What would convert you to God? |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : What would convert you to God?
Previous · 1 · 2
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Johnney, as uaual, Johnney, you read my post too literally, Johnney. | |
| ID: 1285642 · | |
|
Johnny quotes the bible as saying that bodies should be buried in waiting for the resurrection. Being that we've been burying Christians for about 2000 years. I assume someone was supposed to dig those folks back up with the time comes. Otherwise being resurrected would really stink 6 ft under | |
| ID: 1285661 · | |
I never said I had extensive knowledge of genetics, though it appeared that your understanding is not based on current science. The rest of the post was intended to help you on a couple of points. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1285668 · | |
Chris a cloned human being is NOT a physical approximation! Its a perfect copy in every possible way. It just won't have the "memory" of the previous life. The cloned person will be just like your twin. But not all twin babies are identical. But occasionally, you do get identical twins. Your clone will be your twin. So occasionally nature does this anyway! There are lots of identical twins today anyway. Johnny you're wrong. Setting aside the personality differences resulting from different experiences and memories, while a genetic clone will have identical DNA, it will not necessarily be a perfect copy in every possible way. Identical (mono-zygotic) twins are close to being physically identical at birth, though if separated and raised on different diets and exposed to different environments, will soon start to show physical differences. The reason they're close to physically identical at birth is that they shared a common environment in the womb. Genetic clones of existing people will be different from the DNA donor at birth, as the wombs will be different, and further physical differences will accumulate. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1286029 · | |
Chris a cloned human being is NOT a physical approximation! Its a perfect copy in every possible way. It just won't have the "memory" of the previous life. The cloned person will be just like your twin. But not all twin babies are identical. But occasionally, you do get identical twins. Your clone will be your twin. So occasionally nature does this anyway! There are lots of identical twins today anyway. Bobby, Hmmmmmm......are you going to try to teach me about genetics? Be very careful Bobby, if your going to correct me on matters of genetic engineering, you better be sure about your science. I'm very good with genetics Bobby, i'm not wrong! John. ____________ | |
| ID: 1286031 · | |
Chris a cloned human being is NOT a physical approximation! Its a perfect copy in every possible way. It just won't have the "memory" of the previous life. The cloned person will be just like your twin. But not all twin babies are identical. But occasionally, you do get identical twins. Your clone will be your twin. So occasionally nature does this anyway! There are lots of identical twins today anyway. Then please point out the errors in what I posted. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1286037 · | |
|
Ok Bobby, Setting aside the personality differences resulting from different experiences and memories, while a genetic clone will have identical DNA, it will not necessarily be a perfect copy in every possible way This is wrong Bobby! Go check your science before correcting me! Identical (mono-zygotic) twins are close to being physically identical at birth, This is wrong Bobby! Go check your science before correcting me! Genetic clones of existing people will be different from the DNA donor at birth This is wrong Bobby! Go check your science before correcting me! as the wombs will be different, and further physical differences will accumulate. This is wrong Bobby! Go check your science before correcting me! John. ____________ | |
| ID: 1286041 · | |
Ok Bobby, Congratulations, you pointed out statements and said they were wrong, you did not point out errors. Starting with a simple one, mono-zygotic (identical) twins are not physically identical at birth (supporting evidence). ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1286047 · | |
Congratulations, you pointed out statements and said they were wrong, you did not point out errors. Well now Bobby, I guess God is going to have to check with you first before he starts raising the dead. John. | |
| ID: 1286049 · | |
Congratulations, you pointed out statements and said they were wrong, you did not point out errors. Are you conceding that your understanding of the science is in error? ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1286050 · | |
|
I hope most here have taken notice of the fact that, although I have expressed my faith as simple belief, and don't engage in much debate about it, neither do I attempt to 'convert' anybody to my own beliefs. | |
| ID: 1286185 · | |
Ok Bobby, No concession suggests you need further convincing. Mono-zygotic (identical) twins reared apart are similar to each other not identical (supporting evidence). While mono-zygotic twins reared apart are more similar to each other across a broad range of measures than di-zygotic (non-identical) twins, they are not perfect copies of each other. Mono-zygotic (identical) twins are nature's own clones. As nature's own clones raised apart are likely to be subject to very similar societal influences, it would seem reasonable to assume the differences between them will be less than the differences between a donor and his/her clone raised 10's to 100's of years apart. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1286247 · | |
|
Hmmm...what would convert me....nothing. | |
| ID: 1286473 · | |
|
Some physical, scientifically tested, and peer-reviewed evidence might convert me. | |
| ID: 1287665 · | |
|
Cloning! | |
| ID: 1287765 · | |
If God can send me Amanda Righetti in a tutu right this instant, i'll be a convert. In a tutu? Oh, I can be so much more creative than that, especially with someone like her. ;-D | |
| ID: 1287834 · | |
|
From a totally selfish point of view it would take a miracle of monsterous proportion. Fix my birth defect/handicap and do the same for every other person born with a crippling afliction. I would then reconsider the evidence. | |
| ID: 1287867 · | |
If God can send me Amanda Righetti in a tutu right this instant, i'll be a convert. Agreed! Anyway, it didn't happen, ergo there is no god, QED! ____________ Chemists have all the solutions! Skype me: simonator### (one zero one) | |
| ID: 1287936 · | |
|
The notion of an ultimate being that can be used to explain the unexplainable, or used in a blasphemous sense has been around since the dawn of time. Probably more of a comfort factor than anything else if we were truthful. But it has permeated into everyday life even for non-believers. We all say OMG when surprised even if we don't worship one. In the UK we say "Oh cor blimey!" which is a corrupted version of the original Oh god blind me. | |
| ID: 1287947 · | |
Message boards : Politics : What would convert you to God?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |