jfoldbar

if i want easter eggs, and i get easter eggs, this is proof for me the easter bunny is real. this is not a belief but proof. whats the difference?

wiki says the experiment has clocked more than 60000 generations. does this equate to more than 1 million humans years. if 1 generation for humans is 20 years (from birth until they can themselves reproduce) then that is 1.2 million years. evolution theory says a quite bit of speciation has happened in that time. so why not much with the ecoli?

mikeco. the way you describe that you truly 'know' god/jesus by simply believing in him more than another cristian who doesnt really know christ, also fits with any and all other belief that humans may have. for example. if both me and my friend believe in the easter bunny but later he doesnt believe in the easter bunny and i still do, that would mean, according to your description, that i have proof enough for me that the easter bunny is real, therefore making it so. and since he didnt truly 'know' the easter bunny is real then it was easier for him to lose faith in the bunnys existance.

mikeco. could you please explain how one can "know" someone or something as you claim. "knowing" something means it can be proven beyond doubt. if you have such proof of god/jesus then perhaps you could share your proof to the rest of the world, and end all the confusion.

"knowing" christ exists and "knowing" your parents exist are 2 different things. we can see,hear,touch our parents. this can not be done with christ. please dont confuse "knowing" something and " believing" something. perhaps someone with more science knowledge can confirm this. but i would consider that there is no such thing as a scientific belief. there are facts,theories, and then a long list of things we dont know yet. but no belief.

i stumbled across the whole lenski this and think its great that someone had the foresight to do something like this. however i do wonder, after 50000 generations, has anythingt happened of any significance? i mean, if evolution is a fact/true, why are the ecoli still ecoli? why havnt they evolved to something else of any real difference? dont get me wrong, i think evolution makes a lot more sense than creation, but it doesnt help the evolution case if those ecoli always stay as ecoli, and never evolve to anything else.

have you looked into candida? might be worth reading about

i have an unusual health condition where some of the bodies own mechanisms for dealing with pollution do not work for me. because of this i can be poisoned really easily by almost anything around me. this health problem hit me in my early 20s and took me about 10 years to diagnose and treat.while im not a doctor or anything, i have had to learn quite a lot about minimising toxins in my life. i wont go into details cause its way too long. but basically i often take various supplements to boost liver function and eat/drink various things high in antioxidants etc. the only sure fire way to not be exposed to chemicals would be to live in the jungle like a hermit. anything in our modern life has chemicals invading us all the time. the best we can hope for is to deal with them once in our body. as others have said, the immune system does very little in defence of chemicals, it has to deal with them once they enter the body. (which is a whole story of its own). the first line of defence is our skin,lungs,and gut. so keeping the chemicals out of those 3 the best we can and then dealing with the fallout, is all we can do.

lots of anything may not be healthy though. is this the fault of the meat that the eater eats too much?

so one of my employees suddenly decided to go vegan cause he read somewhere that meat is unhealthy. so im wondering if anyone knows of any unbiased studies to prove this? i tried to google is but i thought of a few problems with any results i found. lets say for example if you eat a t-bone 2-3 times a week, and some study shows this is unhealthy, have they taken the whole (meat and fat) steak into account? have they taken the cooking method (fry) into account.? so you could get what i think is a perfectly healthy piece of beef. trim off all fat and fry in olive oil. Or, you could leave all the fat on and overcook it till its half burnt in a cheap vege oil. if any studies havnt taken this into account i dont think they are giving the full picture.

sorry, but i dont get how finding fossils of animals that are not here now, and not being able to able to find fossils of animals that are here is a problem for creationism. to me, if there is no fossils of todays animals, wouldnt we have to ask "where did todays animals come from if there are no fossils of them"? please explain

they'll definitely fix it with nukes. lots of nukes. and there'd be some great speech there somewhere from trump bout being strong or something.

in my everlasting arguments with a creationist, i thought of something that i wonder and cant find anything using google, so want to ask here. we all know about fossils of dinosaurs ect, but how about fossils of the animals we have now? for example, have we found fossils of kangaroos, koalas, bears,possums,lion beaver elephant, exactly or almost the same as they are today? if there are none, wouldnt that mean creationists have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to have a completely different set of animals now to millions of years ago? if anyone knows either way, please provide link if possible.

you have a point here. so you can discuss an inconsistency of your choosing provided it is of some level of relevance/impotence. meaning, i consider minor differences in wording between the gospels to be a small issue compared with, say, GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. sorry, but youve completely lost me. this just seems like a heap of dribble that sounds real good but doesnt actually say anything much.

a lot has happened here while i was asleep. pymander, since you consider the 'emerald tablet' to be some of your evidence of god, could you please let us know how? all i see is some 'proverbs'. it doesnt even mention god drp do you have a link for the giraffe neck thing you saw there is one thing pymander said that i would have to agree on. science does have a lot of things that are not 100% proven, but many still believe anyway. (this is the mentality i want to avoid personally) i guess the difference though, is science is still a work in progress. but the bible finished its 'research' 2000 years ago. noone has anything else to add to the bible. but we are still adding to science every day. the problem i have is, 1000 years ago our knowledge of science was too small to dispute anything in the bible. however in the last few hundred years that is slowly changing, and continues to change. we now know for certain that there are inconsistencies in the bible. it is no longer a belief. but i i guess some people are ok with those inconsistencies because they dont want to change there belief stance in front of their family/friends. so i ask you if i may, pymander, why are you ok with some bible inconsistencies?

do you have anything constructive to say?

knowledge of other cultures? or scientific knowledge. or both? i wonder how cultural knowledge can make one become atheist and does that mean, if you hadnt acquired such knowledge, would you still be agnostic? or is it something like, when you get older you realise that 2+2=4, and no matter how you say it, whatever you feel or believe, it will still equal 4. hoping it to equal 3.8 will not make it do so. 'how to turn a believer' may not be the correct wording. it makes it sound as though i want to turn a friend but cant. perhaps it should be 'how does a believer turn" like i said before. im just curious about something like a fact for me does not seem to make it a fact for the next guy. and apart from that we are all different, i dont get that.

drp hhhmmm. i guess thats what makes us unique. for me, its either day time or its night time. there are no ifs and buts or maybys. but i guess for some there is something else. has your knowledge of science increased, or changed since becoming a non believer? when you did believe, why didnt the science in you cause confliction in your mind?

do you know why you changed from agnostic to atheist. i mean, why did seeing other cultures make you atheist?

thankyou drp for the link. so it seems, like me, all you had to do to change sides was learn about science, then realise that god/bible could not be true? i wonder then though, why doesnt that work for everyone that learns about science. i was bought up as a jehovah. the information that jehovahs learn is biased. meaning they learn about science from the johovahs books and other jehovahs. so they are taught what the organisation wants them to know. it is very frowned up to learn anything outside what they teach as they teach that everything we need to know is in the bible and correct, and to question that is bad. it only took me a short time of reading on my own(when internet started) to start to see how brainwashed i was. then the learning just started from there. so im thinking, in this great world of variety, there must be people who were raised as religious, learned about science, but still chose religion anyway. this totally confuses me. not really the part about them choosing religion, but more the WHY. the science that drp and myself learned that turned us, why didnt that same science turn the believer? as i said in op, a fact is a fact regardless of who the learner is. is it because the believer , 1; chooses to ignore those facts, 2; acknowledges this fact but still decided to believe anyway (what does that say about his intelligence) 3; im sure there are others that i cant think of. are you saying that when you were young, you were on the fence, but you are now a believer? and it was travelling to 30 countries that changed you?

well. this has turned into a nice little argument that doesnt go anywhere. so i'll try to bring it back to the original post by asking, anyone who has changed sides, why did you do it?

does this mean he is 'an ignorer of facts'? if someone (anyone) does ignore facts, what is their basis for doing so? what causes any human to ignore a fact about, for example, bible inconsistencies. but they heed the fact that driving fast is dangerous. a fact is a fact whatever the context, isnt it?

gee. just shows how different levels we are. even your dumbed down version is a head full for me.but i think i got it. thankyou from your post this is what i get. some dude from ww1 wanted to test if a psychic was the real deal. so a test performed suggested he was. and jews and Christianity influence over the past 2000 years shows the bible punches very high. well, first thing, im not too sure what that has to do with op apart from that it seems like a science person has turned religious. but still want to talk about a few points. 1 , your quote "Anyone who studies the Bible will know that it is God's word" i have studied the bible for the first 20 years of my life. read it many times. i dont not see it as the word of a god for many reasons. but 1 strong reason is. god claims he is perfect and without fault, therefore his word should be perfect and without fault. when i study the bible, i do not see a perfect book but a good book, with also many problems/contradictions/inconsistencies in it. i once saw a fairly well known comedian debunk psychics by doing their own psychic show. people saw him and he gave them psychic readings, predictions of their future. he had a %100 success rate. every prediction he made about these total strangers came to be true. later he was asked how he done it and he told them, its the way he said it. basically he chose his words so that, whatever happened in the future he would always be right. he couldnt tell their futures, but he could choose his words carefully. if jews and Christianity life shows the bible to be true, wouldnt also Buddhist lifestyle show their belief to be true? ​im not sure what jews and Christians have that others dont. to me they are just people. good and bad amongst them like any organisation. thankyou for keeping your answer simple. please keep them simple in the future

oh goodie. another topic that is not allowed on another science forum i used to visit. im liking this place more every day. so, simulation. 10 years ago i could find heaps of stuff on the net with suggestions as to why we are not in a simulation. nowdays i can only find things online suggesting we are in a simulation. because it was 10 years ago when i saw the 'not' suggestions, i cant remember what any of them were. but there still must be arguments/ideas as to why we are not in a simulation? anyone?

thanks for the reply. i guess from all that study you must have spent more than 20 years in uni. i have no tertiary education at all. i barely even finished high school. so sorry to say, but i have no idea what your whole post was about. it just completely went over my head. are you able to dumb it down for me? im not even sure from you post if you believe in god or not. the only part that i understood was "Anyone who studies the Bible will know that it is God's word" i will totally dispute this statement itself . but wont go any further yet as i may have got it out of context with the rest of your post