Religion, is it true? - Page 16

basilisk888 · May 13, 2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

I can't believe you just said that ,go study cloning then comeback to me ,first of all ,cloned bodies have the remaining age of its original host cells ,where's the creation in that?

thats the closest thing that I could think of that would even be close to what you wanted... Because reality check plz you can't try to just "make" something... (I know I said you can) but I was trying to fit you question into it... (we as we know it were not just "made")

Quote:

That depends on whether you believe in clocks occurring naturally or not. You can make basic DNA components but that doesn't make them organized. There are so many "missing links" that simply make the belief of life being organized by chance a matter of faith that it is easy to believe in a "hand" being involved instead. Entropy itself argues against chance. The very discussion of the end of the universe beggars it as well. Left to itself life doesn't build up it breaks down into it's most basic components. Just as clocks are built by a "being" moving and organizing the parts that have already been formed from raw materials life itself and it's organization can be done the same way as well.

yes there is missing links so is there missing "links" in religon... say christionanity well it saids that humans were "created" well we now know that they evolved (oh well)

Quote:

Me personally I believe there is a greater being and it happens to be GOD....I think if we follow his word we will eventually join him in heaven and I do believe that there will come a day when the world will end and all GODS people will go to heaven. Well that is just what I believe so feel free to disagree.

well some people do disegree... and some people agree... (but plz do not yell >.<)

Kiani Haki22 · May 13, 2008, 10:47 AM

sorry i wasn't yelling it is an instant reaction for me to spell god in all caps because that the way i think it should be spelled sorry about that didnt mean to make you think i was yelling.

*Arrianna* · May 13, 2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basilisk888

yes there is missing links so is there missing "links" in religon... say christionanity well it saids that humans were "created" well we now know that they evolved (oh well)

No we do not know that we were evolved. It is a theory of which certain people have faith in. To know it you need proof and that proof does not exist. That is why they are called missing links... because they are missing.

I have read article published by more then one scientist who worked in the field of genetic manipulation and mutations who started out atheists and changed their minds because of what they found. More then one has said that the only reason we still have the theory of evolution is because they can't think of anything to replace it with that does not involve a higher being. Even if you believe in evolution the concept of such changes happening with the help of a higher being (intelligent design) is growing in strength for the very reason I already mentioned, entropy would demand something acting against the natural decay of matter.

So all we have left is faith. Either you have faith that somehow there is a natural means that strives against entropy and that eventually the multiple missing links will be found, you believe that a higher being themselves directed the growth of things against the effects of entropy, or you believe that a higher being organized and created life as needed whenever and wherever desired.

In the end the only ones without faith on the subject is agnostics who recognize a lack of complete "proof" for all the above.

basilisk888 · May 13, 2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

sorry i wasn't yelling it is an instant reaction for me to spell god in all caps because that the way i think it should be spelled sorry about that didnt mean to make you think i was yelling.

np

Quote:

No we do not know that we were evolved. It is a theory of which certain people have faith in. To know it you need proof and that proof does not exist. That is why they are called missing links... because they are missing.

I have read article published by more then one scientist who worked in the field of genetic manipulation and mutations who started out atheists and changed their minds because of what they found. More then one has said that the only reason we still have the theory of evolution is because they can't think of anything to replace it with that does not involve a higher being. Even if you believe in evolution the concept of such changes happening with the help of a higher being (intelligent design) is growing in strength for the very reason I already mentioned, entropy would demand something acting against the natural decay of matter.

So all we have left is faith. Either you have faith that somehow there is a natural means that strives against entropy and that eventually the multiple missing links will be found, you believe that a higher being themselves directed the growth of things against the effects of entropy, or you believe that a higher being organized and created life as needed whenever and wherever desired.

In the end the only ones without faith on the subject is agnostics who recognize a lack of complete "proof" for all the above.

I may not have any proof that you like but what about all the animals and theroy of evoulution and the comon dessent theroy... well do you say to just throw them to the wind and replace it with religon like in the dark ages... what about all the things that we have evidence that they have lived and our andsestors what about them??? they are the proof of evolution!

*Arrianna* · May 13, 2008, 03:13 PM

Sorry, no they are not. There has been no discernible change in man within record in intellect etc nor have they have been unable to find any link between "modern man" and the theory of common descent. That is why it is still a Theory.

Theory
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The only part of that list that has been proven is genetic drift among the animal kingdom which was already well known since breeders use/d it all the time. It does not prove one way or the other anything else or have an impact on the truthfulness of evolution or religion since genetic drift can exist separately from all the other theories without issue. Another natural law if you like. Breed big horses to other big horses and you get bigger horses.

The funny part about that was when genetic drift was proposed the same people said that it was impossible for medieval knights to have had the huge horses history said they did to ride about in in their heavy armor since such changes were "small and slow to develop". Yet some breeders decided a few years ago to find out and successfully bred a horse matching the description from the smaller ponies they had back then and succeeded within 10 years...

Like many theories the idea's were incomplete and egocentric so using it as a sole foundation for current understanding means risking a shaky foundation easily foundered. That is why it is so important we not cling religiously to the theories of the 19th century but keep an open mind.

Kiani Haki22 · May 13, 2008, 03:13 PM

kool next time i will watch my spelling...I dont want to get in trouble

basilisk888 · May 13, 2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Sorry, no they are not. There has been no discernible change in man within record in intellect etc nor have they have been unable to find any link between "modern man" and the theory of common descent. That is why it is still a Theory.

Theory
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The only part of that list that has been proven is genetic drift among the animal kingdom which was already well known since breeders use/d it all the time. It does not prove one way or the other anything else or have an impact on the truthfulness of evolution or religion since genetic drift can exist separately from all the other theories without issue. Another natural law if you like. Breed big horses to other big horses and you get bigger horses.

The funny part about that was when genetic drift was proposed the same people said that it was impossible for medieval knights to have had the huge horses history said they did to ride about in in their heavy armor since such changes were "small and slow to develop". Yet some breeders decided a few years ago to find out and successfully bred a horse matching the description from the smaller ponies they had back then and succeeded within 10 years...

Like many theories the idea's were incomplete and egocentric so using it as a sole foundation for current understanding means risking a shaky foundation easily foundered. That is why it is so important we not cling religiously to the theories of the 19th century but keep an open mind.

well it is a theroy but its one that is proven by looking at the past... if you look then you can see the splitting of the diffrent liveing things... they all have a comon desent... like how we are related to chimps...

Quote:

kool next time i will watch my spelling...I dont want to get in trouble

your not in trouble but people will think that you are yelling... thats all.

*Arrianna* · May 13, 2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basilisk888

well it is a theroy but its one that is proven by looking at the past... if you look then you can see the splitting of the diffrent liveing things... they all have a comon desent... like how we are related to chimps...

That is not proven even if you personally believe homologous decent to be true. If it was proven it wouldn't be a Theory. Or to put it in the context of our previous conversation - it is a subjective truth not an absolute truth.

Congratualtions, you have a religion.

BTW:
Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

Quote:

In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]

...

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

...and information like that is why it remains a theory.

basilisk888 · May 14, 2008, 02:34 AM

Quote:

In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues “detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes” (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some “large” differences between the genomes of chimps and humans.

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]

...

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

??? were are you geting that from??? I have never heard of this... who in their right mind would think to say this??? do you know how long they took to make the gene map of the human DNA??? and its closer to like 98%....

Quote:

That is not proven even if you personally believe homologous decent to be true. If it was proven it wouldn't be a Theory. Or to put it in the context of our previous conversation - it is a subjective truth not an absolute truth.

Congratualtions, you have a religion.

if I do have a "religon" as you say then its one without a higher being... =P

Kiani Haki22 · May 14, 2008, 05:11 AM

Ok....kool....I reallly don't want ppl to think I am yelling either.

hedgehog666 · May 14, 2008, 09:24 AM

sorry if i make anyone mad but my opinion is that the religions r all false if u date back to the romans they had 100s of gods that controlled life and one day a man is born and decides that there is only one god. then later on others started there own beliefs. and this causes war and other crap so to me religion is better forgotten then following through life on what people create out of thin air. im really sorry if i made anyone mad

May 13, 2008, 10:47 AM	#167 (permalink)
Kiani Haki22 Devoted Otaku Join Date: May 2008 Location: In the middle of nowhere aka wright city Posts: 526 Thanks: 86 Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts Credits: 13,452	Re: Religion, is it true? sorry i wasn't yelling it is an instant reaction for me to spell god in all caps because that the way i think it should be spelled sorry about that didnt mean to make you think i was yelling. __________________ [Myspace] [Forum Profile] [The Journey my RPG] [My Social Group] [My Story] [Love Song]
Status: Offline

May 13, 2008, 03:13 PM	#170 (permalink)
Arrianna Lady Barronmore Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,012 Thanks: 8 Thanked 34 Times in 31 Posts Credits: 37,819	Re: Religion, is it true? Sorry, no they are not. There has been no discernible change in man within record in intellect etc nor have they have been unable to find any link between "modern man" and the theory of common descent. That is why it is still a Theory. Theory a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. The only part of that list that has been proven is genetic drift among the animal kingdom which was already well known since breeders use/d it all the time. It does not prove one way or the other anything else or have an impact on the truthfulness of evolution or religion since genetic drift can exist separately from all the other theories without issue. Another natural law if you like. Breed big horses to other big horses and you get bigger horses. The funny part about that was when genetic drift was proposed the same people said that it was impossible for medieval knights to have had the huge horses history said they did to ride about in in their heavy armor since such changes were "small and slow to develop". Yet some breeders decided a few years ago to find out and successfully bred a horse matching the description from the smaller ponies they had back then and succeeded within 10 years... Like many theories the idea's were incomplete and egocentric so using it as a sole foundation for current understanding means risking a shaky foundation easily foundered. That is why it is so important we not cling religiously to the theories of the 19th century but keep an open mind. __________________ l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l
Status: Offline

May 13, 2008, 03:13 PM	#171 (permalink)
Kiani Haki22 Devoted Otaku Join Date: May 2008 Location: In the middle of nowhere aka wright city Posts: 526 Thanks: 86 Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts Credits: 13,452	Re: Religion, is it true? kool next time i will watch my spelling...I dont want to get in trouble __________________ [Myspace] [Forum Profile] [The Journey my RPG] [My Social Group] [My Story] [Love Song]
Status: Offline

May 14, 2008, 05:11 AM	#175 (permalink)
Kiani Haki22 Devoted Otaku Join Date: May 2008 Location: In the middle of nowhere aka wright city Posts: 526 Thanks: 86 Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts Credits: 13,452	Re: Religion, is it true? Ok....kool....I reallly don't want ppl to think I am yelling either. __________________ [Myspace] [Forum Profile] [The Journey my RPG] [My Social Group] [My Story] [Love Song]
Status: Offline

May 14, 2008, 09:24 AM	#176 (permalink)
hedgehog666 Diamond in the Rough Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: in the darkness Posts: 130 Thanks: 7 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts Credits: 2,799	Re: Religion, is it true? sorry if i make anyone mad but my opinion is that the religions r all false if u date back to the romans they had 100s of gods that controlled life and one day a man is born and decides that there is only one god. then later on others started there own beliefs. and this causes war and other crap so to me religion is better forgotten then following through life on what people create out of thin air. im really sorry if i made anyone mad __________________ when the mask comes off the real me appeares
Status: Offline

Welcome to AnimeOnline.net, your personal Anime Community!	Anime Online Rulez!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is Religion Necessary?	Tetsanosuke Kirikami	Debate and Discuss	170	Dec 10, 2007 01:20 PM
True Feelings About A True Person....	equinn	Poems	4	Jul 29, 2007 01:42 PM
True Name True Power -- Tarot Method, Ancient truth with a twist	darkness of an angel	Cyber Lounge	0	Apr 24, 2007 10:30 AM
Religion	kedar	The Vault	66	Feb 26, 2006 01:26 PM
religion	Wing 0	The Vault	19	Sep 15, 2005 09:10 AM