For Those Who Argue That God Does Not Exist....

[Elmo]

Evolution has been sientificly proven to be impossible. i think it was Louie Pastuer that proved life can ONLY come from life... matter can NOT create life... which obviously disproves evolution

i think its sad that we have begun to forsake the truths that our forfathers the founders of this nation "held to be self evident"

Sorry to break it to you but scientist knew how to create life out of nothing years ago and recently succeeded.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1990836,00.html

But then it all comes down to what you want to believe.

[nybuckboy]

I think we have reached a dangerous time in our country, and its not because people no longer believe in God, but because people no longer believe in science. Alot of this stems from the media and a certain political party whos supporters/sponsers wants the general population to be dumbed.

I hear people pooing things like global warming, modern medicine, space travel, our learning institutuions today.

People mumbling things like yea he was educated in Havard, must be an idiot, or yeeeaaa we should cut funding for this research or that type of science because its a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Then that very same person hops into his 2012 Lexus which in itself is a marvel of science and heads home to enjoy dinner which is made safe bacause of the advances in science that made it that way, and then he heads off to bed and takes the meds which lower his blood pressure, another for cholestrol, and lets not forget the nexium which made him forget what heartburn ever felt like. then he pops a little blue pill that makes him a 19yr old in the sack again. But when he wakes up in the morning and heads to work he will sit there and agree wholeheartedly with his buddies about what a waste of money and time the space progam is and that they are shooting his dollars into space and what idiots doctors are today, and how good the cars of the 60s were compared to todays crap etc, etc..

Excellent Sits, just excellent!!!

[Culvercreek hunt club]

SO if the Rights outlined in tthe Constitution are NOT God given rights, maybe their (the anti's) arguments are correct and they simply may be outdated? If those words are not Devinly inspired, they are simply the writings of some white haired patriots. Now dont get me wrong, legally there is still a process they need to go through to modify the law of the land. But it is is just about "changing a law" , Hell that stuff happens all the time. I guess I am canceling the Albany trip on Thursday. It all had more meaning for me until you guys cleared it up for me.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Felonious_Monk]

I give you The Miller-Urey Experiment

Myself, if I had to label, would be an agnostic, trending atheist. Why? Because there iss too much we do not know. Also, no one was present at the beginning of the universe to be able to say with 100% certainty "There is no god." I do not believe in god, (none of them for that matter), and THINK he/she/it does not exist. Can I say with ABSOLUTE certainty god does not exist? Nope.

My deal is this, don't preach or proselytize, or otherwise try and sell me on religion, and I won't try to convince you evolution is real.

"The beauty of science, is that it's real whether you believe in it or not." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[wheelieman]

love it Felonious, I'm like you, I just simply don't care what others beliefs are, I cannot say if there is any gods only thing i know is evolution is real, I like to think i came from a micro organism that lived in a mud puddle it makes me happy to think that lol

[josephmrtn]

Sorry to break it to you but scientist knew how to create life out of nothing years ago and recently succeeded.

http://www.time.com/...1990836,00.html

But then it all comes down to what you want to believe.

No they havn't...

"We're basically getting new life out of the computer," Venter says. "We started with a genetic code in the computer, wrote the 'software,' put it into the cell and transformed it biologically into a new species

there already was life they just modified it... believe me they have tried for YEARS to create life out of plain chemicals but it is impossible to do so...

[Elmo]

They basically built off the Miller-Urey experiment. In the Miller-Urey experiement, when all conditions are ideal, nature will start building amino acids (the building blocks of micro-organisms) naturally. Where Miller-Urey fell short was they couldn't give it life. In other words, Miller-Urey proved that nature will build Frankenstein by itself. The new experiement basically just build Frankenstein on their own and then gave it the electrical jolt to bring it to life.

Basically, Miller-Urey made wheat into flour. The new experiment baked a cake using store bought flour. They skipped the making flour out or wheat part since Miller-Urey already proved it.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Elmo

[josephmrtn]

Article By Dr John Morris Ph.D.

Hasn't Life Been Created in the Laboratory?

It's in all the textbooks. Every high school biology student is exposed to it. It's taught as if it were fact and "that all scientists agree." It's thought to be "proof" of evolution and yet—is it really true?

According to strict naturalistic evolution, life sprung from non-living chemicals on at least one occasion in Earth's past. It doesn't happen today because the atmospheric conditions are all wrong for life to form, but conditions must have been different in the past in just the right way for complex organic (i.e., carbon-based) molecules to come together.

Today's atmosphere contains abundant free oxygen (0₂), and this oxygen is absolutely essential for life's functions. Our lungs deliver oxygen to the blood where it traverses the body, reaching all of our 75 trillion cells. Furthermore, as O₃, it comprises the ozone layer which protects all of life from destructive cosmic radiation.

But while oxygen is essential for life's continuance, oxygen destroys non-living organic molecules (the building blocks of life) at a much faster rate than they could possibly form. Thus, it is assumed in origin-of-life scenarios, that Earth's early atmosphere was a "reducing" atmosphere with no free oxygen ("oxidizing").

In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student, Stanley Miller, working with Nobel Prize Laureate Harold Urey, simulated what they proposed was the make-up of the early atmosphere in a brilliantly conceived laboratory experiment. This "reducing" atmosphere contained hydrogen (H), methane (H+C), ammonia (H+N), and water vapor (H+O), but no free oxygen. By sending an electric spark (simulating lightning) through the mixture they succeeded in producing some simple amino acids, the building blocks of life and other organic compounds, and claimed a great triumph for evolution. This concept continues to be propagated today in "every" textbook and is used in support of the evolutionary, naturalistic way of thinking.

But now with more knowledge it has become abundantly clear that Earth's atmosphere has always had free oxygen. Water vapor readily breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Furthermore, we find oxidized minerals in rocks of every supposed age. Cells, whose ancestors are thought to have pre-dated the evolution of photosynthesis, likewise contain evidence that they lived in the presence of oxygen.

There are other problems with the experiment as well. The amino acid mixture produced contained only a few of the many necessary for even "simple" life, but many not used by any life. All amino acids were of both left and right-handed varieties, while life uses only left handed. Since the spark which formed the amino acids would much more readily have destroyed them, they had to be purposely removed from the system in a trap, thus concentrated in a manner most unnatural. Furthermore, such molecules could not have been stable without an ozone shield surrounding Earth.

Let's review. The experiment had the wrong starting conditions. It employed the wrong methods. It yielded the wrong products. Other than that, it was a wonderful experiment!

[Elmo]

Problem with Dr. John Morris claim is that oxidation breaks down faster than organic matter can form is false. Miler Urey's experiement was conducted in water where oxygen is low. Secondly, not all living creatures need oxygen. Some bacteria grows without oxygen.

[josephmrtn]

How do you know? do you have a Ph.D. on the subject?

[Elmo]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Disproves oxidation breaks down organic matter faster than it can form. Here, through evaporation and condesation, scientist create RNA (the fundation of DNA) using chemicals that they evaporated and then condensed.

[Elmo]

How do you know? do you have a Ph.D. on the subject?

I don't. But if you're going to go by one Ph.D.'s claim over a bunch of others then that's your choice. In the end, neither of us will really know.

[josephmrtn]

http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/

Disproves oxidation breaks down organic matter faster than it can form. Here, through evaporation and condesation, scientist create RNA (the fundation of DNA) using chemicals that they evaporated and then condensed.

it was all done in a lab though... the chance that that could happen in real life is like one in 5 trillion....

plus i dont think it could anyhow... but that is the conclusion i have come too

I don't. But if you're going to go by one Ph.D.'s claim over a bunch of others then that's your choice. In the end, neither of us will really know.

YOUR RIGHT!!!! im not a scientist!!!! LOL im just stating what i believe...

[Elmo]

YOUR RIGHT!!!! im not a scientist!!!! LOL im just stating what i believe...

And I'm stating what I believe. I might be wrong, I might be right. That's what makes this country so great. We can all believe what we want as long as we don't infringe on the belief of others.

[josephmrtn]

+1

[erussell]

And I'm stating what I believe. I might be wrong, I might be right. That's what makes this country so great. We can all believe what we want as long as we don't infringe on the belief of others.

So then what if you are wrong? Not saying you are wrong or right, just that if you are wrong the price for being wrong is pretty steep.

15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The Wise and Foolish Builders

24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Edited February 26, 2013 by erussell

[Elmo]

You speak of Pascal's Wager.

Much of religion is built on faith. I'm too analytical of a person to build a belief off of it.

Besides, I'm too much of a sloth and a glutton to be a good follower. Heck, if I commit enough sin, I may eventually be the devil's right hand man and then it won't be so bad and I'll get to enjoy all the sins I want during life. I just got this Hitler guy I need to catch up to. Just Kidding!!

[virgil]

^{Evolution has been sientificly proven to be impossible. i think it was Louie Pastuer that proved life can ONLY come from life... matter can NOT create life... which obviously disproves evolution}

^{i think its sad that we have begun to forsake the truths that our forfathers the founders of this nation "held to be self evident"}

^{That is quite possibly the most ridiculous and hilarious statement that I've ever read or heard. Thank you.}

[growalot]

Posted Yesterday, 04:47 PM

SO if the Rights outlined in tthe Constitution are NOT God given rights, maybe their (the anti's) arguments are correct and they simply may be outdated? If those words are not Devinly inspired, they are simply the writings of some white haired patriots.

I really need to ask...where in history was it ever recorded that ANY of the ppl involved in drafting the constitution had God speak to them and told them exactly what to right in the constitution? I ask because really.... had even one of these forward think men experienced such a divine intervention...I believe it would have been and they would have thought it note worthy.

I have to say it is astounding to me the number of ppl that take the writings of the bible literally ...I won't pull out the definition of METAPHOR

What God gave all creatures was a will to survive...some through camo...some through poison...others speed...teeth ...claws... wings...and us a higher functioning brain to make tools...guns ...knives arrows...ect... to insure our safety and survival....That is our God given right...PS... self preservation can never be deemed outdated no matter who's trying

[Elmo]

Interesting how God put freedom of religion on the Constitution.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I wan't saying the words were devinly inspired but they felt the rights were devinly granted.

[growalot]

[quote

Quote

Posted Yesterday, 04:47 PM

SO if the Rights outlined in tthe Constitution are NOT God given rights, maybe their (the anti's) arguments are correct and they simply may be outdated? If those words are not Devinly inspired, they are simply the writings of some white haired patriots.

]

Posted Today, 12:48 PM

I wan't saying the words were devinly inspired but they felt the rights were devinly granted.

My bad...I some how misread those words...several times

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Often NOT others reading....more than likely my typing...lol. I was trying to convey they felt the rights were given to all by God. If they are not correct in their view then just how sacred are those rights? If they were just something that some very patriotic men of the time felt were a good idea, then perhaps they could very well be an outdated concepts and need to be addressed. (NOT in the fashion that they currently are bing addressed). They same men set a system to make such changes and that is how these possibly outdated changes should be made.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[erussell]

Interesting how God put freedom of religion on the Constitution.

Its not freedom of religion but freedom from state run religion. For those of you not up on your history The British had the church of england of which all good Brits were a member. Thus why in a round about manner the Pilgrims made there way here to escape persecution at the hand of the supposed more religious.