when you say basic scientific method, would you explain theories,laws, etc? because i think that'd help a lot.. you could always stick evolution in there somewhere too
Definitely, might give room to add other ideas as well.
But when have you offered any sound evidence of evolution?
Check the links I provided they have loads of evidence.
The point is that because the possible consequences of my actions could result in my death, I have to be made aware of what those consequences are.
And if a good parent has done their job right the child has the tools to make good decisions for them self, they don't try and perpetually keep the child living at home the rest of their life not allowing them to grow up.
Ok. So you're saying it could come from other people... Like God.
It can also come from plain common sense. Something your God appear to rob people of.
You putting it out that God made sin. No. Adam disobeyed God, and ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam was decieved by Lucifer, and because of his disobedience, sin entered into the world.
And who was it who placed this fruit tree in easy access fully knowing (being omniscient and all) what was going to happen doing so? Who allowed the serpent to be down there (again knowing what it would do) to temp Eve (not Adam that was Eve who talked him into it) to eat the fruit?
Finally you might want to consider this God wanted us not to gain knowledge in this story treating it as a bad thing, not because "they will surely die" since they could simply have eaten the fruit of life and lived forever, but by doing so it would have elevated them to Gods level with having both knowledge and eternal life. But God kicked them out preventing this.
If we go back to your playing in the street example it's like getting hit by a car then your parents withholding the medical attention that could fix you up and on top of this throwing in there own punishment just so you can learn your lesson. But what happens in this Eden story is even worse as it's all about withholding the gaining of knowledge.
And this sin affects every single person born on the face of the Earth. So all men are born sinful, and the Bible tells us that we are 'Desperately wicked'. So the obvious thing for God to do is to show us his Justice, and punish us for this disobedience and sinfulness.
This is like saying we should jail a baby born addicted to crack because of what the mother did. This is a complete load.
And then this is where Jesus Christ enters into the scene.
Adding him still doesn't make any sense, even if it is for something I or anyone else did directly. How is it God required a human sacrifice just to say "your forgiven"?
I find it humorous that you can proclaim a religion 'sick', when you don't even understand a core part of the belief.
Yes I can easily call a religion that worships a monster like Yahweh sick. Especially one that requires placing blame on those who didn't commit the action in the first place, while excusing and shifting the blame of the actions of a genocidal megalomaniac.
Also I get what your saying with Jesus dying on the cross, I grew up with Catholicism, I've also been to the services of several other denominations. I just find it a barbaric and ultimately pointless gesture that only reinforces the appearance of God's blood lust.
Again, look at my above post. God didn't make sin. Adam disobeyed God, and so sin entered into the world. We are evil and wicked, and so deserve Gods Justice: Eternal suffering in Hell. BUT, (John 3:16) 'For God so loved the world that he sent his one begotten son, Jesus Christ, to save us from our sins.'
Again a situation he set up in the first placing knowing full well what would happening. And again eternal suffering is far from justice. You can reread what I've already said about God human sacrifice.
Simple Genetics, really. Mitochondrial DNA is spread through the female line. So Mommy gives it too you, not Daddy. There are three main lines of mtDNA. Noah had three daughters. Hmmm...
Okay now what does all this have to do with the original statement made?
"
1) There will be genetic variation within a population."
BTW there's more then three. And we can actually trace them back, and it doesn't lead back to three ladies. If it did lead back to such a small population we wouldn't have the genetic variation that we do.
I posted that in response to a post saying that we would see diversity in a population if evolution is true. However, If two individuals (Adam and Eve), with a balance of characteristics, could account for the diversity that we see today.
No two individuals can't account for the diversity we see today. In fact there are things we see today that if we started with such a small population we wouldn't have, such as tissue rejections from transplants.
If Evolution occurred through Natural Selection, than such changes would take millions of years. Such changes would be extremely minute, and highly un-observable.
In most cases that's correct. We usually can observe these changes by looking through the fossil record. Though the process doesn't always have to be slow. We can observe evolution happening in bacteria largely due to their rate of reproduction. We've seen large changes in higher animals as well, such as a species of lizard that was transplanted into a new environment which developed a new means of digestion to accommodate a more abundant food source and even showed behavior changes that better benefited the species in the new environment.
There is something called punctuated equilibrium (which could explain the lizard mentioned above), where rare rapid evolutionary changes can occur in a species. This doesn't mean a new species over night, it still takes generations.
Even the minute changes can have an effect. This is why we need to make a new flu shot every year, or change the formula of pesticides.
Creation Ministries International
There arguments have been debunked by numerous people (some of which can be found in the links i provided earlier), and they are a bunch of lying deceptive jackwads.
Mage argues that then makes God "unnecessary...and therefore a far-fetched assumption to make"... the argument is then that some of us believe that science is a way in which he could've worked and that the experiment only truly proves that the mechanism works and doesn't in actuality prove or disprove the existence of such a deity.
yes I do argue that it makes God unnecessary for life to occur. Your right it doesn't disprove God though, but I again have to ask if we can come up with a perfectly reasonable mechanism in which all of this can happen on it's own why add in the extra step?
Let's take gravity for example when you drop something is it gravity or is it invisible magic pixies pulling the object down? If we can reasonably explain that gravity does occur, then what point would there be to add that magic pixies plays a part in it all?
If you are to prove/disprove then you must do so w/ absolute certainty... until then we can't say either way. we can only say what we think it is
No you prove within a degree of certainty. like in my pixie or gravity example. I'm 99.9999...% sure it's gravity but that doesn't me I can rule out that 0.0000...0001% chance of magic pixies, but it does make it so unlikely that I have no reason to believe it to be the case.
At the current time we have no way of testing for the presence of some being outside of our realm of existence looking in at us.
Wouldn't that automatically put into question any claim of existence?
To take a point in Pirate of the Caribbean, Jack was in prison listening to the stories of the Pearl, and how no one who has seen her has survived to tell the tale. Jack responds "Then I wonder where these stories come from?"
It just makes the assertion that things do not exist exactly as commonly believed, and that if there is a God in all likelihood he/she/they do not and have not acted in the way previously thought.
Would this then have to mean the information from these sources is not divine knowledge? Since these highly flawed sources are our only sources claiming his existence why then should they be believed about even this aspect?
>_> I'm pretty sure he's got them in a word document somewhere already set up w/ the hyperlinks and phrases in place so that he can just transport (copypasta) them in mass to here whenever the ignorant show up
You mean one with common held religious beliefs? Nope don't have that. I can usually play it by ear pretty well.
If finding him is as easy as searching other dimensions, then we won't be able to say it until we've fully searched every plane of existence.
This is like saying "It's under the next rock".
We were told God was just above us in the sky. (there is a million dollars under that rock) When we got there God wasn't there, so it changed to God being somewhere out in the universe. (no, not that rock the one next to it) We have been able to see very far into space and still no God, so it was changed again to God being some extra-dimensional being. (no, not that rock either the one over there) Each time we look we find nothing.
How many rocks do we have to search before we decide the hidden million dollars likely doesn't exists and we focus our energy on more effective means of gaining a million dollars?
