Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Chris81

Member
  • Content Count

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

196 Neutral

About Chris81

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Chris81

    Post your pet!

    Quote:Original post by Gunslinger RR Quote:Original post by Chris81 I would love to have a dog and/or cat, however, I'm allergic. [sad] Anybody know of a good allergy medicine that will actually work? Immunotherepy (allergy shots). I've been getting them for about 5 years, and for the past four years I've been feeling great. To put it into perspective, I'm allergic to just about everything they test you for. Get the shots once every week or so, and maybe some allergy medication too, and you're set for awhile. EDIT: I don't have any pics of my cat or dogs on the internet right now [sad] Take a shot every week for how long? That sounds like a pain, literally and figuratively. So you can be around cats and dogs all you want with no reaction?
  2. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Drazgal Quote:Original post by Chris81 or aliens coming from outer space to explain everything So aliens can fathom the begining of time but we will never be able to? Any reason for that? [grin]
  3. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Sneftel Quote:Original post by Chris81 I didn't denounce all of those. All I have said is that I haven't found a reason not to put faith in the Bible. But these other religions have given you one...or, at least, a datapoint to evaluate it. It seems, at the very least, rather strange that billions of people in the world would have a set of beliefs that were utterly meritless. Here's an example: As far as I know, the windshield cleaner in my car uses a centrifugal pump. If someone told me "no, it uses a peristaltic pump", I wouldn't believe them; it doesn't make sense to use a peristaltic pump there. If BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of people agreed with him, I still might not believe them, but at the very least I'd consider it important (if I cared about what kind of pump it was) to do a little research into whether they had a good point. Is religion so unimportant that it does not deserve scrutiny? Exactly my point. The problem I was stating in a previous post is that very few athiests I have talked to have studied the bible. I already stated my intentions of studying the koran and other major religions beliefs in a different previous post.
  4. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Drazgal Quote:Original post by Chris81 Science will never answer those questions. Why not? Just because its beyond us now? A thousand years ago it was impossible to explain many things that are easily explainable to a layperson today. Is it so unreasonable to believe that humans in another thousand years or ten thousand years wont know more than we do now? Well assuming we don't blow ourselves up ofcourse :P In short of inventing a time machine, or aliens coming from outer space to explain everything, no...I don't think it's possible for science to ever answer those questions.
  5. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Drazgal Quote:Original post by Chris81 How can you denounce something which you don't have all the facts to? How do you get all the facts if you dont study? Have you studied every greek, norse, goth, native american, aztec, mayan, incan, pagan, buddistic, hindu, seekism and many other works in detail? If not how can you be sure your god is correct and not any of theirs? I didn't denounce all of those. All I have said is that I haven't found a reason not to put faith in the Bible.
  6. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by necreia Quote:Original post by Chris81 How did the universe start expanding and collapsing though? When did time start to even define infinite time? How did the first force, molecule, atom, etc. come into existence? Science will never answer those questions. The odds from going to absolute nothing (I mean no physical forces, nothing) to something are 1 in infiniti. Time is a human-made concept to explain the passage of matter through space. The only way someone can answer that question, is to assume that 'time' actually did start. Just because humans expire, does not mean that matter can. You believe there is an eternal afterlife (or so I've gathered from reading, correct me if I'm wrong), why is the concept of endless post existance alright, but endless preexistance impossible? So you can believe that matter and physical forces has an endless preexistance, but it's impossible for an endless post existance? Scientists are always seeking for the point of origin, yet they don't mind accepting endless pre-existance? Interesting.
  7. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Quote:Original post by Chris81 I think that's where a lot of Athiests go wrong. They see what religions do, associate that with the Bible, and therefore decree the bible to be hypocritical useless myths. However, the majority of athiests don't take the time to actually READ the bible. And not just read, but STUDY. It takes effort and time to cover such a large book, however, given what the bible claims to accomplish it's worth the effort. I don't see the logic of using Elmer Gantry to declare the Bible mythical. Atheists deem the Bible mythical because it's full of stories about a God they don't believe in, just as with stories about the Greek and Roman gods. They don't need to read or study the Bible anymore than any other religious text. How can you denounce something which you don't have all the facts to? How do you get all the facts if you dont study?
  8. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Drazgal Quote:Original post by OpenGL_Guru if you are talking about a fish you are talking about many multiple times that for the odds. and humans?? unimaginable. If the universe is constantly expanding and collapsing (a popular theory) then effectively there is infinte time for the chances you are talking about to happen. How did the universe start expanding and collapsing though? When did time start to even define infinite time? How did the first force, molecule, atom, etc. come into existence? Science will never answer those questions. The odds from going to absolute nothing (I mean no physical forces, nothing) to something are 1 in infiniti.
  9. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    I read the responses to the claims on that site, and they aren't very good. responses to protein transport: Quote: Despite the complexity of the system that Behe describes, protein transport need not be that complex. Some proteins direct their own secretion so that no transport mechanism is necessary (see references in Ussery 1999). Certainly, other simple systems that could serve as precursors to vesicular transport should be possible. Seems like a big "what if". Quote: Many of the proteins involved in transport in eukaryote cells have molecular "ancestors" in bacteria. These molecules, the ABC transporters, serve in a much simpler system. If Behe is interested in the simplest system that accomplishes a function, why does he not even mention them? ABC transporters aren't simpler, just different. In fact, they can be said to be even more complex because they require 4 subunits instead of 1 subunite for eukaryotes. The microscopic details of substrate recognition, transport mechanism and energy coupling for ABC transporters are still almost obscure. Only a few plant transporters and their substrate specificities have been analysed in detail (Martnoia et al., 2002). To use this in response isn't viable, IMO. Quote: Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn't imply design. A very generic statement, so I clicked the "not an obstacle to evolution link" here are my thoughts on those responses: Quote: Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996). We're talking about a complex system going from nothing to existense, not a complex system evolving from already functional to something else. The possibility of slow formation for something like citric acid cycle doesn't blanket over all other examples. Quote: Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. "Yeah, well it doesn't prove you right, either!" Weak argument. To me, god of the gaps was made up so that evolutionists would have a phrase to negatively associate with creationists viewpoint. Weak, IMO. Same thing happened in J2EE. Everybody was using EJB's even when the situation didn't warrant the complexity of EJBs. So someone decided to coin the term POJO - plain old java object, now it's all the rage. Quote: Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. They're reaching here...I think it would be whatever fits the scope of the system in question. Some will require further breaking down to atomic level, some wont. It doesn't change the complexity of the overall system, or the interdependency of it. Why is this a counter-argument? Quote: Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. I don't see how this is a counter-argument either. The point is that if they were to break down into smaller parts they no longer can function as the whole. Just because a simpler flagellum can exist or a secretion system, they don't retain the original function that they could perform as a whole.
  10. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by entity111 In fact, that statement is so important, I'm going to quote it again... Quote:Original post by Stonicus If I tell my brother a story today, by tomorrow, 3 people down the grapevine, the story has changed. And this happened to the stories in the Bible for hundreds of years. There's very little chance they are accurate enough to be taken literally. We can't get accurate info on what happened in Iraq yesterday. But the Bible is an accurate account of what happened in the Middle East 2000 years ago? It's just not logical. Read my previous post: Quote: The copyists in bible times were very maticulous about correctly copying the bible. They would triple check every letter, as they believed it to be holy and a grave sin to incorrectly copy the book. This is why all known copies of the bible have so few differences between them, including comparing the latest pre-printing press copies with the oldest scrolls and copies, dead sea scrolls, etc. They were many copies and they are all the same. They were not changed. If they wanted to remove a "false prophecy" from the bible, they would have to remove it from all known copies. And given the intense reverance of the bible by the copeists, it is highly unlikely.
  11. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Sandman Quote:Original post by Chris81 As a side note to evolutionists, please explain irreducible complexity as presented by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in his book Drawin's Black Box--The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. It basically takes the stance "I don't know how <x> could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed". This is a clearly fallacious position. Furthermore, many (if not all) of his so called 'irreducibly complex' systems have been shown to be completely reducible. The eye for example - throughout the animal kingdom there are creatures alive today demonstrating eyes at all stages of complexity, ranging from simple light sensitive cells, to the complex eyes of a mantis shrimp. With a bit of research, it's not hard to come up with an evolutionary pathway for a structure like the eye. Actually, I am thinking in more of a smaller structure, such as the cell and blood clotting. Here's an excerpt from a review of the book: Quote: Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death. Timing and speed are the vital keys. Biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks: “Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood . . . has solidified?” He explains that “the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot” make up an integrated biological system. If any part fails, then the system fails. Russell Doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks: “How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble?” Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an “enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places.” He shows that Doolittle’s explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties. Thus, one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states: “I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select—something that is useful right now, not in the future.” And this explains evolutionists lack of explanation: Quote: Professor Behe states that some scientists have studied “mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data.” However, he concludes: “The mathematics assumes that real-world evolution is a gradual, random process; it does not (and cannot) demonstrate it.” (Last phrase italics ours.) He earlier said: “If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism’s universal reach.” This raises a series of questions for conscientious scientists to consider: “How did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? How did intramolecular transport start? How did cholesterol biosynthesis begin? How did retinal become involved in vision? How did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop?” Behe adds: “The very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems.” If Darwin’s theory cannot explain the complex molecular foundation of cells, then how can it be a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the millions of species that inhabit this earth? After all, evolution cannot even produce new family kinds by bridging the gaps from one family kind to another.
  12. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    As a side note to evolutionists, please explain irreducible complexity as presented by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in his book Drawin's Black Box--The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
  13. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Machaira Quote:Original post by Chris81 The bible says no other works should be added as they are not needed, the bible is complete. Actually, the Bible doesn't say this. If you're referring to: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. That only pertains to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible, which obviously didn't exist at the time John experienced this. That doesn't mean that there's more that needs to be added to scripture. I cannot find anything relevant to my walk with God that scripture doesn't cover. Anything specific one should just go directly to God for the answer. Psalm 12:6,7; Daniel 12:4; 1 Peter 1:24, 25; Revelation 22:18, 19
  14. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by Eelco Quote:Original post by Chris81 Quote:Original post by Sandman Strictly speaking, 'evolution' is about as close to an incontrovertible fact as it is possible to get. I think that is a pretty bold statement. If so, why hasn't it been declared proven fact, rather than remaining a theory? ever heard of the 'theory of gravity'? you just seriously damaged your credibility by using the 'its just a theory' fallacy. it must suck just to parrot what other people are saying. I've always known it is the law of gravity.
  15. Chris81

    Eternal damnation.

    Quote:Original post by dagarach The point I am trying to understand is how you can be so certain of the divinity of the New Testament, but deny the divinity of the Koran. The way I see it, all followers of the Abrahamic tradition should either be Jews or Muslims, i.e. just believe the initial work, and denounce Jesus as a charlatan, or beleieve all books by the same author (God) and accept Jesus and Mohammed as prophets. Islam is not just some other foreign religion, I'm not asking why you are not a Hindu or Shintoist or somesuch. Mohammed was a prophet of YOUR God, the god of Adam, Abraham and Moses. The Koran is exactly as provably divine as the New Testament, in addition, it is exactly as divine as the Pentateuch, as it was dictated from heaven, better than the New Testament, which contains the rather irrelevant ramblings of St. Paul. The bible doesn't say Mohammed is a prophet of my god. Mohammed said that. The bible says no other works should be added as they are not needed, the bible is complete. Does the Koran contain multiple eyewitness accounts of an individual that fulfills dozens of prophecies from the old testament, great and small? Not that I know of, but the gospels do. Does it contain prophecies even similar to those found in Revelation, not that I know of. Maybe this will change when I get to studying the book, I don't know. And to say the writings of paul in the new testament are irrelevant ramblings is ridiculous to me. They contain numerous invaluable admonitions that show wisdom for beyond his ability. To me, the encouragement given by Paul is just as relevant today as it was 1900 years ago. In fact, it is proven that many of those who live by Pauls example (who himself lives by jesus example) and follows the many beneficial teachings of his, live happy and fulfilling lives today, not just in the first century.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!