I don't get what all the fuss is about. We're going to kill ourselves within the next 20 years. If WW3 beginning in the middle east doesn't do it, the following nuclear winter will.
no fuss, take that as your 1000 year prediction then, we will all be dead from nuclear fallout. If there is a war, i dont think it will come to nukes. more like starvation. not enough resources to keep us all fed, people falling dead from lack of health care. no transportation with no fuel. city centers become quarenteen zones full of violence as people try to survive.
First off; no-one is saying the primordial soup "just got there", but we certainly do not need a "creator" to explain how life began on this planet. Reaching for the supernatural to explain away natural processes only implies a lack of knowledge of said processes. Biochemists today are beginning to think that life, given enough time and the proper conditions, is inevitable. And the same goes for intelligence. I will point you in the direction of this paper Furthermore, the theory that biologists work with at present that deals with the origins of life (on this planet) is called abiogenesis in which there are several models that they're working with. That's not to say, of course, that any of these models are correct, only time will tell, but again; reaching for the supernatural is no longer necessary (in my opinion) for us as a species. I would also like to point out the Miller-Urey experiment which proved that simple organic compounds can be "created" by nothing more than natural and ongoing processes. *snip* The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle. At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 2-3 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. *snip* Further I would also like to add that the organic substances which paved the way for the first single celled organisms did in no way need to come from Earth or be created here. Space is "littered" with organic material, and it is certainly no stretch of the imagination to imagine that some of this material might have hitched a ride to Earth on a meteorite - this is, by the way, one of the models in abiogenesis. As a side-note I would also like to add that among about 480000 american scientists that work in the relevant earth and life studies fields, only about 700 believe in creationism - or that a "creator" was responsible. That equals to about 0.15% of all american scientists working in the relevant fields. Now, if we were to include the rest of the world, this number would surely dip further down the decimals. Lastly I would like to point out a very recent breakthrough by a team of Harvard scientists in which they were able to create the first synthetic cell the world has seen so far (as far as we know at least). Also you might want to check out all the resource-links posted on the wikipedia pages I linked up. Most of them are very interesting and none of them talks about a "creator." And finally; a car is not by anyones definition a self-propagating organism - it's not even an organism. So your example is invalid. A car is a result of technology which is a result of applied science.
Now is the scientific community or the religious community older? If the latter is older, as I am guessing, then your statement outlawaol suggests that they've had far longer to talk and talk and start believing their own theories, turning to turmoil through miraculous events that have yet to reoccur in the last 2000 years. And do answer me this - why is it that in the bible, countless people have been described as being able to live in excess of 120 years (and some even for 6 centuries?!) but yet throughout the Middle Ages we found people dying and suffering from disease? How is it that these people 'in the days of the Bible' were so capable of avoiding disease that they could live for such a long time? Don't get me started with the "God's decision to make our lives on Earth shorter is not for us to judge" argument because that is as weak as the rest of the writings in the Bible.
They must have exercised more and smoked less. Probably didn't eat so many McDonalds either. Either that, or whoever wrote the bible WAS trying to tell us how to roll a good joint, and was recording his thoughts, or the translation was bad and they actually only lived to 12.
Well, then exercise and proper diets really goes a long way... God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit and yet lives for another 930 years. (Genesis 3:6, 5:5, 2:18)
Not really, I know micro evolution exists because it's proven unlike your faith in a full evolution. Of course, point to billions and billions oof years, to get away with no explaination. It's quite foolish to imply that the eye wasn't intelligently designed. Of course you like to represent theories as facts. You hope that a beleif in God does relies on blind faith, and you try to contradict the Bible. By the way it's not rational debate to mock, it's immature. Funny how you've so quick forgotten, or chose to ignore your apptempt at mocking God. There is I'm sure allot of things you beleif that you've not seen, or have true evidence for, so I can pretty much tell that you have blind faith that only seems plausable because it has logic, but no adequate proof.
Back on topic: I think that in a thousand years, we would have found other lifeforms in the universe and will be communicating with them and having interplanetary visits! How interesting!
Oh absolutely. For my part, I'm a bit more optimistic - I believe this will come about in the next five hundred years; including interstellar travel. My reasoning is this; our level of technological advancement is accelerating at a geometric pace and shows no signs of slowing down (as such graphs rarely does). As such, and now that commercial interestst starts to dabble with space-travel the technology in these areas will accelerate further. I can see no reason to assume otherwise, but then again; we never know so this is just guesswork after all. But yes, I do believe we, in a comparatively short amount of time, will find the means to travel to the stars - sometime during the next five hundred years.
I belive in the Lord Jesus Christ and I'm not part of anything else. I have lots of proof in my own life and testimony to know God is definately real, but proofing that to you is of no interest to me, so you can say what you like. The Lord has totally transformed my life and I'm happy with that. I am able to understand the contexts of the Bible too because I have a relationship with the Lord. Why should I deny the truth of my beleif and actual experience. I'd be lying to myself, so that would make no sense. You contiinue with your way if that fufills and satisfies you. The more I spend time reading God's word and spending time with Him, that more I feel fufilled. If my beleifs bother you so much then just ignore the above, or do something about it.
Can you imagine what'd happen if our life-span was 930 years? I'd go insane. I mean. In 930 years you'd have had chance to do everything else - Might aswell see what those asylums are like
Oh certainly. There are many tempting aspects with such a long life-span (witnessing how technology and our civilization progresses and so forth), but I'm not so sure I would sign up for it if given the chance. However, if I did I'm with on the whole asylum idea. Must be quite liberating to be able to go completely monkey-bananas without having to worry about the thoughts of others. Also, I might even consider a stint in prison just to find out what that was like. You are right, 930 years is an awful lot of time to experience anything, so why not the "bad stuff" as well? Sure, sign me up.
Don't see how citing this strengthens the 'no creator' argument. Find the fact that someone had to create it actually strengthens the creationist / intelligent design argument.
Would stand up next to 'gar' and say 'me too'. (I also happen to have an Honours bio-science degree, and four years post-grad research experience, AND a deep-seated, thought-through, personal faith in Jesus Christ.) If I'm wrong, then I've lost nothing, because I would not wish to live my life any other way. If, however, it is the atheist who is ultimately proved wrong, then he or she has lost everything.
More contradictions! You know micro-evolution exists because it's proven but I only have faith in the evolution theory? This is blind faith, you believe only what suits you and will use parts of science to try and back up your blind faith but then deny science when it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas. My so called 'faith' is nothing of the sort, there is plenty of evidence for evolution that others have found and can be confirmed through experimentation, I read this evidence and decide for myself, if I then read more evidence that shows a different theory would be more likely to be correct then I will change my mind on what I think is more likely to be correct. I don't need to do the experiments myself (I wouldn't have the time or money to) as there are millions of people who are doing them all the time and confirming what others have done in the past. You can find plenty of proof in science but you can find NO proof in religion as religion by it's very nature relies on blind faith. No it doesn't, they have proven that certain steps can result in a cell existing, the next step is to find natural random ways this can occur. I can create a person by having sex with a fertile woman, does that prove there is a god? No it doesn't, it proves that the natural biological processes for procreation work, reproduction can also occur without any sex involved in some species. Sex or the biological process that requires conscious thought to cause certain biological material to be brought together in a complimentary environment is the same as the cell being created in the lab, although it is a more fun and enjoyable way to have it occur. Scientists don't know everything about the universe and they freely admit to that but that does not stop them from trying to find the answers by experimentation and reasoning. Religion however tries to say it knows everything about the universe even when most if not all it's claims can be proven to be wrong but when that proof is shown then religion denies it and holds up their book and says "only this is correct".
therefore a debate with you or anyone that has a dogma, and does not want to change it, is as futile as teaching a brick how to speak English. there is also something wrong in all the people i hear that have the view that atheists are evil and hate God , i feel that there is something else... considering the extra dimensions and the various interesting bends in space and time... but even without all this fear of hell and God you religious guys have i can still do good, i follow some or most of the logical moral teachings of some nice religions, it makes me and the people around me feel good and makes me a better person. continue fearing God and hell and continue being in ignorant bliss (by my view) or simply in bliss (by your view). it also strengthens the view that we are also Gods, since we can create life from nothing. during several periods of human history certain discoveries have been slated as evil or the work of the devil, before, during and after their appearance, these days these discoveries are common knowledge and are in common use. For the good of humankind i hope these guys stop doing this so that humans can still exist in 1000 years. sorry for the last offtopic i will do on this thread.
No offense but wouldn't you have lost all of your life's meaning if it was proven that Jesus and God don't exist? From what you're saying it sounds almost as if your faith is based around a "just in case" theory. Just in case God really does exist, then you believe in him and its all good. If he doesn't, then according to you you've lost nothing. If you really love God I would think that you would feel at least some loss if you found out he did not exist. Anyway for the record, I consider myself an agnostic not that it really matters.
Think I see where you're coming from. Certainly don't see my faith as some sort of spiritual safety net. Instead, I believe that embracing what I would probably call a 'Biblical' world view, ie., making my life choices and outlook, wherever possible, consistent with the teachings of the Bible (as understood in Christ), gives a sense of peace and purpose which I wouldn't trade for anything. However, when I spoke of 'What if I'm wrong', I was working from the assumption that the alternative to my position is that there is nothing at all. If at the end of life I had it wrong, then I simply will not exist, therefore I will have no regrets or disappointment. But if the Bible is correct (and I believe it is) when it says "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (Hebrews 9 v.27), then how we approach it is a matter of colossal significance. One 20th Century author put it this way, " Death, for the believer, brings confirmation of all his creeds. For the skeptic, it is discovery: immense, and late."
People who believe in "God" have an advantage over us Atheists etc though. You die, you believe in God, your greeted by God, you get your own mansion, you see all your family again, you live for ever. You die, you don't believe in God, your greeted by God, God tells you to piss off because you didn't pray to him, and you are destroyed.
Granite Halo Rings The Giraffe There are countless more examples of intelligent design. And I personally don't see arguing with you guys anymore. The Bible says "Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you." Mathew 7:6 So I wont anymore. Ive said what I felt needed to be said, and gar backed me up (thanks for that, ) If anything I find the entire debate a fascinating animal, why does this question always stir such emotions, ideas, controversy? If it was on any other subject it wouldn't be so heated, yet the simple question of origins stirs huge responses from every walk of life. Something from everyone means something in my opinion. Anyway, this got off topic about 3 pages ago...
