Sex created Jesus

Lonewulf said:
Yeah, just a few tips on Korean traffic:

Go real fast, don't stop for no one, and red lights are just suggestions.
Click to expand...

You forgot my favorite: if you honk your horn, it's legal.

And, if you are afraid of traffic, just stay off the sidewalk. :)

Hmm, I can see that.

The marketplaces were intriguing, to say the least, especially since you could actually haggle there. :D

Just avoid the places where they serve dogs. Heh.
Click to expand...

First Korean word I learned was Pisayo.... Too much. Heh.
 
DOC said:
But even if you believe this "hypothesis" (that some famous scientists are critical of -- Hoyle and Yockey, to name two), don't you still believe that all this activity came together to create the "first" one celled organism. And from this first one celled organism came all the plant and animal life that has ever existed.
Click to expand...

Apparently reading is difficult for you. No, all this activity came together to create the first billion or so single celled organisms. There's a proper name for this, where a key event happens relatively simultaneously several places at once, but I don't kow it.

and my original question in this forum was what's harder to believe -- the last sentence of the previous paragraph or that Mary became pregnant without sex.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the last sentence of the previous paragraph, since the first choice is merely improbable while the second is actually impossible.
 
You people don't get it. Sex was too dirty for god. All that heavy breathing and sweat was not the way Jesus would be born... no way. Jesus was born after an angel visited Mary and told her she was pregnant. God had to forego the naked smelly human part of conception. It had to be immaculate.
But Jesus was a man after all in spite of that virgin birth ******. He came to save us. God needed to send his son to grovel with the rest of us in order to show us that we are broken from the get go and we needed to be fixed by him by dying a horrible bloody death and then resurrecting. Doesn't that make sense? If it doesn't then you are not a good christian.
And Jesus and Mary were PERFECT too because I learned that from my Catholic upbringing. If Jesus and Mary did make excrement which I doubt then it must have smelled a lot like frangipani or something just as pleasant. He didn't have to be THAT human. I mean... god has his limits.
Jesus never had sex because that kind of behavior was beneath him. You just don't have sex if you want to stay perfect. That is why priests and nuns take the vow of celibacy. They want to be just like Jesus. Sex is a little too human and Jesus was above that. But he was a man though. We identify with him because he suffered like the rest of us.
God forbid him to have fun. That was a little too human too. He WAS a man though. You gotta believe that in spite of the no sex and fun stuff. Otherwise.. Why would he have died on the cross? Don't you understand now? It should be crystal clear.
You can be saved too if you just believe all this ******. I know now that after reading this that you all have finally seen the light. Get down on your knees NOW goddammit.
Gotta go now down highway 61
 
Darwin's one cell created all life, Granddaddy was a bacterium according to science

joobz said:
When does the theory of evolution or abiogenesis state that there was some great ONE cell?
Click to expand...

Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says.

citing evidence from fossils, embryology, taxonomy, and molecular biology, Denton shows that Darwin's "grand claim" -- that all life forms are interrelated and evolved from a single cell-- has not been supported by one empirical discovery since 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

From the article "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward

http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says.

citing evidence from fossils, embryology, taxonomy, and molecular biology, Denton shows that Darwin's "grand claim" -- that all life forms are interrelated and evolved from a single cell-- has not been supported by one empirical discovery since 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

From the article "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward

http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html
Click to expand...

Granted I cannot say this about all species, but there is scientific, both fossil and genetic, evidence that

Mammals are related to reptiles
reptiles are related to anphibians
dinasaurs are related to both reptiles and anphibians
birds are related to dinasaurs
anphibians are related to fish
etc

so I know that it can be said that anamal life has been scientifically linked. I am not as well versed in anamal/plant interrelatedness, so I cannot comment on this

Scientists are not abandoning Darwinism or evolution, they are scientifically revising it based on gaps that are discovered. These gaps do not mean that it is not a valid theory, just that we do not know everything about life on earth yet.

However, it can easily be said that there is no evidence for biblical genesis at all.

I also think it has been stated on this page that theories concerning the first cells have not required that there be only a single Adam cell on which others are based. This does not disprove Darwinian evolution, which only possits the gradual development of species over time based on random mutation and differences in their ability to pass on their genes.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says.

citing evidence from fossils, embryology, taxonomy, and molecular biology, Denton shows that Darwin's "grand claim" -- that all life forms are interrelated and evolved from a single cell-- has not been supported by one empirical discovery since 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

From the article "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward

http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html
Click to expand...

We are all aware that there are some "scientists" who claim that intelligent design is somehow more valid than the Theory of Evolution. There are millions of scientists in the world, so a few are bound to think anything.

I could point you to a lot more who support the theory of evolution... and are named Steve.

I don't have "faith" in the Theory of Evolution. It's something that I accept as scientifically valid fact. It's no different than cell theory, which explains that complex living things are made up of cells. I can't see the cells... not without a microscope, at least. But I accept it. There's no reason not to.

You won't find many scientists writing long passionate books defending evolution. What's the point? They may as well write about how the sky is blue.

I don't feel threatened at all by anti-evolution claims.. that they will chip away at a belief which I am clinging to or kill my evolution delusions.

The way you come up with "The theory of intelligent design" is by starting out knowing what is "The Truth" and then picking and molding the available information to try to make it support what you believe.

That's not science.
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
You won't find many scientists writing long passionate books defending evolution. What's the point? They may as well write about how the sky is blue.
Click to expand...

But Dawkins is good at it.

To the point where the only criticism against him is really just ad hominem attacks. ("He's like Ann Coulter!!!1111oneone I'm so smart, and such a skeptic!")
 
DOC said:
Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says.

citing evidence from fossils, embryology, taxonomy, and molecular biology, Denton shows that Darwin's "grand claim" -- that all life forms are interrelated and evolved from a single cell-- has not been supported by one empirical discovery since 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

From the article "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward

http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html
Click to expand...


Umm, Darwin's "grand claim" was that speciation is driven by natural and sexual selection. It was only after the rediscovery of genetics and modern developments in biology that scientists have started looking closely at the issue of interrelatedness. Have you ever read The Origin of Species? If you would like to know more about what Darwin actually wrote, I would recommend reading Quammen or early Gould to develop a basic understanding of evolutionary biology before discussing topics.

Also, I have noticed that you have a habit of simply posting quotes and outtakes from other people's works rather than proferring your own opinions. What do you think about evolutionary biology in your own words?
 
DOC said:
Here's a site that says the bible talked about the Big Bang first:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first
Click to expand...

Yea, but their analysis is pretty bad

First, the stretching of the heavens is more likely to refer to the creation of the sky from the body of a dead water god. this belief, similar to that also found in the Enuma Elish was accepted throughout the ANE.

No one can claim that "the deep" in Genesis one is somehow creation Ex Nehilio (even the tradition of calling it the deep goes against this).

This is cherry picking it overlooks things such as proverbs or an accurate interpretation of Gen 1 and others.

Just because you can say that there were characteristics (spreading out) similar between both accounts does not mean they are the same. I can say I road home from work today, but does that mean car, train, bus??? same description different happenings.

Their understanding of Qal perfect as "some time ago" is not accurate, yes it is semi-equivalent in meaning to past tense, but not in the idea of "some time ago".

This is just a pretty poor attempt to get people who believe in the big bang to think the bible said it first, when it didn't.
 
DOC said:
Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says.

citing evidence from fossils, embryology, taxonomy, and molecular biology, Denton shows that Darwin's "grand claim" -- that all life forms are interrelated and evolved from a single cell-- has not been supported by one empirical discovery since 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

From the article "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward

http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html
Click to expand...

Since it was published in '85, Denton's book has received little attention from anyone but creationists. One can find a few scientists in any field that support ideas in which the vast majority of researchers find no validity. Here's a review that addresses some of the problems with Denton's book.
 
DOC said:
Here's a site that says the bible talked about the Big Bang first:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first
Click to expand...


Doc, I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree and I'd like to have more of a debate than a playing the game of "here's a website that says" or "Here is a scientist who says" Or "This book says..."

We are all aware you are not alone, but I'd like to hear some actual substance and not just pointing toward very very non-mainstream publications.

I could cite thousands upon thousands of sources which support my opinion. Actually, I would barely even know where to start. Furthermore, these are the commonly accepted, mainstream sources.

This line goes nowhere
 
Foster Zygote said:
Since it was published in '85, Denton's book has received little attention from anyone but creationists.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this statement, and even if it was true that doesn't make the content of the book untrue. And I only used the book because someone questioned my assertion that some scientists (including evolutionists) believe that all life (plants and animals) came from the "same" single one celled organism.
 
Last edited:
DRBUZZ0 said:
We are all aware you are not alone, but I'd like to hear some actual substance and not just pointing toward very very non-mainstream publications.

I could cite thousands upon thousands of sources which support my opinion. Actually, I would barely even know where to start. Furthermore, these are the commonly accepted, mainstream sources.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that mainstream science (to use your language) does not believe that -- let's say-- humans and octopuses came from the "same" one cell organism.
 
Last edited:
Doc said:
Are you telling me that mainstream science (to use your language) does not believe that -- let's say-- humans and octopuses came from the "same" one cell organism.
Click to expand...

Even if they did, why should science replace that with, "Goddidit"? That's a step back, not forward.
 
DOC said:
Michael Denton, an Australian biologist and self-described agnostic, has also challenged Darwinian faith. His book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis shows that evolution's intellectual foundations have been steadily eroding and that only a philosophical "will to believe" in Darwin remains. New findings of biology are bringing us very near to a "formal, logical disproof of Darwinian claims," Denton says.

citing evidence from fossils, embryology, taxonomy, and molecular biology, Denton shows that Darwin's "grand claim" -- that all life forms are interrelated and evolved from a single cell-- has not been supported by one empirical discovery since 1859, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

From the article "Doubts about Darwin" by Thomas Woodward

http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html
Click to expand...
Hi Doc, Thank you for your reply.

But, I must state that a book from 1985 which has been refuted isn't a very convincing argument. Even if evolutionary theory at one time stated a "single cell" origin, this is far from the mainstream view of modern evolutionary theory. what I was asking is "Who today states a single cell is the origin of life?"


You must learn more and adjust to attack the current ideas in science. To do otherwise will only make you an anachronism.
 
DOC said:
Are you telling me that mainstream science (to use your language) does not believe that -- let's say-- humans and octopuses came from the "same" one cell organism.
Click to expand...
This is again an argument from ignorance.

The most common theory now is that life arose in a collection of organisms within the same collected environment. The generation of the first celled organisms probably occured along side the generation of the first viruses. A "single" cell isn't there. But rather that all life arose from the same initial collections of life is probably a bit more accurate.
 
DOC said:
Are you telling me that mainstream science (to use your language) does not believe that -- let's say-- humans and octopuses came from the "same" one cell organism.
Click to expand...

Whether or not all life came from the same cell is not something that is not entirely established and to be perfectly honest, I'm not an expert in early microbiology theories. Sorry..

However, certainly from the same group or very similar groups of early simplistic cellular life forums. It may be a situation where there are viruses and self-replicating forms which evolved and interacted.

But, if it makes you feel better, to say that all life arose from simple proto-cells of similar and simple types is a fair summary. In any case, they are all related.

And certainly humans and octopuses being macroscopic members of the animal kingdom would probably have a common ancestor if you go back far enough..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom