species. Applying Occam's wonderful Razor we ask what's more likely - a complete cessation of natural law in a single case of the species' history, or the kid had a natural father and the story has been exaggerated... Probability says the latter. REASON, via our current knowledge of the physical universe, says the latter.

No, it didn't happen only once in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births
http://englishatheist.org/indexd.shtml

All ancient tall-tales my friend. Virgins were considered more divine and of course glorified. Surely someone's savior couldn't have come from an "unclean" woman. Not to mention the punishment for adultery was death by stoning. Easy enough just to lie about it, right?

Now then, if Jesus was born of a single set of DNA, wouldn't he have been an exact clone of Mary (and hence NOT a man)?

no, i think it has to do something like with Zeus...he was known to be a ladies man!

 

[Phishphood]

no, i think it has to do something like with Zeus...he was known to be a ladies man!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=10MlRRMIV8o

2:30