discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[smooth bruce]

The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the Jews follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion); though they both recite the Scripture. Similar to the pagans who do not know. (and the people on 12 oz. who argue forever bringing blah' date=' blah for days)[/b'] Allâh will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein they have been differing. (Al-Baqarah 2:113)

 

Oh no not the fictional character from a fictional story!!

 

:rolleyes:

[MAR]

People who follow organized religion shouldn't even be aloud to use the word ignorant.

 

what so everything you say is right and we all have to follow what you do? please...

 

I dont force my religion on you, so dont force your lack of one on me.

 

and yeh you are ignorant.

[smooth bruce]

If you beleive human writtings to be the litteral word of a supreme being then yes you are ignorant but also a fucking lunatic.

[Dawood]

ok, bruce, Just because you've adopted the beleifs of the modern self-centered , me loving ego-maniacs doesn't make you right or everyone else wrong. You can't say for certain that God doesn't exist and that he didn't reveal guidance to humans. Just because your heart holds an extreme disbeleif for anything outside of your immediate physical box doesn't mean that there are things that you possibly just don't understand. You come off like a person who is upset that there are people who actually have beleif. And again, If you don't beleive in God, then I don't know why you come to this thread.

[smooth bruce]

You can't say for certain that God doesn't exist and that he didn't reveal guidance to humans.

 

Yes I can.

 

It is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a fucking brain that was raised outside of a religious society and has only even briefly studied biblical history and sciences.

[WORDISM45]

actually bruce i dont believe in any religious creed and i still think you sound like a judgemental dick, live and let live buddy.

 

you werent raised in a religious background thats fine, you probably havent read up on any religion of your own accord either so youre probably not in a position to judge.

[Dawood]

Bruce, I was'nt raised in a religious background. I grew up stealing cars and paint and climbing billboards to write on things. My parents were hardly what anyone could call religious and they definately werent muslims.

 

As a matter of fact I know personally hundreds of people , yes hundreds of people (and there are millions more) that did not come from religious backgrounds who now pray 5 times a day and worship God. These are all people who grew up just like you or me or anyone in America so you can't say anything is blindingly obvious if you haven't experienced anything other than what you think is blindingly obvious.

 

And as for your biblical history reference, this only proves my theory that Christianity pushes people away from religion rapidly. I also know many, many ex-christians. Some of them, even were preachers , deacons, and very active members of the church that are all muslim now. Christianity doesn't make sense , I know.

 

I know it is difficult for you to understand faith if you've never experienced it.

 

check this audio out. He was a christian who was studying to be a preist who turned to Islam

Theres a little arabic at the beginning , but It goes into english

 

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=lessons&lesson_id=39&scholar_id=5

[fermentor666]

Ok, c'mon, let's not let this evolve into slurs and assaults.

 

 

you are looking in the wrong place.

 

 

Nature. 2004 Apr 8;428(6983):617-24. Epub 2004 Mar 7. Related Articles, Links

 

Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

 

Kellis M, Birren BW, Lander ES.

 

The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA. manoli@mit.edu

 

Whole-genome duplication followed by massive gene loss and specialization has long been postulated as a powerful mechanism of evolutionary innovation. Recently, it has become possible to test this notion by searching complete genome sequence for signs of ancient duplication. Here, we show that the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae arose from ancient whole-genome duplication, by sequencing and analysing Kluyveromyces waltii, a related yeast species that diverged before the duplication. The two genomes are related by a 1:2 mapping, with each region of K. waltii corresponding to two regions of S. cerevisiae, as expected for whole-genome duplication. This resolves the long-standing controversy on the ancestry of the yeast genome, and makes it possible to study the fate of duplicated genes directly. Strikingly, 95% of cases of accelerated evolution involve only one member of a gene pair, providing strong support for a specific model of evolution, and allowing us to distinguish ancestral and derived functions.

 

PMID: 15004568 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

i don't see what scientific journal that stuff you cut and pasted came from.

 

 

 

 

Evidence for the existence of a common ancestor of scorpion toxins affecting ion channels.

 

Zhijian C, Yingliang W, Jiqun S, Wanhong L, Fan X, Xin M, Hui L, Dahe J, Wenxin L.

 

Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, People's Republic of China.

 

All scorpion toxins from different 30 species are simply reviewed. A new classification system of scorpion toxins is first proposed: scorpion toxins are classified into three families (long-chain scorpion toxins with 4 disulfide bridges, short-chain scorpion toxins with 3 disulfide bridges, and intermediate-type scorpion toxins with 3 or 4 disulfide bridges). Intermediate-type scorpion toxins provide a strong proof for the conclusion that channel toxins from scorpion venoms evolve from a common ancestor. Common organization of precursor nucleotides and genomic sequence, similar 3-dimensional structure, and the existence of intermediate type scorpion toxins and functionally intercrossing scorpion toxins show that all scorpion toxins affecting ion channels evolve from the common ancestor, which produce millions of scorpion toxins with function-diversity. Copyright 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 17:235-238, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/jbt.10083

 

there's more, there's like 13 pages of results on a variety of organisms.

you want a 'tree of life' i suppose though

and won't accept all this proof of natural selection as something you could extrapolate

 

 

so this is on the evolution of indonesians:

 

Human Biology

Indonesian mitochondrial DNA and its opposition to a Pleistocene era origin of proto-Polynesians in island southeast Asia.

 

Cox MP.

 

Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, United Kingdom.

 

The origin of modern Polynesians, the route of their expansion into the Pacific Ocean, and the timing of their movements all remain contentious topics in modern anthropology. Numerous studies have used molecular data to elucidate settlement patterns in the Indo-Pacific region, but the same evidence is often interpreted in opposing ways by different researchers. Above all, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity has been used to discriminate between competing migration models and has narrowed the probable source of proto-Polynesian peoples to southern China and Taiwan or eastern Indonesia. Richards et al. (1998) used a dating method employing the p statistic to argue for an origin of Polynesian peoples in eastern Indonesia during the Pleistocene (> 10,000 years ago). Here, the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) is recalculated for a new series of Indonesian mtDNA sequences with Polynesian affinities. These data, which incorporate additional sequences published after 1998, produce dates that cannot rule out the possibility of a common ancestor for these sequences during the Holocene (< 10,000 years ago). This implies that previous estimates of TMRCA dates for Indonesian sequences lacked the statistical robustness necessary for replicability. The extant mtDNA evidence can no longer be viewed as favoring a Polynesian origin in eastern Indonesia, but instead remains consistent with an origin of proto-Polynesian peoples in southern China and Taiwan.

 

 

this is another good one

PLoS Biol. 2005 Oct;3(10):e376. Li, Zheng Yuan [corrected to Lee, Zheng Yuan].

 

 

Traces of archaic mitochondrial lineages persist in Austronesian-speaking Formosan populations.

 

Trejaut JA, Kivisild T, Loo JH, Lee CL, He CL, Hsu CJ, Lee ZY, Lin M.

 

Transfusion Medicine Laboratory, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. jtrejaut@ms1.mmh.org.tw

 

Genetic affinities between aboriginal Taiwanese and populations from Oceania and Southeast Asia have previously been explored through analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y chromosomal DNA, and human leukocyte antigen loci. Recent genetic studies have supported the "slow boat" and "entangled bank" models according to which the Polynesian migration can be seen as an expansion from Melanesia without any major direct genetic thread leading back to its initiation from Taiwan. We assessed mtDNA variation in 640 individuals from nine tribes of the central mountain ranges and east coast regions of Taiwan. In contrast to the Han populations, the tribes showed a low frequency of haplogroups D4 and G, and an absence of haplogroups A, C, Z, M9, and M10. Also, more than 85% of the maternal lineages were nested within haplogroups B4, B5a, F1a, F3b, E, and M7. Although indicating a common origin of the populations of insular Southeast Asia and Oceania, most mtDNA lineages in Taiwanese aboriginal populations are grouped separately from those found in China and the Taiwan general (Han) population, suggesting a prevalence in the Taiwanese aboriginal gene pool of its initial late Pleistocene settlers. Interestingly, from complete mtDNA sequencing information, most B4a lineages were associated with three coding region substitutions, defining a new subclade, B4a1a, that endorses the origin of Polynesian migration from Taiwan. Coalescence times of B4a1a were 13.2 +/- 3.8 thousand years (or 9.3 +/- 2.5 thousand years in Papuans and Polynesians). Considering the lack of a common specific Y chromosomal element shared by the Taiwanese aboriginals and Polynesians, the mtDNA evidence provided here is also consistent with the suggestion that the proto-Oceanic societies would have been mainly matrilocal.

 

 

mitochondrial DNA is a popular tool in evolutionary biology

it is how the origin of AIDS was found

 

 

 

Sorry MAR, you can believe what you want, but I'll eat my words when you can find some hardcore scientific facts like these that argue against evolution. Symbols works in science, so she can argue points that I made a couple of pages back regarding science more articulately. It's true that terms such as evolution or the number three or whatever are all "ideas" and "theories", but science exists to provide evidence of these things. Math is considered a universal language, meaning that when you see two things, you know there are two things there regardless of what language you use to describe numbers. Numbers are facts, science is numbers. If you don't understand and use the numbers to prove science, you are not a scientist. I am not a scientist, I don't understand any advanced equations or chemistry diagrams. But just because I don't, doesn't mean that others don't. Which is what I was trying to get at before, how it is amazing how a person puts faith into a religion that refuses debate or rationale explanations can so adamentely deny something that does the polar opposite. I think it has to do with that person being unable to admit to themselves that they have faults. It's ok to not understand the specifics, you can still understand the bigger picture. And as Symbols said, science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean that you can say you accept science as a concept while denying the proof. It would be like me saying that I believe I am a priest when in reality I don't go to church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for a prior comment about Atheism being a modern term used in the "culture of me": Wrong.

 

Here is the Wikipedia, all-knowing encyclopedic God, entry on Atheism, excerpted:

 

"lthough the actual term atheism originated in 16th Century France, ideas that would be recognized as atheistic today existed even before Classical Antiquity. Epicurus proposed theories that can be classified as atheistic, such as a lack of belief in an afterlife, though he remained ambiguous concerning the actual existence of deities. Before him, Socrates was sentenced to death partly on the grounds that he was an atheist, although he did express belief in several forms of divinity, as recorded in Plato's Apology. This criminal connotation attached to atheistic ideas (heresy) would remain, at varying levels of severity, until the Renaissance, when criticism of the Church became more prevalent and tolerated. Atheism disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, along with the spread of rationalism and secular humanism, atheism had become common, particularly among scientists (see international survey of contemporary atheism). In the 20th Century, atheism also became a staple of the various Communist states, helping to enforce some of the negative connotations of atheism in places where anti-communism was widespread - especially in the United States, where the term became synonymous with being unpatriotic during the Cold War."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Socrates pre-dates Christ. So therefore, atheism pre-dates Christ. In fact, you can be sure that atheism pre-dates just about any religion at all, because as long as there are believers there will always be doubters. And who is to say who is right? Perhaps the atheists really are the true believers? I don't know, but I have my hunches.

[smooth bruce]

actually bruce i dont believe in any religious creed and i still think you sound like a judgemental dick, live and let live buddy.

 

you werent raised in a religious background thats fine, you probably havent read up on any religion of your own accord either so youre probably not in a position to judge.

 

 

Please do not address me with sentiments of live and let live if you have obviously no understanding of history, current world events and the relationship between religious moderatism and fanatacism.

 

There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

 

Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all unjustifable, unreasonable, scientifically unprovable faiths whos very foundations clash with each other and all lead to a violent dead end.

 

We are in the year 2006 the time for religious respect has well passed and it is not taboo to question beleif systems.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVQoxrrMftA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk

 

[El Mamerro]

Bruce, do everyone here a favor and cut the condescending tone.

[smooth bruce]

Oh Im sorry. Do I sound condecending towards people who beleive in a fictional super powered human being? Oh how sorry I am.

[Odie]

Oh Im sorry. Do I sound condecending towards people who beleive in a fictional super powered human being? Oh how sorry I am.

fro some odd reason this reminds of them stem cell research episode of south park when superman eats fetus's

[fermentor666]

Oh Im sorry. Do I sound condecending towards people who beleive in a fictional super powered human being? Oh how sorry I am.

 

 

You don't grasp the concept of what religion means to people. I don't believe in any of it other than the ethical and moral lessons that can get corrupted by some followers, but you wouldn't see me going out and finding worshippers so I can get in their face and call them stupid.

[Dawood]

Oh Im sorry. Do I sound condecending towards people who beleive in a fictional super powered human being? Oh how sorry I am.

 

 

there is not ONE muslim on the face of the earth that beleives God is a human being. You keep playing yourself with your lack of knowledge and stank attitude.

[Issac Brock]

You don't grasp the concept of what religion means to people. I don't believe in any of it other than the ethical and moral lessons that can get corrupted by some followers' date=' but you wouldn't see me going out and finding worshippers so I can get in their face and call them stupid.[/quote']

 

I agree with you. I'm surprised you all are arguing with Bruce so much; he's obviously an idiot.

 

"RAWRAWRAWR I'M 100% RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING; I KNOW EVERYTHING; ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME IS STUPID. THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY OF ANYONE ELSE HAVING A VALID OPINION/VIEWPOINT."

 

Ironically, Bruce is acting like he's god.

[fermentor666]

Haha. Zing.

[the.crooked]

i remember i had a fellow athiest friend back in eighth grade. we differed in that he looked for the argument with people just to show them how stupid they are. he also had much of the same attitued towards other's beliefs just as bruce does. he was smart, just annoying.

[Issac Brock]

^^I've met plenty of people of kids like that. They're just still immature, wrapped up in themselves assuming that because they have a skill that it makes them a better person. Some grow up, some don't.

[smooth bruce]

^^I've met plenty of people of kids like that. They're just still immature' date=' wrapped up in themselves assuming that because they have a skill that it makes them a better person. Some grow up, some don't.[/quote']

 

I guess its tough shit for you brus because I have a degree in sociology and am currently studying for a phd in philosophy with theology as a minor.

 

It is very cut and dry.

 

If you beleive an organized religion you are a fucking idiot. They are no more then fictional dogmas.

 

Please prove me incorrect

 

Oh you can't unless you throw away the last 500 years of sciences and try to redefine 'faith' as a justifiable fact.

 

Go eat some dmt and wake up little sheep.

[the.crooked]

i dont think its so much proving you wrong as having common decency to not just opaquely claim that everyone else is wrong no matter what. this is a thread for discussion. to come in here and do that is to end that discussion. if thats your intent then why come here? why try and end something that you know full well may not matter. especially to you. just cus you see someone who believes in religion to be full of shit, doesn't give you any more right to come here and say that than they have to say we are full of shit for being empirical dogmatists. my point is. regardless of if you are right, even if i agree, it does not account for just being rude.

[Dawood]

I have something for you Bruce, give me a little time. I'm a little busy today.Then you can talk out your logic with an idiot.

[BATTL63]

I guess its tough shit for you brus because I have a degree in sociology and am currently studying for a phd in philosophy with theology as a minor.

 

 

whoopedy fucking doo. like the guy said, being smart or able to argue doesn't make you more mature or give you any superior insight into other peoples lives. just so happens that i am an atheist, but that doesn't give me the right to piss all over the methods that other people use to make sense of their lives

[El Mamerro]

Oh Im sorry. Do I sound condecending towards people who beleive in a fictional super powered human being? Oh how sorry I am.

 

Then certainly you won't be sorry when this superpowered mod bans you off this site. That's the last warning, now cut this shit out.

[El Mamerro]

Also, it's fucking astounding how many asshats have degrees in sociology and act like it's the most fucking fantastic, knowledge-endowing thing ever. Same for poli-sci.

[the.crooked]

hahaaa.

 

I will say a well used poli sci degree is amazing. My mom has her bachelors in poli sci with a masters in public admin. Works for environmental defense fund now. She is doin some cool shit. My stepdad just got tenure as a professor of poli sci, and is the chair of the social science department. I'd like to think he keeps his asshatery down to a min.

[El Mamerro]

For every good poli sci graduate, there's 50 who aren't worth a lick, and who will argue politics by making sure they loudly announce the fact that they have a degree in political science and thus assert their supposed superiority in the subject. Then they proceed to completely suck at debating politics.

[the.crooked]

that, is true.

 

i dislike most of his colleagues

[fermentor666]

For every good poli sci graduate' date=' there's 50 who aren't worth a lick, and who will argue politics by making sure they loudly announce the fact that they have a degree in political science and thus assert their supposed superiority in the subject. Then they proceed to completely suck at debating politics.[/quote']

 

 

Not only that, but it's wholly possible to get your college diploma with straight C's and D's. Christ, all I have to do is stick my head up and look around the room at my school. And don't get my started on grade inflation.

[the.crooked]

grades. that's the problem with your college. you have grades. straight evaluations at my school.

[MAR]

what are you at a place like reed?