Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

67% chance that God exists ?

179 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zandore
1.The Bible was NOT written by Constantine.Constantine had NOTHING to do with the Bible being written,

It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the Roman Sun-day or day of the Sun was declared to be the Christian Sabbath along with the worship of the sun being the official state religion.

It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the emblem of the Sun god, the cross of light, was adopted as the emblem of Christianity.

It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the date of Easter was established.

It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that rules were framed that defined the authority of bishops, thereby paving the way for a concentration of power in ecclesiastical hands.

It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that, by vote, Jesus was declared a god, not a mortal prophet. 

"...a year after the Council of Nicea, he (Constantine) sanctioned the confiscation and destruction of all works that challenged orthodox teachings - works by pagan authors that referred to Jesus, as well as works by "heretical" Christians. He also arranged for a fixed income to be allocated to the Church and installed the bishop of Rome in the Lateran Palace (It was not until 384 that the bishop of Rome called himself Pope for the first time). Then, in A.D. 331, he commissioned and financed new copies of the Bible. This constituted one of the single most decisive factors in the entire history of Christianity and provided Christian orthodoxy with an unparalleled opportunity.                                                                                In A.D. 303, a quarter of a century earlier, the pagan emperor Diocletian had undertaken to destroy all Christian writings that could be found. As a result Christian documents - especially in Rome - all but vanished. When Constantine commissioned new versions of these documents, it enabled the custodians of orthodoxy to revise, edit, and rewrite their material as they saw fit, in accordance with their tenets. It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made. The importance of Constantine's commission must not be underestimated. Of the five thousand extant early manuscript versions of the New Testament, not one predates the fourth century. The New Testament as it exists today is essentially a product of fourth-century editors and writers.

THE GREATEST PUZZLE

Give me one scientific FACT that contradicts the Bible (and don't say evolution,because it is NOT a fact,it is a theory).
Here is a fact:

QUOTE(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

)

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
Give me one scientific FACT that contradicts the Bible (and don't say evolution,because it is NOT a fact,it is a theory).

Sure thing. Right after you give me a scientific fact that confirms the bible like I asked you for.

And you are right that theories and hypotheses are part of real science,but they are not scientific fact,just an idea.

A theory is far from just an idea. Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf1287
Give me one scientific FACT that contradicts the Bible (and don't say evolution,because it is NOT a fact,it is a theory).

Sure thing. Right after you give me a scientific fact that confirms the bible like I asked you for.

And you are right that theories and hypotheses are part of real science,but they are not scientific fact,just an idea.

A theory is far from just an idea. Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is?

642329[/snapback]

Sure thing.

Fact 1.Genetic information is contained in DNA

Fact 2.Information cannot arise by itself (Example:If you had a bag of scrabble letters,and shook them up then spilled them out on the floor,even if they spelled words,these words would not mean anything unless they were arranged by an intelegence in a way that could be understood.)

Both of these facts support the Bible,because the Bible says that God created humans,and therefore created DNA.The information in DNA then didn't arise by itself,but was put there by God.

And yes,i know what a theory is.A theory is an idea which has some evidence to back it,and which can be tested using scientific methods.This is why I was mistaken calling evolution a theory.It's not a theory,it's a hypothesis,i.e.,an idea.

So what's your "fact" stellar?

Edited by Wolf1287

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

@Wolf1287:

evo is not more than a hypothesis?

well then the bible is certianly not more than a child's tale!

have you even read any of the supporting evidence from across several fields of study for evo? (and i mean full current understanding of evo, not darwinian "survival of the fittest" stuff)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

I've got 1 min to write this post :S

Information cannot arise by itself (Example:If you had a bag of scrabble letters,and shook them up then spilled them out on the floor,even if they spelled words,these words would not mean anything unless they were arranged by an intelegence in a way that could be understood.)

The info is not like on a computer. It is a combination of atoms, and the molecules then interact with others in order to perform certain feats. Dont you agree that water can be made by joining hydrogen and oxygen? Its pretty much the same thing.

Oh, and who says info cant arise by itsself?

Both of these facts support the Bible,because the Bible says that God created humans,and therefore created DNA.The information in DNA then didn't arise by itself,but was put there by God.

It doesnt support the bible any more than it supports any other religion.

And yes,i know what a theory is.A theory is an idea which has some evidence to back it,and which can be tested using scientific methods.This is why I was mistaken calling evolution a theory.It's not a theory,it's a hypothesis,i.e.,an idea.

I dont have time to touch on this now. Later.

So what's your "fact" stellar?

Read what I asked you. Scientific proof that proves the validity of the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking

first lets take your facts

Sure thing.

Fact 1.Genetic information is contained in DNA

Fact 2.Information cannot arise by itself (Example:If you had a bag of scrabble letters,and shook them up then spilled them out on the floor,even if they spelled words,these words would not mean anything unless they were arranged by an intelegence in a way that could be understood.)

ok now lets see your reasoning

Both of these facts support the Bible,because the Bible says that God created humans,and therefore created DNA.The information in DNA then didn't arise by itself,but was put there by God.

the bible may say that god created humans, but that does not make it truth, your also assuming that our life actually means something

if you dump that bag of scrable letters out on the floor and it spells words...it may not mean anything because no intelligence put them together HOWEVER the words are still there, the words are still words none the less, only this time they were created by chance

now take for instance our lives, our DNA, what is to say it wasnt all put together by chance as well....DNA is still DNA wether or not someone put it together intelligigently or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
And yes,i know what a theory is.A theory is an idea which has some evidence to back it,and which can be tested using scientific methods.

In a simple way of describing it, yes, more or less.

This is why I was mistaken calling evolution a theory.It's not a theory,it's a hypothesis,i.e.,an idea.

How is it just a hypothesis when theres evidence supporting it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf1287
How is it just a hypothesis when theres evidence supporting it?

Yes,there is evidence supporting MICROevoltion,which is evolution within a kind of animal.Take dogs for instance.It's very likely when God created dogs that he created one or only a few types of dogs.Due to changes in habitat,climate,and humans inter-breeding the different kinds of dogs from different habitats,you have the different kinds of dogs we have today.There is however no credible evidence I've EVER seen (and i have thoroughly researched it) that supports MACROevolution,change from one kind of animal to another (say,cat to dog).

if you dump that bag of scrable letters out on the floor and it spells words...it may not mean anything because no intelligence put them together HOWEVER the words are still there, the words are still words none the less, only this time they were created by chance

now take for instance our lives, our DNA, what is to say it wasnt all put together by chance as well....DNA is still DNA wether or not someone put it together intelligigently or not

Yes,if you pour out the letters and they form words they are still words.But that means nothing if there is no inteligence there to put those words together to make sentences,etc.DNA is alot more complex thean you're making it out to be,btw.You have to have a chain of protiens arranged in such a way that they actually mean something.In essence,if DNA WASN'T put together inteligently,then it would be random chains of protiens,which would mean absolutely nothing.They have to be arranged in a very specific order,to even mean anything.One protien in the wrong place means the whole thing is thrown out of wack.(NOTE:This is all from memory,it may not be 100% right but the general gist of it is)

Also,tying in DNA to evolution,it's said that mutations in DNA are what causes evolutionary jumps forward.That could be explained if you could ADD information to DNA by a mutation.But you can't.All mutations do is TAKE AWAY information.

I'm giving you evidence that supports creation.I still haven't seen one person come forward with any evidence that supports something else.I'm waiting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Man, I gtg in like 3 minutes now for work so I'll just touch on the first thing you posted for not.

Yes,there is evidence supporting MICROevoltion,which is evolution within a kind of animal.Take dogs for instance.It's very likely when God created dogs that he created one or only a few types of dogs.Due to changes in habitat,climate,and humans inter-breeding the different kinds of dogs from different habitats,you have the different kinds of dogs we have today.There is however no credible evidence I've EVER seen (and i have thoroughly researched it) that supports MACROevolution,change from one kind of animal to another (say,cat to dog).

Maybe because a cat didnt evolve into a dog! MACRO evolution is MICRO evolution but on a larger time scale.

Heres a question I have for you before I go: Would you consider a lion and a cat to be the same animal? They're both in the cat family...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

micro and macro evolution require each other.

if you really understood evo at all, you would see that!

the misconceptions of evo are truly astounding (or something else is....)

wacko.gifwacko.gifwacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolf1287

Yes,i know that macroevo would require micro,but it's not vice versa.Just because there's micro doesnt mean there has to be macro.And while micro is pretty much an established fact,there's still no good evidence that macro is happening,or has EVER happened.

Yes,a cat and a lion would be the same sort of animal.But i didn't say that God only created one kind of cat or whatever.He very well could have made big cats,medium cats,and small cats.Lions,Tigers,etc could have microevolved from the original big cats,house cats evolved from the small cats,but God created the originals.As simple as that.Much more believable IMO that all cats evolved from a single celled organism....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kabutarian

Wow... the amount of misinformation, lies, stupidity, misconceptions, and plain old BS in here is unbelievable. Do you christians REALLY require a deity to explain how everything came to be? To me, that sounds like taking the easy way out. That's what children do. Real mean and women want to know the answers. That's what distinguishes us from almost all other animals. We can comprehend, infer, and reach conclusions. We don't need some "almighty deity" to explain things for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking
Yes,if you pour out the letters and they form words they are still words.But that means nothing if there is no inteligence there to put those words together to make sentences,etc.

so...does it change anything?

DNA is alot more complex than you're making it out to be,btw.

no, believe me i know about dna

You have to have a chain of protiens arranged in such a way that they actually mean something.

what your failing to realize is that you are assuming our dna was designed soley because it is perfectly arranged for us to be.....your failing to see that the "complexity" of dna doesnt really matter, no matter how it is arranged it would have turned up some sort of life....we just happened to be the life that derived from these random arrangements

In essence,if DNA WASN'T put together inteligently,then it would be random chains of protiens,which would mean absolutely nothing.

mean nothing to us as humans, but mean life to something else

They have to be arranged in a very specific order,to even mean anything.

again, to mean anything to us, the order only seems designed because we are here to observe the design, we are to arrogant as a whole to realize we are the luck of the draw, that we are not as significant as we claim to be, all we are is a bunch of random mutations and arrangments created over billions of years

One protien in the wrong place means the whole thing is thrown out of wack.(NOTE:This is all from memory,it may not be 100% right but the general gist of it is)

again, out of wak for us....stop assuming we are the only possible outcome

Also,tying in DNA to evolution,it's said that mutations in DNA are what causes evolutionary jumps forward.That could be explained if you could ADD information to DNA by a mutation.But you can't.All mutations do is TAKE AWAY information.

what is to say dna didnt start off too complex

pretend this is how dna started

asfeawvgaoasflasudtdafidafoasidnzgfr

and over the years it mutated and lost information

sfeawvgaoaflasudtdfidaoasidnzfr

and over the years it mutated and lost information

seavaoflsutdfidaoaidnfr

and over the years it mutated and lost information

evaolsutidoainf

and over the years it mutated and lost information

evolutioinf

and over the years it mutated and lost information

evolution

----and what do you end up with?

I'm giving you evidence that supports creation.I still haven't seen one person come forward with any evidence that supports something else.I'm waiting....

644322[/snapback]

you havent produced any evidance

Edited by seeking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educator...ds/svideos.html

Free video documentary thing on Evolution from PBS. If anyone doesn't understand evolution ( clearly some don't) then please take some of your time and watch it.

PLEASE just watch, its only a short video ! It will asnwer and clear up questions that have come up here and around these forums.

Ashley, you definitly need to watch it ! rofl.gif

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

This one I recommend most : VIDEO 5 : Did humans evolve

The evolution theory is extremely big and well supported, you can do tests and predict the result or what we would expect.

On the video he shows the DNA of a HUMAN - CHIMP - RAT

Now lets think of this carefuly. Which one looks more simular to a human? A CHIMP. so before you do a test we could predict that the CHIMP dna would be more similar to humans than rats because they are more closely related and have less time for ' mutations ' to happen.

Lets bring up some letters of the DNA from the three:

Evolution predicts that the chimp will have less mutations, chimps are 98% the same as humans. Changing a few letters can make a massive difference.

C. T C A G T G C T - Human

C. T C A G T A T T - Chimp

CAT T G G T G C C - Rat

Its REALLY REALLY simple to understand. I hope you can be bothered to learn.

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore

Whoa, Hyper, and Seeking I think that those links will not help them at all. It takes a mind that is capable of learning to appreciate knowledge. Knowledge that does not come out of a book of old fables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gj Philosophy

greetings to all the people of genetic evolution.

i have question for you people of genetic evolution.

how come humans have more intellectual, more reasoning, more emotions,

and most of all the being of this planet earth that has the most complaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking

humans are the biggest complainers compared to who/what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gj Philosophy

if other living creatures can cumminicate to humans. and they ask, why do you humans keeps on complaining with yourselves and surrounding you? why do you ask so many? You got your intellegence, is that just for complaining your imperfection. . . . .

Edited by Mr. Gj Philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking

but see there are no other living creatures that can communicate with humans, thus meaning, no one can claim humans do anything to much, ( litering, complaining, murdering, being greedy etc etc) because there is nothing to refer too, its all personal opinion, and opinons are not fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gj Philosophy
but see there are no other living creatures that can communicate with humans, thus meaning, no one can claim humans do anything to much, ( litering, complaining, murdering, being greedy etc etc) because there is nothing to refer too, its all personal opinion, and opinons are not fact

647011[/snapback]

ok seeking ur right but it just only an IF AND ONLY other creatures can communicate and ask these kind of question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking

originally you asked the people "of genetic evolution" why humans complain so much, so i just simply explained how there is no way to say if humans complain to much...or even complain enough for that matter, i dont really understand what your point originally was intending to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Gj Philosophy

oh thank you seeking for asking my point of view for my opinion.

i want to clarify first from you guys.

i don't have enough idea about these so called genetic evolutions or DNA's or these so stem cells all i know about these are proteins, and so much different codes, the helix and so on. And regarding on evolution, are humans on top of the evolutions? Are there so called pefect DNA codes or are humans the perfect DNA codes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
but see there are no other living creatures that can communicate with humans, thus meaning, no one can claim humans do anything to much

Well... my dog showing me she wanted to go outside by sitting infront of the door and scratching it I'd consider a form of communication...

And regarding on evolution, are humans on top of the evolutions?

No. Dont even look at it that way. Humans are not the goal of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.