God's Existence Has Been DISPROVEN!!! (Well, Almost)

[munzter666]

God = creator and ruler of the universe. Fire is an element in the Universe. He created it.

HE-MAN=master of the universe. Fire is an element in the universe. HE-MAN mastered it.

flame caster lvl 9??hahaha

[ramiscar]

I disagree. the only exitence is the bible... nothing great about that. I agree with power of God, the power to kill, the power to tax people, the power to brainwash people, the power to start a war, the power to discriminate people, the power to dvide people... shall I continue? Those are successful attempts by imposing faith that don't exist in the first place.

what about the power of love?? I think anyone here has loved someone...

[mr.ho_chia2]

so na disprove na?

boy, almost lang ghapon? maybe there is really that Living GOD whom we so deny, tsk, tsk, tsk.........

[ramiscar]

Let me just site an example:

Do you know those cool 3-D pictures that allowed you to see a picture but only if you looked in a certain way? The first time I looked at one it took me 30 minutes. With practice, though, I could see them within 30 seconds. That first time I had all my friends around me chiding me when I couldn't find the picture. "It's obvious!" "It's right there!"

Was it true? Sure, is it obvious to me now? Yep.

To us(Christians) it is absolutely obvious that God exists and that He exists in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But He will not show HImself according to our whims and fancy. (He has show himself already thru Jesus Christ)

"And you will seek me, You will find me when you search for me with all of your heart" Jeremiah 29:13

I think it is important for us Christians to realise the same happens with God. We may have experiences, and also see the evidence around us so clearly, yet other people are just going to have a hard time believing us for they do not see it. It seems our perception for seeing God clearly, or not seeing Him, is based upon our perceptions being properly aligned.

[mr.ho_chia2]

yup not directly saying but it is what it is... if you said he paid our sins... look around... does he really paid for it? I bet not, if he did, it was a waste then.

not directly what? and just what it is? how come you know better than the others? you mean i will take what you say over and above what i see? that's not fair sinyalan.

i don't know what you are referring to. but surely He did, but not all accepted the offer of free gift, it's a waste indeed for those who didn't accept but for those who did, it was an amazing experience. [br]Posted on: September 07, 2007, 02:34:42 PM_________________________________________________

Let me just site an example:

Do you know those cool 3-D pictures that allowed you to see a picture but only if you looked in a certain way? The first time I looked at one it took me 30 minutes. With practice, though, I could see them within 30 seconds. That first time I had all my friends around me chiding me when I couldn't find the picture. "It's obvious!" "It's right there!"

Was it true? Sure, is it obvious to me now? Yep.

To us(Christians) it is absolutely obvious that God exists and that He exists in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But He will not show HImself according to our whims and fancy. (He has show himself already thru Jesus Christ)

"And you will seek me, You will find me when you search for me with all of your heart" Jeremiah 29:13

I think it is important for us Christians to realise the same happens with God. We may have experiences, and also see the evidence around us so clearly, yet other people are just going to have a hard time believing us for they do not see it. It seems our perception for seeing God clearly, or not seeing Him, is based upon our perceptions being properly aligned.

hehe... couldn't say it any better. right on bro!

[JX]

Misconceptions Around Mitochondrial Eve
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

....part of conclusion:
It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work. The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago, (even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things:

1. They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor
2. They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised.


It is my confident prediction that both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now. They will be as wrong then as they are now.


*go check wiki,
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each co-existed within a large human population. Some of these contemporaries have no living descendants today, and others are ancestors of all people alive today. No contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve is an ancestor of only a subset of people alive today, because she lived much longer ago than the identical ancestors point.

Parsons et al wont claim of a Mito Eve,its because of mutation and mutation rate(D-loop); RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate.

parsons research of mito eve living around 6500 years ago(RFLP analysis), while the most recent study using the most appropriate techniques confirm the date of matrilineal MRCA at between 150,000 and 200,000 years.

Its just age.. in oak barrels.. hehe,

Conclusion

No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years. Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago.

As a scientist of course, he wont, without hard evidence, claim at that instant, since there are a number of considerations:

1. We need to explain the variation in mutational rates in pedigree studies based on analysis of the D-loop. It is clear that at least some of this variation can be explained by statistical variations in small samples of a stochastic process. However, pooling all the data still leads to a 'factor of five' discrepancy, between the rate measured by pedigree and phylogenetic studies
2. We need to consider whether the mitochondrial DNA does, in fact, mutate at a fixed rate, and therefore whether it will provide a good 'clock' for dating genomic events. Furthermore, we must consider whether some parts of the mitochondrial genome are more 'clock-like' than others.
3. We need to consider the fundamental differences between pedigree and phylogenetic studies. Pedigree studies, particularly those that compare the genetic make-up of close relatives, measure a rate of mutation from one generation to the next Phylogenetic studies, or pedigree studies that compare broad populations that have been in existence for many generations will yield a rate of fixed mutations or permanent substitutions in that lineage's genome. These rates might be different, because mildly deleterious mutations will be eliminated over time from the gene pool, and because in some cases, a particular mutation might mutate back to the original sequence
4. We need to consider the possibility that mitochondrial mutations usually occur in some, but not all, of the thousands of copies of mitochondrial DNA present in each cell. Such a condition is called mitochondrial heteroplasmy, and, if it occurs in the germ line, can result in tissue mosaicism (different mitochondrial DNA in different tissues). It is frequently deleterious
5. We need to consider whether restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (RFLP) is a good technique for estimation of mutation rate.

and by that authors prediction.. nahh.. he can predict all he want,descredited anyways, whats 20 years to a 100,
but for me,
in God's time..

mutants? hehe,

The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each co-existed within a large human population. Some of these contemporaries have no living descendants today, and others are ancestors of all people alive today. No contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve is an ancestor of only a subset of people alive today, because she lived much longer ago than the identical ancestors point.

(DNA similarity) & due to mutation & rate of mutation, of course it cant and it wont imply the existence of pop bottle.

see circular reasoning.

so it has been proved to be tried to be disproven, but still not.. hehehe..

[ej___]

i believe it was you who said "Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so.'' Take your pick. " ...dum-dum

well, early man thought "fire" was mysterious..."oooh god did it". you're a 21st century equivalent.

RAMEN!

You mean you are telling everyone that you are also like a child asking why, why, why, why. But not the 21st century equivalent type like me as you quoted? Oh. LOL.

Actually, you have two options on seeking the truth. Let's simply enumerate the process on my little opinion.

1. You ask yourself why . . . . .
2. You research from books, internet, ask other people, . . .
3. You get/receive answers . . . .

Here, you find conflicts from the answers then it branches out into two. Either,
1. You align your thought with the church/or any religion that you believe in a God because you are enlightened by a Supreme being. Or,
2. You challenge the idea about the existence of God because you don't want to align with any religion at all. Maybe because you get answers and read more on disproving Gods existence. You concentrate on it and too conceited to influence everyone and mock the Supreme Being. (note: this really depends on the upbringing of the parents)

The 2nd option interest you very much thus you choose being a misotheist. Right.
Again, there might be reasons behind that only you know and other people don't know. That's your private life anyway.

Christian's = "21st century equivalent" Hmm
Misotheist = ? unknown equivalent since doesn't believe in God NOR Evil beings. Maybe, NOR and equivalent. Hahaha

Hmmm. Anyway, i'll throw this question to you Satanist, have you ever find any truth being a misotheist? Hmm.

Your avatar code name again caught my attention. Anti-Christ huh. A very well thought name. Well, read this if you might react on the Satanist word.

From WIKIPEDIA:

"In Christian eschatology the Antichrist or Anti-christ (literally: anti, 'opposite', 'against', 'as if' or in place of; christ, anointed one) has come to mean a person, image of a person, or other entity that is an embodiment of evil. The name antichrist derives from the books of 1 and 2 John, which describe any who denies Christ to be antichrists. The term is also often applied to prophecies regarding a "Little horn" power in Daniel 7, and is used in conjunction with many end times teachings.

Antichrist is translated from the combination of two ancient Greek words αντί + χÏ�ιστος (antÃ* + khristos), which can mean anti "opposite" (of) khristos "anointed" therefore "opposite of Christ" (the meaning of christ as 'anointed one' having become secondary to its meaning as the honorific of Jesus of Nazareth) or anti "as" (if) khristos "messiah" thus "in place of Christ". An antichrist can be opposed to Christ by striving to be in the place of Christ. The term itself appears 5 times in 1 John and 2 John of the New Testament — once in plural form and 4 times in the singular, and is popularly associated with the belief of a competing and assumed evil entity opposed to Jesus of Nazareth. . . .

Christian denominations disagree on what will happen in the end times, and the role that Satan and the Antichrist will play. Among them are those who believe that the antichrists of whom John wrote are instead a single individual and expect this one person to rise in the future. There is a consensus that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "trials and tribulations" during which the Antichrist, inspired by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with great works, and will silence anyone or make enemies of any country that refuses their allegiance (by refusing to "receive his mark" on their foreheads or right hands). This "mark" is expected to be required to legally partake in commerce, as noted in Revelation 13:16,17 Some Christians believe that the Antichrist will be assassinated half way through the Tribulation, being revived and indwelt by Satan. The Antichrist will continue on for three and a half years following this. . . . ."

We'll its really hard to align your thoughts with any religion worshipping on a Supreme Being, God/Alah/Budha. Maybe you didn't grow in the influence of religious people when you were still a child.

[ej___]

From WIKI:

"Revelation 13 contains a description of the Anti-christ:

1. "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy."

2. "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority."

3. "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."

4. "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

5. And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months."

6. "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

7. "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

8 ."And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (as per the King James Bible)"



Parent's: I'm so proud of you son.
Son: Thanks Mom & Dad that you let me grow like this.

Poor boy.

[shimiyu]

OT: I never imagined this thread would be wrought with so much fun.

[mr.ho_chia2]

well, i have to say... Congratulations for starting it. hehe