Looks like Darwin was more clever than some people think...

[Tenchiro]

...or Science 1 - Religion 0

_____

Chimps May Have Closer Links to Humans
Tue May 20, 1:51 AM ET


By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - It may be time to move over and share the human branch of the family tree with chimpanzees, says a researcher who has studied how closely the two are related.

Humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of DNA — genetic code for life — according to a team led by Morris Goodman of the Wayne State University School of Medicine.

"We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," said Goodman.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, proposes that chimps be added to the genus Homo, currently reserved only for humans.

It's an idea sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and humanity's relationship with animals.

MORE... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030520/ap_on_sc/humans_chimps_3)

[Archslater]

I don't understand why everyone thinks it is definitely one or the other. It is widely thought that time as stated in the Old Testement was a very vague term. Anybody else ever wonder if there is a possibility that the creation as described in the bible actually was human evolution over millions of years??? Maybe the story as told in the bible was just simplified for early humans to better understand?

[androshandrew]

WOW!!!! 99.4 percent thats great. All humans share 99.99% of the same DNA and look how different people are. And humans didnt evolve from chimps or gorillas or any other primate alive today, they both evolved from the same species, thus 2 new ones were formed.(Eight grade science)

[LordOpie]

I wanna know what happened to man's greatest challenger... the Austrolapithicus (sp?) :confused:

[Serial Midget]

Clay Aiken kind of looks like a gay chimp... maybe? :confused:

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by androshandrew
WOW!!!! 99.4 percent thats great. All humans share 99.99% of the same DNA and look how different people are. And humans didnt evolve from chimps or gorillas or any other primate alive today, they both evolved from the same species, thus 2 new ones were formed.(Eight grade science)

Ditto. I was gonna say, 0.6% DNA can actually be considered a lot.

[KFulch]

Originally posted by Yossarian
Ditto. I was gonna say, 0.6% DNA can actually be considered a lot.


Yes it can when you consider recombination and other factors that express themselves through single nucleotide polymorphisms that occur throughout the human genome.

[Tenchiro]

Well it was enough to warrant a change in their genus to Homo.

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I wanna know what happened to man's greatest challenger... the Austrolapithicus (sp?) :confused:
I think we've all been wondering that LO:D

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I think we've all been wondering that LO:D

shouldn't you be eating a fromunda cheese sandwich, i mean, vegimite? ;) :D

while 0.6% can be "a lot", we're way closer genetically to chimps than chimps are to, say, orangutans or gorillas -- some of the other primates.

Also, chimps are the only other known species to stage organized wars. They'll go in groups to another's territory and pick a fight like William Wallace. Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp :p

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp :p

Isn't that when their cotracts at the phone company expire?

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
shouldn't you be eating a fromunda cheese sandwich, i mean, vegimite? ;) :D

while 0.6% can be "a lot", we're way closer genetically to chimps than chimps are to, say, orangutans or gorillas -- some of the other primates.

Also, chimps are the only other known species to stage organized wars. They'll go in groups to another's territory and pick a fight like William Wallace. Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp :p
LOL:D :D
I think in my case it's a lot closer than 0.6%:p . I actually studied anthropology in uni and while I was more interested in the cultural side than the physical side this kind of thing is still pretty interesting to me as well.
The sad part is though is that the chimps are rapidly disappearing in the wild. The irony of us causing the extinction of our closest relatives is too bitter to contemplate.

[Serial Midget]

It's evolution, man gets hungry and those little bastards make mighty fine bushmeat. Have you ever eaten a smoked monkey hand? It's on my list of things to sample before they go extinct. :thumb:

Originally posted by valve bouncer
LOL:D :D
I think in my case it's a lot closer than 0.6%:p . I actually studied anthropology in uni and while I was more interested in the cultural side than the physical side this kind of thing is still pretty interesting to me as well.
The sad part is though is that the chimps are rapidly disappearing in the wild. The irony of us causing the extinction of our closest relatives is too bitter to contemplate.

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
It's evolution, man gets hungry and those little bastards make mighty fine bushmeat. Have you ever eaten a smoked monkey hand? It's on my list of things to sample before they go extinct. :thumb:
LOL, I always tell my Japanese students that there's nothing we like better in Australia than to cook up a good feed of Koala meat. Finger lickin' good. Real cultural ambassador I am:D :D

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Archslater
I don't understand why everyone thinks it is definitely one or the other. It is widely thought that time as stated in the Old Testement was a very vague term. Anybody else ever wonder if there is a possibility that the creation as described in the bible actually was human evolution over millions of years??? Maybe the story as told in the bible was just simplified for early humans to better understand?


Why is it not possible that the incredibly complex mechanisms of life(that we can only now barely begin to comprehend) be considered evidence for rather than arguement against creationism? Nothing annoys me more than those stupid Darwin fishes swallowing the Jesus fish that some left wingers put on the back of their bumper-sticker-covered beaters. The retaliatory "truth" fish swallowing the Darwin fish is equally narrow-minded and obnoxious. :rolleyes:

[LoboDelFuego]

Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

[Alaskan_Assassin]

This whole thing reminds me of Robin Williams Live from Broadway stand-up comedy routine. He mentions something to the effect of "Don't you think that maybe when God said "Let there be light", he might have been referring to the Big Bang?" and the Puritans would say "No, God just went *Click*!". :D

[Babar]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
...or Science 1 - Religion 0

_____

Chimps May Have Closer Links to Humans
Tue May 20, 1:51 AM ET


By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - It may be time to move over and share the human branch of the family tree with chimpanzees, says a researcher who has studied how closely the two are related.

Humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of DNA — genetic code for life — according to a team led by Morris Goodman of the Wayne State University School of Medicine.

"We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," said Goodman.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, proposes that chimps be added to the genus Homo, currently reserved only for humans.

It's an idea sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and humanity's relationship with animals.

MORE... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030520/ap_on_sc/humans_chimps_3)

Flawed... 99.4% ? how when chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

There only comparing certain biochemical capacities which all living things have.

[fluff]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

I think you need to separate creationism from religion (particularly the rather archiac Roman Catholic version).

This DNA thing proves nothing beyond the fact that chimps and humans (and other life) are based on the same basic building materials, and that chimps are closer to us than rats (with whom we also share an alarmingly high percentage of DNA). If life were to be created it would make as much sense for the DNA percentages to be close as it would if life evolved. At the end of the day humans and chimps both exist and share much DNA. Proves nothing about how we got here though.

In the same way, the Statue of Liberty clearly evolved from the Eifel Tower, and shares much of its structural materials,yet it was still created.

[partsbara]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

darwin fish are ok

personally i like the tattoo that stevo (a la jackass) has.. the fish with satan written inside... hardly the kind of body art that i d like on my being, but a good laugh

now if only i could find a sticker like that to throw on the new volvo... drive it aound the military base and check out the reactions

partsbara

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by fluff
In the same way, the Statue of Liberty clearly evolved from the Eifel Tower, and shares much of its structural materials,yet it was still created.

Yes because it is common knowledge that the eiffel tower was such an outstanding member of its species that it developed traits such as the torch and the toga, and these traits helped it survive in the wild, and it mated with all the other towers, and after many generations, created the statue of liberty, right? Don't isolate these facts from the theory of natural selection.

What the article demonstrated was that with such a high degree of similarity between our two species, it is easy to see how the process of evolution brought us to this point.

[fluff]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Yes because it is common knowledge that the eiffel tower was such an outstanding member of its species that it developed traits such as the torch and the toga, and these traits helped it survive in the wild, and it mated with all the other towers, and after many generations, created the statue of liberty, right? Don't isolate these facts from the theory of natural selection.

What the article demonstrated was that with such a high degree of similarity between our two species, it is easy to see how the process of evolution brought us to this point.

Your logic is flawed. Your common sense is telling you that the statue of liberty cannot have evolved from the Eifel tower, yet they were designed by the same man, using similar materiels and possibly lessons learned from the first project.

Yet you insist that a high percentage of common DNA between chimps and humans is proof (or evidence) of evolution from ape to man.

The logic is inconsistent because you have knowledge of one process yet not of the other and you are making huge assumptions with no realistic or logical basis.

The shared DNA proves nothing either way about evolution or creation. And it is certainly nothing to do with religion.

Beware of things that are 'easy to see' they may not be there at all.

[BlackhillsBob]

Dosent matter how close the the code is, 1 point might as well be 100, the difference of one point can be the distance between the sun and the moon. Actually we are closer to pigs than monkeys anyway, so go eat some slop, and play in the mud.

[MMike]

Whatever happened to JesusFreak? He was so entertaining in these discussions.....

zealots are funny.

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by BlackhillsBob
Actually we are closer to pigs than monkeys anyway, so go eat some slop, and play in the mud.

Your forget that we are all mountain bikers. we do that regardless of genetics!

[fourgivn1]

Zealot, at your service. :D

[Tenchiro]

Maybe god is actually a monkey and meant to create us in his own image, but sneezed or something when he was in the middle of it.

[Repack]

Chimp DNA + Human DNA = an American strong enough to win a world cup???

[ALEXIS_DH]

hmmmm, roman catholic church has accepted evolution as a scientific theory, and the evidence as well with all it impplies. u can read the last enciclica (that the spanish-italian word, i dunno the english translation)
the pope and his pals have written a few enciclicas in the last years, to apologize for galileo trial, for the crusades i think, and to accept evolution evidence.
good thing for the catholic church.

i think the catholic church has evolved a lot thru history, i mean they stagnate sometimes, but at the end, when overwelmed by evidence and facts, they just accept what we all see.
it may have taken them 500 years for those jean paul enciclicas, but at least is a step forward.

unfortunately, i cant tell the same about most fundamentalist protestant denominations. (I live in the bible belt)



Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Darwin fish rule. I have one on my bike.

What this provides is another step forward for evolutionary biology, whereas the theory of creationism has been standing stagnant for centuries. Organizations that support this view have been notoriously stubborn and unwilling to change their views even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. I mean, come on, the official position of the Roman Catholic church, right now, in 2003 is that men lived alongside the dinosaurs! WTF is wrong with these people?!?!?! I knew that couldnt be possible since I was 4!

This is just more evidence of the evolutionary theory. By examining DNA structure we see how Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes clearly shared a common ancestor.

[Archslater]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH


unfortunately, i cant tell the same about most fundamentalist protestant denominations. (I live in the bible belt)

Fundamentalist protestant denominations?

Unless you are surrounded by Amish or Quakers, I would argue that most protestant denominations are not very fundamentalist.

[ALEXIS_DH]

hmmm, well according to the meriam webser dictionary a fundamentalist is


Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective


"..protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted bible as fundamental..."

there are a looooooooooot of people like that around here, that fit perfectly in this description, so (english is not my mother language, dont take me for granted) evidence tells me they can be defined as fundamentalists according to this dictionary.

anyway, any person who wont change his point of view, no matter the evidence presented, just because he doesnt want to change, is a fundamentalist.
and i have heard a billion times people saying the earth is 6000 years old or something, because the bible says so.
maybe this people dont realize the chinese have like 8000 years of written history. seems they were already 2000 years on the earth when creation happened. :confused:

[Archslater]

You got me, I didn't look it up.

Actually I grew up in a protestant church (Brethren), and have since attended many other protestant churches (U. Methodist, Baptist, etc....) and many of them are not very fundamental, in fact one I attend now is quite liberal.

Can't speak for Alabama though.

[fluff]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH

and i have heard a billion times people saying the earth is 6000 years old or something, because the bible says so.


Not that I want to get all religious on you, but I've read that book and nowhere did I see it say the world was only 6000 years old.

I think it has other flaws but that figure comes from interpretation and poor logic imo.

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fluff
Not that I want to get all religious on you, but I've read that book and nowhere did I see it say the world was only 6000 years old.

I think it has other flaws but that figure comes from interpretation and poor logic imo.

Good point, I always liked how Adam and Eves son Cain was sent to the city after killing Abel.

From the King James

Genesis 4:16-17

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Whats up there? If Adam and Eve were the first people and they have two sons where did Cains wife come from let alone the inhabitants of the city?

I actually asked a pastor friend of mine about this and he said, "I don't know, I wasn't there."

Good enough for me.

Peace

Ummbikes

[ALEXIS_DH]

yeah, i have read that book as well, and thats my point. i dont say the bible say 6000 years.
fundamentalists are all about literally taking the bible, and they say they have add up all the years and atuff, and that how they came up with the 6000 years idea. i just quote them.

prettyy poor logic IMO too.



Originally posted by fluff
Not that I want to get all religious on you, but I've read that book and nowhere did I see it say the world was only 6000 years old.

I think it has other flaws but that figure comes from interpretation and poor logic imo.

[ALEXIS_DH]

just a few more for the record.


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.


and i can go with this alllll night if i wanted too.

Alexis



Originally posted by ummbikes
Good point, I always liked how Adam and Eves son Cain was sent to the city after killing Abel.

From the King James

Genesis 4:16-17

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Whats up there? If Adam and Eve were the first people and they have two sons where did Cains wife come from let alone the inhabitants of the city?

I actually asked a pastor friend of mine about this and he said, "I don't know, I wasn't there."

Good enough for me.

Peace

Ummbikes

[Archslater]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
just a few more for the record.


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.


and i can go with this alllll night if i wanted too.

Alexis

Remember, that the Bible was written by humans after all. Human's error.

[Moogie]

yea well thats alot of human error.

i personally dont believe in any of this relgious stuff. this whole idea that god created us in 7 days or whatever doesnt go over to well in my head.

.6 percent in DNA is alot, but its still damn close compared to everythin else out there.

[ALEXIS_DH]

i dont believe that either. for me the bible, or the qoran or whatever book other religions have has the same historical, phylosophical, spiritual value as the oddissey, or edipo's moral stories.

Alexis



Originally posted by Moogie
yea well thats alot of human error.

i personally dont believe in any of this relgious stuff. this whole idea that god created us in 7 days or whatever doesnt go over to well in my head.

.6 percent in DNA is alot, but its still damn close compared to everythin else out there.

[LordOpie]

You do know you non-believers are going to hell, right? I mean, I'm not cuz I'm a jew and we don't bother believing in hell... but you're screwed!

[Stinky Monkey]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp :p

I doubt that! Chimps are already smarter than 90% of the fast food workers.:D

[ALEXIS_DH]

ohhh maaaaaaan!!! am so scared i wont be sleeping tonight.

it really scares the crap out of me, thinking that am going to a place that nobody has ever been,. and nodoby has ever seen, and nodoby has ever came back, and nobody even knows where it is, or how is it, and that a few guys dreamed of a few thousands years ago.

it really scares me to death that. so much, that i'll add it to the least of my most feared thing.
is so scary that i dont know if putting it in front of the jersey devil, of before the evil tooth faire.

Alexis






Originally posted by LordOpie
You do know you non-believers are going to hell, right? I mean, I'm not cuz I'm a jew and we don't bother believing in hell... but you're screwed!

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
ohhh maaaaaaan!!! am so scared i wont be sleeping tonight.

it really scares the crap out of me, thinking that am going to a place that nobody has ever been,. and nodoby has ever seen, and nodoby has ever came back, and nobody even knows where it is, or how is it, and that a few guys dreamed of a few thousands years ago.

it really scares me to death that. so much, that i'll add it to the least of my most feared thing.
is so scary that i dont know if putting it in front of the jersey devil, of before the evil tooth faire.

Alexis

you don't hide your fear very well with sarcasm. You probably should re-explore the subject.

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
You do know you non-believers are going to hell, right? I mean, I'm not cuz I'm a jew and we don't bother believing in hell... but you're screwed!

Incidentally, 'hell' is an Olde English word for the ground, so basically it's true. The hell of Satan and eternal fire is just something the Catholic church invented to scare us little people into obeying them.

I'm just hoping this doesn't turn into antoher interminable religion thread.

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by LordOpie
You do know you non-believers are going to hell, right? I mean, I'm not cuz I'm a jew and we don't bother believing in hell... but you're screwed!

John 3:16 is a powerful statement, but read 16-18 to get the whole idea of what Opie is talking about.

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
ohhh maaaaaaan!!! am so scared i wont be sleeping tonight.

it really scares the crap out of me, thinking that am going to a place that nobody has ever been,. and nodoby has ever seen, and nodoby has ever came back, and nobody even knows where it is, or how is it, and that a few guys dreamed of a few thousands years ago.

it really scares me to death that. so much, that i'll add it to the least of my most feared thing.
is so scary that i dont know if putting it in front of the jersey devil, of before the evil tooth faire.

Alexis


Come on over and I'll fire up my grill, we can put your hand on the coals so you can get a taste of what eternity in hell is like. Sound like a good idea? What, you don't want to take the chance?

[ALEXIS_DH]

hmmm, sounds interesting. how do you hell is like that? could you please back it up with anything else than the bible???

i mean, thats circle reasoning, you say hell is like that because the bible says so, right? you dont have any other proof of it. you just say its true because its the word of god, right?
but then, the bible is true because is the word of god, and god exists because the bible says so. dont you see anything wrong with this?


i'd actually love to test your view of hell, but nothing other than you and a book compilated in 397 AC by the catholic church tells me you are right. (btw, the bible itself, was chopped in 397 when the catholics decided what the bible was goint to be, they selected what books wehere going, and which were out)
the whole concept of hell and purgatory was used in the dark ages to scare people. jus remember dante aligheri.

i just wonder how it can still work?

so plz, if you are going to show hell to me, use something else to back up myour statement than the bible to tell me its like this.

because most religions of the world can show me their view of hell and back back it up with their sacred book, and all of them seem different.

how are you so sure you are the right guy to show me hell?

i'd rather have a better guide.

alexis

btw, instead,. ill use your own sacred book to help you can proof yourself you are a true belieeer

read Mk 16:17,18
as you are a believer, you are with christ and can do all those thing this verses say. now please do what it says, "if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them"
please read the entire chapter if you want, to see am not taking things out of context.
a good thing to start would be sulfuric acid, or potasium cyanide.






Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
John 3:16 is a powerful statement, but read 16-18 to get the whole idea of what Opie is talking about.



Come on over and I'll fire up my grill, we can put your hand on the coals so you can get a taste of what eternity in hell is like. Sound like a good idea? What, you don't want to take the chance?

[LordOpie]

i did a research paper on hell. There's more references to hell in the bible as it pertains to a firey, bone-gnashing pit in old Jerusalem where criminals where thrown into alive as punishment for serious sins, err, crimes.

the eternal concept of hell as punishment comes directly from that real capital punishment.

[LordOpie]

if you want proof, the mathematician Pascal proved why you should believe in the bible :D

[ALEXIS_DH]

if you are talking about pascal's wager, it doesnt tell you to beliee
in the bible, but rather believing in a god, whatever it might be.
its not proof for the bible.

ill just take my 50% chance in nonbelieing. believe or not i have tried to believe, but going against reason doenst cut for me.
definately life is way more easy to live if you think there is a god and heaven and stuff. but the entire concept doesnt make a sense to me

is easier to believe than to thiink

alexis




Originally posted by LordOpie
if you want proof, the mathematician Pascal proved why you should believe in the bible :D i

[LordOpie]

ALEXIS_DH

while there's a lot of reason and logic behind your arguments, i also sense a great deal of emotions too. What's up?

[ALEXIS_DH]

because i was born into a world of believers, where believing is linked to emotions, and is a supreme norm for most people.

i cant help it.

and also, turning into agnostic, is not easy, by no means. because doing so, is givving up things most people take for granted. and while i think the chances of god as true are very, very, very slim; there is no way i can't rule them out.

it just seems more unlikely than what i believe now. but if somebody can prove me wrong. ill change my mind. am open to arguments that dont contradict what i can see and prove.

Alexis




Originally posted by LordOpie
ALEXIS_DH

while there's a lot of reason and logic behind your arguments, i also sense a great deal of emotions too. What's up?

[BlackhillsBob]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
[B]just a few more for the record.


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Well now, for starters I can take and pick apart any verse that I want and interput it the way I want it to say, but reading verse Gen. 1:19 I dont see it as you see it, I read it as what my bible says: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Nothing like what you say, do I need to go on and read your personal rants, I can do that too, how about this:

Peter says "Im going fishing", Jesus says "do thee likewise"

Does this mean we all should be out fishing? This can go on and on, people like you are always tring to pick apart the bible, if you dont believe in God then dont, but please dont try to make something out of nothing!
There, rant over, now can we just get along and talk about bikes]

[ALEXIS_DH]

well, i dont interpret anything. i just take it literally as fundamentalists think is the way to go, just to prove that approach wrong.

i agree with the bible as a symbol, as any other religious symbol, and the catholic interpretation of it as a symboic figure. there is nothing wrong with that. (after all, the bible was compiled by catholics)

the problem is fundamentalists that try to take them literally.


firstable according to KJV

Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

in the 5 you can tell light was called day, and darkness night. its imposible relative to the earth to do so if there is no sun and rotation of the planets.
now, it cant be about an absolute light in the universe, and absolute night in the universe, because, the universe doesnt have days and nights, only the planets, because of the star they are close to, and their rotation.


now the second part.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

i think that 19 verse contradicts the 5th, as the 5th said "And the evening and the morning were the first day", and the 19th says
"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day"


am not making somthing out of nothing, am just literally taking the bible as most protestants denominations do. and thats is the problem, that is not religion., that is fanatism.

either way, if there is some god, at least this doesnt fit the perfection a god is supossed to have. which by the way is a quality humans attributed to the concept of "god".
because a perfect god wouldnt go around showing off how perfect she or he is. and, in the other hand, we as humans, could not discover this by ourselves as we only see what god wants us to see. thats pride and i guess is one of the seven christian sins.

this just scrambles the poor logic behind the entire concept, it colapses under its own weight. after all, all this was invented by some people a loooong time ago. but as time passed, it turned into judaism, then christianism. and you can trace it back as far as you want, cuz all the principles for most religions of that part of the world are related to some extend, and all based on the same story, told a few thousands years before christ. so the bible and christianism is just another variation of the story.


after all, nietzche once question, did god created man, or man created god?
seems too unperfect for perfection, isnt it?




Alexis

btw, i dont think the political debate forum is the best place to talk about bikes. u might have better luck in the dh forum or the lounge.





Originally posted by BlackhillsBob
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
[B]just a few more for the record.


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Well now, for starters I can take and pick apart any verse that I want and interput it the way I want it to say, but reading verse Gen. 1:19 I dont see it as you see it, I read it as what my bible says: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Nothing like what you say, do I need to go on and read your personal rants, I can do that too, how about this:

Peter says "Im going fishing", Jesus says "do thee likewise"

Does this mean we all should be out fishing? This can go on and on, people like you are always tring to pick apart the bible, if you dont believe in God then dont, but please dont try to make something out of nothing!
There, rant over, now can we just get along and talk about bikes]

[BlackhillsBob]

Even reading what you typed doesnt say what you are tring to make of it, it is simply saying that is the forth day of creation, if you read down to verse 23 it says the same thing but that there was a fifth day. To really understand the bible you really have to study it.

[partsbara]

Originally posted by LordOpie
ALEXIS_DH

while there's a lot of reason and logic behind your arguments, i also sense a great deal of emotions too. What's up?

what i d really like to know is 'what s up' with someone having a web page about their own 'personal aventures' ?????????????

how could something that is so important in life have escaped me ??

parts :devil:

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by partsbara
what i d really like to know is 'what s up' with someone having a web page about their own 'personal aventures' ?????????????

how could something that is so important in life have escaped me ??

parts :devil:
Yeah Opie, and what's with the lack of up-dates???? If we're gonna be bored senseless by your box filled with dirt called a life we may as well be bored senseless by the most recent stuff;) :D :p

[partsbara]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Yeah Opie, and what's with the lack of up-dates???? If we're gonna be bored senseless by your box filled with dirt called a life we may as well be bored senseless by the most recent stuff;) :D :p

amen champ... i can t sleep at night without knowing whay opie has been up to...

call me sad, but i need my opie fix.... adventures personified !!!!

[Silver]

Originally posted by BlackhillsBob
Even reading what you typed doesnt say what you are tring to make of it, it is simply saying that is the forth day of creation, if you read down to verse 23 it says the same thing but that there was a fifth day. To really understand the bible you really have to study it.

Don't do that if you value faith at all.

You'll start asking where the unicorns are....

[partsbara]

Originally posted by Silver
Don't do that if you value faith at all.

You'll start asking where the unicorns are....

hehhee

that is the best sh1t i ve read in the last 3523 minutes !

bravo silver :)

GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he is real don t ya know ? ? ? ?

[Silver]

It's a shameless ripoff though, I didn't come up with that line....

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Silver
It's a shameless ripoff though, I didn't come up with that line....
Quiet, shaddup, delete....it's yours until someone can prove otherwise Silver;) :D

[partsbara]

no sh1t sherlock... 99% of what i say can be traced back to pavement/fugazi/mudhoney songs of the late 90's

Y E S, i m that sad...


more fodder for ridiculer SERIAL MIDGET :(:)

[Repack]

I sort of see where AlexisDH is coming from. My views: To say you don't believe is like saying you don't believe in an after life and thus see no chance at seeing past family and friends. Its tough though with all the evolutionary evidence. I would like to think that there is a being of a higher power, but I don't believe in the bible. I think it would be more likely that God just planted the DNA seeds and let everything go from there. IMHO, to live your life entirly according to the bible is to give up your ability to reason. It is our ability to reason that sets us apart from all the other animals on the planet. Also, with all the religon out there, how can any human decide which one is right and which are wrong?

[ALEXIS_DH]

yeah, u kinda get my point.

i agree with you on most of the points.

now, i see god as a slim chance, but the ways most religions work doesnt seem compatible to me, 99% of them are mutually exclusive and they guarantee they are the only way to salvation.

am sorry, but if there is any god, so far the only warranty for that is the word of the people who created that religion.

while i think there is a chance of divinity in god, i dont think there is even the slighest chance of divinity in most religions.

but i dont think is more likely that a god planted the dna seeds.
it's actually a nice and comforting idea to think we are planned beings. that is one of the pilars of most religions. the concept behind it, is good actually, it makes people feel good about themselves, its like a emotional crutch.

dna is just a very complex molecule, actually the "only" difference between a dna molecule, and an inert molecule of protein with the same chemical formula, is the arrangement of the atoms. in fact the only difference between all the matter in the world is the relative position and motion of electrons, protons and neutrons.

this "small" difference (small in terms of odds of happening vs time, because those differences are quite amazing actually), is accountable for all the variety of the matter we know.

am no molecular biologist, but if chemical reactions work at a rate of x per sec, and the most estable partial reaction stays still after reaction, given enough time, and under a huge number of posible combinations for radiation wavelenght, velocity, temperature, pression, etc, etc, etc.... if you have enough time to tinker around with all the posible combinations, statistically you'll get a molecule of dna at some point. (also in the process maybe a molecule of sugar, of chocolate, of whatever you want actually, cuz with every combination you'll get a new molecule, and dna is just one more).

is like rolling 100 million dices with your left hand, and then 100 million dices with your right hand.
if you want to get only 1s in all of your dices at one toss, and inmediately after, getting only 6s in your other toss. i'll may take you a long time, but if you have enough time to roll them enough times, you'll get it!!!!

thats if you are expecting that specific outcome, but what if you dont have a specific goal? then , each time to roll them, u'll get one possible combination, each having an odd of one in 1 000
000 000 000 000.

maybe if you roll them long enough, you'll get all of those posible outcomes!!!.

and this analogy is like the one for the dna, but for the dna, the posible combinations are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar bigger.

but hey, what if dna came up in the first try? or the second? of the hundred-millionth?, after all the chances of that happening at the x try get bigger with the number of tries.

may take a few billion years, hey, hold on, isn't the entire universe supossed to be a few billions years old as well?...

interesting coincidence.


Alexis




Originally posted by Repack
I sort of see where AlexisDH is coming from. My views: To say you don't believe is like saying you don't believe in an after life and thus see no chance at seeing past family and friends. Its tough though with all the evolutionary evidence. I would like to think that there is a being of a higher power, but I don't believe in the bible. I think it would be more likely that God just planted the DNA seeds and let everything go from there. IMHO, to live your life entirly according to the bible is to give up your ability to reason. It is our ability to reason that sets us apart from all the other animals on the planet. Also, with all the religon out there, how can any human decide which one is right and which are wrong?

[ALEXIS_DH]

if i read a book that explicitely says that 2+2=4, and then a few pages after tells me 2+2=5.

no matter what the result of 2+2 is, at least one of those postulates must be wrong, because they are different.

what do you mean by understanding the bible? i think u are actually dont understanding what i tried to say.

again, the first part said there was already night and light in the first day, right?

now, in the fourth day all these thing "happen"

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

all this thing that "happened" in the 4th day are required to have a night and light (in the earth at least, which by bible accounts is the center of universe and creation and the point of reference for accounts).

notice that all the requisites necesary to have a day and night in the 1st day, didn't appear until the 4th.

so even before there was light and stars in the sky (14-15). was there a light and night???, excuse me, but the light in the universe is the radiation from stars, or the reflection of it.

so this happened before the moon and sun??(16),
so there was a night and light in the earth for 3days, even without a sun and a moon? whose light and reflection are what actually define the concept of day and light in the earth (18). and what "according to the bible defined" night and light?


so, there was light on the earth before the sun, and other stars.


and then

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

so, all the things necesary to have a night and light, were not there until the 4th day.
kinda weird. that's the point of the contradiction.


this kinda reminds me of the paradox of god and the heavy rock. can god make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
while i was in high school i asked that once to a catholic theologist. to my disbelief, his amazing answer was. yes he can, but that doesnt mean he is not omnipotent.


kinda self-denying. isnt it? interesting how people can break all the rules of logic just for the sake of it.


Alexis





Originally posted by BlackhillsBob
Even reading what you typed doesnt say what you are tring to make of it, it is simply saying that is the forth day of creation, if you read down to verse 23 it says the same thing but that there was a fifth day. To really understand the bible you really have to study it.

[BlackhillsBob]

I cant believe that you still cant see this as it is written, there's no sence tring to open your eye's to this matter, you just dont have it in you I guess

there is no condradiction anyhere, even rereading what you type, just think about it for a while, its clearly stating that the day is the forth day of creation.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by BlackhillsBob
I cant believe that you still cant see this as it is written, there's no sence tring to open your eye's to this matter, you just dont have it in you I guess

there is no condradiction anyhere, even rereading what you type, just think about it for a while, its clearly stating that the day is the forth day of creation.

Bob, to break it down for ya.

How can there be a first "DAY" without light? It just doesnt make any sense.

Not to get too far caught up in this whole religious thing, but something that's always bothered me is that lots of people who are religious seem to not want to know any contradictory information. Either they dismiss it as "you just dont get it" or they ignore it.
There is absolutely no way possible to prove whether there is or is not a god. It simply cannot be done. Why all the debate? So the bible's flawed...big deal. Does that mean none of its true? Maybe, maybe not. People will beleive whatever they want. You cant change there mind over stuff like this.

[BlackhillsBob]

Is it flawed? I dont see it as being flawed, there's nothing at all as you have said it to be, the bible clearly states that God created the Earth, and that the Earth was dark so he created the light, and God called the light day and the darkness night, and there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Then he created the heavens day number two, and then he created the land, and vegetation, and there was evening and a morning, a third day, now heres where are freind Alex cant understand God created the Sun, Moon, and the Stars to govern the day and the night, day number four, it the first part of the chapter there is nothing said about the Sun or moon being created, the bible only says that he created the light, can a God create a light without have a flamming star overhead, why not, the bible only says that he created the light and called it day, then later he created the sun and stars in the heavens.

This is not hard for me to understand, perhaps you are looking at it to hard, back off abit, you are putting the sun's creation in time frame of the light, but remmeber not to asume anything, take it for what it says.

[Repack]

How can there be a first "DAY" without light? It just doesnt make any sense.
Thats what I was thinking!

I remember back in Sunday School the teacher asked us what we thought about Jesus being pefect. I said I doubted he was, since regular folk seem to shy away from perfect people. I though flaws would make him more likeable. It took a while for me to realize just how pissed off this made her!

[LordOpie]

besides, being perfect would be insanely boring.

[the law]

Originally posted by Archslater
Remember, that the Bible was written by humans after all. Human's error.

Then why would anyone even obey anything that is written in the bible? Maybe the whole thing is one big joke?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by the law
Then why would anyone even obey anything that is written in the bible? Maybe the whole thing is one big joke?

I personally think Oprah is an idiot, and that her book collection sucks my ass, but that doesnt stop thousands of people from listening to her, or david koresh, or jim jones or dr. phil. People follow when they're too lazy to think.

[Stinky Monkey]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I personally think Oprah is an idiot, and that her book collection sucks my ass, but that doesnt stop thousands of people from listening to her, or david koresh, or jim jones or dr. phil. People follow when they're too lazy to think.
Yeah what he said!
But just because I am following what he said dont think I am to lazy to think or something.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I personally think Oprah is an idiot, and that her book collection sucks my ass, but that doesnt stop thousands of people from listening to her, or david koresh, or jim jones or dr. phil. People follow when they're too lazy to think.
agreed

[ALEXIS_DH]

yeah, believing is way easier than thinking .

now, wonder that all that people who read oprah's books are so grateful they think they are the only ones blessed by oprah, because they buy her books and believe them.

but wait, now, they are so good (and because these book's author wants more costumers and told them to do so) they want to share the infinite knowledge of oprah with all the poor other people of the world. so they'll start preaching, bulding fat-farms (i mean spas), and saying that he who doesn't follows oprah's diet will be damned and will be fat after death for eternity!!

oh!! nobody whats to be fat!!, people starts joining the oprah's movement. they'll start adding new storries to tell, people will start "seeing" miracles, oprah's has saved the fat!!!!

then, in a few thousand years, we'll have it
oprah's religion
:p


i think thats the problem of religion, its just "political" ideas, taken to the maximum extreme.

Alexis


PD: and in a few thousand years more, there will be a mtn biking forums, where people will argue about the divinity of oprah, and how she created the universe.


Originally posted by BurlySurly
I personally think Oprah is an idiot, and that her book collection sucks my ass, but that doesnt stop thousands of people from listening to her, or david koresh, or jim jones or dr. phil. People follow when they're too lazy to think.

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
People follow when they're too lazy to think.
Or they join the Marines;) :D Just f*cken with ya BS, found myself in the disturbing situation of agreeing with you then. I think I need to have a cup of tea.:D

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
PD: and in a few thousand years more, there will be a mtn biking forums, where people will argue about the divinity of oprah, and how she created the universe.

We're studying the universe and stuff in my physics class. While Oprah probably didn't create the universe, she is living proof of a new study of physics that I think I'll do a thesis on... "Conservation of Fat".

Total Fat = Oprah's current weight - weight at t-1 + ego

Conservation of Fat... it's delicious.