killbot1000 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism go to the part where it says critical historical view of judaism. There it says that the jews only worshipped one god, but that they accepted the presence of other gods. And no, you didnt put up much of a fight, you ignored the arguments, and then again said 3 times that nobody can prove the bible incorrect, continue your blind march if it works for you, I have more important things to do, like finding MY OWN PATH, rather than let a book spell life out for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 ahem kum bay yah my ....my... errr kum bah yah... dapnapit, these theological debates, albiet entertaining, thought provoking, and on occassion, informative; are just soo last year. In the end what do we really learn ? that we are stubborn with our thoughts ? that we will defend to irrationality ideals/beliefs that were impressed upon us usually before we realized the beauty of choice. true you have converts, probably in both directions, lets blame these floor crossers on genetics too, just to keep things elegant. my main beef with the major religions currently en vogue, is that all tend to be exclusionary, the Quron, the modern Testaments.. etc.. all seem to set forth an ideal, that is too regimented. ie, monotheism, my religion not yours. not to mention judgemental... for christ sake. If we are part of a grand design of an omnipotent, omniescent being, and said being were to give us a handbook to divinity, i would have to assume it would be far more ecclectic, inclusionary, and tollerant of everything that makes up humanity. for example doesnt Leveiticus ( quoted a lot lately ) also condemn mixing of textile fibers ? to be honest its been a while since i've read the bible, so don't quote me. but dear god if you've laid out the divine law as to what is allowed for my denver hayes tee's to be kosher... then i'm sorry, i have a hard time taking you seriously. never had a chance to study evolution, or other scientific studies to the origins of life. but i do recall an article where scientists were able to create amino acids but colliding heavy elements together (mimicking asteroids poking our earth in the early years, maybe 6001 years ago). and i do seem to recall that quantum physics ( while maybe only applicable for things we can't really see with our own eyes ) allows for thinking that 'anything is possible', albiet somethings are highly improbable. but given the size of our universe, it would be possible that somewhat intellegent, but atleast self conscious life could come to fruition ( even though this is really out of context with quantum physics ). i wonder if my bed evolved from primordial sludge, or if it was created by the hand of god who might oddly enough now reside in china. i'll check the tag and see if the fabric is kosher.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 ahem kum bay yah my ....my... errr kum bah yah... dapnapit, these theological debates, albiet entertaining, thought provoking, and on occassion, informative; are just soo last year. In the end what do we really learn ? that we are stubborn with our thoughts ? that we will defend to irrationality ideals/beliefs that were impressed upon us usually before we realized the beauty of choice. true you have converts, probably in both directions, lets blame these floor crossers on genetics too, just to keep things elegant. my main beef with the major religions currently en vogue, is that all tend to be exclusionary, the Quron, the modern Testaments.. etc.. all seem to set forth an ideal, that is too regimented. ie, monotheism, my religion not yours. not to mention judgemental... for christ sake. If we are part of a grand design of an omnipotent, omniescent being, and said being were to give us a handbook to divinity, i would have to assume it would be far more ecclectic, inclusionary, and tollerant of everything that makes up humanity. for example doesnt Leveiticus ( quoted a lot lately ) also condemn mixing of textile fibers ? to be honest its been a while since i've read the bible, so don't quote me. but dear god if you've laid out the divine law as to what is allowed for my denver hayes tee's to be kosher... then i'm sorry, i have a hard time taking you seriously. never had a chance to study evolution, or other scientific studies to the origins of life. but i do recall an article where scientists were able to create amino acids but colliding heavy elements together (mimicking asteroids poking our earth in the early years, maybe 6001 years ago). and i do seem to recall that quantum physics ( while maybe only applicable for things we can't really see with our own eyes ) allows for thinking that 'anything is possible', albiet somethings are highly improbable. but given the size of our universe, it would be possible that somewhat intellegent, but atleast self conscious life could come to fruition ( even though this is really out of context with quantum physics ). i wonder if my bed evolved from primordial sludge, or if it was created by the hand of god who might oddly enough now reside in china. i'll check the tag and see if the fabric is kosher.. hehe, I like your post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Amino acids have been successfully created spontaneously. I think it was first done in the late 30s, but I cant recall specifically. Amino acids are, of course, not life. But it is reasonable to believe that if life is made of amino acids, that amino acids being spontaneously created from inorganic chemicals would be evidence that Life doesnt need a creator to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Amino acids have been successfully created spontaneously. I think it was first done in the late 30s, but I cant recall specifically. Amino acids are, of course, not life. But it is reasonable to believe that if life is made of amino acids, that amino acids being spontaneously created from inorganic chemicals would be evidence that Life doesnt need a creator to exist. Precisely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 See Takuro! I CAN agree. +offensive muttering starting now+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Amino acids have been successfully created spontaneously. I think it was first done in the late 30s, but I cant recall specifically. Amino acids are, of course, not life. But it is reasonable to believe that if life is made of amino acids, that amino acids being spontaneously created from inorganic chemicals would be evidence that Life doesnt need a creator to exist. But weren't the amino acids created under strict laboratory conditions under scientists who would technically be classified as gods creating life, thus being called "Creators"? Just trying to stir up more discussion and wondering if anyone can show this happening outside of laboratory conditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 The way I understand it, it cannot be successfully controlled (as in a study) in the wild. Too many variables to consider. When you take a tank of one chemical and mix it with another in a laboratory environment, you can be almost 100% sure there's no outside contamination to ruin your results. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was how easily they had formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeehre Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Anyone ever read the book Memnoch the Devil by Ann Rice? that is a cool take on the whole God vs Devil thing! Im sitting on the fence for this one as there is just no way to confirm one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I've read Memnoch the Devil. Anne Rice bores me though. There's no way to confirm or deny anything in an absolute fashion. We can just determine which concept can be applied and built apon, and which offers a solid foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I've read Memnoch the Devil. Anne Rice bores me though. There's no way to confirm or deny anything in an absolute fashion. We can just determine which concept can be applied and built apon, and which offers a solid foundation. I totally agree, my only problem is that christianity is illogical, science is not, we cant tell for sure which one is true, but logically the creation story doesnt hold water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Even if the creation story did hold water, it doesnt provide useful details, and doesnt establish a framework for future observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Even if the creation story did hold water, it doesnt provide useful details, and doesnt establish a framework for future observation. Ah, but that is the different between empirical observation and faith. Religion isn't based on science and science isn't based on religion (although some sciences, particularly archaelogy, pull information from religious sources). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Ah, but that is the different between empirical observation and faith. Religion isn't based on science and science isn't based on religion (although some sciences, particularly archaelogy, pull information from religious sources). and the earth (being flat) is the center of the universe, and the sun rotates around the earth, and the moon is made of cheese made by witches. i'd suggest religion is based heavily on social sciences... and has never gotten along with technical sciences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Religion isnt science. Why do people treat it like it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Religion isnt science. Why do people treat it like it is? I have no clue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conroe Mac Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Strict creationism I think is the result of people taking the Bible a little too literally. The Bible is an allegorical book. Just because we didn't hang out with dinosaurs, doesn't mean God didn't create us.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Strict creationism I think is the result of people taking the Bible a little too literally. The Bible is an allegorical book. Just because we didn't hang out with dinosaurs, doesn't mean God didn't create us.... True!, I dont personally believe in god, but I could totally be wrong, all im arguing is the proof in the bible, I think its stupid to ignore proof, like 65,000,000 year old fossils of dinosaurs. There could have still been a plan to our existence, I just dont "think" there was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was how easily they had formed. The Miller Urey experiment has been considered false sense the 70's. Although Amino Acids were produced, and the experiment was considered a success, it was not until the 70's could we learn what Earth's Atmosphere actually was like billions of years ago. Miller and Urey used an estimation of the Earth's Atmosphere by comparing it to Jupiter's and other Gas Giants. However, the Earth's atmosphere likely contained far less hydrogen, possibly some oxygen, and a mix of other elements that the Miller Urey experiment did not account for. They even stated that if the Atmostpheric Composition was not as it was in the Experiment, then the creation of Amino Acids was not at all possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 The Miller Urey experiment has been considered false sense the 70's. Although Amino Acids were produced, and the experiment was considered a success, it was not until the 70's could we learn what Earth's Atmosphere actually was like billions of years ago. Miller and Urey used an estimation of the Earth's Atmosphere by comparing it to Jupiter's and other Gas Giants. However, the Earth's atmosphere likely contained far less hydrogen, possibly some oxygen, and a mix of other elements that the Miller Urey experiment did not account for. They even stated that if the Atmostpheric Composition was not as it was in the Experiment, then the creation of Amino Acids was not at all possible. Just because we dont know the answer yet, doesnt mean its not there... we'll figure it out someday, thats whats so great about science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Just because we dont know the answer yet, doesnt mean its not there... we'll figure it out someday, thats whats so great about science! Haha, you could be right. But I don't see the point in acting as if the answer is there when it isn't yet. We can't just assume that all the answers we want we'll eventually have, or the answers will be the ones we expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 How valid do you think this article is? http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conroe Mac Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 How valid do you think this article is? http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html I think the scientists that will back biblical creationism are pretty few and far between (a fraction of a percent.) It's strange how people selectively take some parts of the Bible as gospel and completely ignore others. Genesis is an allegory. When was the last time you scolded yourself over not following Leviticus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 when was the last time you scolded yourself over not following Leviticus? Never. The New Testament law overthrows the old Jewish laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Never. The New Testament law overthrows the old Jewish laws. or maybe the new testament is just a second opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts