Why I’m no longer a Christian

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#423347 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh
One never knows!
Although I think perhaps some people simply have an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance and take Topix a wee bit too seriously.
Now if that aint the funniest thing I've read in in awhile..........

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423348 Nov 29, 2012
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand corrected...Hi there Hiding!!!
I was close, but your examples are much better...Thanks!!!
Thanks, Mr. Wiggley!

Based on his reply to both of us, he didn't understand my post. I'll have to clarify :)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423349 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is the product of evolution. It is the mechanism by which bodies solve problems. I wrote this above, but I'll try to clarify here.
<quoted text>
No. You're confusing genetic change with developmental plasticity.
The snake example - and we're talking species here, over millions of years - is an example of some genes going extinct while new ones evolve (in gene pools, over time).
The "raise your kids at high altitude" ex. is one of developmental plasticity (that is itself a product of evolution).
All species have windows of homeostasis - parameters within which they can function. These are adaptations - the normal range is what species are adapted for. At the extremes of the range is where individuals can no longer adapt, their bodies are pushed to the limits, and some individuals die w/out reproducing.
So, you raise a child in California - no problem, good conditions. You raise your second child at Machu Pichu - you have all kinds of problems here, b/c you're a lowlander. The child may or may not do find, depending on genetics and development, but s/he will be pushed to the limit of his/her adaptive response to developing at altitude. S/he will have developmental adaptations you do not posses because those are within the range of human development. However, at the limits, some children will do better, some worse and, over long periods of time, those who do better because of genetic advantages will out-reproduce others.
Natural selection produces adaptation. Where adaptation fails (at the edge of homeostasis) is where natural selection produces more adaptation - to specific environments.
<quoted text>
Evolution is ongoing. It never stops. Mutation never stops. Every generation has new mutations and slightly different environments. These cause evolution. All species are still evolving. When they stop evolving, they are extinct. Humans and snakes are yet evolving.
I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand evolution very well. That's not your fault - there's a lot of disinformation around. You have to be more specific in how you understand it. Start with evolution is "allelic frequency change in gene pools, over time" and work your way up.
Can you provide one single reason other than you believe it to be the case that would demonstrate there is a reason to believe evolution is ongoing?

It takes millions of years for a single change. You can't follow it sequentially. At least we don't have the information at this point too. You have no way of predicting what the next change will be in millions of years or from what I can see, any reason to say it is a certainty there will be one. What is it you see that allows you to confidently say humans will continue to evolve or what information are you basing that on?

Perhaps I am not understanding but it seems to me you simply believe that to be the case but there is no possible way that I can see that anyone can know something like that.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423350 Nov 29, 2012
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Now if that aint the funniest thing I've read in in awhile..........
Hey "Larry"

What a surprise to see you within a day of me posting somewhere else!

Any reason other than the obvious dishonest one that you left out the examples I gave for why I said what I did which would clearly show why I said what I did?

Although wow do you and Catcher have some things in common. Perhaps you two can start some sort of wounded "male" pride stalking team and just keep responding to my posts together? What has it been for you? At least over a year right?

Man, it is hard to believe someone with your sensibilities and priorities is running a failing business

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423351 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for that
So my question is, because evolution takes millions of years per change and we can't follow it from A to Z so-to-speak, how do we know for sure the change in humans is not simply adaptation and not part of a larger evolution?
Whatever level you are able to answer on is fine as I am sure it will be above my knowledge base anyway as this is not in my wheelhouse. So it doesn't have to be super technical. But do we have any way of knowing for sure this isn't simply adaptation?
Evolution is "allelic frequency change in gene pools, over time."

1. It only takes one generation, not millions of years (gross morphological evolution can take a long time, but it can also take a short time - as little as 5000 years)
2. We can follow it from A-Z if we can measure the gene pools at point A and point Z (we can do this today, for example, and do).
3. Adaptations are genetically coded mechanisms of solving problems. I tried to explain homeostasis above. In other words, adaptations have limits. When those limits are reached, the coping mechanisms fail, and either a) evolution occurs or b) extinction occurs.

Your question needs to be more specific to answer it - there's a lot about human morphological change in the last 200 000 years that was due to adaption, and a lot due to evolution.

Here's a model:

stressor=>adaptation=>ho meostasis=>most individuals ok

continued stressor=>adaptation=>st ressor increases=>some individuals live or die

mutation hits, modifying the adaptation to better deal with the stressor, mutant individuals survive and reproduce well while previous ones do less well = evolution

Almost all evolution by natural selection works like this.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423352 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Skom may have been trying to say what you said here simply - thanks, as always, for the clarification, GOD.
:)
That isn't even close to what I am saying. I am not saying the Bible was misinterpreted therefore homosexuality is not really a sin. There are some who feel the word pornea originally was about gay prostitutes and not homosexuality in general but it is clear in the OT, which Jesus would have believed, that homosexuality was a sin. It was still considered a sin in the NT.

What is it you still aren't getting? Just because something is a sin doesn't mean you can be bigoted towards someone or hate them or discriminate against them unless every sinner is prepared to get the same treatment for their own sins. And since they don't it is hypocritical judging, it is in violation of the second greatest commandment to love thy neighbor and it is not justified by the Bible at all

So no I Was not trying to say the Bible was misinterpreted. Again, I don't know how I could have answered you any clearer for you to come up with that

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#423353 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
hi there! you're not by any chance judging me & trying to force your standards of morality on me all the while you accuse me of doing that to you again, are you? how do hypocrites live with themselves???
Not by *my* standards. By the standards of the Bible you claim to follow. Your theft is against what that book teaches. Live with it.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423354 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
Can you provide one single reason other than you believe it to be the case that would demonstrate there is a reason to believe evolution is ongoing?
It's directly measurable. Mutation is ongoing, allelic frequency changes in gene pools with every generation. In no species does gene frequency not change with every generation.

I can provide countless research papers here, if you like.
It takes millions of years for a single change.
No, it doesn't. You're misinformed.
You can't follow it sequentially. At least we don't have the information at this point too.
If we have the gene pool at Point A and Point Z, we can. It is being done in laboratories right now. If we have the genetic material from now dead individuals and compare them to living ones, we can. That has been done in humans a number of times. Now that we can measure DNA in ancient bones, we can do this. I'm actually working on a paper that relies on this method to discuss the evolution of vitamin A deficiency in a malaria population from 12 000 years ago.
You have no way of predicting what the next change will be in millions of years or from what I can see, any reason to say it is a certainty there will be one.
Of course I can't. Who can see the environment 1 million years from now?

I'd guess better metabolic processes to detoxify industrial pollution and plastics will evolve.
What is it you see that allows you to confidently say humans will continue to evolve or what information are you basing that on?
Humans are continuing to evolve - this is directly measurable and observable. There's no guesswork here, it is happening. Humans are evolving most rapidly in our immune systems, followed by our central nervous systems and finally our physical stature.
Perhaps I am not understanding but it seems to me you simply believe that to be the case but there is no possible way that I can see that anyone can know something like that.
No. I'm a specialist in the field and you know almost nothing about it. It's not your fault. You just don't know what you're talking about.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423355 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't even close to what I am saying. I am not saying the Bible was misinterpreted therefore homosexuality is not really a sin. There are some who feel the word pornea originally was about gay prostitutes and not homosexuality in general but it is clear in the OT, which Jesus would have believed, that homosexuality was a sin. It was still considered a sin in the NT.
What is it you still aren't getting? Just because something is a sin doesn't mean you can be bigoted towards someone or hate them or discriminate against them unless every sinner is prepared to get the same treatment for their own sins. And since they don't it is hypocritical judging, it is in violation of the second greatest commandment to love thy neighbor and it is not justified by the Bible at all
So no I Was not trying to say the Bible was misinterpreted. Again, I don't know how I could have answered you any clearer for you to come up with that
Well, ok, I misunderstood you. Part of that was b/c up until now, you refused to answer me directly and say what you believe, that homosexuality is a sin.

If the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin - and G_O_D disagrees with you here, I defer to his knowledge, it's impeccable - then your religion is bigoted. There's no two ways about that. You can't condemn a behavior that causes no harm between two adults as sinful and pretend that the religion is about loving all people.

That's just your mental gymnastics to justify telling homosexuals they're sinners but you love them anyways.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#423356 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey "Larry"
What a surprise to see you within a day of me posting somewhere else!
Any reason other than the obvious dishonest one that you left out the examples I gave for why I said what I did which would clearly show why I said what I did?
Although wow do you and Catcher have some things in common. Perhaps you two can start some sort of wounded "male" pride stalking team and just keep responding to my posts together? What has it been for you? At least over a year right?
Man, it is hard to believe someone with your sensibilities and priorities is running a failing business
Hahaha.

You really are a lost cause.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#423357 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i think it's funny how bullies think they have all the room in the world to do whatever, but think they can confine non-conformists to tiny lil boxes. ain't gonna happen!
just ate YOUR lunch & popped the bag...in yur face!;)
You're not a nonconformist.

You're a misogynistic creep.

You didn't eat anyone's lunch. You are incapable of anything even close to being able to do so.

But of course, you have the holey sprite to help you along the way to abuse of women and then say it's eating their lunch.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423358 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
i gave you about as comprehensive of an answer with explanations on why it is wrong and hypocritical to single out sins and to show hate, thus eliminating any possible Biblical justification for bigotry.
You responded with some ridiculous post saying, oh so it is ok to be homosexual according to your religion, you should get the word out.
What else should i assume but that you didn't understand a word you read?
No it is still a sin, like many many other things that all people are guilty of doing. It is no worse than any other sin and therefore to single it out like it is worse or judge it harsher like it is worse or to judge it while ignoring someone's own sins or to show hate is ALL in violation of the Bible. And all those things take place with bigotry and prejudice.
Yes it is a sin. But nobody is allowed to hate or judge someone harsher for it just like they don't expect to be hated or judged any harsher for their own sins
So what is it you still don't get?
Well you've definitely clarified that your religion is anti-gay.

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#423359 Nov 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
1 more time: I DON'T CONDEMN ANYBODY!!!
will you please stop condemning christianity?:)
Condemn...
verb (used with object)
1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.

Or...a non-believer to hell...
What part of you telling those who don't believe as you do that they are going to some hell-place is NOT condemning them?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423360 Nov 29, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha.
You really are a lost cause.
Yeah. He's turned himself into an Eagle.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#423361 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey "Larry"
What a surprise to see you within a day of me posting somewhere else!
Any reason other than the obvious dishonest one that you left out the examples I gave for why I said what I did which would clearly show why I said what I did?
Its not what was said, its WHO said it. LMAO......
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Although wow do you and Catcher have some things in common. Perhaps you two can start some sort of wounded "male" pride stalking team and just keep responding to my posts together? What has it been for you? At least over a year right?
Dont know what your talking about. Might want to leave the Meth alone for awhile........
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Man, it is hard to believe someone with your sensibilities and priorities is running a failing business
Whatever you need to think to get you through another of your miserable days on topix.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#423362 Nov 29, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
This post to you is written with sincerity...not to represent anyone's view but mine...
I do not write to you the things that I do because of what you believe in nor that it is different than my own beliefs. I write to make you think...to make you dig in to your scripture...to understand it.
My problem with you is that IMO you have a way of making your faith and the scripture that you try to use against us seem slimy and sleazy. You turn a "God loves you" into what seems like a come on to pick up women.
You say that it is just "your sense of humor"...I just can not find using the words written in that book as "humor"...especially when it is used to harass or "pick up" someone.
I don't care if you are Christian...or if you are not. However...when one professes to believe then I am uncomfortable with that person using scripture in such a slimy way. Having left the faith but retaining the parts that I once and still do believe in...I just find it apalling how you use it to behave so slimy.
At times you bring God/Jesus down to your level...a pervert slime bucket...all just to maintain "your sense of humor".
I do not dislike you because you claim to be Christian...I dislike you for how you use your faith...to belittle...condemn...and to further your agenda.
I don't know how Kaitlin feels...I don't know her...maybe she enjoys your posts...I do not know. Yet when I read your posts to her...using God/Jesus/scripture to try and get in to her panties...I am sick at my stomach...as if I had just read some porn site. I find them sleazy and slimy.
I just find no "humor" in how you use your faith.
You might not like what I have written...but it is sincere...honest...and just my opinion.
Very well said.

And...

It's not just you who feels this way. Many women here have told him this, but he continues to use Jesus as a cover for talking to women about their pubic hair, asking them for a date, etc.

Slimy is a good word for him. Also sleezeball, creepy, and misogynistic.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#423363 Nov 29, 2012
Good night all, I'm going to sleep. Don't evolve while I'm gone! We can't have that.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423364 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's directly measurable. Mutation is ongoing, allelic frequency changes in gene pools with every generation. In no species does gene frequency not change with every generation.
I can provide countless research papers here, if you like.
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You're misinformed.
<quoted text>
If we have the gene pool at Point A and Point Z, we can. It is being done in laboratories right now. If we have the genetic material from now dead individuals and compare them to living ones, we can. That has been done in humans a number of times. Now that we can measure DNA in ancient bones, we can do this. I'm actually working on a paper that relies on this method to discuss the evolution of vitamin A deficiency in a malaria population from 12 000 years ago.
<quoted text>
Of course I can't. Who can see the environment 1 million years from now?
I'd guess better metabolic processes to detoxify industrial pollution and plastics will evolve.
<quoted text>
Humans are continuing to evolve - this is directly measurable and observable. There's no guesswork here, it is happening. Humans are evolving most rapidly in our immune systems, followed by our central nervous systems and finally our physical stature.
<quoted text>
No. I'm a specialist in the field and you know almost nothing about it. It's not your fault. You just don't know what you're talking about.
I know enough to know you are contradicting yourself.

I said "You have no way of predicting what the next change will be in millions of years or from what I can see, any reason to say it is a certainty there will be one".

And you said "Of course I can't. Who can see the environment 1 million years from now?"

I said you can't even say with any certainly there will be any more changes and you agreed yet you maintain evolution is ongoing. That is a contradiction.

You have yet to provide a single piece of information to show why you believe evolution is ongoing

I know enough to know that

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423365 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is "allelic frequency change in gene pools, over time."
1. It only takes one generation, not millions of years (gross morphological evolution can take a long time, but it can also take a short time - as little as 5000 years)
2. We can follow it from A-Z if we can measure the gene pools at point A and point Z (we can do this today, for example, and do).
3. Adaptations are genetically coded mechanisms of solving problems. I tried to explain homeostasis above. In other words, adaptations have limits. When those limits are reached, the coping mechanisms fail, and either a) evolution occurs or b) extinction occurs.
Your question needs to be more specific to answer it - there's a lot about human morphological change in the last 200 000 years that was due to adaption, and a lot due to evolution.
Here's a model:
stressor=>adaptation=>ho meostasis=>most individuals ok
continued stressor=>adaptation=>st ressor increases=>some individuals live or die
mutation hits, modifying the adaptation to better deal with the stressor, mutant individuals survive and reproduce well while previous ones do less well = evolution
Almost all evolution by natural selection works like this.
How can it be any more specific than what proof is there that these changes are not simply adaptation compared to the claim that they are really part of a larger ongoing evolution?

I think I am beginning to see the problem and that is you have no basis for claiming evolution is ongoing. It is absurd to think anyone else could think they could prove something like that. Of course you can't know if evolution, something that takes millions of years per change and something you can't follow sequentially, is ongoing. There is no possible way that I have seen yet you can know that we haven't stopped evolving, if that is what even happened.

What do you base your position on that evolution is ongoing? How can you know that? How can know some things don't undergo 1 change or a dozen changes and stop? You are making up your own facts and then calling other people uninformed. While it is true i don't know a lot about this, I know when I am not getting an answer

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423366 Nov 29, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha.
You really are a lost cause.
Hey....Catcher....what a surprise

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 687,165
Clinton Foundation Scandals 52 min Hiddn Numbrz 2
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 57 min exposingdolts 30,680
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 987,134
I LOVE my new LG V20 smartphone!!! 3 hr Doctor REALITY 3
BING keeps DOMINATING with "Homepage Magic" 5 hr Doctor REALITY 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 12 hr Here For Now 619,788
More from around the web