GOD CREATED ALL OF THIS!

[mainegrown]

I think you fail to realise that the Christian concept of 'God' is also a theory and no less full of contradiction than any other theory of existence.

Maybe the reason I don't, as you say, 'understand and accept' the Christian creation myth is because I did not have it, or any other dogma, rammed down my throat during during my formative years.

I think that is a distinct possibility.

same here maam... no one forced shit down my throat and i feel just fine about it.. my family is all about doing what YOU believe in not what they think you SHOULD believe in. i happen to share their views but they let me come to that conclusion by MYSELF.. thank you very much..
-J

mainegrown Reviewed by mainegrown on 01-03-2010. GOD CREATED ALL OF THIS! I'm just curious on how anybody doesn't understand and accept this. Why not? It's the only thing that can possibly even be true. All the other "theories" out there just contradict themselves and quite frankly just talk in BIG circles. I would just like some input on how all of you think about this. Rating: 5

[chris62008]

i think that trying to say that DNA is a code that was ARTIFICIALLY created is bs... there are many codes that are naturally created. look up info on the Fibonacci sequence and tell me that there are not naturally created codes and i wont talk anymore..

-J

so when you say "Fibonacci sequence" Im guessing your relating to bee waggles and tree rings for the most part and yes! your right,these things are most certainly codes. but they derive from DNA, and therefore don't count as examples of naturally occurring codes, since DNA has not been proven to have a naturalistic origin.

[wingedson]

so when you say "Fibonacci sequence" Im guessing your relating to bee waggles and tree rings for the most part and yes! your right,these things are most certainly codes. but they derive from DNA, and therefore don't count as examples of naturally occurring codes, since DNA has not been proven to have a naturalistic origin.

Do you know the origin of Jehovah? Jah, or the mighty Lord and God from the various Bibles that have been edited by no less than King James of England, came from a time when the Jewish folk were separated into various tribes throughout the desert. Jehovah was just one of many Gods. The whole "monotheistic" conquering Lord who is the one and only God is a misinterpretation of some Egyptian texts, misread by Greek scholars, then turned into a hybrid religion of the Roman/Pagan Christians. It was a combination of so many elements, all of which are derived from a polytheistic religious base. What if Jesus is actually the story of an Egyptian Pharaoh, and his story was stolen and mutilated to fit the pantheon of a conquering Roman war machine?

Here's a postulation for you.....

What if Nature is the supreme being? What if Nature encoded into Humanity, this concept of God, to ensure the survival of a race, that without some sort a Higher Power to reconcile with, would destroy themselves entirely? What if some people have this code deeply engraved in their DNA through the ages, and others have evolved differently. Neither is wrong, Neither is right. Both are just part of a whole. One side ensures technological advancement increases, along with scientific achievement, and the other attempts to bring an internal awareness, along with a rooted base in worshiping life, and being compassionate. Of course these two examples are very open ended, and black & white. The grey area is much larger in the Human species.

[BlueBlazer]

so when you say "Fibonacci sequence" Im guessing your relating to bee waggles and tree rings for the most part and yes! your right,these things are most certainly codes. but they derive from DNA, and therefore don't count as examples of naturally occurring codes, since DNA has not been proven to have a naturalistic origin.

Saying "DNA" has to be created is merely a variation on "the universe" has to be created. There is no proof that it was created, just the opinion. I don't have to disprove this claim, because it has not been proven to anyone's satisfaction except those who want it to be true.

[BlueBlazer]

not entirely from front to back.. however, I have gone over the entire bible and I have a pretty good amount of knowlege on it

I guess I knew that would be your answer. How can you run your life and all that you believe from a book you've never read in it's entirety?!? It's mind boggling.

You have a pretty good amount of knowledge on it?!? You've gone over the entire bible? As opposed to reading it? What does that even mean? Oh, your pastor has gone over it for you. So where does your certainty come from? I'll tell you. Indoctrination and brain washing. Really read the entire book from cover to cover and you will experience a lot of doubt. Trust me on this.

Or you can keep to the 10 or 12 bible versus your pastor had you memorize to bother non-christians with. Whatever.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Really read the entire book from cover to cover and you will experience a lot of doubt.

after having read the sacred texts of many of the world's religions, i have found they all have one thing in common. they are all as open to interpretation as any other writing. even the language they are written in is merely a translation (an interpretation) from another language in most cases. though a christian may claim his faith is based on the words of the bible or a muslim may cite the koran as the impetus for his chosen way of life, it is always someone else's interpretation they are placing their trust in. merely reading the words is not enough, one must be able to suspend their disbelief in order to fully accept what we all know is nothing more than a collection of the words of man. the claims of burning bushes, mysterious golden plates and divine inspiration are merely tools we use to allow us to suspend our disbelief and immerse ourselves in the improbable.

our friend chris has obviously done quite a good job of suspending his disbelief. he has done such a good job of it that he is able to transfer his resulting faith from the ethical disciplines of religion to the more tangible areas of scientific endeavor. he is willing to invest himself in the improbable and rather contradictory concept that the appearance of code-like behavior implies a sentient force behind the creation of our dna. he disingenuously asks us to cite any example of code that is not engineered by a higher intelligence, but we must use his definition of code and he will always have a way out by merely stating that all of nature is a part of the creation of his god. there are codes within the songs of birds and the petals of flowers because a code is nothing more than the representation of concepts we understand couched in symbolism we are unaccustomed to, but these instances are easily discounted by the insistence of the faithful that all this is the work of the ultimate architect.

10 or 12 bible versus your pastor had you memorize

theology is the work of a lifetime and simple minds will never study more of it than they must. our religions have been centuries in the making and to expect anyone but a devoted theologian to do much more than memorize a few passages of scripture is asking too much. the bible is a confusing mash of allegory and symbolism that such simple minds must have interpreted for them by those who claim to have studied and come to some limited understanding of those texts.

belief is not understanding, it is acceptance.

[BlueBlazer]

theology is the work of a lifetime and simple minds will never study more of it than they must. our religions have been centuries in the making and to expect anyone but a devoted theologian to do much more than memorize a few passages of scripture is asking too much. the bible is a confusing mash of allegory and symbolism that such simple minds must have interpreted for them by those who claim to have studied and come to some limited understanding of those texts.

belief is not understanding, it is acceptance.

I'm not asking for chris to be a theologian. I'm asking and expecting that he at least read the text that his religion he so ardently defends and advances is based on.

You're right that belief is not understanding. It is surrender.

[chris62008]

I guess I knew that would be your answer. How can you run your life and all that you believe from a book you've never read in it's entirety?!? It's mind boggling.

You have a pretty good amount of knowledge on it?!? You've gone over the entire bible? As opposed to reading it? What does that even mean? Oh, your pastor has gone over it for you. So where does your certainty come from? I'll tell you. Indoctrination and brain washing. Really read the entire book from cover to cover and you will experience a lot of doubt. Trust me on this.

Or you can keep to the 10 or 12 bible versus your pastor had you memorize to bother non-christians with. Whatever.

dude I don't even go to church. Don't "assume" that some pastor or preach is putting these thoughts in my head. lol. I havent been to chuch in over ten years bud. These are my PERSONAL beliefs, and studys that I have conducted. Science is here to prove atheists wrong! AND IT IS!!!

"we are the arm of God, and science is the blade. If we are wise and swift, we shall quell this heracy without incident!" chris62008

[chris62008]

. he disingenuously asks us to cite any example of code that is not engineered by a higher intelligence, but we must use his definition of code .

1)Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a â??writerâ?� or â??speakerâ?�) and a decoder (a â??readerâ?� or â??listenerâ?�) using agreed upon symbols.

2)DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.

[BlueBlazer]

dude I don't even go to church. Don't "assume" that some pastor or preach is putting these thoughts in my head. lol. I havent been to chuch in over ten years bud. These are my PERSONAL beliefs, and studys that I have conducted. Science is here to prove atheists wrong! AND IT IS!!!

"we are the arm of God, and science is the blade. If we are wise and swift, we shall quell this heracy without incident!" chris62008

Well how about that. Let's see here, 1) You don't go to church. 2) You do you own research and base your beliefs on that. 3) Your personal beliefs are contained in a book that you have never bothered to research fully.

Your "science" is a sham and a mockery of science. Your beliefs are not fully researched by your own admission. Yet you throw stones at those who don't believe as you do? Interesting . . . and rather trollish.