Exposing the Fallacies of Science/Atheist-ism & Proving Intelligent Design!

[QUOTE=shlver]Nope, that's right, but Jesus already died and resurrected.:cheers:[/QUOTE]
Ok good, where does he live at? I need to talk to that mofo about all the priests butt f*cking children.

[QUOTE=shlver]If the machinery to replicate cells is not perfect, then it's bound to make mistakes. This should be obvious.[/QUOTE]

But I thought God was perfect in every way possible? I thought he couldn't make such mistakes as let his creations become mutated?

I'm just f*cking around man, if you're religious that's cool. One problem I have with [B]some[/B] religious people is that they force it down other peoples throat, and they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. I have met plenty of religious people who do not fall into that catagory, so personally I feel the way you live your life is your own business. As for myself, I believe man created God in their own image.

Same shit can be said about some atheists as well.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Now [I]that's[/I] how you copy & paste.

You can add Gliese 581g to the list. Which is why I was wondering when this article was written.

Plus the whole science not being able to create cells is somewhat outdated since a self-replicating synthetic genome was made at the Venter Institute.

So yeah... back to the future prophesy gimmick.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Well it's obvious to me. I'm just wondering why certain people think that natural forces can't affect 'God's machinery' when we see it happening all the time. And if nature/outside forces can alter/change cell coding and force mutation... why should anyone believe that God created the machine in the first place? It's obvious that if he did program the cell, it's a flawed system (made by a flawed being?) that is CLEARLY affected by nature.[/QUOTE]


I don’t care what theory you use, theory of evolution, big bang theory, eternally oscillating universe theory, eternallypatheticatheist theory, the delusionallostkids theory, alter-elasticity theory, etc. I don’t care about supernova, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, physical pendulum, Casanova, formula E=MC2, mchammer djmix, probability, nsync-nelly dynamics, thermodynamics, virtual particle, critical density, entropy, electromagnetic force, cosmic background radiation, thermonuclear fusion, superfreak mechanics, wave mechanics, optics, etc.

You can give names to what already exist as u wish, call it “stupido mechanics” do whatever u want, fact is NOT ONE among ALL of this can demonstrate creation of ANY life form, from cell to creatures. I don’t care if u measured force, angle, sound, speed, distance, length, time, weight, mass, inertia, force & torque of earthquake, wind, lightning, light, cars, airplanes, my foot up your butt, etc. (laws of physics), Fact is your measuring tape, paper, pen,& Casio stop watch cannot demonstrate creation of ANY life form.

You can give names to elements that already exist (periodic table) & play around with it, mix it up etc. or clone humans off existing egg cells, so what. I don’t care if another scientist will come up with a new ways of mathematics other than “geometry & square root” naming it “geostupidroots” explaining m=5, b=3, u=1, d=4. D+U+M+B=13. -d=-4. 4(d=u)=?, etc.

What created the first life form? Ask yourself that question. We have an explanation, we call it God. If I make such claim, do I have proof that indeed it was God (All knowing: alpha & omega) that created the first life form? Yes I do. The proof is this. Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause (as observed and studied), from biological to technological. Don’t say, "Well if the waves of water formed/shaped the sands differently, it doesn’t mean the waves of water have intelligence", stupid, Waves of water can move sands, but it cannot move sands to form into detailed sandcastles, maybe in trillions and trillions of years, but this is not proven, it is proven however that intelligence can make such act possible.

I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.

[QUOTE=shlver][B]I never said free will is Godly.[/B] I assumed you had a basic knowledge on the Biblical story on the fall of man, but I see I'm wasting my time here.[/QUOTE]

You said this [I]"God is living, and we reflect that because we are living and God has free will, and we have free will and we have the ability to choose"[/I].

And I know the story of the fall of man, but since you brought up some new theories on the nature of man and the meaning of him being created in God's image, I'm starting to look at it from another viewpoint. What was at the core of man's fall?

You guessed it- man's free will. God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? But with a little persuasion from a talking snake, Eve made the conscious decision to disobey the lord and eat the fruit and Adam made the conscious decision to follow suit. From there, man was born with original sin and only subservience and complete obedience to the Son of God became the only way for man's soul to be redeemed.

Now, if Ephesians 1:3-5 is the truth, then God already knew long before he created Adam and Eve what they were going to do, step by step. Does this make free will an illusion? I think so, but let's suspend basic logic for a while and say it doesn't...

So God in his infinite wisdom, gifts the first two humans with free will, knowing that they will choose to disobey him and cause their own downfall. Not only that, but everything in existence was created by God, including the talking snake. Is it possible that the fall of man was an inside job perpetrated by Jehovah himself to enslave mankind's soul? :eek: I mean he could've simply not given Adam and Eve free will and they would've lived according to his rules forever as Godly beings. But he did, knowing what decision they were going to make long before they made it. He even sent his agent, his creation to persuade them to eat the fruit.

And now the only way to save yourself from an eternity of fire and brimstone is to accept his son as your lord and savior? Talk about blatant nepotism. So basically he created free will to orchestrate a monopoly on our souls. Machiavelli would be proud :pimp:

[QUOTE=Bladers]I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.[/QUOTE]

You missed the boat. Sythetic self-replicating genomes were already created using a computer program and implanted into cells, giving them "life". So no, it's not impossible, it just hasn't been perfected yet.

Stick to street preaching and repeating your crackpot friend's never-gonna-happen predictions.

if you are reading this you are god

[QUOTE=Bladers]I don

Of which God are you speaking? If it is the Old Test. God, were all going to burn in Hell. Unless of course you have built temples and slain purified offerings such as goats. If churchleaders from just 200 yrs ago could see how our society lives today, they would deem us all heathens and condemn us to hell fire.

Ever find it odd that God (as perfect as he is) has adapted his requirements for worship throughout history to accomidate the masses? Christians break one (at min.) of the ten commandments every week. "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy." The Sabbath begings Friday night and ends Saturday night. When do most people go out drinking and poon chasin' the most? Friday and Saturday. Real holy huh. Then they worship on the wrong day, Sunday. This would have been an unforgivable sin back in the day.

While we are talking about sins, anyone else feel Jesus has been raised to God status. Christians seem to have placed Jesus ahead of God, ignoring another commandment, sinners!!!

But none of that matters I guess when that old loop hole of holding what is true on Earth shall be held true in the Kingdom of Heaven. Must be nice to be able to hold that one over St. Peter at the Gate. "Hey Pete, none of us did what we were actually told, but the Big Guy basically let us make it up as we went. So if you could just happen to open up that Gate right there, we'll be on our way. And to think Pete, you went and got yo' self crucified upside down to get up here."

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]You said this [I]"God is living, and we reflect that because we are living and God has free will, and we have free will and we have the ability to choose"[/I].

And I know the story of the fall of man, but since you brought up some new theories on the nature of man and the meaning of him being created in God's image, I'm starting to look at it from another viewpoint. What was at the core of man's fall?

You guessed it- man's free will. God forbade Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right? But with a little persuasion from a talking snake, Eve made the conscious decision to disobey the lord and eat the fruit and Adam made the conscious decision to follow suit. From there, man was born with original sin and only subservience and complete obedience to the Son of God became the only way for man's soul to be redeemed.

Now, if Ephesians 1:3-5 is the truth, then God already knew long before he created Adam and Eve what they were going to do, step by step. Does this make free will an illusion? I think so, but let's suspend basic logic for a while and say it doesn't...

So God in his infinite wisdom, gifts the first two humans with free will, knowing that they will choose to disobey him and cause their own downfall. Not only that, but everything in existence was created by God, including the talking snake. Is it possible that the fall of man was an inside job perpetrated by Jehovah himself to enslave mankind's soul? :eek: I mean he could've simply not given Adam and Eve free will and they would've lived according to his rules forever as Godly beings. But he did, knowing what decision they were going to make long before they made it. He even sent his agent, his creation to persuade them to eat the fruit.

And now the only way to save yourself from an eternity of fire and brimstone is to accept his son as your lord and savior? Talk about blatant nepotism. So basically he created free will to orchestrate a monopoly on our souls. Machiavelli would be proud :pimp:[/QUOTE]

God didn't wan't to create a bunch of robots.
He doesn't derive pleasure from robot worship...
He doesn't want any zombies.:no:

[QUOTE=lurch67]Of which God are you speaking? If it is the Old Test. God, were all going to burn in Hell. Unless of course you have built temples and slain purified offerings such as goats. [B]If churchleaders from just 200 yrs ago could see how our society lives today, they would deem us all heathens and condemn us to hell fire. [/B]

Ever find it odd that God (as perfect as he is) has adapted his requirements for worship throughout history to accomidate the masses? Christians break one (at min.) of the ten commandments every week. "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy." The Sabbath begings Friday night and ends Saturday night. When do most people go out drinking and poon chasin' the most? Friday and Saturday. Real holy huh. Then they worship on the wrong day, Sunday. This would have been an unforgivable sin back in the day.

While we are talking about sins, anyone else feel Jesus has been raised to God status. Christians seem to have placed Jesus ahead of God, ignoring another commandment, sinners!!!

But none of that matters I guess when that old loop hole of holding what is true on Earth shall be held true in the Kingdom of Heaven. Must be nice to be able to hold that one over St. Peter at the Gate. "Hey Pete, none of us did what we were actually told, but the Big Guy basically let us make it up as we went. So if you could just happen to open up that Gate right there, we'll be on our way. And to think Pete, you went and got yo' self crucified upside down to get up here."[/QUOTE]

HAHA!!! This guy speaks the truth. If religious (Christian) beliefs and acceptances gradually change over time, then what does that say about the validity of the bible? :confusedshrug: It used to be that gays were thought to have an evil disease that needed to be cured, but now many churchgoers actually accept gays. What the hell contradiction is that? Conclusion....the bible is f*cking man made. If you were gay a few centuries ago, your so called Christian believers would shun your asses out of town. Then there are the priest child molesters of the Catholic faith, whose own hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

[QUOTE=Bladers]God didn't wan't to create a bunch of robots.
He doesn't derive pleasure from robot worship...
He doesn't want any zombies.:no:[/QUOTE]

You know what god wants and where he derives pleasure from? Cool..

What else do you know? We are all ears!

[QUOTE=miller-time]the fact is not one of the theories you listed are attempts to explain where life came from. a theory or model is used to explain a specific set of data, none of those theories include data relevant to the origin of cells, organelles, nucleotides or amino acids.

i seriously don't buy the idea that anything you say is what you actually believe because no one can possibly be that stupid.[/QUOTE]

So then If none of what I provided gives prove to an Intelligent Creator.

Then here is what you are providing: There was void, nothing, then we came from nowhere like mathematics "-we r,-1234567890=1234567890."

So if your a teen & mom caught you holding 3 bottles of beer, just tell her

Science and religion can coexist. Theres more archeological evidence for the Resurrection than there is for Napoleons battle at Waterloo.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Science and religion can coexist. Theres more archeological evidence for the Resurrection than there is for Napoleons battle at Waterloo.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of the resurrection, have you read all the accounts of this in the bible? Each and every one of these varies wildly. You would think that the story that is to be the basis of a religion would have at least been consistant....

[QUOTE=lurch67]Speaking of the resurrection, have you read all the accounts of this in the bible? Each and every one of these varies wildly. You would think that the story that is to be the basis of a religion would have at least been consistant....[/QUOTE]

Yes there are variations and interpretations, but it happened nonetheless.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Science and religion can coexist. Theres more archeological evidence for the Resurrection than there is for Napoleons battle at Waterloo.[/QUOTE]


Care to show us any of that evidence?

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Yes there are variations and interpretations, but it happened nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, it is alleged that it happened.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Care to show us any of that evidence?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm[/url]

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan][url]http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm[/url]

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.[/QUOTE]
Thats just so week on so many levels, for starters the bible is proof of nothing.

[QUOTE=lurch67]Thats just so week on so many levels, for starters the bible is proof of nothing.[/QUOTE]

False. John the Disciple saw things himself. Luke the Physician talked to many people healed by Jesus. Deny it if you want, jump through the loopholes, but it happened. People just don't rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus Christ and no other name on accident. That power is real.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan][url]http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm[/url]

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.[/QUOTE]

The bible is not archaeological evidence.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan][url]http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm[/url]

Also people are resurrected and healed in the Name of Jesus Christ today, so there is supernatural evidence for the Resurrection as well.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm That's what we call blind faith. :lol

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The bible is not archaeological evidence.[/QUOTE]

That isn't only about the Bible. And it has stood the tests of thousands of years, it is a piece of archeology, no doubt about that.

[QUOTE=chungerball]:facepalm That's what we call blind faith. :lol[/QUOTE]

Yea, but that faith raises the dead.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]That isn't only about the Bible. And it has stood the tests of thousands of years, it is a piece of archeology, no doubt about that.[/QUOTE]

Some of those writings are over 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That is not archaeological evidence.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Yea, but that faith raises the dead.[/QUOTE]

You can't be serious....or you just might be. I believe in raising the dead as zombies, but not fully functional human beings. Have you seen movies like dawn of the dead?

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Some of those writings are over 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That is not archaeological evidence.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it can only be as old as 40 years old. But the Book of Acts was written by Luke before the Gospel of Luke, as early as 37AD to 40AD. All the things that happened in the Pentecost is the affirmation of the healing and spiritual power of Jesus Christ. Which affirms the Gospel.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Actually, it can only be as old as 40 years old. But the Book of Acts was written by Luke before the Gospel of Luke, as early as 37AD to 40AD. All the things that happened in the Pentecost is the affirmation of the healing and spiritual power of Jesus Christ. Which affirms the Gospel.[/QUOTE]

None of that is scientific.

[QUOTE=chungerball]You can't be serious....or you just might be. I believe in raising the dead as zombies, but not fully functional human beings. Have you seen movies like dawn of the dead?[/QUOTE]

No, like I know stuff like this happens in North Africa every now and then. I had a friend who witnessed a resurrection. He has a friend that goes to UT hospital to pray over patients. He never prayed over the dead though. There was a guy who has been dead for several hours and they went to harvest his organs, and he said "hey can I pray for him" and they said "why? hes dead?" and he said "I know, but I want to see if he can come back to life" and they said "uh sure go ahead". My friend Nick was sitting on the bench outside the room. His friend laid hands on the dead body and said "In the Name of Jesus Christ I command you to live", and he came out the door and the man was following him. Healing still happens today, no doubt.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]None of that is scientific.[/QUOTE]

They tested the age of the scrolls. They took scientific tests on the ages of the papyrus. Those are accurate dates.

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]That isn't only about the Bible. And it has stood the tests of thousands of years, it is a piece of archeology, no doubt about that.[/QUOTE]
as an archaeologist, I cannot begin to tell you how much is wrong with this statement. THis thread is embarrassing

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]They tested the age of the scrolls. They took scientific tests on the ages of the papyrus. Those are accurate dates.[/QUOTE]

The findings are not scientific.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Some of those writings are over 100 years after Jesus supposedly died. That is not archaeological evidence.[/QUOTE]
pretty much all of them are. regardless, there are no bibles that are material artifacts from the immediate decades after his death.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The findings are not scientific.[/QUOTE]

Scientific tests on ages of scrolls are scientific findings :facepalm

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]False. John the Disciple saw things himself. Luke the Physician talked to many people healed by Jesus. Deny it if you want, jump through the loopholes, but it happened. People just don't rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus Christ and no other name on accident. That power is real.[/QUOTE]
Again stories written about people centuries after they are dead without any other form of documentation are proof of nothing. Period. The bible and every single thing in it has to be taken in faith. Faith is the oppisite of proof. The whole resurrection story was stolen for pagan mythology in order to convert them. There is only one original story form the bible, old test or new, the story of Moses. Even the stories of Eden, Noah, and even the adventures of Jesus himself, are rehashed tales of other relgions prior to rise of Judaism.

And where are these people who rise from the dead with no assistance from medical personel? Is there a wave of Zombies coming we need to know about? I have brought people back from clinical death as an EMT, so does this make me a mircle worker too?

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]They tested the age of the scrolls. They took scientific tests on the ages of the papyrus. Those are accurate dates.[/QUOTE]
what scrolls are you talking about? The dead sea scrolls? Sure, some of those date to around the time of jebus, but none of them are NT in the slightest.

[QUOTE=shlver]Nah, it's not shoddy at all. It's an extraordinarily accurate system.[/QUOTE]

Everything is shoddy unless you accept mediocrity (and calling it mediocre is being generous).

[QUOTE=TennesseeFan]Scientific tests on ages of scrolls are scientific findings :facepalm[/QUOTE]
are you also a young earth creationist who denies the age of the earth as estimated by radioactivity? Then you cant also use those same dating principles to hold up your argument.

[QUOTE=boozehound]pretty much all of them are. regardless, there are no bibles that are material artifacts from the immediate decades after his death.[/QUOTE]

False all of the NT books and letters range from 37AD to 98AD. The Gospels and Acts range from 37AD to 67AD. All of this was scientifically tested, the only things scholars debate over is the accuracy of the dates, not the precision.