Yes, the "beliefs" of religion are based around a god, creator, someone to answer to, whatever.. that's a duh...

But, believing in god, does not make you religious... you can witness creation of god, all around us, live...total absent of any religion.

Following a 'belief system' made up by others, if they follow satan, a man or god, a rock, or the sun, makes you religious.

Thus, trying to relate the creation of life to religion, when it should be god... is rather stupid.

well then here you are, dope, part of the anti-religious crowd I called upon.
again, your limited intelligence makes you argue pointlessly.
I've merely given you something to think about.

I think what some people here are trying to say is that your point, as you first stated it, isn't logically supportable, simply because you have assigned a set of descriptors ("religious," "religion" etc.) that bear no real relationship to your central point.

In other words, believing that something (including, possibly a process that has no sentient or conscious aspect?) that we do not yet understand created us is not an inherently religious notion.

I agree with your point, stated the way you stated it the second time at least, I simply don't see how it really argues for subscribing to some form of religion or another. I suspect there are others here that feel the same way, they are simply so distracted by their desire to insult you effectively in the process of saying it that they have been thrown off their rhetorical game. :winkwink:

robbie is correct, it's all mythology and fantasy. thousands of years from now people will believe in star wars, lord of the rings, avatar mythos. hell they are far more interesting. Religions have always been about putting the fear of god in people because they didn't trust their own people to do the right thing. If religion really worked why do we have to implement so much policing in our societies? shouldn't god punish them himself?

oh and just because we don't know the solution to something that doesn't mean it's from God. someone, somewhere probably knows it even if it's the snake people in the sky. lol i believe in the scientific method, but just because something is unexplained doesn't mean jack, we're just too stupid right now. i think all the bad things in the world are because of God. there's no reason for human suffering, innocent children dying, starvation, abused women, murders, natural disasters etc. That's a pretty harsh sadomasochistic god. I'd rather be on my own. Of course i can be proven wrong but haven't seen anything to turn full religious-tard just yet.

What does "the spark of life" have to do with "religion"?

Nothing at all...unless you're religious.

The Bible, the old writers and the older cultures (some more advanced than today) may hold the answers to many scientific questions. We just haven't learned to read the clues and connect the dots yet. Or, the religious in power hold something important back, because religion today is not about belief, but control of mind.

I made no connection between anti-religious crowd and the spark of life nor did I make a connection to the religious crowd and the spark of life. I simply called the rabble in to think about my statement. :winkwink:

This is how I feel. I don't think organized religion is the answer, but it would be unreasonable and arrogant to claim that you do know the answer.

So another words, you spewed shit and have nothing but spew to add?

It has been my understanding that many years ago scientists managed...via a lab experiment...to create the primordial soup from which they think life came. At a later time it has been my understanding that...via a lab experiment...they managed to create a single living cell...that lived a very brief period of time...and of course could not procreate. I do not recall when these experiments took place...but I learned about them in the early '90's when I was attending university. I also do not recall if either of the experiments were ever debunked. I would assume that if these experiments were legit science would be more advanced now in the creation of life than they were then.

I am busy at the moment so I am not going to try and google information about this but may later today. Maybe someone here is familiar with what I am refering to.

ahhhh, the scientific method!
I see you're one of the smart ones.
can you send me the link where the scientific method has ruled out God.
because well, you're argument seems so intelligent.
especially the "religious-tard" part.

Shit man you are a real intellectual :1orglaugh

Your referring to this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

Interesting article about it here... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829091049.htm

Nor did I state that they had... yet. They are very close and excerpts from those articles are:

?Creating protocells has the potential to shed new life on our place in the universe,? Bedau said. ?This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role.?

"His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over."

which leads us into the other articles where we ARE creating nucleotides from the elements...

"Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland?s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth?s primordial ooze."

"They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it."

?By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,? said Sutherland. ?The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

We WILL be capable of creating evolving life in the very close future. THIS is what I was and am pointing out.

What does that have to do with the apocalyptic ravings of a street preacher who (might) have existed 2,000 years ago, during a time that was chock full of apocalyptic Jewish street preachers?

A God who loved you would never allow you to be born, knowing in his omnisicience that you would be spending eternity in hell. If such a sadistic God existed, would he be worth worshipping??

Think about it.

considering googling it would have taken less time than explaining why you couldn't google it, I doubt your accuracy

there's more than one religion in this world.

Think about it. :winkwink:

understanding the building blocks and animating them are two different things. I would not call that "very close"
:winkwink:

They're all based on the same ancient creation stories. Man trying to make sense out of the world, trying to find some elemental reason for existence. There may not BE one. In any case, we're not going to find the answer in some superstitious organized religion. Nobody knows anything more about it than anyone else, nobody has the definitive answers, and we won't until someone figures out how to monitor what happens to us when we die.

Maybe somebody already has, and the answer was just too terrible for public dissimination lol...

"""ScienceDaily (Aug. 31, 2009) ? In 1952, Stanley Miller filled two flasks with chemicals assumed to be present on the primitive Earth, connected the flasks with rubber tubes and introduced some electrical sparks as a stand-in for lightning. The now famous experiment showed what amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could easily be generated from this primordial stew. But despite that seminal experiment, neither he nor others were able to take the next step: that of showing how life?s code could come from such humble beginnings."""

Fair enough... although to be equally fair to your quarry, one can see how certain connections between the thread title and the food for thought within could be reasonably assumed. :)

therefore, no one belief, whether it be a belief in religion or a belief in science is currently more right than the other.

Other than science has proven many things and religion has never proven anything..other than it can kill.

It's all just a great big miracle...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s

god is dead

It was googled for me. The experiment creating the primordial soup apparently has not been debunked. I am busy...so I just glanced over the two links that were provided...but I did not see anything in that experiment about the creation of a single living cell. Maybe someone can google that information for me.

I would also like to add this about the "God" as described by all religions. The key is in his description which is always "Omnipotent".

Omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

NOW... If there is such a being as this, he has NO need of our money yet he requires a weekly donation of 10% or more.

If there is such a being as this, he is BEYOND "human" emotions like sadness, anger, vengeance, pity, kindness, etc. These are things that "man" or "humans" possess.

If there is such a being as this, why would it be cowed into proving its power with the answering of prays for a creature (humans) of no significance or equality to itself.

If there is such a being as this, why would it care if one nation did bad things to another nation and seek vengeance in bloodshed, the murdering of children, genocide, plaques, etc. as listed countless times over in the bible?

I could go on but if you possess any intelligence at all, you can see the point and logic I am pointing out.

I can proved it !

http://www.charmr.com/images/awegeewizugu.jpg

Then you prove yourself completely... Congratulations! You have exactly what it requires to be a God fearing, Bible wielding, Faith monger who will never except anything outside those boundaries as drawn by the religion you choose to follow.

I wish you luck in your endeavor or ignorance, whichever the case may be.

YOU CLEARLY DID NOT READ THE ARTICLES.

I think there are philosophers who have gotten closer, and they're doing interesting things with physics regarding our linear perception of time and how much of our 'reality' we're actually capable of percieving with our limited senses. Sooner or later someone will crack the puzzle. I'm not smart enough to follow the science though. If I was, I'd be doing something more worthwhile with my life than slinging porn for pervs.

edit: didn't see the 'belief in science' remark. Science doesn't require 'belief' the way religion does. Science only concerns itself with provable, replicatable phenomena. Apples and oranges, and science is far more valid than religion as a method of finding answers to difficult questions.

You know, the catholic church has already acknowledged the theory of the big bang and 'from there on...', but they do not want the science to question what happened before that. So you can say they extended the termination of religion for quite some years :)

In near future, we will plant the first seed on the Moon, then terraform Mars and maybe later on a planet in another solar system. Now, if we leave the evolution to its own destiny, and intelligence arise, are we Gods because they can't explain their origin?

The scientific method does not rule out God, but it rules out the religious method, because it forbid the questioning of God/origin. Science is about testing hypothesis, not deny it. That's why you have "anti"-religion in scientific context. :thumbsup

still too busy, eh, pathfinder?:1orglaugh

you've obviously never heard the story of Thomas

Which Thomas? It was Stephen Hawking who quoted the Pope, which happened few years ago.

We can't travel to another star system, that doesn't mean we'll never be able to. We can't cure cancer now, that doesn't mean we'll never be able to.

No, science hasn't re-created their theory of life to produce results of how life and/or humans came to be from basic materials. We do not have the necessary know how to recreate an envirnoment when life was first created, nor do we have the environment now to see if a species of ape can evolve into a human.

To counter your question/statement; the Religious, priests, bishops and Pope's have yet to prove that God exists, that God created man, the universe, and that a rib ripped from a man can create a woman. Something to think about :winkwink:

And no, I'm not about to list every religion and their beliefs, their inherient common similarity, and what they have yet to prove to counter your point, so I'll stick to Catholicism as my argruing point for now.


I can't believe so many of you are letting Ron troll you like this. Just wait until tomorrow when he has something new to say about Obama, the great lord and saviour of the USA :1orglaugh

You believe the Thomas stories are real?...

http://www.smvblog.com/nonita/wp-con...11/thomas1.jpg

Awwww, didn't mean to hurt your feelings little fella.
You're free to believe whatever you want to BELIEVE.
However, we have not ever created life.

But you go on believing :1orglaugh

another great 12dicks troll thread

I love it when he drops in and reminds us all how arrogant ,ignorant and simple he is all in a few short posts :1orglaugh

But who or what created the yeast? And who or what created those elements needed to creat the things that created the yeast?

I think what Ron is asking is why science can't take INERT matter (which at one time in distance history must have been all that existed, if not outright nothingness) and create life from it?

Think about it. You have a bare rock of a planet, in it's cooling stages. No life. Now ask scientists to create life using only what's avialable. As far as we know, they can't, nor can anyone say with any degree of certainty what that "spark" was that caused life to form from nothing.. And I'm not entirely convinced the word "yet" even applies. I have a level of doubt that science will ever be able to definitively prove it (and thus invalidate the religious theory).

Personally I think the theory of evolution and the faith-based creation perspectives are more intertwined and related than most on either side would care to admit or even consider. :2 cents:

Welcome home!
How was the day job?

This thread should heat up now that the part timers are finishing work and getting online

I believe that Karen O exists. Don't you?

It's hard to believe sometimes she actually does exist. I believe that I exist, as well.

Is that trippy enough for you?

Does she believe that she exists?

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the question of the existence of a higher guiding power and the existence of the biblical god. I am anti-ORGANIZED RELIGION because the bible is an error filled piece of hate-mongering shit that serves no purpose other than to create hate and misery. Add the koran too. That doesn't mean that i am an atheist. Your points are valid, but that doesn't mean that YHWH and ALLAH are real beings.

I think we can all agree that Canada created and gave life to the entity we all now know and love as hockey.

Does that make us hockey gods?

Ever see the documentary 'Religulous' buy Bill Maher? In one scene he is asking the guy if he has ever directly experienced a miracle of God. The nut replies that at a party, he stuck his hand out the window and prayed for it to rain and all of a sudden it started to rain. Maher pointed out that this could merely be a coincidence. Of course the idiot took it as a miracle from God.

Now, if there is a God who does things like this, things that serve no purpose other than to stoke the ego of a believer, and will ignore the fervent pleas of a mother at the bedside of a dying child, then he is not the kind of God I ever want to know, let alone worship of give my money to. It is thins kind of god that these religious kooks believe in. Fortunately for the world, however, there is more empirical evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than there is for YHWH.

Hockey IS the God of all sports, IMHO. You also make better beer than we do in the USA. Unfortunately, you just can't seem to win a gold metal when you host the Olympics or get the Stanley Cup back on Canadian soil.