Question for Unbelievers
Suppose I am in the gun making business, and I build a new type of gun, one that will greatly surpass every gun that currently exists. Suppose I make this gun to be available to all people, however I know that everyone will not treat it the same. Some people will use it for good, protecting their loved ones and themselves, and only when there is no other option, while some people will use it to kill innocent people, for any reason at all, whatever it may be. I want people to use my gun for good, but I know that it would not be right to make them use it for good, because I want them to choose to use it in that way. At the same time, I know that many will use it for evil, and for their own gain. So here is the question, is it then my fault that people use the gun for evil, and am I evil for allowing this to happen? Also, because I knew before hand what people would do with the gun, have I truly given them free will to use it?
Please do not get this poofed or locked. I will return from my trip Tues night and I want to be able to read your responses.
Please do not get this poofed or locked. I will return from my trip Tues night and I want to be able to read your responses.
0
-
It is all a plot by Chinese - they invented gunpowder for the purpose of the rest of the world killing each other while they multiply and take over the world without a fight. 0 -
No. I already said that part of the argument, if you forgot go back and read it. prove it wrong. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
No. I already said that part of the argument, if you forgot go back and read it. prove it wrong.
Re read it, still see no proof that God does not exist. Give me a link to this peer reviewed article that says in the conclusion or anywhere in it that "God does not exist."0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
or to avoid losing an argument you try to find ways to twist around the very gospel that somebody wrote in the bible that supposedly is God's word, to suit what the scientists have found, which completely disproves the beliefs of generations of believers, who had taught you what to believe in the first place. maybe God did create dinosaurs? maybe one day in heaven is like a thousand years here on earth, that's why we have a 7,000 day week?
or when you find that you don't have an explanation to counter the impossible truths you're being confronted with, the answer is "just believe". no amount of truth can shake your faith, but it surely does make you turn away. "just believe" is the only answer you have.
My beliefs remain consistent and always have, and I do not change my answers or what the Bible says to fit my needs. Others have done that, and I have seen it done, but I have not done that. I still insist as I have from the beginning that the earth was created in 6 days, not over 6,000 years or any other amount of time that some may say, just because it may be more believable to them. Six days it is. And I have never said that dinosaurs did not exist. Dinosaurs were created on the same day that the rest of the animals were created, and most were likely killed in the flood just like the rest of the world. All animals were initially herbivores, as it says in Genesis, until God gave them up to be eaten by people, and so they also began to eat meat.
So tell me, I have asked this question for years and have not received an answer. If evolution is how we came to be, then people evolved in this order, according to what we learned in school: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. Why is it then that there are tons of fossils of reptiles, and birds, and fish, and all the rest, but yet there are no transitional forms between them?
And if God does not exist, and the world came to being on its own, and life had to come from nothing, how is it that no experiment has been able to create real living beings from nothing, even when they use conditions that supposedly existed in the beginning?0 -
they won't be found in the bible... that's not a peer-reviewd scientific journal. so these should exceed your standards.
quote:If evolution is how we came to be, then people evolved in this order, according to what we learned in school: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. Why is it then that there are tons of fossils of reptiles, and birds, and fish, and all the rest, but yet there are no transitional forms between them?killing two birds with one stone: transitional fossils of early man
Nature 448, 688-691 (9 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05986; Received 12 March 2007; Accepted 5 June 2007
Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya
F. Spoor1, M. G. Leakey2,3, P. N. Gathogo5, F. H. Brown5, S. C. Ant?n6, I. McDougall7, C. Kiarie8, F. K. Manthi8 & L. N. Leakey2,4
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Koobi Fora Research Project, PO Box 24926, Nairobi 00502, Kenya
Department of Anatomical Sciences,
Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Division of Palaeontology, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Correspondence to: F. Spoor1M. G. Leakey2,3 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.S. (Email: f.spoor@ucl.ac.uk) or M.G.L. (Email: meaveleakey@uuplus.com).
Sites in eastern Africa have shed light on the emergence and early evolution of the genus Homo1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The best known early hominin species, H. habilis and H. erectus, have often been interpreted as time-successive segments of a single anagenetic evolutionary lineage3, 7, 8, 9, 10. The case for this was strengthened by the discovery of small early Pleistocene hominin crania from Dmanisi in Georgia that apparently provide evidence of morphological continuity between the two taxa11, 12. Here we describe two new cranial fossils from the Koobi Fora Formation, east of Lake Turkana in Kenya, that have bearing on the relationship between species of early Homo. A partial maxilla assigned to H. habilis reliably demonstrates that this species survived until later than previously recognized, making an anagenetic relationship with H. erectus unlikely. The discovery of a particularly small calvaria of H. erectus indicates that this taxon overlapped in size with H. habilis, and may have shown marked sexual dimorphism. The new fossils confirm the distinctiveness of H. habilis and H. erectus, independently of overall cranial size, and suggest that these two early taxa were living broadly sympatrically in the same lake basin for almost half a million years.
evolutionary transition between reptiles and mammals
Nature 446, 288-293 (15 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05627; Received 4 August 2006; Accepted 29 January 2007
A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals
Zhe-Xi Luo1,2, Peiji Chen3, Gang Li3 & Meng Chen2
Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennysylvania 15213, USA
Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
Correspondence to: Zhe-Xi Luo1,2 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Z.-X.L. (Email: luoz@carnegiemnh.org).
Detachment of the three tiny middle ear bones from the reptilian mandible is an important innovation of modern mammals. Here we describe a Mesozoic eutriconodont nested within crown mammals that clearly illustrates this transition: the middle ear bones are connected to the mandible via an ossified Meckel's cartilage. The connected ear and jaw structure is similar to the embryonic pattern in modern monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and placental mammals, but is a paedomorphic feature retained in the adult, unlike in monotreme and placental adults. This suggests that reversal to (or retention of) this premammalian ancestral condition is correlated with different developmental timing (heterochrony) in eutriconodonts. This new eutriconodont adds to the evidence of homoplasy of vertebral characters in the thoraco-lumbar transition and unfused lumbar ribs among early mammals. This is similar to the effect of homeobox gene patterning of vertebrae in modern mammals, making it plausible to extrapolate the effects of Hox gene patterning to account for homoplastic evolution of vertebral characters in early mammals.
they're wondering how old is the oldest star in our galaxy. since you say everyting was created 6000 years ago, this blows apart that superstition.
Nature 376, 399 - 402 (03 August 2002); doi:10.1038/376399a0
Conflict over the age of the Universe
M. Bolte & C. J. Hogan
Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA.
Astronomy and Physics Department, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.
The ages of the oldest stars in our Galaxy can be estimated by comparing stellar populations in globular clusters to calibrated stellar models. The best data give cluster ages of about 15.8 2.1 Gyr, which conflicts with the age of the Universe estimated from measurements of the Nubble constant and the 'standard' cosmological model of a flat, matter-dominated universe (8-13 Gyr).
References 1. Peebles, P. J. E., Schramm, D. N., Turner, E. L. & Kron R. K. Nature 352, 769#8722;776 (1991). | Article | ISI |
2. Coles, P. & Ellis, G. Nature 370, 609#8722;615 (1994). | Article | ISI |
3. Carroll, S. M., Press, W. H. & Turner, E. L. A. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. 30, 499#8722;532 (1992). | Article |
4. Weinberg, S. Rev. mod. Phys. 61, 1#8722;23 (1989). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
5. Freedman, W. L. et al. Nature 371, 757#8722;762 (1994). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
6. Pierce, M. J. et al. Nature 371, 385#8722;389 (1994). | Article | ISI |
7. Hogan, C. J. Nature 371, 374#8722;375 (1994). | Article |
8. Rood, R. T. in Astrophysical Ages and Dating Methods (eds Vangioni-Flan, E. et al.) 313 (Frontieres, Gif sur Yvette, 1990).
9. Renzini, A. in Observational tests of Inflation (eds Banday, T. & Shanks, T.) 131 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991). | ChemPort |
10. Demarque, P., Deliyannis, C. P. & Sarajedini, A. in Observational tests of Inflation (eds Banday, T. & Shanks, T.) 355 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991).
11. VandenBerg, D. A. in The Formation and Evolution of Star Clusters 183 (ed. Janes, K.) (ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 13, 1991).
12. VandenBerg, D. A. Astrophys. J. 391, 685#8722;709 (1992). | Article | ChemPort |
13. Salaris, S. C., Chieffi, A. & Straniero, O. Astrophys. J. 414, 580#8722;600 (1993). | Article |
14. Bergbusch, P. A. & VandenBerg, D. A. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 81, 163#8722;220 (1992). | Article | ChemPort |
15. Deliyannis, C. P., Demarque, P. & Kawaler, S. D. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 73, 21#8722;65 (1990). | Article | ChemPort |
16. Proffitt, C. R. & VandenBerg, D. A. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 77, 473#8722;514 (1991). | Article | ChemPort |
17. Chaboyer, B. & Demarque, P. Astrophys. J. 443, 510 (1994).
18. Chieffi, A., Straniero, O. & Salaris, M. Astrophys. J. 445, L39#8722;L42 (1995). | Article |
19. Canuto, V. M., Minotti, F. O. & Schilling, O. Astrophys. J. 425, 303#8722;325 (1994). | Article |
20. Bahcall, J. N. & Bethe, H. A. Phys. Rev. D47, 1298#8722;1301 (1993). | ChemPort |
21. Andersen, J. Astr. Astrophys. Rev. 3, 91#8722;126 (1991).
22. Swenson, F. J., Faulkner, J., Rogers, F. J. & Iglesias, C. A. Astrophys. J. 425, 286 (1994). | Article | ChemPort |
23. Andersen, J. et al. Astr. Astrophys. 196, 128 (1988). | ChemPort |
24. Walker, A. R. Astrophys. J. 390, L81#8722;L84 (1992). | Article |
25. Carney, B. W., Storm, J. & Jones, R. V. Astrophys. J. 386, 663#8722;684 (1992). | Article | ChemPort |
26. Sandage, A. R. Astrophys. J. 162, 841 (1970). | Article |
27. Laird, J. B., Carney, B. W. & Latham, D. W. Astr. J. 95, 1843 (1988). | Article | ChemPort |
28. Ryan, S. G. Astr. J. 104, 1144#8722;1155 (1992). | Article |
29. Fahlman, G. G., Richer, H. B. & VandenBerg, D. A. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 58, 225 (1985). | Article | ChemPort |
30. Bolte, M. Astrophys. J. 319, 760#8722;771 (1987). | Article | ChemPort |
31. Stetson, P. B. & Harris, W. E. Astr. J. 96, 909 (1988). | Article | ChemPort |
32. van Altena, W. F., Lee, J. T. & Hoffleit, E. D. The General Catalogue of Trigonometric Parallaxes: A Preliminary Version (electronic preprint, Yale University, 1991).
33. VandenBerg, D. A., Bolte, M. & Stetson, P. B. Astr. J. 100, 445#8722;468 (1990). | Article | ChemPort |
34. Wood, M. A. Astrophys. J. 386, 539#8722;561 (1992). | Article | ISI |
35. Janes, K. A. & Phelps, R. L. Astr. J. 108, 1773#8722;1785 (1994). | Article |
36. Schmidt, B. P. et al. Astrophys. J. 432, 42#8722;48 (1994). | Article |
37. Pelt, J., Kayser, R., Refsdal, S. & Schramm, T. Astr. Astrophys. (submitted).
38. Schild, R. E. & Thomson, D. J. Astr. J. (in the press).
39. Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J. & Peebles, P. J. E. Nature 366, 309#8722;312 (1993). | Article |
40. Jacoby, G. et al. Publs astr. Soc. Pacif. 104, 599#8722;662 (1992).
41. van den Bergh, S. Publs astr. Soc. Pacif. 106, 1113#8722;1119 (1994).
42. Saha, A. et al. Astrophys. J. 425, 14#8722;34 (1994). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
43. Sandage, A. et al. Astrophys. J. 423, L19#8722;L22 (1994).
44. Saha, A. et al. Astrophys. J. 438, 8#8722;26 (1995). | Article |
45. Phillips, M. Astrophys. J. 413, L105#8722;L108 (1993). | Article | ISI |
46. Riess, A. G., Press, W. H. & Kirshner, R. P. Astrophys. J. 438, L17#8722;L20 (1995). | Article | ISI |
47. Perlmutter, S. et al. Astrophys. J. 440, L41#8722;L44 (1995). | Article |
48. Rix, H.-W., Maoz, D., Turner, E. L. & Fukugita, M. Astrophys. J. 435, 49#8722;54 (1994). | Article |
49. Mao, S. & Kochanek, C. S. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 268, 569#8722;580 (1994).
50. Hamuy, M. et al. Astr. J. 109, 1#8722;13 (1995). | Article |
51. Mould, J. R. et al. HST key project preprint (1995).
the earth is at least as old as the oldest rocks studied
Nature 399, 252-255 (20 May 1999) | doi:10.1038/20426; Received 24 August 1998; Accepted 19 March 1999
Nature of the Earth's earliest crust from hafnium isotopes in single detrital zircons
Yuri Amelin1, Der-Chuen Lee2, Alex N. Halliday3 and Robert T. Pidgeon4
Department of Earth Sciences, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6, Canada
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
Department of Earth Sciences, ETH , Zurich, CH-8092, Switzerland
School of Applied Geology, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
Correspondence to: Yuri Amelin1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Y.A. (e-mail: Email: yuria@rom.on.ca).
Continental crust forms from, and thus chemically depletes, the Earth's mantle. Evidence that the Earth's mantle was already chemically depleted by melting before the formation of today's oldest surviving crust has been presented in the form of Sm-Nd isotope studies of 3.8-4.0 billion years old rocks from Greenland1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Canada5, 6, 7. But this interpretation has been questioned because of the possibility that subsequent perturbations may have re-equilibrated the neodymium-isotope compositions of these rocks8. Independent and more robust evidence for the origin of the earliest crust and depletion of the Archaean mantle can potentially be provided by hafnium-isotope compositions of zircon, a mineral whose age can be precisely determined by U-Pb dating, and which can survive metamorphisms4. But the amounts of hafnium in single zircon grains are too small for the isotopic composition to be precisely analysed by conventional methods. Here we report hafnium-isotope data, obtained using the new technique of multiple-collector plasma-source mass spectrometry9, for 37 individual grains of the oldest known terrestrial zircons (from the Narryer Gneiss Complex, Australia, with U-Pb ages of up to 4.14 Gyr ( 10-13). We find that none of the grains has a depleted mantle signature, but that many were derived from a source with a hafnium-isotope composition similar to that of chondritic meteorites. Furthermore, more than half of the analysed grains seem to have formed by remelting of significantly older crust, indicating that crustal preservation and subsequent reworking might have been important processes from earliest times.
quote:I still insist as I have from the beginning that the earth was created in 6 days, not over 6,000 years or any other amount of time that some may say, just because it may be more believable to them. Six days it is.BOOya!!
Nature 441, 825-833 (15 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04763
Accretion of the Earth and segregation of its core
Bernard J. Wood1, Michael J. Walter2 and Jonathan Wade2
The Earth took 30-40 million years to accrete from smaller 'planetesimals'. Many of these planetesimals had metallic iron cores and during growth of the Earth this metal re-equilibrated with the Earth's silicate mantle, extracting siderophile ('iron-loving') elements into the Earth's iron-rich core. The current composition of the mantle indicates that much of the re-equilibration took place in a deep (> 400 km) molten silicate layer, or 'magma ocean', and that conditions became more oxidizing with time as the Earth grew. The high-pressure nature of the core-forming process led to the Earth's core being richer in low-atomic-number elements, notably silicon and possibly oxygen, than the cores of the smaller planetesimal building blocks.
Macquarie University, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia
University of Bristol, Department of Earth Sciences, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
quote:Dinosaurs were created on the same day that the rest of the animals were created, and most were likely killed in the flood just like the rest of the world.it's beyond ridiculous to presume that dinosaurs existed at the same time as all the other modern life you see today. furthermore there are many many many extinct species that have been long gone before modern animals (which had evolved from them), and still, didn't exist until long after the dinosaurs were gone.
aaand if the dinosaurs were killed in The Big Flood, what-about-the-rest-of-the-animals? noah didn't like dinosaurs? must not have, you know that's the only reason why a 45 foot tall, 7.5 ton reptilian predator wasn't mentioned anywhere in the Old testament.quote:All animals were initially herbivores, as it says in Genesis, until God gave them up to be eaten by people, and so they also began to eat meat.again, Genesis is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. carnivores were eating meat long before mankind even existed. even before hominids existed. fish carnivores were eating fish meat before reptile, amphibian or mammal carnivores existed.
would you say that lions ate grass? why the long fangs then, and premolars made for shearing flesh, and molars made for grinding bones? did they not used to have them in their grass-eating days? where did the lions go that had teeth like cows?quote:And if God does not exist, and the world came to being on its own, and life had to come from nothing, how is it that no experiment has been able to create real living beings from nothing, even when they use conditions that supposedly existed in the beginning?because even if you can figure out which molecules were the ones to start, recreate the conditions, and actually do it again, you can't go "poof" and make them magically evolve through what naturally took millions of years. btw, every cell of every animal is filled with a fluid that is very similar to the composition of the ocean as it was billions of years ago when the first organisms with cell walls evolved.
how about this study?
Prayer doesn't help heart patients in U.S., study finds
Last Updated: Thursday, March 30, 2006 | 2:26 PM ET
Having people pray for heart bypass patients had no effect on their recoveries in an American study, researchers say.
The scientists, led by Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School, emphasized that they looked only at the effect of prayer on the patients in their study - and could not address questions such as whether God exists or answers prayers.
The research, which is to be published in the April 2006 issue of the American Heart Journal, involved about 1,800 patients at six medical centres.
Three Christian groups were asked to pray for particular patients, starting the night before their surgeries and continuing for two weeks.
The volunteers were given a patient's given name and last initial, and prayed for "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."
Patients were divided into three groups:
50 percent of patients was being prayed for and knew it.
The second group was also the subject of prayers, but only knew it was a possibility.
Patients in the third group weren't prayed for, although they were told they might be.
The researchers did not tell patients or their families or friends to change their plans for praying, saying it would have been impractical and unethical to do so.
More complications among patients who knew they were prayed for
The patients were then monitored for 30 days for any complications.
The results showed no effect of prayer on the patients' recovery, the researchers said in the journal article, Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients.
The study found 59 per cent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed medical complications. Among those who thought they might be prayed for, 52 per cent had complications.
The researchers said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate among patients who knew they were being prayed for.
The work was funded by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion.
Related
External Links
Abstract of the study in the American Heart Journal
there are reasons why you want to believe what you do, but the truth has nothing to do with what you want. your beliefs are wrong!!! admit it!0 -
The only things that you have proven to me from this discussion are the following:
You believe there is no God.
You believe the earth and everything in it just happened to come together, over who knows how many years.
You believe that everything has evolved from what it used to be to get to where everything is today, though no living thing has ever been created from nothing.
You believe the Bible is not true because it is not a peer reviewed article, and that only peer reviewed articles can be trusted.
You believe that both me and every other person in this world who does not believe as you do are wrong.
So, to summarize what you believe, we are here by mistake or by accident, life is pointless and meaningless, and we will all die shortly so there is no point to living. So if there is no point to living, why do we not therefore do what ever we want to do in life? Why don't we steal, lie, murder, rape, drink, smoke, or do anything we can, because after all, there is no one who we are to be accountable to? But we have a conscience that tells us when we do something right or wrong, and makes us feel bad when we do something wrong. Where does this conscience come from? Certainly, if we evolved, this conscience should not exist, because our chances of survival would be greater if it did not? Why do we love others, and care about other people? Why build families, and governments, and states, why cooperate with anyone? Certainly you would say to survive.
Now, if you have single handedly solved every question that people have asked since the beginning, where are your followers? How many people would sacrifice their lives for your beliefs? Would you be ready to die if today was your time to die?
And before you say I did not read the articles, I did read them, though the only one I actually understood due to the choice of words was the one about prayer. So what if God does not answer a few prayers, or seem to answer them. Atheists have demanded that he strike them dead in front of large crowds and he has not done so, which only shows that he is not taking orders from atheists.
I wonder, if something is not peer reviewed, do you not believe what it says at all, or is the Bible the only book that counts for this?
And while I'm here, I am not wrong, and you will never hear those words come from me, just as I am certain that if God came and showed himself to you in person you will never admit that you are wrong.0 -
The only things that you have proven to me from this discussion are the following:
You believe there is no God.
that's obvious
You believe the earth and everything in it just happened to come together, over who knows how many years.
I gave you an explanation and a timeline.
You believe that everything has evolved from what it used to be to get to where everything is today, though no living thing has ever been created from nothing.
yes. we can't create a planet either.
You believe the Bible is not true because it is not a peer reviewed article, and that only peer reviewed articles can be trusted.
yes. if you want validated, verified, facts, that's how you get them. we are working with questions of fact.
You believe that both me and every other person in this world who does not believe as you do are wrong.
I'm not doing this to toot MY own horn. if you don't believe in what has been proven to be fact, obviously, you are wrong. is the earth round? does the earth orbit the sun or vice versa?
did all animals, including mankind, evolve from lower animals? yes.
was the earth formed, just like all the other planets, due to an astrophysical phenomenon? yes.
is the earth biillions of years old? yes.
then, it is my part to say, do those facts disprove the existence of God? yes.
does the truth rely on what you want to believe? no.
So, to summarize what you believe, we are here by mistake or by accident,
are you trying to blame someone? there is no "mistake" or "accident". we just "happened". there's nothing wrong with that.
life is pointless and meaningless,
how do you come to the conclusion that I said that?
and we will all die shortly so there is no point to living.
yes, we will all die. that's what happens to every living creature eventually. again, I didn't say anything about "what's the point of living", that has nothing to do with my side of the argument. you must want to believe in God so you see some "point to living", which apparently is heavily biasing your beliefs. you're ignoring the facts.
So if there is no point to living, why do we not therefore do what ever we want to do in life? Why don't we steal, lie, murder, rape, drink, smoke, or do anything we can, because after all, there is no one who we are to be accountable to?
"because we need God" (true or not) is not a valid argument for the existence of God. "we need Him", therefore he must exist, right? no.
But we have a conscience that tells us when we do something right or wrong, and makes us feel bad when we do something wrong. Where does this conscience come from?
your beliefs, your morals, your experiences. not God telling you what to do.
Certainly, if we evolved, this conscience should not exist, because our chances of survival would be greater if it did not?
you just said we do need it. if that's true, it would be an evolutionary advantage.
Why do we love others, and care about other people? Why build families, and governments, and states, why cooperate with anyone? Certainly you would say to survive.
yes.
Now, if you have single handedly solved every question that people have asked since the beginning, where are your followers? How many people would sacrifice their lives for your beliefs? Would you be ready to die if today was your time to die?
it's not me, the answers come from the knowledge that mankind has accumulated so far (which shows that there is no God, by the way); and why do you need to have people willing to "sacrifice their lives" for some single person comes up with the answers? why do you have to have somewhere to go when it's "your time to die"? that's a bit odd, don't you think?
And before you say I did not read the articles, I did read them, though the only one I actually understood due to the choice of words was the one about prayer. So what if God does not answer a few prayers, or seem to answer them. Atheists have demanded that he strike them dead in front of large crowds and he has not done so, which only shows that he is not taking orders from atheists.
true. you could also argue that God chose not to answer the prayers of those praying in the prayer study (above), and that would be for the greater good of everybody else required to believe in Him without proof. you could say anything to suit your beliefs where a god is concerned. that would have to render that study inconclusive.
I wonder, if something is not peer reviewed, do you not believe what it says at all, or is the Bible the only book that counts for this?
yes, when we're talking about something as difficult to figure out as evolution, how old is the earth, where it came from, etc. besides, you asked for it! you wanted "proof", there it is! spelled out definitively, professionally done, checked for error, and accepted by other professionals. anything else and you would have rejected it.
And while I'm here, I am not wrong, and you will never hear those words come from me,
apparently not
just as I am certain that if God came and showed himself to you in person you will never admit that you are wrong.
yes I would admit that I'm wrong if God showed up. I'd do the same for the easter bunny and santa claus.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DieHard4
Suppose I am in the gun making business, and I build a new type of gun, one that will greatly surpass every gun that currently exists. Suppose I make this gun to be available to all people, however I know that everyone will not treat it the same. Some people will use it for good, protecting their loved ones and themselves, and only when there is no other option, while some people will use it to kill innocent people, for any reason at all, whatever it may be. I want people to use my gun for good, but I know that it would not be right to make them use it for good, because I want them to choose to use it in that way. At the same time, I know that many will use it for evil, and for their own gain. So here is the question, is it then my fault that people use the gun for evil, and am I evil for allowing this to happen? Also, because I knew before hand what people would do with the gun, have I truly given them free will to use it?
Please do not get this poofed or locked. I will return from my trip Tues night and I want to be able to read your responses.
Ok, change "gun" to "drug". Oxycontin will be my example. This drug was used as a time released pain-killer for terminal patients. So it had a noble and useful purpose. Until someone figured out if you chew/crush/snort it you get a huge high. And its addictive. And potentially deadly. So is the drug's inventor or the drug company that markets it evil?
I share buschmasters view anyway..If God, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus showed up I'd foot the bill for the pizzas and Coca-Cola.[;)]
But what say you to this?0 -
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
quote:Originally posted by DieHard4
Suppose I am in the gun making business, and I build a new type of gun, one that will greatly surpass every gun that currently exists. Suppose I make this gun to be available to all people, however I know that everyone will not treat it the same. Some people will use it for good, protecting their loved ones and themselves, and only when there is no other option, while some people will use it to kill innocent people, for any reason at all, whatever it may be. I want people to use my gun for good, but I know that it would not be right to make them use it for good, because I want them to choose to use it in that way. At the same time, I know that many will use it for evil, and for their own gain. So here is the question, is it then my fault that people use the gun for evil, and am I evil for allowing this to happen? Also, because I knew before hand what people would do with the gun, have I truly given them free will to use it?
Please do not get this poofed or locked. I will return from my trip Tues night and I want to be able to read your responses.
Ok, change "gun" to "drug". Oxycontin will be my example. This drug was used as a time released pain-killer for terminal patients. So it had a noble and useful purpose. Until someone figured out if you chew/crush/snort it you get a huge high. And its addictive. And potentially deadly. So is the drug's inventor or the drug company that markets it evil?
I share buschmasters view anyway..If God, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus showed up I'd foot the bill for the pizzas and Coca-Cola.[;)]
But what say you to this?
What if you do not see God face to face until you are already dead?0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
Why don't we have a "Religion" forum? Looks like there would be plenty of business there...
I came here to escape that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DieHard4
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
quote:Originally posted by DieHard4
Suppose I am in the gun making business, and I build a new type of gun, one that will greatly surpass every gun that currently exists. Suppose I make this gun to be available to all people, however I know that everyone will not treat it the same. Some people will use it for good, protecting their loved ones and themselves, and only when there is no other option, while some people will use it to kill innocent people, for any reason at all, whatever it may be. I want people to use my gun for good, but I know that it would not be right to make them use it for good, because I want them to choose to use it in that way. At the same time, I know that many will use it for evil, and for their own gain. So here is the question, is it then my fault that people use the gun for evil, and am I evil for allowing this to happen? Also, because I knew before hand what people would do with the gun, have I truly given them free will to use it?
Please do not get this poofed or locked. I will return from my trip Tues night and I want to be able to read your responses.
Ok, change "gun" to "drug". Oxycontin will be my example. This drug was used as a time released pain-killer for terminal patients. So it had a noble and useful purpose. Until someone figured out if you chew/crush/snort it you get a huge high. And its addictive. And potentially deadly. So is the drug's inventor or the drug company that markets it evil?
I share buschmasters view anyway..If God, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus showed up I'd foot the bill for the pizzas and Coca-Cola.[;)]
But what say you to this?
What if you do not see God face to face until you are already dead?
Total dodge of my question...care to try again??0 -
how's this for dodging
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2590340 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
how's this for dodging
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=259034
busch -
I argee with you, but you were bound to lose that one...argueing with a Mod?? at GB?? As the Chinese say..."Rots of ruck"....
BTW, my offer of pizza ond Cokes still stands for the 1st Gb member to assemble God, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus at one locale (providing there is a pizza joint nearby[:D])0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments