Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Bladerunner]

Rabbie: You might be interested in the video(s) I just gave to Galaxiom.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Where in the Bible does it say that?

[/quote]

Matthew 19:14: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

As I have asked before, who decided that death of an innocent is required for forgiveness? Clearly since your God created everything He created that rule.

[/quote]

God gave Moses the commandments his people to live by. Up until Jesus showed up, the rules were for the Israelis. When Jesus died it give the gentiles a way to reach heaven. I have heard your hatred for him hut he does love you and only ask that you believeth in him. If you do not in the end of your life, only you and God will know. It always has been your choice. Nobody especially me is trying to drag you there.

I will say this, that for all of you who do not believe, I pray that God will give you enough time in the seconds before you die to make a final choice.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

wait a minute.....you said in an earlier post: "All your article proclaims is that it isn't part of the Australopithecus family and I do believe I already said it wasn't. Lucy was part of the Ardipithecus Family - not Australopithecus."

I do believe the article in question did place Lucy in the Australopithecus family and you said it was not...Please make up you mind/.

Another quote from that post of ConnorGiles: "Second I've already said Lucy wasn't part of the Australopithecus family and is part of the Ardipithecus. Still a transitional fossil."

Blade

That would be called finding evidence that counter acts previous statements. Here is a massive difference between lack of religion and religion blade. We actually try and prove ourselves wrong and in essence proving religion wrong just comes with the package. Religion just tries and prove science wrong with no thought to their own belief system.

 

[ConnorGiles]

I particularly like incest problem.

I have no idea what to think on this

I am not sure about the dating, because others have been wrong as in the Exodus of the Hebrew People from Egypt. It still remains a problem for us to date things further than a few thousand years back with any reliability. Same way with the Universe. its age is just an assumption. I dare say Theory because there are those in here that say a theory is law or is at the very least real.

We decipher the rough age of the universe via a few methods. One of them being studying the way stars are born, evolve and die. White dwarf stars are a great example as they are what the sun will eventually look like (or to clarify they were once like the sun).

Some of my information was added from this website. You may learn something here blade.

http://stardate.org/astro-guide/btss/cosmology/age_of_the_universe

ALSO you never answered my main question? How do you explain fossils found to be countless years older than your religion claims the universe to be? If dating the fossils is an issue. I think we would have noticed a T-REX walking around a good couple of thousand years ago

 

[ConnorGiles]

In a mere 2000 years, the average height of an adult male has grown a few inches.

I'm 6'5 / 6'6 the closest person in my family to my height was my great grandfather who was 6'4 (My Mom and dad are just under 6 foot, Before someone says I'm adopted I'm not.)

And a guy in my work is 6'9!

 

[ConnorGiles]

You see everything man kind has done done to date in regards to dating has come from a bunch of assumptions. Nothing concrete. Except the written word of God.

PLEASE, PLEASE... Tell me no one missed this?

 

[ConnorGiles]

I will say this, that for all of you who do not believe, I pray that God will give you enough time in the seconds before you die to make a final choice.

Thanks bud, (I Guess)

I hope Cthulhu takes mercy on you and devours you quickly and painlessly.

EDIT: Oh, and I hope you don't go completely insane beforehand in his presence.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Connor - regarding this:

You see everything man kind has done done to date in regards to dating has come from a bunch of assumptions. Nothing concrete. Except the written word of God.

Galaxiom did a number on that on the previous page.

Your quote in the following post makes me think of a comeback a friend of mine has when someone tells him they'll pray for him: "And I'll talk to my cat about you. It'll have just as much effect."

 

[ConnorGiles]

Connor - regarding this:

Galaxiom did a number on that on the previous page.

Your quote in the following post makes me think of a comeback a friend of mine has when someone tells him they'll pray for him: "And I'll talk to my cat about you. It'll have just as much effect."

I didn't see that post - would you be able to tell me the number

Not a bad come back at all Frothing! Too true!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade - having worked as a chemist (the "Doc" in my name is because my Ph.D. in Chemistry was earned, not gifted), I am intimately familiar with various radioactive and other dating methods. What I am worried about is how you are using junk science articles with clearly religious bias to try to prove points that can't be proven.

Let's be clear also - I am not trying to be "holier than thou" but if you wish to talk about theory, try to understand the scientific use of that term rather than using the colloquial version. Capital-T Theories have gone through the scientific refinement method that starts with a Capital-C Conjecture as the result of someone's observation.

Evolution is a Theory that consists of many parts including but not limited to survival of the fittest, speciation driven by pressure to survive in a given environment, and survival of favorable or benign mutations. We have strong evidence for the truth of the individual elements that make up the current Theory of Evolution. Some of that evidence came from clergy. For instance, the Theory of Genetics was based on the work of the monk Gregor Mendel.

For you to attempt to downplay the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Radioactive Dating, you have to be able to negate literally a couple of hundred years worth of hard evidence. I respectfully submit that Don Quixote would have better luck with his windmills than you will have with your sadly closed-minded attempts to evade the harsh truths of evolution and radioactive dating.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Further comments to Bladerunner

When you use junk science to claim that you have found evidence of God's existence, you are ignoring your own scripture, which I find to be too sad to laugh at. The so-called Creation Science articles that try to negate hard scientific evidence are actually dangerous to devout religious people. They are so toxic that they have often stopped using the term "Creation Science" and have tried to pass themselves off as ordinary science.

I don't know if the interface here will let me present the whole argument, but I will try right now.

From the Bible, let's take three fairly simple statements attributed to Jesus. First, we have to deal with a fine point. If you are a believer in Jesus as one of the Trinity, then when Jesus speaks, it is also God who is speaking, since they are one. (If you don't believe in the Trinity, this might get trickier, but let's go on.)

Jesus told Pilate: My kingdom is not of this world. But science is ENTIRELY of this world. Why would Creation Science be able to tell us anything about the kingdom of Jesus that ordinary science can't tell us?

Jesus told his followers: Only through faith shall you come to me. This has further been interpreted in light of comments about those who seek knowledge seeking the wrong thing. In essence, if you seek God, you must have faith without the need to prove anything.

Jesus told Satan (in the desert, when Satan invited him to test God): Thou shall not test the Lord thy God. I.e. it is wrong to test because it means you have no faith. You need proof. But faith is belief without the necessity of having proof.

Let's put those together. Creation Science attempts to use methods of measuring stuff in this world to test God (whose kingdom is in another world) so as to gain proof rather than faith. Three actions that Jesus said were wrong.

Suppose that you actually used this science to find a god and prove his existence. Would you worship this god that you just found and proved? Remember, if you can prove the existence of this god, he is clearly not smarter than Man, because you found him. However, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph says "Only through faith..." So which god did you find? If you worship that god, you would be violating the commandment about putting no other gods before Me.

Which entity in the Bible would benefit from such a situation? Satan, of course, wants to deceive you and make you fall away from God's worship. So Creation Science is the work of Satan. Are you SURE you want to rely on the junk science?

 

[Frothingslosh]

I didn't see that post - would you be able to tell me the number

Post 4793
10-char

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

The Doc Man,

You only left out one thing:

*Drop mic*

 

[Galaxiom]

When Jesus died it give the gentiles a way to reach heaven.

So only by having His own son (a manifestation of Himself) killed could God possibly allow gentiles into heaven?

Why did God make this rule?

Blood sacrifice. Savoring the smell of burning flesh. Eternal damnation for thos who will not worship. Punishing all women for ever for Eve's transgression. Punishing children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors. Having children torn apart by bears because they made a joke about a man's baldness. Killing a man's family to prove to Satan that He is loved by His followers.

All these things and many more are clearly laid out in the Bible along with His plan to massacre most of the people on the planet yet again.

Your God is a madman who in today's world would be convicted of crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile His followers claim that He is the source of morality. What a joke.

 

[Rabbie]

I'm 6'5 / 6'6 the closest person in my family to my height was my great grandfather who was 6'4 (My Mom and dad are just under 6 foot, Before someone says I'm adopted I'm not.)

And a guy in my work is 6'9!

The increase in average height may not be due to genetic changes but rather to better nutrition. It may be also that better nutrition has allowed genetic changes to manifest themselves without too many negative costs

 

[Galaxiom]

The increase in average height may not be due to genetic changes but rather to better nutrition. It may be also that better nutrition has allowed genetic changes to manifest themselves without too many negative costs

If our development were directly dependent on our genes alone we would not do well in a rapidly changing environment. Hence the expression of genes is controlled by the activation and deactivation through methylation in a process known as epigenetics.

The environment experienced by a woman has a direct effect on the development of the eggs in her ovaries which carry though to the expression of genes at least as far as her grandchildren.

When times are tough we tend towards smaller children for a couple of generations and vice versa. After a couple of extremely well fed generations we can see the average size of the recent generations has grown. My sons are 6'2" and 6'4".

A considerable part of the modern obesity epidemic is driven by the life experiences of a couple of preceding generations.

 

[Bladerunner]

[quote = Galaxiom 4796] The mitochondria is a separate entity that lives in the cytoplasm of the cell. There is no evidence being involved in genetic recombination and it has never been observed to do so. Such notions are speculation by believers masquerading as scientists because they are desperate to make the Biblical account scientifically plausible.

[/quote]

Hum Mol Genet. 2004 Dec 15;13(24):3171-9. Epub 2004 Oct 20.
Heterologous mitochondrial DNA recombination in human cells.
D'Aurelio M1, Gajewski CD, Lin MT, Mauck WM, Shao LZ, Lenaz G, Moraes CT, Manfredi G.
Author information
Abstract

Inter-molecular heterologous mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) recombination is known to occur in yeast and plants. Nevertheless, its occurrence in human cells is still controversial. To address this issue we have fused two human cytoplasmic hybrid cell lines, each containing a distinct pathogenic mtDNA mutation and specific sets of genetic markers. In this hybrid model, we found direct evidence of recombination between these two mtDNA haplotypes. Recombinant mtDNA molecules in the hybrid cells were identified using three independent experimental approaches. First, recombinant molecules containing genetic markers from both parental alleles were demonstrated with restriction fragment length polymorphism of polymerase chain reaction products, by measuring the relative frequencies of each marker. Second, fragments of recombinant mtDNA were cloned and sequenced to identify the regions involved in the recombination events. Finally, recombinant molecules were demonstrated directly by Southern blot using appropriate combinations of polymorphic restriction sites and probes. This combined approach confirmed the existence of heterogeneous species of recombinant mtDNA molecules in the hybrid cells. These findings have important implications for mtDNA-related diseases, the interpretation of human evolution and population genetics and forensic analyses based on mtDNA genotyping.

hey, you are in my field now..... I stated before it was still controversial like global warming. I understand that when you run out of excuses for human evolution and a way to account for everyone in the world, you have nothing left.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

[quote = Galaxiom 4796] You show a photo of a pillar. Once again, if it was from the time of Exodus it would be common knowledge.

You can visit the pillar of salt that was supposed to have come from Lot's wife too. Religious fakes abound.

[/quote]

Oh yes, and that is the reason why it is covered up in a Muslim/Islamic nation. You reasoning is getting worse. I am just showing you findings that are there, have been (according to one of your methods of dating). This film shows quite a bit other things that a good atheist will hit on. But the dating is the crux of the problem and you have no problem with it.................

 

[Bladerunner]

[quote = Galaxiom 4796] Research has shown that Wikipedia is reliable on hard science because any nonsense is removed.

[/quote]

You mean to tell me you have no problem with WIkiped.... Only science wiki is acceptable now? Oh, wow,,,, I guess I misunderstood before. Do not to use it except for science stuff. Did all you other atheist here this, Connor?

No, it is too controversial, as far as I am concerned it is out also.


Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

To address this issue we have fused two human cytoplasmic hybrid cell lines, each containing a distinct pathogenic mtDNA mutation and specific sets of genetic markers. In this hybrid model, we found direct evidence of recombination between these two mtDNA haplotypes.

They first fused two cells so the mitochondria from different lines were located in a single cell.

This process is not something that occurs naturally in humans.