Religulous [CAUTION: could offend]

[Vitruvian]

Bill Mar is a self hating Homosexaule

Why is Maher's sexuality relevant?

God loves [homosexuals] and he made them how they are.

Is that why, in Leviticus 20:13, he declares that all homosexuals should be put to death?

It is because we Christians stopped the Holacost

Last I checked, most Germans (Nazis included) were (and still are) Christians.  What's your point?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Yep, you got it... and I'm still not convinced (not that you didn't put up a good argument), it's just that a few autocatalytic reactions are FAR from a self-reproducing form of life and I have personally seen scientists make idiots out of themselves trying to explain this necessary part of evolution, throwing in such shoddy statements as "well me KNOW it happened", and even saying it was possible aliens may have supplied Earth with the beginnings of life... completely ridiculous.

However life was created, I'm here now and that's all that REALLY matters to me. That said, you're saying "Since scientists can't duplicate the autogenesis of life, it hasn't happened". You seem to forget that there are many more forces at work in the universe. Humans have been trying this for, say, a hundred years max, yet the universe had billions of years and semi-infinite amount of resources to produce a wide range of possible outcomes.

I've heard an arguement similar to yours that used the roundness of celestial bodies to point to evidence of divine creation - surely that order couldn't arise naturally? This assumes that there were never cubical planets or something, but it's very possible that there were. Gravity, acting on all things, would have long ago pulled that cube into a ball. You're citing the failed human experiments as proof that autogenesis didn't happen, yet you're not citing the trillions upon trillions of "cosmic experiments" that failed, instead grasping to the one you know of that wasn't a failure. I don't offer this as a proof or counter proof of any argument, just trying to put things in perspective. Everything's impossible until it's been done at least once.

[ByronB]

if a regular scientist were to mention some evidence of creation he would be shunned by the entire scientific community and probably lose all his/her funding, to me this fact makes the entire scientific community non-credible on this issue

If you've some "evidence" for creation, I would love to see it.

I have seen where this goes, we all know it is not productive in the least...

[ByronB]

Yep, you got it... and I'm still not convinced (not that you didn't put up a good argument), it's just that a few autocatalytic reactions are FAR from a self-reproducing form of life and I have personally seen scientists make idiots out of themselves trying to explain this necessary part of evolution, throwing in such shoddy statements as "well me KNOW it happened", and even saying it was possible aliens may have supplied Earth with the beginnings of life... completely ridiculous.

However life was created, I'm here now and that's all that REALLY matters to me. That said, you're saying "Since scientists can't duplicate the autogenesis of life, it hasn't happened". You seem to forget that there are many more forces at work in the universe. Humans have been trying this for, say, a hundred years max, yet the universe had billions of years and semi-infinite amount of resources to produce a wide range of possible outcomes.

I've heard an arguement similar to yours that used the roundness of celestial bodies to point to evidence of divine creation - surely that order couldn't arise naturally? This assumes that there were never cubical planets or something, but it's very possible that there were. Gravity, acting on all things, would have long ago pulled that cube into a ball. You're citing the failed human experiments as proof that autogenesis didn't happen, yet you're not citing the trillions upon trillions of "cosmic experiments" that failed, instead grasping to the one you know of that wasn't a failure. I don't offer this as a proof or counter proof of any argument, just trying to put things in perspective. Everything's impossible until it's been done at least once.

Yep, well I don't claim to know everything, I just like to point out that the scientific community pretends to know everything and shuns everyone who doesn't accept their (warped) interpretation of their (often miscollected) data. It seems now that instead religion being the weapon of choice to control a populace it has shifted over to using "scientists" to scare populace into submission.

Just don't get me wrong, I enjoy science in general, its just that I hate it when people tote something as fact (with no possibilities of them being wrong) when really their "evidence" can be so ridiculous as "we know it happened so there is no need to explain it", or even just going on a quest to find evidence for something is intellectually dishonest especially if you disregard counter evidence. Anyone can use junk science to prove almost anything if they put their mind to it... lets see... Oh here we go... Burning tires to clean the air actually does work because back when this was practiced by some the air was actually cleaner overall, obviously a ridiculous statement but not far off of what some "scientists" try to pull.

[Caleb]

if a regular scientist were to mention some evidence of creation he would be shunned by the entire scientific community and probably lose all his/her funding, to me this fact makes the entire scientific community non-credible on this issue and since I don't have enough time or resources (or even care enough) to hammer out the facts I believe what makes the most sense to me right now.

I don't think this is true. Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is a very prominent and respected scientist who has written about evidence that dissuaded him from his atheism. John Polkinghorne (who is both a theoretical physicist and an Anglican priest) has likewise written about his faith journey, citing evidence that he believes supports his faith in creation.  Even popular writer Paul Davies, while not a Christian, seems to be lately leaning more and more strongly towards creationism.  None of these people seem to be in any danger of losing respect of their peers, nor losing funding.

[ByronB]

if a regular scientist were to mention some evidence of creation he would be shunned by the entire scientific community and probably lose all his/her funding, to me this fact makes the entire scientific community non-credible on this issue and since I don't have enough time or resources (or even care enough) to hammer out the facts I believe what makes the most sense to me right now.

I don't think this is true. Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is a very prominent and respected scientist who has written about evidence that dissuaded him from his atheism. John Polkinghorne (who is both a theoretical physicist and an Anglican priest) has likewise written about his faith journey, citing evidence that he believes supports his faith in creation.  Even popular writer Paul Davies, while not a Christian, seems to be lately leaning more and more strongly towards creationism.  None of these people seem to be in any danger of losing respect of their peers, nor losing funding.

True, however this seems to be the exception to the general rule... this quote seems to sum things up a little for me.


"One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war." - Francis Collins

[grasshopper]

  Ya, that pesky old testament.  Umm, 1 little thing, the law of the old testament was quite harsh.  The bible, prooves there is a "reformation" of sorts.  Jesus, took our sins, they are gone if we believe they are, and live a good life of the "word" (ya the easter bunny jokes aside). 
   Bill Mars seaxuality has a lot to do with why he hates Christians, God and all things that are good.  He believes God hates him.
   I'm sorry, I know gay people that have no choice as to how they are.  Trust me on this.  Burt had no say in the matter.  He owns a florist shop and does a kick ass job of it. 
  Back to my point.
   I know if I was (am) part of God, like the rock, and the tree and the (finger chimes, wind chimes) dirt and the air is part of God bla bla blaaa, then I am really in trouble.   For one, I must have forgot how I made things, I forgot a shitload of stuff, such as origines of Gravity, higher and lower nuke charteristics, ect ect...  if we are all God, then we all are pretty sad.
   Now to digress a bit.  Back to gay stuff.  I believe that there are ways to live.  I don't care of your strait or gay, you don't fondle each other in a mall with small children.  You shouldn't get all screwed up and embarrass your parents.  Thus, your parents should be given a bit of a brake, to understand the way "things are".  If you act like a hedonist in public, just trying piss people off, then you should try to understand why "strates" think your immoral.   Bill Mahr is an in your face, hatred filled man that needs to try to stop hating himself anf others.  He is a child of God, loved by Me, other christians and God himself.
   Bill mahr can bring people together rather trying to tear my country apart.  Athieism isn't bad, just try to not belittle me and others for believing in God. 
   

[grasshopper]

    Oops, sorry, Umm, the Germans did what they were told to do.  They went along with stealing from Judens, throwing them in ovens, knowing they are the chosen people of God.  I'm sorry.  The Christianity that the Germans were practicing is not from Hyway, or Yashuabut a blend of Peganism, spiritulism and Demonology.  The apostate church, Roman Chatholic to be more precise is NOT the christianity of the Bible. It is of Man.  Pope means Son of the Mother.  O ya, Sunday, the selebration of Zeuse?  Is NOT the sabath.  We have to be carefull of blaming Christianity for things not of God but of man, empire and temporal earthly power.  God wants us to love one another, and to give his word to the masses.  Wants us to live a holy life, not steal ect.ect...  The 10 commandments say nothing about homosexuality, they do however say something about coveting.
   Bill Mahr (or whatever) should appreciate life not try to empower those who want to destroy it.
  God made us in HIS image, that is why Satan is trying to destroy us.  Don't help him.

[Pat McCotter]

   I know if I was (am) part of God, like the rock, and the tree and the (finger chimes, wind chimes) dirt and the air is part of God bla bla blaaa, then I am really in trouble.   For one, I must have forgot how I made things, I forgot a shitload of stuff, such as origines of Gravity, higher and lower nuke charteristics, ect ect...  if we are all God, then we all are pretty sad.

When you were an angel and you were about to be born, the angel Gabriel put his finger there (philtrum) and said "Shh... don't tell what you know."

[JerryCP]

With most of what you have reported below, it would seem reasonable that such events could take place in the manner you describe.

There is one little point that I would like to ask you about. In view of the fact that these 'chemicals' and 'amino acids' are believed by some to have interacted in such a fashion as to create some form of intelligent life; WHERE did thos chemicals and amino acids come from? How did they get there to a point in existence that would have allowed them to interact? "Big Bang". Again, where did the elements come from that would have allowed a "Big Bang" or even a little bang?

JerryCP

I'd hate to get into a debate about this but I guess I asked for it...
Essentially my reasoning is that life that can reproduce it's self is WAY too complicated to have come into existence on it's own (then you can factor in other things that such as eyes that require a lot to function at all), right now scientists cannot even synthesize all the amino acids necessary for life (and a few they can synthesize they end up with a lot of ones in the wrong "hand") yet I am supposed to believe that all these components necessary for life somehow self-assembled? I'm not going to expect everyone to agree with me or get pissed when they don't but that is the essence of my belief... and the biggest reason I do believe in some sorta' God.

I believe that these are the salient points from your post:

• Life that reproduces itself is too complicated to have sprung up on its own.
• Eyes have a lot of parts that don't function without each other
• scientists can't synthesize all the amino acids

To your first point there are a number of chemical cycles that feed on themselves, they are called autocatalytic.  The concept behind such a cycle is that the end product facilitates the formation of more end product. There are inorganic cycles that happen in laboratories with out any real design or intelligence on the part of the experimenter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs-Rauscher_reaction I'm not trying to say these guys weren't smart, I'm saying that they didn't need to be smart to run the reaction, it would have happened if anyone had put that mixture together, it'll work if you do it as well.  Since the ATP cycle (the basis for physical energy in the human body) is a similar cycle you could expect that as long as all the required chemicals are present then the reaction would occur without any intelligence making it happen.  It's a question of chemistry not theology.  I can introduce you to more and more complex pathways and systems until you either accept no higher power was needed to undergo chemical change, or you reject one of the sciences.http://www.sciforums.com/Self-reproducing-systems-and-the-origin-of-life-t-49451.html

The second claim relies on the complexity of the human eye to prove the existence of a divine power.  If one of the "parts" of the eye is missing the eye doesn't function and would be worthless from an evolutionary point of view. But consider both color blind humans (as they are missing "parts" of their eyes) and are not completely useless, as well as the simple dog, whose eye doesn't see in color, they too are missing parts of their eyes but they can see just fine, well enough to hunt even.  Also even before eyes evolved, eyespots were the great advent of the day, a simple cell, which says light? or Dark? as you can see on the ends of these starfish arms, the yellow spot is the "eye" which can only sense light and dark, and these animals do quite wll, they don't have to have a complete or complex eye to  give them more information about the world.  So the point here is the complexity of the eye does not need to be divine.

And finally the easiest point:
Scientists can and have synthesized all of the standard amino acids found in humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis
http://www.organic-chemistry.org/synthesis/C1C/nitrogen/alpha-amino-acids2.shtm
You can even buy all of them online
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=VhY&q=l+amino+acid+for+sale&btnG=Search
Admittedly these amino acids are derived from natural sources (for the most part) but it's only because the cost of fabricating the same number of acids exclusively by chemical means is cost prohibitive.

[Vitruvian]

There is one little point that I would like to ask you about. In view of the fact that these 'chemicals' and 'amino acids' are believed by some to have interacted in such a fashion as to create some form of intelligent life; WHERE did thos chemicals and amino acids come from? How did they get there to a point in existence that would have allowed them to interact? "Big Bang". Again, where did the elements come from that would have allowed a "Big Bang" or even a little bang?

I don't know.  These questions may never be answered definitively.  I do know one thing, though: attempting to fill gaps in human knowledge by supposing the existence of a god explains nothing.

[JerryCP]

There is one little point that I would like to ask you about. In view of the fact that these 'chemicals' and 'amino acids' are believed by some to have interacted in such a fashion as to create some form of intelligent life; WHERE did thos chemicals and amino acids come from? How did they get there to a point in existence that would have allowed them to interact? "Big Bang". Again, where did the elements come from that would have allowed a "Big Bang" or even a little bang?

I don't know.  These questions may never be answered definitively.  I do know one thing, though: attempting to fill gaps in human knowledge by supposing the existence of a god explains nothing.

Admittedly, when we live in a world that has been indoctrinated into the line of thinking that 'scientific evidence' is the pre-supposed FACT, then the same could be said of the theory of evolution (evolution as in man being descendants of the family of apes). That old wives tale bites the bullet with further 'genetic' (scientific) evidence of today,,, DNA.. too far separated to be of the same family, and of course, the scripture (long before the knowledge of DNA) tells us that there are different types of flesh.

Is it possible that man descended from the apes? Anything is possible, when it is left to the vain imaginings of man. HG Wells "time machine".. ? 

JerryCP

[Puke]

My favorite religious painting.

[dalebert]

Salvia might be altering my view of the universe. Two trips now that were remarkably similar. Not saying it's going to make me believe in God; just that it might change how I view the world.

[JerryCP]

Troubled souls and sick minds. Have a nice life. I am outta here.

Jerry