Why is it that Christians judge people that are different from themselves? If you are an Atheist, so to speak, you are viewed as a devil worshipper, or an outcast. But in the Bible, Matthew 7:1-3 it says "Judge not or thou shall be judged the same way on Judgement Day".

To me this is hypocritical. What do you think?

Why is it that Christians judge people that are different from themselves?

Good question, why does anyone judge people that are different from themselves? I have years of experience on forums such as this - not to mention reading and watching the news, listening to talk radio, my everyday existence - and I find it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or not. And, in spite of those 'Christians' you speak of, it seems to me that Christians are judged more harshly than the other way around. Everyone has this inherent pride it seems, an inexplicable need to feel superior to others - it is not something peculiar to Christianity.


If you are an Atheist, so to speak, you are viewed as a devil worshipper, or an outcast. But in the Bible, Matthew 7:1-3 it says "Judge not or thou shall be judged the same way on Judgement Day".

None of us should pass judgment on someone else until we put ourself in their shoes. That's not to say we should never judge others, but it serves us well to judge ourselves first and also first be charitable toward others.


To me this is hypocritical. What do you think?

Like I hinted at before, there are more than enough hypocrites to go around. Christians should know better, but what's everyone else's excuse?

Yes, this one verse in matthew is one of the most used verses by the Heathen and non beleivers who do not want to be called for their sins and perversions.

But one also has to take it into context and along with all of the other many verses that tell us to help our fellow man, to talk to them and correct them ( so correcting them, telling them what they are doing wrong is not judging) and we are even to bring them in front of our church if they refuse to change.

And to be honest it is not judging if you merely use Gods words, since a person who does not accept Jesus as their savior is doomed, plain and simple, just keep reading the bible and you will find dozens of verses that tell you that a atheist is doomed and not saved, So I don't have to judge them, God has already judged them, and told us that in the bible.

So yes I can say without judging you, that if you are a atheist you are doomed to hell, because the bible says you are.

But I will go further a real atheist does not care, they don't believe, but would not care if I did believe. Those who pretend to be a atheist but attack the Christian faith are wolves in sheep clothing but for worst, since they are working for the devil attacking christians.


And of course Judge is a very poor translation, not even sure why it was used, if you look into the greek word Krinon you will see that it deals more with assuming things or even sue at law. But the main thing it also was written to christians in general about christians, that we are not to judge their faith, their belief in God, It is easy to tell a non beleiver who proclaims to be one what will happen to them, they bible tells us, we merely repeat Gods words to them.

You either serve God ( and Jesus) or you serve the devil, there is no between.

It's OK to judge or classify an activity or a behavior as being wrong or right. Jesus himself as well as the OT and NT tells us which behaviors are to be classified that way. For example, adultery, murder, theft, bearing false witness, disrespect of parents, idolatry, and the host of behaviors, such as child sacrifices which the Caananites were practicing are described as wrong and we are expected to view these behaviors as being wrong.

Society is kept civilized via judgement and classification of behaviors as right or wrong
And the sanctioning of them accordingly. Criminals are ostracized while well-behaved citizens are praised.


BTW
As the poster above tells us, this is a human tendency not Just a Christian one. So in essence what you are really disagreeing with is human nature itself. Correct?

yes, this one verse in matthew is one of the most used verses by the Heathen and non beleivers who do not want to be called for thier sins and perversions.

But one also has to take it into context and along with all of the other many verses that tell us to help our fellow man, to talk to them and correct them ( so correcting them, telling them what they are doing wrong is not judging) and we are even to bring them in front of our church if they refuse to change.

And to be honest it is not judging if you merely use Gods words, since a person who does not accept Jesus as thier savior is doomed, plain and simple, just keep reading the bible and you will find dozens of verses that tell you that a athiest is doomed and not saved, So I don't have to judge them, God has already judged them, and told us that in the bible.

So yes I can say without judging you, that if you are a athiest you are doomed to hell, because the bible says you are.

But I will go futher a real athiest does not care, they don't beleive, but would not care if I did beleive. Those who pretend to be a athiest but attack the Christian faith are wolves in sheep clothing but for worst, since they are working for the devil attacking christians.


And of course Judge is a very poor translation, not even sure why it was used, if you look into the greek word Krinon you will see that it deals more with assuming things or even sue at law. But the main thing it also was written to christians in general about christians, that we are not to judge thier faith, thier beleif in God, It is easy to tell a non beleiver who proclaims to be one what will happen to them, they bible tells us, we merely repeat Gods words to them.

You either serve God ( and Jesus) or you serve the devil, there is no inbetween.

First of all, how can I be doomed to hell when I do not even believe in Hell? Can you show me physical evidence that Hell exists, and I will go there?

Second of all, I am in no way attacking the Christian faith, I am simply pointing out flaws.

Third, you talk about the words of God being written in the Bible but are you sure that that was actually "God" saying those passages? You can hold an apple in your hand, and can believe and have faith that its an orange, but when you finally open your eyes and see it, and feel it, belief and faith has nothing to do with it. You KNOW that its still just an apple.

As far as me having to choose one side or the other, I do not believe that either side exists, I believe in science. So if I have to pick a side, I will believe what can be proven, not a folklore.

It does not matter if you don't believe, you are doomed because you don't believe in Christ, Read the bible, you seem to know it, and want to try to use it against Christians.

So if you don't believe, why come to a Christian board, because you want to attack, ( you call it pointing out flaws) if you don't believe there is a god why care ? Because those that don't believe serve another master and you do their will.

You're right. I do know the Bible, along with many other types of religion.

I come to the Christianity board because I have knowledge that I feel can be useful to someone else, along with me learning new things. While I have been answering questions on this forum I have stated my opinion, which is not a crime. I'm sure I have made a lot of people angry, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

You're right about the fact that I don't believe there is a God, but I do have a great knowledge of Christianity, Baptist, Atheist, Satanist and other religions. My goal here is to educate and possibly learn something new. What I have been involved in thus far can be classified as conversations. No real question has been asked.

Why is it that Christians judge people that are different from themselves? If you are an Atheist, so to speak, you are viewed as a devil worshipper, or an outcast. But in the Bible, Matthew 7:1-3 it says "Judge not or thou shall be judged the same way on Judgement Day".

To me this is hypocritical. What do you think?



Yes it is.

But aren't you judging Christians yourself? Implying that they are judgemental and hypocritical.


I am judgemental, I am human. Haven't you ever judged someone based on their gender, age, ethnicity, the way they dress, or the way they talk, on the way they behave, or what they believe in?

I am hypocritical, I am human.


I realize these things about myself, that is why I need a Savior.






Grace and Peace

Guys, Guys! Science and religion actually complament each other. I'm a baptist. I beilive that god created all things and that he designed all life to adept to its surrondings, which are ever changing. Look up: divine design. Furthermore science says that all the living matter and non-living matter in the universe is made of recycled star gases. "And God formed man the dust of the earth, breathing into his nostrils the breath of life."-- Genesis. God means for all of us to live in harmony, I know its hard, I'm nowere near perfect neither of us is. We all have sins, Lord knows I done the same thing I'm preaching against. We have have not the power to change hearts only god does, so pray for a person that does not know god, talk to them but in gental manner don't try not to get puffed with how much you, because in god's eyes we know next to nothing.

I come to the Christianity board because I have knowledge that I feel can be useful to someone else, along with me learning new things. While I have been answering questions on this forum I have stated my opinion, which is not a crime. I'm sure I have made a lot of people angry, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

otto186, do you really want to help and learn, or would you rather be "simply pointing out flaws"? My experience tells me critics of Christianity would much rather be pointing out flaws, which is counterproductive when it comes to helping and learning. So help me learn something since you believe in science...

I read yesterday on a University of Michigan website (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm) that, "In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup." Do you believe that, and if so how what is "plasma soup" and how did it come into being?

If you are an Atheist, so to speak, you are viewed as a devil worshipper, or an outcast. Hello otto:

I'm an atheist. I have Christian friends. As far as I know, they don't view me that way.

Do you speechdude?

I don't know. Looks to me like YOU'RE the one doing the judging.

excon

Primarily, you are talking about *Funda-Evangelical Christians*, the uneducated Christians by and large, not mainline Christians such as Episcopalians or Presbyterians, etc.

For some reason, many are unable to understand that they are to improve themselves in their Walk with Christ, not attack others and ignore their faults!

I think of that unfortunate Tammy Faye Bakker who died a couple of days ago. She and her husband swindled poor gullible F/E Christians out of huge amounts of money to build their mansion and other endeavors... out of pure greed and hypocrisy. Yet, the woman thought she would "go to heaven" because she "loved the Lord". IN the Christian worldview, she is more likely burning in hell.

Fundi-Ev Christianity in America today has been corrupted by its marriage with Politics just like anything else is *always corrupted* by Politics.

Hello otto:

I'm an atheist. I have Christian friends. As far as I know, they don't view me that way.

Do you speechdude?

I dunno. Looks to me like YOU'RE the one doing the judging.

exconThere are a couple registered here that have posted just what the OP wrote. I can dig up links if you want.

Edit to add:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-happens-people-when-they-die-103445-12.html#post501698

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-happens-people-when-they-die-103445-15.html#post505281

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-happens-people-when-they-die-103445-16.html#post505347

Hello otto:

I'm an atheist. I have Christian friends. As far as I know, they don't view me that way.

Do you speechdude?

I dunno. Looks to me like YOU'RE the one doing the judging.

excon

Ex, I'd have a cold beer with you any day. Oops, Christians aren't supposed to like beer are they? I guess I'm a hypocrite after all :D

Primarily, you are talking about *Funda-Evangelical Christians*, the uneducated Christians by and large, not mainline Christians such as Episcopalians or Presbyterians, etc.

Choux, thank you for helping prove my point (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/hypocritical-religion-112709.html#post521359).


For some reason, many are unable to understand that they are to improve themselves in their Walk with Christ, not attack others and ignore their faults!

Ditto what I just said. You people seem to be under the impression that only Christians should be held accountable for their hypocrisy, their unwarranted attacks on others and improving their own "walk" in this world.


I think of that unfortunate Tammy Faye Bakker who died a couple of days ago. She and her husband swindled poor gullible F/E Christians out of huge amounts of money to build their mansion and other endeavors... out of pure greed and hypocrisy. Yet, the woman thought she would "go to heaven" because she "loved the Lord". IN the Christian worldview, she is more likely burning in hell.

Wrong! She may have erred in her "greed and hypocricy" but the Christian worldview is none of us are worthy of heaven without relying on faith and trust in Jesus and His sacrifice. It's not about us Choux, it's about what Jesus did on our behalf.


Fundi-Ev Christianity in America today has been corrupted by its marriage with Politics just like anything else is *always corrupted* by Politics.

Like I asked before what's everyone else's excuse?

I think you have it wrong, Christians don't judge people but follow their religion which is to spread the message of Jesus Christ. When a Christian finds someone appearently ignorant of the message, a Christian will tell you about Jesus and the reason for his life and death which is to allow you to overcome sin. You think that by telling you that without Jesus you are a sinner and therefore lost is judgement, you are incorrect. As an atheist you are lost and will inevietably suffer judgement.

I think you have it wrong, Christians don't judge people but follow their religion which is to spread the message of Jesus Christ. When a Christian finds someone appearently ignorant of the message, a Christian will tell you about Jesus and the reason for his life and death which is to allow you to overcome sin. You think that by telling you that without Jesus you are a sinner and therefore lost is judgement, you are incorrect. As an athiest you are lost and will inevietably suffer judgement.

Of course I'm lost, I'm very bad with directions LOL. :)

otto186, do you really want to help and learn, or would you rather be "simply pointing out flaws"? My experience tells me critics of Christianity would much rather be pointing out flaws, which is counterproductive when it comes to helping and learning. So help me learn something since you believe in science...

I read yesterday on a University of Michigan website (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm) that, "In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup." Do you believe that, and if so how what is "plasma soup" and how did it come into being?

I can't find any information on "plasma soup", and that was the only sentence about it in that whole article.

This is new to me, for I have not heard of it before. I couldn't tell you what plasma soup is, but I stand by the Big Bang Theory 100%.

Hello otto:

I'm an atheist. I have Christian friends. As far as I know, they don't view me that way.

Do you speechdude?

I dunno. Looks to me like YOU'RE the one doing the judging.

excon

First, what the heck is speechdude?

I'm not judging anybody, just merely making observations on what I've seen in my experiences.

As an athiest you are lost and will inevietably suffer judgement.No one is lost just because they do not practice the same religion as you do. You simply feel superior to them which is a misguided attitude.

Speechless, I have to say that I've never understood the argument that is used many times by christians that "Everything is created by something else, so what created the big bang?". I don't see why this argument doesn't apply to God. And if it doesn't apply to God, why it can't apply to something else.

Please feel free to explain.

I can't find any information on "plasma soup", and that was the only sentence about it in that whole article.

This is new to me, for I have not heard of it before. I couldn't tell you what plasma soup is, but I stand by the Big Bang Theory 100%.

Try this then:


At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

It's that "pure speculation" that drives the debate. Where did it come from? Only one side of the debate offers an answer that I believe would be consistent with science, there had to be a creator to get from nothing to complex life forms. How anyone can believe otherwise is beyond comprehension... and if science acknowledges this beginning is speculation than science needs to acknowledge the possibility of a creator.

there had to be a creator to get from nothing to complex life forms. Where did the creator come from?

First, what the heck is speechdude?

I'm not judging anybody, just merely making observations on what i've seen in my experiences.

I'm speechdude, and I don't judge ex the way you say Christians judge others.

Speechless, I have to say that I've never understood the argument that is used many times by christians that "Everything is created by something else, so what created the big bang?". I don't see why this argument doesn't apply to God. And if it doesn't apply to God, why it can't apply to something else.

Please feel free to explain.

Capuchin, I don't believe I've used that argument so I don't get it either. Here's what I just told otto:


At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm) What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

It's that "pure speculation" that drives the debate. Where did it come from? Only one side of the debate offers an answer that I believe would be consistent with science, there had to be a creator to get from nothing to complex life forms. How anyone can believe otherwise is beyond comprehension...and if science acknowledges this beginning is speculation than science needs to acknowledge the possibility of a creator.

We can't explain where God came from any more than science can conclusively explain how this nothingness became you and me. To me it is more logical to believe something created this universe and all it contains, how such order came to be out of such chaos, than to believe it all developed by chance.

You must surely believe that something created the creator, then, as the creator must be at least as ordered as the universe which it created, by your own logic.

You must surely believe that something created the creator, then, as the creator must be at least as ordered as the universe which it created, by your own logic.

Why should I surely believe that? I believe that man does not know everything, and never will - that some things are beyond our comprehension. When I think about where God came from it blows my mind as much as the thought that all matter was condensed to one point and exploded into things that eventually became living, breathing, thinking beings. Both are perplexing if you ask me.

Like science, I can only explain what's observed, and my observation is that order out of chaos just doesn't happen by accident. I used to be in building trades, and when we put a roof on a house we didn't throw shingles up there and hope for a roof. We didn't take stacks of bricks and wait for them to become a wall, watch a fence spring forth from bundles of pickets, plywood become cabinets, or rolls of wire evolve into a functioning electrical center. What makes anyone think this universe and all the life it contains developed without something to put it all together? It just does not make sense.

So God couldn't have happened by accident, right?

so God couldn't have happened by accident, right?

You're trying to take this further than either of us can go - and put me a trap I can't escape from. I said "observation" tells us things don't just happen. None of us observed the beginning of things so it's speculation, but to me what we do observe points to an inescapable conclusion, the things we are aware of don't just happen, there is some force at work.

Whatever was previous to that beginning is something we can't prove, and since time began at that point whatever it was must be eternal. So what makes more sense, an eternal God or an eternal... what?

Where did the creator come from?

Read further...

Since at the time of the Big Bang, everything was in the form of Energy, we can very easily skip out the middle man and say that Energy is eternal. This conforms with what we observe: energy (and mass, which is just a different form of energy) can neither be created or destroyed.

I don't see any logical point in saying that God created the energy and that God is eternal. That's just moving the question back one step.

I'm perplexed as to where the energy came from at the big bang. I see no value in saying "oh that's easy, god made it" and then getting perplexed over where God came from. That's completely superfluous.

Since at the time of the Big Bang, everything was in the form of Energy, we can very easily skip out the middle man and say that Energy is eternal. This conforms with what we observe: energy (and mass, which is just a different form of energy) can neither be created or destroyed.

Capuchin, I am neither a scientist or skilled apologist, so to get any deeper is beyond my limited knowledge. Imagine that, a Christian that knows his limits. :D


I don't see any logical point in saying that God created the energy and that God is eternal. That's just moving the question back one step.

Why is it a step back? It does not explain how life came from non-life.


I'm perplexed as to where the energy came from at the big bang. I see no value in saying "oh that's easy, god made it" and then getting perplexed over where God came from. That's completely superfluous.

I never said it was easy, I just don't find any logic in getting such complex life forms by chance.

But you accept that the Big Bang is not evidence for God, which is what we were actually talking about?

But you accept that the Big Bang is not evidence for God, which is what we were actually talking about?

I thought it was about who/what created the Creator if "Everything is created by something else." Regardless, my answer is in agreement with science, in that "what existed prior to (the beginning) is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation." Logic and observation tells me there had to be a creator... and experience tells me that it's God and He's real.

I don't see the need for a creator. I think your analogy to throwing bits of wood in a pile and getting a cupboard and shelves is not very accurate.

You have to realise that no scientist who has studied the area believes that life formed by chance. They believe that it formed by complex interactions between complex molecules under the right conditions. There is evidence that amino acids (basic building blocks of life) can form even in space, and that the first self replicating organism (that is needed for evolution to take hold) need not be complex.

Even if it did happen by chance, with a LARGE number of trials going on at any one time, and the LARGE amount of time available to do those trials in, even large odds become very possible to happen once.

You argument amounts to an argument from incredulity.

More about the odds thing... Say you're playing a game of golf. There are maybe several million (conservative guess) blades of grass that your shot can land on. Your shot lands on one of those blades. The chance of it landing on that one blade in one trial is 1 in several million. By your logic, it cannot have concievably happened. Do you have an explanation as to why it happened?

I don't see the need for a creator. I think your analogy to throwing bits of wood in a pile and getting a cupboard and shelves is not very accurate.

And I don't see the possibility of these complex interactions leading to advanced life forms that can think, reason, feel, love - occurring without external manipulation.


You have to realise that no scientist who has studied the area believes that life formed by chance. They believe that it formed by complex interactions between complex molecules under the right conditions. There is evidence that amino acids (basic building blocks of life) can form even in space, and that the first self replicating organism (that is needed for evolution to take hold) need not be complex.

Even if it did happen by chance, with a LARGE number of trials going on at any one time, and the LARGE amount of time available to do those trials in, even large odds become very possible to happen once.

You argument amounts to an argument from incredulity.

"They believe"
"under the right conditions"
"can form"
"Even if"
"very possible"

That sounds an awful lot like faith to me.

The belief is based on empirical fact. Not on a single book.

Belief and faith are different.

More about the odds thing... Say you're playing a game of golf. there are maybe several million (conservative guess) blades of grass that your shot can land on. Your shot lands on one of those blades. The chance of it landing on that one blade in one trial is 1 in several million. by your logic, it cannot have concievably happened. Do you have an explanation as to why it happened?

Now THAT's easy. When I'm playing golf I have a ball, a club and a course - hopefully with millions and millions of blades of beautiful green grass. I take my club, address the ball, swing and - hopefully - strike the ball in the direction of those blades of grass. When I play golf it is inevitable that my ball is going to touch many blades of grass (and probably a water hazard). Everything that's necessary for my ball to land on that blade of grass is in existence and I have intentionally aimed for that particular area, so why not that one blade?

Haha, seriously? You could get a hole in one every time but you don't because you aim for specific pieces of grass? You're that accurate?

How about a hand of bridge? You get a combination of 13 cards out of one deck. The chance of getting the 13 cards that you get is 1 in 635013559600. Now how about with a game of four people? The possible number of games of bridge from the initial deal is 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000. Now, every time you deal a game, you get a game that only had a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening. Completely by chance, no intelligence has gone into making that particular deal happen. By your logic, this is clearly an impossibility. Do you have an explanation?

Haha, seriously? you could get a hole in one every time but you don't because you aim for specific pieces of grass? You're that accurate?

How about a hand of bridge? You get a combination of 13 cards out of one deck. The chance of getting the 13 cards that you get is 1 in 635013559600. Now how about with a game of four people? The possible number of games of bridge from the initial deal is 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000. Now, every time you deal a game, you get a game that only had a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening. Completely by chance, no intelligence has gone into making that particular deal happen. By your logic, this is clearly an impossibility. Do you have an explanation?

No, it seems a no-brainer to me that the simple difference is I actually aimed for that area and have the skills and equipment necessary to increase the odds in my favor - as opposed to the chemical reactions necessary to eventually become man happening by chance from a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. What are the mathematical odds of that?

Big Bang?? Where did that energy come from, where did all of the matter come from.

The belief is based on empirical fact. Not on a single book.

So is my faith in God based on empirical fact. It seems to me that this is what skeptics don't understand. I can't prove God exists, you have to actually experience God to know.


Belief and faith are different.

True, first you must believe and then you must trust. :)

The answer to all of these questions is FAITH.

Assume the atheist believes that the big bang occurred and led to the creation of all we know in the universe. But what existed before the Big Bang? Did time commence with the Big Bang? Was there nothing, not even time before then? What existed before the Big Bang? What finally made "it" go Bang? Nobody knows. But the belief of what may have or have not existed before is based on faith.

The person who believes in God and science answers this question as follows: God existed before and caused everything we see. This too is based on faith.

The Creationist answers this question as follows: The story of Creation is what I believe, based on faith in God.

Does anyone know the true answer? No. Are we just basing our positions on our most basic beliefs and faith? Yes.

And when it comes to being judgmental. All are equal opportunity offenders, and in general, athiests are just as quick to judge Christians as ignorant something or others as Chrisitans are to declare athiests to be lost.

My personal beliefs are what they are, but they are most definitely based on faith.

(the above lecture, as taught in Existential Philosophy, 201)

Fr_Chuck, you seem to have missed a big portion of the conversation. The matter came from energy. This is well understood. Either you can say the energy is eternal, or you can say that the energy was created by god and that god is eternal. Either way you're still stuck with "what created that?". Both speculations have the same unknown, it seems logical to cut out god, because he's an unneeded step that we have no way to measure.

Speechless, you didn't explain my completely random bridge hands.
And as I explained, abiogenesis is not speculated to have happened by chance. It will have happened by chemical eactions which would have always happened in the conditions that were available.

I was raised in an extreem religion and my mother thinks she is the most christion person alive and yet she is the biggest gosip and judge you would ever meet!

I was raised in an extreem religion and my mother thinks she is the most christion person alive and yet she is the biggest gosip and judge you would ever meet!

Finally someone understands what I'm trying to point out.

Sorry, this thread has gone a long way from your original topic, otto. I do apologise.

Sorry, this thread has gone a long way from your original topic, otto. I do apologise.

LOL that's OK. :)

Finally someone understands what i'm trying to point out.Hello again, otto:

Dude! You didn't mention individuals. You said Christians. Of course there are jerks among the Christians... Just like there are jerks amongst any belief group - like yours. I'm an atheist too, but I'm not angry about it.

Why didn't you suggest that people who eat bread are hypocrites? I know several.

I love to argue when the argument makes sense. This one doesn't anymore.

excon

Haha looks like I stepped into something here lol

Fr_Chuck, you seem to have missed a big portion of the conversation. The matter came from energy. This is well understood. Either you can say the energy is eternal, or you can say that the energy was created by god and that god is eternal. Either way you're still stuck with "what created that?". Both speculations have the same unknown, it seems logical to cut out god, because he's an unneeded step that we have no way to measure.

That's the rub my friend, you think it's logical to cut God out of it and I don't, for the simple fact that I cannot reconcile sentient beings emerging out of nothing without a guiding hand any more than I can imagine the new Dallas Cowboys stadium rising from the ground without architects, engineers and builders. It's just plain common sense - no science needed.


Speechless, you didn't explain my completely random bridge hands.
And as I explained, abiogenesis is not speculated to have happened by chance. It will have happened by chemical eactions which would have always happened in the conditions that were available.

I don't want or need to explain bridge hands. You can throw out any number of mathematical odds for things with known values, give us the odds for the unknown values that led to man rising from a primordial soup? Where did those chemicals come from? How did the right conditions come to be? Give us the odds...

Hello again, otto:

Dude! You didn't mention individuals. You said Christians. Of course there are jerks among the Christians.......... Just like there are jerks amongst any belief group - like yours. I'm an atheist too, but I'm not angry about it.

Why didn't you suggest that people who eat bread are hypocrites? I know several.

I love to argue when the argument makes sense. This one doesn't anymore.

excon

I'm not angry about it either. I never said I was.

I understand there are jerks amongst any belief group, but Christians believe in the Bible, and the Bible considers it to be wrong to be judgemental. Where I come from is a small town, everybody there is a pronounced Christian, but yet could write for a New York City tabloid.

The argument I'm trying to make is, if Christians believe in the Bible and what it says, why are they so judgemental when the Bible considers it to be wrong?

Finally someone understands what i'm trying to point out.

Do you seriously think we didn't understand what you were talking about, because after that it seems you were just waiting for someone to agree with you.

Do you seriously think we didn't understand what you were talking about, because after that it seems you were just waiting for someone to agree with you.

I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, all I'm doing is stating my opinion.

Hello again, otto:

Dude! You didn't mention individuals. You said Christians. Of course there are jerks among the Christians.......... Just like there are jerks amongst any belief group - like yours. I'm an atheist too, but I'm not angry about it.

Sweet :D

Just because some one thinks christians are hypocrites doesn't mean they can't or don't believe in god! I do but he dose say in the bible that the wolves live among the sheep, so I find it easier to believe on my own instead of part of an organized religion that care more about "being right" than actually being right!

I'm not talking about it being logical to cut out God to explain sentient beings. (Don't take that as meaning I think that we need God to explain sentient beings). I'm talking about it being logical to cut out God to explain where the energy came from at the big Bang. These are separate issues.

You need to understand the bridge analogy for me to get any further with you. Humans do not have an innate understanding of statistics. In statistics, we expect the unexpected to happen. If the expected happened all the time, there would be no need for statistics, because every time you rolled a die, it would always land on the same number. That isn't the world we live in.

Just because you do not know how life evolved from molecules doesn't mean that it's impossible. The odds are low of getting a specific hand in bridge, too, but if you deal enough times, you will get it. The cards to determine if life will form have been dealt many many times since the beginning of the universe. However, It's generally thought that life had a high chance of forming, and probably formed many times before it finally thrived.

Just because some one thinks christians are hypocrites doesn't mean they can't or don't believe in god! I do but he dose say in the bible that the wolves live among the sheep, so I find it easier to believe on my own instead of part of an organized religion that care more about "being right" than actually being right!

I never said that Christians don't believe in God.


so I find it easier to believe on my own instead of part of an organized religion that care more about "being right" than actually being right!

I do agree with this 100%

I think people created odds to deal with the fact that they don't know what is happening in there lives and can not predict there future happenings... just an opinion

So you think that when you flip a coin? God decides whether it lands on heads or tails? You believe in fate?

You are going to find those hypocrites in any religion, Christian or not. So instead of attacking the whole, why not just target the ones you actually know and ask them what their problem is? Just as you do not like to be covered in a blanket statement, I am sure someone else does not like that either.

I beleave that no one really knows and that you can beleave and it is great to beleave... no mater what its in but no one can say for sure and I like christions and I like most any and all religions I think that religion is a beautiful thing, it is just not for me.

Your viewpoint is very interesting :)

Haha yeah life dose that to you lol

I'm not talking about it being logical to cut out God to explain sentient beings. (Don't take that as meaning I think that we need God to explain sentient beings). I'm talking about it being logical to cut out God to explain where the energy came from at the big Bang. These are separate issues

I don't believe they are separate issues.


You need to understand the bridge analogy for me to get any further with you. Humans do not have an innate understanding of statistics. In statistics, we expect the unexpected to happen. If the expected happened all the time, there would be no need for statistics, because every time you rolled a die, it would always land on the same number. That isn't the world we live in.

What? I thought we were talking odds, not statistics.


Just because you do not know how life evolved from molecules doesn't mean that it's impossible. The odds are low of getting a specific hand in bridge, too, but if you deal enough times, you will get it. The cards to determine if life will form have been dealt many many times since the beginning of the universe. However, It's generally thought that life had a high chance of forming, and probably formed many times before it finally thrived.

I never said it was impossible, I said from the beginning we don't know. But, it brings me back again to... what are the odds? At this point that's the only question I'd like to have answered.

I don't believe they are separate issues.



What? I thought we were talking odds, not statistics.



I never said it was impossible, I said from the beginning we don't know. But, it brings me back again to...what are the odds? At this point that's the only question I'd like to have answered.


Here is data I found in reference to your probability question:

Excerpt


The simplest conceivable form of life should have at
least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that
*just one* molecule could form by chance arrangement of the proper
sequence of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^450. (The magnitude of
the number 10^450 can be appreciated by realizing that the visible
unuverse is about 10^28 inches in diameter). Ref2
³Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce
itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this
developing by chance range from one in 10^450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in
*Analytical Chemistry*) to one in 10^600 (Frank Salisbury in *American
Biology Teacher*).² ref 3

Beware of tricky atheist - sci.skeptic | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c959e739f100f825?dmode=source)

A Mathematical Proof
of Intelligent Design In Nature
- by R. Totten - (c)1999

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK.A.adGu_4A6hxrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12jnevlb0/EXP=1185499904/**http%3a//www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html


These other two sources also provide much food for thought:

Abiogenesis -- Whence Came Life? (http://lutheranscience.org/2003-Abiogenesis1.html)

Scientific Evidence that God Created Life (http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm)

By your own statement you are against God. This places you in opposition to his people who are not judgemental but following God's requirements. You don't like this because it is like holding up a mirror to you and you don't like what you see. Get used to it

Statistics is the study of odds. I didn't know that you didn't understand this. I apologise. Let me put it this way: so far, for all the stages of life-from-molecules that have been studied, the probability is effectively 1.

Starman's calculations are based on many false premises. THey are not scientific. I do not give much credit to them at all.

Statistics is the study of odds. I didn't know that you didn't understand this. I apologise. Let me put it this way: so far, for all the stages of life-from-molecules that have been studied, the probability is effectively 1.

Capuchin, I don't mean to be difficult but it seems you're avoiding the specifics of the question, which is what are the odds that the right chemical reactions and the right conditions would occur to organize these molecules and eventually become a human? I'm willing to bet it's enormously greater than bridge combinations or landing a golf ball on a particular blade of grass.


Starman's calculations are based on many false premises. THey are not scientific. I do not give much credit to them at all.

I can't say one way or another - which is why I was asking you.

This just in:
Pope: Creation vs. evolution an ‘absurdity’ - Focus on the Vatican - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/)

"Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith."

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

I've made this point several times. Please listen. Abiogenesis is determined by biochemical laws that we are still studying. Odds are meaningless. Biochemistry is not random.

This just in:
Pope: Creation vs. evolution an ‘absurdity’ - Focus on the Vatican - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/)

"Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith."

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

I like how he states there is a difference between evolution and faith (cal, if you're listening :))

Agree Capuchin:

To an unbeliever , Christianity is not "provable" and requires faith.

To me, a Christian and scientifically trained, evolution is NOT "provable" as the explanation for life and therefore believing evolution as such also takes "faith."




Grace and Peace

So by that logic, the pope believes that evolution is provable and is an unbeliever in Christianity?

I've made this point several times. Please listen. Abiogenesis is determined by biochemical laws that we are still studying. Odds are meaningless. Biochemistry is not random.

Suddenly odds are meaningless? Was man predestined to exist?

Guys, Guys! Science and religion actually complament each other. I'm a baptist. I beilive that god created all things and that he designed all life to adept to its surrondings, which are ever changing. Look up: divine design. Furthermore science says that all the living matter and non-living matter in the universe is made of recycled star gases. "And God formed man the dust of the earth, breathing into his nostrils the breath of life."-- Genesis. God means for all of us to live in harmony, I know its hard, I'm nowere near perfect neither of us is. We all have sins, Lord knows I done the same thing I'm preaching against. We have have not the power to change hearts only god does, so pray for a person that does not know god, talk to them but in gental manner don't try not to get puffed with how much you know, because in god's eyes we know next to nothing.

Back to the original post, here is some interesting information.

"Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...

Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....

Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3% "

And with America being 75% Christian, where do you think the majority of these feelings come from?

Article from:
University of Minnesota Study on American Attitudes Towards Atheists & Atheism - Research Finds that Atheists Most Despised, Most Distrusted Minority (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm)

Back to the original post, here is some interesting information.

"Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

Don't get confused folks, that paragraph is purely the opinion of the author, Austin Cline. He has deduced an awful lot of hate, bigotry and prejudice from two questions. It is impossible to determine that from those questions. Who among you doesn't believe certain groups don't share your vision for America? Ask that first question of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, socialists and capitalists. Who isn't concerned about who their kids marry?

So by that logic, the pope believes that evolution is provable and is an unbeliever in Christianity?



From the same article the op linked to:


He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”



I think it is logically to believe that natural selection can over time change the shape and length of a bird's beak, but the THEORY of evolution does not explain how life or the universe began.

As to whether the Pope believe's in God and Jesus Christ, which I believe he does, you would have to ask him.



Grace and Peace

That's correct Box, neither side can answer the question 'Where does everything come from?'. I don't know we keep going around in circles on the subject.

Statistics is the study of odds. I didn't know that you didnt understand this. I apologise. Let me put it this way: so far, for all the stages of life-from-molecules that have been studied, the probability is effectively 1.

Starman's calculations are based on many false premises. THey are not scientific. I do not give much credit to them at all.


They are not MY calculations.

Some of the sources used are the following


DNA and Other Designs - by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.

The RNA World: A Critique - by Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. - biology

LIFE: AN EVIDENCE FOR CREATION - by George T. Javor, Ph.D.

DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life - by Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.

The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism - by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.

Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity - by William A. Dembski, Ph.D.

What Do Ribozyme Engineering Experiments Tell Us About the Origin of Life? - by Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.

Given Enough Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution - by Dr. David N. Menton

Access Research Network - A premier site on Intelligent Design (ID) science. Excellent current research and academic intelligent design articles --& analysis of evolution-- from Doctors: M. Behe, W. Dembski, P. Johnson, & M. Wells.

Origin of Life: The Left-Handed Problem - by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati


I'm afraid that not all highly-educated individuals agree with you on this.

BTW

I don't base my rejection of abiogenesis on mere calculations although I see absolutely no reason why I should doubt the judgement of these scientists and accept your opinion instead.

Agree Capuchin:

To an unbeliever , Christianity is not "provable" and requires faith.

To me, a Christian and scientifically trained, evolution is NOT "provable" as the explanation for life and therefore believing evolution as such also takes "faith."




Grace and Peace

Below is an explanation on why belief in abiogenetic evolution is considered by some to be tantamnount to blind faith.


Given Enought Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution
By David N. Menton


This myth is the ultimate argument of those who attempt to "explain" the origin of the Cosmos and all life by CHANCE and the natural properties of matter and energy. Evolutionists hope that by invoking immense amounts of time, highly improbable events can somehow be made probable. But with this type of argument it is possible to "explain" ANYTHING. We've all heard it said, for example, that "given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, EVENTUALLY one of them is bound to type the sonnets of Shakespeare error free." But this outrageous myth violates the statistical foundation on which all modern science rests.

Statistically controlled experiments are useless if we do not assume that highly improbable events simply do not occur. The probability of any event which has a known number of possible outcomes can be calculated quite easily. The probability of rolling a particular number on a die, for example, is one chance out of six (the total number of possible sides) or 1/6. The probability of getting TWO particular numbers on two successive rolls of the die is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36, which is to say you would expect to succeed once in 36 rolls. What then is the probability of randomly selecting the appropriate letters and spaces from a Scrabble set to spell "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"? There are 26 different letters and a space in the alphabet (total 27) and there is a total of 23 of these letters and spaces in our sentence. The probability of spelling this sentence without error by blindly drawing and replacing letters from our 27 character set is calculated by multiplying 1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27... 23 times. The answer reveals that we would expect to spell this simple sentence correctly by CHANCE approximately ONCE IN 8 HUNDRED MILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION draws! If we drew and replaced letters at the rate of a billion a second we would expect to succeed once in 26 THOUSAND, TRILLION YEARS!


Now the simplest living organism is so vastly more complex than our simple sentence, that we have no way of really calculating its probability. If, however, we consider just one one particular protein of average size (say 500 amino acids) from among the thousands of proteins in a living organism, we can easily calculate the probability of forming it by CHANCE. Proteins are made of a tightly linked chain of amino acids. There are only 20 different amino acids used in the proteins of ALL living organisms and they are arranged in a linear sequence much like the letters of a long paragraph. Assuming an inexhaustible supply of each of the 20 different amino acids, the probability calculation would be 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 500 times. The number of possible combinations of the amino acids in this protein is 1 with over 600 zeros after it! Even if we were to begin with the proper mixture of 500 amino acids to make our particular protein, we could never get the correct sequence for them by CHANCE.


Even if the entire universe were packed tight with computers the size of electrons, each trying a billion combinations of our 500 amino acids a second, we could sample only an infinitesimally small fraction of all of the possible combinations in 300 billion years! Even if every medium sized protein molecule that ever existed on earth were ALL DIFFERENT, our vast "fleet" of busy computers could not be expected to come up with the combination of amino acids in ANY ONE OF THEM in a mere 300 billion years! What all this means is that if the whole of evolution were reduced to the question of the probability of forming ANY ONE biologically useful protein of average size, we could safely conclude that evolution would be a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY by reason of the fact that there would be INSUFFICIENT TIME AND MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE!! Now calculate how much faith it takes to believe in evolution.

Given Enough Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/timechan.htm)

The Myth of Abiogenesis (http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html)

BTW

Appeal to infinite time is unscientific since our universe had a beginning.
Estimated age is 13 to 15 billion years.

LIFE: AN EVIDENCE FOR CREATION - by George T. Javor, Ph.D.

George T. Javor, biochemistry (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/javor.asp)
"I am a practicing scientist and a believer in a six-day creation."




DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life - by Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.

Charles B. Thaxton (biographical info) -Creation SuperLibrary (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/thaxton-cb.html)
"Creationist"

I just checked two of them and they are author sthat fit your agenda. I think either side can do that equally.

Okay, once again, biochemistry is decidedly NOT chance. Assigning odds is meaningless. But let's play your game anyway.

I don't know why it is assumed that you need 500 amino acid chain. Modern abiogenetic theory supposes that the first proteins were something like 30-40 units long. These would then begin working together, and eventually form into simple organisms.
It can be supposed that the first living things would be similar to the Ghadiri group of self-replicating peptides, or a self replicating hexanucleotide.
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These are not mutually exclusive. Both could have happened.

Lets' assume the Ghadiri group, these self-replicating proteins are 32 amino-acid long chains. Nothing like the 500 units long. This would, by the maths your source has proposed, Starman, have a 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 chance of forming randomly. This is hugely lower than the 1 in 10^600 that your source would have us believe.

Still, that's a HUGE number, and probably quite unlikely. Well let's look at the Ocean size of the Early Earth. This is commonly estimated to be about 10^24 liters. Let's say the concentration of amino acids in this ocean is 10^-6M (moderately dilute on the spectrum of values that it is expected to be). This means we have 10^50 starting chains. This means that we would have 10^31 proteins in under a year. Now, given a million years, there is a good chance that one of these proteins (that are still being made through more time) will be the self replicating one that we are looking for.

But of course, there is more. There are a huge number of other simple proteins that are self replicating that could have started life. We have to take these into account. These increase the odds even more.

As you can see, life is certainly feasible given the size and properties of the early Earth, even using the pessimistic numbers that I have used here.

I can add some scientifically peer reviewed sources for numbers and things, if you would like.

NK, You missed out Dr. Behe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe). He makes me laugh whenevr someone uses him as a source. He purposefully avoids publishing peer-reviewed work now that he's come to believe in ID, instead aiming at the public (like most creationism is).

[b]Even if the entire universe were packed tight with computers the size of electrons, each trying a billion combinations of our 500 amino acids a second,

Depends, how big exactly is the universe? Does it go on forever? Or does it just suddenly end somewhere and you just step out of it into absolute nothingness?

Wow, Cal, I didn't notice that. Good call! We don't know how big the universe is. How could he possibly make that remark.

Good work my little friend!

:) thanks
I don't think man will ever know the size of the universe, I think that we will never reach its edge, its expanding constantly (if it isn't infinite, which makes me wonder, can an infinite thing expand? Is there room for something infinite to expand? Is it possible for that "is there room thing" to be valid, mnaybe you cannot contain an infinite objectt... and anyway, what does the edge of the universe look like, if it constantly expanding, the edge of it must look pretty amazing, would there be energy released by the universe expanding its borders? Does it have borders?

Current scientific thinking is that the universe is unbounded. It has no boundaries. There is no consensus on whether it is finite or not.

An infinite thing can expand. A fascinating thing about space is the expansion. There is one fascinating observation:

Whichever way you look, the majority of galaxies are moving away from Earth.
This gives us 2 possible conclusions.

1) The Earth is at the center of the universe and is exactly at the point of the Big Bang.
2) The universe is expanding from every point within itself.

1 is easily ruled out because we assume, in science, that space is homogeneous, it is the same at all points (on the biggest scales). We also assume that humans hold no special place in the universe.

The universe expanding from every point within itself is very interesting, there is a lot more evidence to back it up. An infinite thing can expand like this, as can a finite thing.

The classic way to imagine it is this:

Imagine you have a balloon and you draw dots on it. When you blow up the balloon, the dots get further apart. The dots don't get any bigger, but the space between them does. Now the 2d surface of the balloon is also finite and unbounded. There's no edge to it. In a way the 2d surface of the balloon is like the 3d space that we live in.
There are some flaws to this model but it's enough to give you an idea of what our universe is kind of like.

NK, You missed out Dr. Behe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe). He makes me laugh whenevr someone uses him as a source. He purposefully avoids publishing peer-reviewed work now that he's come to believe in ID, instead aiming at the public (like most creationism is).Actually there are all here: Who's Who in Creation/Evolution - CreationSuperLibrary.com (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/)

It's good that they list the 94 doctorate scientists who believe in creation and put them on one list, that way you can get your required sources instead of wading through the thousands and thousands of doctorate scientists who do not believe in creation.

Have you heard of project steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)? It's a list of scientists who believe in evolution who's first name is Steve (or equivalent e.g. Stephanie). The list is currently longer (and more importantly, includes more biologists) than any creationist list of scientists who support creationism (with no name restrictions).

Who says scientists don't have a sense of humour?

NK, Stephen Hawking is on the list of "Leading Evolutionists"??

As far as I know he has not published a single paper on Evolution.

Don't question theses things - have faith.

As you can see, life is certainly feasible given the size and properties of the early Earth, even using the pessimistic numbers that I have used here.

Capuchin, I don't believe I ever said 'life' wasn't feasible given the right conditions, I have repeatedly and specifically asked what are the chances it would eventually become a human? How did man allegedly arise from this primordial soup? How did these simple organisms program themselves to eventually develop a human? Was man predestined to be?

Of course not, it depends on the environment presented to life and which mutations are profitable for the organisms along the whole evolutionary change.

Sorry, I had been misunderstanding your question for this entire thread.

How did these simple organisms program themselves to eventually develop a human? Was man predestined to be?Hello its:

I can answer that. You can call me excon, the science mon (if you wanted).

Well, you got your little simple organism with a lot of DNA. When the simple organism makes another simple organism, he does the dirty deed with a lady simple organism, and voilà, his DNA unfurls and hooks up with the mommie DNA. Sometimes, one of the rungs on the DNA makes a mistake and hooks up with the wrong mommie DNA rung.

The result is an offspring that's new and different and NOT predestined. If the difference was a GOOD difference, then the offspring is a little better equipped to deal with life, and he'll have a better chance at passing his DNA on. If the difference wasn't good, then that offspring doesn't have that same chance.

Now, if you can imagine that little teensy weensy change in the DNA of that simple organism, repeated zillions and zillions of times over 5 or so BILLION years of time, you get a man.

excon
The science mon

PS> Now, I know this doesn't sit well with Christians….. Sorry, Dude.

Speechless, you have to realise that every time you deal your game of bridge you get a hand that has very small small chance of ever happening.

If it wasn't you sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a human forming?" it would be a romulan sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a romulan forming" or a mouse sitting there going "squeak squeak I want some cheese".

The dice have to land somewhere. Why not here?

speechless, you have to realise that everytime you deal your game of bridge you get a hand that has very small small chance of ever happening.

If it wasnt you sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a human forming?" it would be a romulan sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a romulan forming" or a mouse sitting there going "squeak squeak I want some cheese".

The dice have to land somewhere. Why not here?

And to think you ridiculed the notion of my golf ball landing on a specific blade of grass when I was actually aiming for it... :D

excon the science mon, lol, I like that. I think I could actually leave my faith out of this and still find the odds would be astronomical.Hello its:

We absolutely agree there. And, that's the problem. These numbers ARE astronomical! It's really, really hard to imagine what those big numbers mean. So, it's understandable that people would make up stuff (religion) to fill in their gaps in knowledge.

But, the Universe is really, really big, and really, really old. In fact, these numbers are SO big, that few people CAN grasp them.

I'm a pretty smart guy, but I have trouble believing that there are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sand on every beach on this planet. But it's true. Even harder to believe is that there are more galaxies in the Universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on this planet. But that's true too.

That is a pretty big number. But, if you can grasp the size and age of the Universe, then evolution becomes a piece of cake.

Excon
The science mon

The ball has to land somewhere, why not on that blade of grass?

speechless, you have to realise that everytime you deal your game of bridge you get a hand that has very small small chance of ever happening.

If it wasnt you sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a human forming?" it would be a romulan sitting there going "yeah but what are the ODDS of a romulan forming" or a mouse sitting there going "squeak squeak I want some cheese".

The dice have to land somewhere. Why not here?

Or to state it another way - if one could roll back the clock 5 Billion years and run the earth experiment all over again, the chances that through evolutionary processes we would precisely end up where we are today -- with man and apes and insects and fish and trees and flowers etc etc -- is vanishingly small. Evolution states that man was not pre-destined, and I believe that is the most significant difference between the evolutionists and the creationists/ID-ers. That is why this conversation will go on forever with neither side succeeding at bashing the other into submission. Now, can we please go on to something else?? Please??

Yes, we are not special, we got here by dumb luck. People in general find that hard to accept.

Hello its:

Speechdude now, remember? You'll have these people really confused :D


We absolutely agree there. And, that's the problem. These numbers ARE astronomical! It's really, really hard to imagine what those big numbers mean. So, it's understandable that people would make up stuff (religion) to fill in their gaps in knowledge.

I know you're a fair guy, science mon, so don't stop with "religion" making stuff up. I think it's understandable why scientists also make stuff up to fill in their gaps of knowledge... and don't tell me they don't. I'm actually content with both sides leaving it at "we don't know" how man came to be for now, keep researching and discussing all you want, but leaving all options on the table when teaching our kids - since "we don't know."


That is a pretty big number. But, if you can grasp the size and age of the Universe, then evolution becomes a piece of cake.

That's just it science mon, nobody can grasp it.

The ball has to land somewhere, why not on that blade of grass?

And round and round we go, lol. That is precisely what I said (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/hypocritical-religion-112709-4.html#post525346). I just it more likely I'd hit that blade of grass when aiming for it a lot easier than man would evolve from a simple organism that evolved from - nothing.

Okay, once again, biochemistry is decidedly NOT chance. Assigning odds is meaningless. But let's play your game anyways.

I don't know why it is assumed that you need 500 amino acid chain. Modern abiogenetic theory supposes that the first proteins were something like 30-40 units long. These would then begin working together, and eventually form into simple organisms.
It can be supposed that the first living things would be similar to the Ghadiri group of self-replicating peptides, or a self replicating hexanucleotide.
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These are not mutually exclusive. Both could have happened.

Lets' assume the Ghadiri group, these self-replicating proteins are 32 amino-acid long chains. Nothing like the 500 units long. This would, by the maths your source has proposed, Starman, have a 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 chance of forming randomly. This is hugely lower than the 1 in 10^600 that your source would have us believe.

Still, that's a HUGE number, and probably quite unlikely. Well let's look at the Ocean size of the Early Earth. This is commonly estimated to be about 10^24 liters. Let's say the concentration of amino acids in this ocean is 10^-6M (moderately dilute on the spectrum of values that it is expected to be). This means we have 10^50 starting chains. This means that we would have 10^31 proteins in under a year. Now, given a million years, there is a good chance that one of these proteins (that are still being made through more time) will be the self replicating one that we are looking for.

But of course, there is more. There are a huge number of other simple proteins that are self replicating that could have started life. We have to take these into account. These increase the odds even more.

As you can see, life is certainly feasible given the size and properties of the early Earth, even using the pessimistic numbers that I have used here.

I can add some scientifically peer reviewed sources for numbers and things, if you would like.


interesting


how do you get from "self replicating peptides" to dna or rna?

Is there a living model of and organism that reproduces solely by " replicating its proteins?"

How do self replicating peptides organize themselves into cells, into tissue, into organs, into complex organisms - how long would this take ?

When you think of the probabilities it only points to a "Designer."

Now think of Microsoft windows or any computer programs - from what I understand it is basically binary - only 2 variables. What are the chances of these codes just coming together to form a program, a program that can reproduce itself?
You have to have programers and coders that use their INTELLIGENCE to DESIGN a program - and even then it needs to to be tested to make sure it works right.



Grace and Peace

Or to state it another way - if one could roll back the clock 5 Billion years and run the earth experiment all over again, the chances that through evolutionary processes we would precisely end up where we are today -- with man and apes and insects and fish and trees and flowers etc etc -- is vanishingly small.

Bingo.


Evolution states that man was not pre-destined, and I believe that is the most significant difference between the evolutionists and the creationists/ID-ers. That is why this conversation will go on forever with neither side succeeding at bashing the other into submission. Now, can we please go on to something else?? Please??

Capuchin started it :D

I agree with you, it's a no-win argument and I'd rather not see either side bash the other into submission. I think we can peacefully coexist if those on both sides would stop insisting "I'm right and you're wrong" and this is the only thing that should be taught. Lay it out there and let people decide for themselves.

And round and round we go, lol. That is precisely what I said (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/hypocritical-religion-112709-4.html#post525346). I just it more likely I'd hit that blade of grass when aiming for it a lot easier than man would evolve from a simple organism that evolved from - nothing.

So you'll admit that you got a 1 in a million chance just by dumb luck? And this happenes every time you swing your club?

So you'll admit that you got a 1 in a million chance just by dumb luck? And this happenes every time you swing your club?

It ain't dumb luck when you mean to and work for it. That's my point.

okay. Now the same thing with your eyes closed. Just a completely blind swing, completely random direction, completely random wind. You still manage to perform the miraculous million to one every time.

okay. now the same thing with your eyes closed. just a completely blind swing, completely random direction, completely random wind. You still manage to perform the miraculous million to one every time.

Capuchin, I think we've taken this as far as we're going to get for now, and I'll give you the last word after I say this. You keep moving the goal posts here and that's why so many of these discussions never get anywhere. I've said nothing about "every time" and only one side of this is "completely blind," and it ain't the guy who's learned to play golf, honed his skills and aimed for the sweet spot.

I'm trying to equate it to the bridge game, because you seem adverse to cards.

Every time you flip a coin, something that only has a 1/2 chance to happen always happens. Every time you roll a die, something that only has a 1/6 chance to happen always happens.
Every time you deal a game of bridge, something that only has a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening always happens.

Things you don't expect to happen can happen. Deal with it.

It's not a case of "we don't know" so teach both in schools. Creationism has a single 2000 year old book as evidence. Evolution has fossil records, observed evolution, and a whole host of other evidence. Creationism is a theory in search of evidence. Evolution is the logical explanation of the evidence. That's why it's accepted by science, that's why it's taught in schools. You're right that only one side of this is completely blind.

I'm trying to equate it to the bridge game, because you seem adverse to cards.

Every time you flip a coin, something that only has a 1/2 chance to happen always happens. Every time you roll a die, something that only has a 1/6 chance to happen always happens.
Every time you deal a game of bridge, something that only has a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening always happens.

Things you don't expect to happen can happen. Deal with it.

It's not a case of "we don't know" so teach both in schools. Creationism has a single 2000 year old book as evidence. Evolution has fossil records, observed evolution, and a whole host of other evidence. Creationism is a theory in search of evidence. Evolution is the logical explanation of the evidence. That's why it's accepted by science, that's why it's taught in schools. You're right that only one side of this is completely blind.

Is that your last word on this?

Yes, if what you said was your last word, which seemingly it wasn't.

If you rely on science then how can you believe in love?

I don't believe in emotions, I feel them. Don't you?

My point exactly:)It's a feeling, not something you can touch or read or see.

Sure they are, show someone in a CAT scanner an image that makes them happy, their brain lights up in the happy area.

Emotions are scientifically observable and falsifiable. They have a cause and effect. The biological effects are also studyable. When feeling love your heartbeat raises, many other changes happen to the body. You can see emotions..

Be that as it may, science can't prove everything.

On a seperate note, I LOVE CAPUCHIN MONKEYS!!!<3

Of course not. Science can't prove that the sky is green or that I have 3 legs. Saying that science should prove everything is obviously folly.

Of course not. Science can't prove that the sky is green or that I have 3 legs. Saying that science should prove everything is obviously folly.
Your examples above are of course ridiculous (no offense) seeing how we can see it with our own two eyes. But I mean like... science can't prove that the man next door could be the wanted serial killer.. things like that.

Actually, I think you'll find that forensic science is getting better and better all the time, and soon we will be relying on science for things such as that. Sure it can't now, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be able to in the future.

Some people would say that God is of course ridiculous (no offense).

Fair enough..... but it still can't tell you things like that. Unless you stick someone in a giant fancy machine, science can't prove what someone is truly thinking & stuff like that.

And I get that many people think the thought of God is rediculous and I'm not saying I'll respect their oppinion, but I will try to see their side of it and maybe debate them.:)

It can't at the moment. There's no reason why not in the future though. Science is continuously improving. So is the technology based on that science.

I'm glad to enlighten some of the misunderstandings you have about science :)

I don't believe in emotions, I feel them. Don't you?


I agree emotions definitely have a evident biological effect; however, love is not emotions.


Can you see these same biological effects say in the brain of a mother that changes the diapers of the child, the brain of a soldier that jumps on a grenade sparing his platoon, the
Brain of a volunteer at a soup kitchen? All examples of love.


Grace and Peace

It's not a misunderstanding so much as it is that I believe my religion over what complete strangers have to say. And there's also the fact that I am somewhat of a conspiracy person.. if you get what I mean....

I agree emotions definitely have a evident biological effect; however, love is not emotions.


Can you see these same biological effects say in the brain of a mother that changes the diapers of the child, the brain of a soldier that jumps on a grenade sparing his platoon, the
brain of a volunteer at a soup kitchen? All examples of love.


Grace and Peace

Yes.

Are you saying that you don't feel love?

Course I feel love... hopefully everyone has FELT love at some point or other.

I was talking to inthebox. :)

Haha.. I'm kinda dumb:p
And I wasn't sure so i figured I should answer just incase:)

yes.

Are you saying that you don't feel love?



Love is active.
Love is patient, love is kind,. quite different from emotions.


I feel lust though ,




Grace and Peace

I'm sorry for you that you have never felt love, I certainly feel it, it's amazing, quite like no other.

Here is a partial list of Capuchin's simple-minded-people who just can't accept his we- got-here-via-dumb-luck idea.

ASTROPHYSICIST

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe... The impression of design is overwhelming". Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.


MATHETEMATICIAN/PHYSICIST PROFESSOR

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.


PROFESSOR OF PHIlOSOPHY

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version ).


MATHEMATICAL PHYSICIST

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

MATHEMATICIAN

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11) Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.

COSMOLOGIST

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.


MATHEMATCIAN

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17) Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57 Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57


ASTROPHYSICIST

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

ASTROPHYSICIST

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

COSMOLOGIST

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.


ASTRONOMER

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9


BTW

Maybe he feels that he can set them straight via his "superior" scientific understanding. Me? I simply see it they way they do. Oh well, so much for the you have to be uneduicated to believe in a creator delusion.

Okay, an argument from authority, you realise, is not a particularly good one.

I have no problem with God creating the big bang. Knock yourself out. All that scientists have currently are equally untestable hypotheses. So that makes... 9 of your quotes irrelevant?

So, Flew and Tipler's first quote are what's left.

Let's start with Flew: He has had an interesting history. And has seems to have some problems with defining his beliefs. In December 2004 he retracted the quote that you have used, saying "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." He again restated this point in an interview in 2005. He does claim to believe in a God, but denies that it is a God of any of the revealed religions, saying "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god".

Tipler? Where do I get started? Have you read his books on "the physics of christianity"? I doubt many christians would believe in it, let alone scientists. There are many half-truths and exaggerations in the books. And plenty of things that he states as fact which are not accepted as fact in the scientific community (e.g. that the standard model is complete and exact, and that we have a consistent theory of quantum gravity, both of which are plainly untrue).

Would you like me to go into the others and why they might not be the best people for you to be quoting?

(btw: Eddington died in 1944, where did this 1988 quote come from, do you have the source used in the source?)

Sure... haha

:Dthanks!

An apparent change of mind could be the result of academic coersion. So in my book it means veryt little. I belief Copernicus was forced to recant under duress. Yet his ideas as originallly stated were true.

Flew is a bad example for you to put forth since he still believes in God.
As for Tipler, many of the ideas which were once ridiculed are now accepted as valid.
So ridicule by the acamic establishment alone is a rather flimsy foundation for saying that he is unquotable in terms of his belief in God. Not to mention that it smacks of ad hominem. Here is a list of scientists who were opnce ridiculed but who were proven right in the long-run.

Excerpt

Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
Baird, John L. (television camera)
Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
Galvani (bioelectricity)
Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
Goethe (Land color theory)
Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
Lister, J (sterilizing)

Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
Zweig, George (quark theory)


Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated (http://www.amasci.com/weird/vindac.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary sources were provided but you seem to require secondary sources? This goes completely contrary to the standards of good research.

Irrelevant sources? I could have sworn you were pro abiogenesis. But if not, cool!


BTW
Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory as well as academic harassment of creationists scientists identify evolutionists as a rather untrustworthy lot.

Piltown man= fraud

Nebraska Man=fraud

Embryonic Recapitulation=fraud

Feathered Dinosaur fossil=hoax


Excerpt


(Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2002, p. A12).

NEW YORK - When the smuggled stone slab first surfaced at a Tucson mineral show, it seemed the likely key to a mystery of evolution.

To the collector who paid $80,000 for it, the Chinese fossil had every appearance of a feathered dinosaur that flew like a modern bird. The purported missing link made headlines when National Geographic trumpeted the find in 1999, then caused red faces when it was revealed as a forgery a year later.

Researchers in China and at the American Museum of Natural History in New York now have completely deciphered the deception.

The find wrongly hailed as a crucial link between the dinosaurs and the birds actually does contain fossils of a dinosaur and a bird. [b]But the only connection between them is glue.

In a study published recently in the journal Nature, the researchers revealed that the major part of the doctored fossil belongs to an ancient, fish-eating bird called Yanornis martini. Its lizard-like tail belongs to a small, carnivorous dinosaur previously identified as Microraptor zhaoianus...




Just to mention a notorious few.

excon agrees: Wow, I'm convinced. Which church shall I report to?

Well, OK, this is a good place to get started,

Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site (http://www.watchtower.org/)

Assuming of course that you aren't kidding around. : )

W0W! Never seen anyone convert on this site... Yay!!!:D

So help me if I see excon show up at my door...


:D

L0L!

Scientists who were thought to be wrong turned out to be right? Sounds like science to me. That's how breakthroughs are made, when new evidence arises. Note that these people all championed something which was measurable.

"Flew is a bad example for you to put forth since he still believes in God." No idea what you're saying here. You put him forth as an example?

I gave 2 examples where Tipler had either lied or been incorrect in his books. I have no reason to disbelieve that he believes in god, but... seriously... have you read his books?

"Primary sources were provided but you seem to require secondary sources?" From a quote that was made after the death of someone, by someone else? Yes I require the source that was used originally. Chinese whispers and all that.

"Irrelevant sources? I could have sworn you were pro abiogenesis. But if not, cool!" 9 of the sources dealt with what I understood to be the beginning of the universe, and not with the beginning of life. If you wish to contort what they said to fit your ideas, that's not my problem.

"Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory as well as academic harassment of creationists scientists identify evolutionists as a rather untrustworthy lot."
Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the creation and creationist theory as well as academic harassment of evolutionist scientists identify creationists as a rather untrustworthy lot.
Your point?

Some people made hoaxes, a couple of them being eminent scientists, is that really why you distrust the scientific community? Do we all know that creation is real, but just won't admit it because we're "fanatical" about evolution? What a strange contortion of reality you live in. The same can be said about creationists, with numerous hoaxes of Noah's ark.
Unlike you, I won't hold these hoaxes against you.

I don't really see the point of your entire argument. Scientists are human too.

Did excon actually convert?
What did he convert to exactly?

I'm not angry about it either. I never said I was.

I understand there are jerks amongst any belief group, but Christians believe in the Bible, and the Bible considers it to be wrong to be judgemental. Where I come from is a small town, everybody there is a pronounced Christian, but yet could write for a New York City tabloid.

The argument i'm trying to make is, if Christians believe in the Bible and what it says, why are they so judgemental when the Bible considers it to be wrong?

That is a easy question to answer... the reasons Christians can be judgemental is because they are still sinners. In other words, I haven't arrived (hard to imagine, I know) but sometimes I too can start to judge... because I am human and that is what WE do. However, if you are a spiritually mature Christian (many are not) you recognize, admit and repent when you screw up and then you go on. What I don't understand is why that is hard to understand? I mess up all the time because I am a flawed human being and so is everyone else.

Scientists who were thought to be wrong turned out to be right? Sounds like science to me. That's how breakthroughs are made, when new evidence arises. Note that these people all championed something which was measurable.

"Flew is a bad example for you to put forth since he still believes in God." No idea what you're saying here. You put him forth as an example?

His stated reasons for doubting evolution are very logical:



Excerpt:

"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.



"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)

8- Antony Flew, "Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now; Philosophy Now (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm)

9- "Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew;" Biola > Page 1 : Biola News & Communications (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm)

- Antony Flew, "Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now; Philosophy Now (http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm)

Harun Yahya - Articles - The Scientific World Is Turning to God (http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70scientific_world.php)




In any case, whether it was measurable or not is irrelevant. The relevance is that you chose to put forth ridicule and bandwagon as a reason not to take this scientist seriously. So I replied according to your faulty premise by giving examples to the contrary. Now of course you attempt to alter your previous clearly stated premise

As for Flew, his scientific credentials are there. That you want to discredit his ability to reason on abiogenesis based on his other ideas is illogical. Furthermore, he clearly states that he still believes in God though not the God of Christianity. Since we aren't talking about any specific God, and the subject is abiogenesis. His continued belief proves he rejects it.



I gave 2 examples where Tipler had either lied or been incorrect in his books. I have no reason to disbelieve that he believes in god, but... seriously... have you read his books?

Your premise is faulty. Errors in one area don't prove that he cannot be trusted in other areas. If you apply that rule then you would have to discard EVERYTHING that Darwin said since evolutionists today have found serious errors in his concepts. Many other notable scientists have erred in their concepts and yet all their statements aren't summarily said to be untrustworthy based on that. You either apply your rule fairly or don't apply it at all.



"Primary sources were provided but you seem to require secondary sources?" From a quote that was made after the death of someone, by someone else? Yes I require the source that was used originally. Chinese whispers and all that.

By all means. Then what you need to do is simply accept the ones which you find acceptable and reject the others. Me? I find ALL sources claiming evolution to be unacceptable based on one very important factor--illogical reasoning.




"Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory as well as academic harassment of creationists scientists identify evolutionists as a rather untrustworthy lot." Fallacious reasoning and scientific dishonesty in unashamed support of the creation and creationist theory as well as academic harassment of evolutionist scientists identify creationists as a rather untrustworthy lot. Your point? Some people made hoaxes, a couple of them being eminent scientists, is that really why you distrust the scientific community? Do we all know that creation is real, but just won't admit it because we're "fanatical" about evolution? What a strange contortion of reality you live in. The same can be said about creationists, with numerous hoaxes of Noah's ark. Unlike you, I won't hold these hoaxes against you. I don't really see the point of your entire argument. Scientists are human too.

False analogy! My belief in a creator isn't based on research or statements made by any religious organization-or religious person. In contrast, YOUR belief is totally based on what these so-called scientists have said. So your attempted comparison is irrelevant in this particular case.

Also, your accusation is strawman since I don't distrust any other branch of the scientific community. Just the branch that has repeatedly tried to hoax its way to credibility by falsification of data, ignoring of any data which seems to contradict its assumptions, and by application of scientific method to its own pet ideas while refusing to apply the same scientific principle if it goes contrary to their chosen belief. If you examine other branches of science you won't find so many inconsistencies and unabashed efforts at trickery. Since that is so, why should I trust them?

As for my belief in a creator, it doesn't depend on scientific testimony. It is firmly based on logic. Another area where your particular branch of "science" is ridiculously lacking.


BTW

It isn't just a couple. The whole history of your cherished abiogenesis "science " is full of efforts to deceive via unscrupulous misapplication of the scientific method.

Harun Yahya - The Evolution Deceit - Chapter 13 (http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKtWBaxGYnkBJn9rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=123brl825/EXP=1185765078/**http%3a//www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit13.php)


(5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project,

"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6)

5- John Whitfield, "Physicists plunder life's tool chest", 24 April 2003; news@nature (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-6.html)
6- San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001


Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology


A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7) 7- Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79


The Evolution Deceit (http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/ebk1-3.html)

There is one huge intelligence out there, and hey, god or not, I don't think itd be a good idea to say to this huge, all powerful intelligence "i dont believe in you! you are nothing! i disagree with you!"
And capuchin, this reminds me of our previous debate, in which you refuted my claim that there is lots of evidence against evolution
Well, starman just presented this evidence.
Though, I do not need any evidence to believe. I have faith, in god, and in humanity, I have faith that something as amazing and wonderful as humanity is not a meaningless accident. I have faith that man can know god!

Cal, starman has not presented any evidence against evolution.

Starman, Flew retracted his beliefs about creation in 2004, right? I certainly did not ridicule him, just stated that his beliefs were unclear.

Your premise is faulty. Errors in one area don't prove that he cannot be trusted in other areas. If you apply that rule then you would have to discard EVERYTHING that Darwin said since evolutionists today have found serious errors in his concepts. Many other notable scientists have erred in their concepts and yet all their statements aren't summarily said to be untrustworthy based on that. You either apply your rule fairly or don't apply it at all.

I have pointed this out before, but you seemed to ignore it. YOUR premise is faulty. 2 quotes from guys who don't deal in biology that they don't believe in abiogenesis is an argument from authority, and is useless. I would be more persuaded by quotes from the bible. And that's saying a lot.

If I said that I believed that the tooth fairy was real, would you quote me as HARD EVIDENCE that the tooth fairy was real? Of course not. Some people believe in creation. No sh*t Sherlock.


By all means. Then what you need to do is simply accept the ones which you find acceptable and reject the others. Me? I find ALL sources claiming evolution to be unacceptable based on one very important factor--illogical reasoning.

Argument from incredulity.


False analogy! My belief in a creator isn't based on research or statements made by any religious organization-or religious person. In contrast, YOUR belief is totally based on what these so-called scientists have said. So your attempted comparison is irrelevant in this particular case.

But your belief surely IS based on statements by the authors of the bible?


Also, your accusation is strawman since I don't distrust any other branch of the scientific community. Just the branch that has repeatedly tried to hoax its way to credibility by falsification of data, ignoring of any data which seems to contradict its assumptions, and by application of scientific method to its own pet ideas while refusing to apply the same scientific principle if it goes contrary to their chosen belief. If you examine other branches of science you won't find so many inconsistencies and unabashed efforts at trickery. Since that is so, why should I trust them?

This is because hoaxes in other areas don't get labelled as hoaxes. They get labelled as having "poor scientific practice". There are plenty of occasions where some unscrupulous scientists have made up data to fit their ideas. One that springs to mind is cold fusion, which has not been replicated despite many people trying the same experiment many times. This isn't labelled a hoax because it wasn't a glued together skull, but it amounts to the same thing. I assure you that this happens in all walks of life just as much as it does in evolutionary science.


As for my belief in a creator, it doesn't depend on scientific testimony. It is firmly based on logic. Another area where your particular branch of "science" is ridiculously lacking.

And the bible right? Another argument from incredulity.


It isn't just a couple. The whole history of your cherished abiogenesis "science " is full of efforts to deceive via unscrupulous misapplication of the scientific method.

What are you talking about? There's very few hoxes in abiogenesis.. you haven't pointed a single one out.

Back on post 83 , some research was referred to:
If ambiogenesis explains life form non-life:

How do you get from "self replicating peptides" to dna or rna?

Note that the research is done in a lab controlled by humans that vary temperatures, concentrations, solutions etc.. Very far from random.

Now a car is less complex than a single cell that can reproduce, but it took intelligence to build it.
Even if you knew how a car is made and put together and you had tools, imagine
somebody took apart your car down to each individual piece, what is the likelihood that you could put that car together intact and functioning?

Is there a living model of and organism that reproduces solely by " replicating its proteins?"

How do self replicating peptides organize themselves into cells, into tissue, into organs, into complex organisms - how long would this take ?

This is just biology / biochemistry.



If we humans are a product of random chance, on a planet billions of years old in a universe with billions of stars and other planets, how come we have not found life in elsewhere or been contacted by life elsewhere in the universe? After all there are billions [time] x billions [other planets and stars] of random chances for this to happen.




Grace and peace

inthebox, I don't know if you realised, but we're only close enough to one planet to ascertain if there is life or not - Earth. The reason why life hasn't been found elsewhere is because we only have a catalog of a few thousand planets, and we don't have the technology to say for certain whether there is life on Mars (the closest planet) or not, let alone the other ones.

"How do you get from "self replicating peptides" to dna or rna? "
I don't know, I haven't had time to study this deep, there are models for how this would happen.
As for getting to complex organisms from there, that is a place where science has no specific model yet, only the outlines.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the car..

As for the controlled environment. The early Earth would have been far from "random" too. Knowing what the conditions were in the early Earth is one of the bigger hurdles for science.

I have pointed this out before, but you seemed to ignore it. YOUR premise is faulty. 2 quotes from guys who don't deal in biology that they don't believe in abiogenesis is an argument from authority, and is useless. I would be more pursuaded by quotes from the bible. And that's saying a lot.

If I said that I believed that the tooth fairy was real, would you quote me as HARD EVIDENCE that the tooth fairy was real? Of course not. Some people believe in creation. No sh*t Sherlock.

I wrote a better response but it was unceremoniously erased. So the brief one below will have to suffice.



First, if my arguments are annoying you and are finicky then don't respond to them and the process will finish. It was YOU who began complaining about my response to a legitimate question on a Christian forum--not me. My quotations were in response to your accusation that people wgho reject your ideas are inteelectually deficient.

there is one huge intelligence out there, and hey, god or not, i dont think itd be a good idea to say to this huge, all powerful intelligence "i dont believe in you! you are nothing! i disagree with you!"
and capuchin, this reminds me of our previous debate, in which you refuted my claim that there is lots of evidence against evolution
well, starman just presented this evidence.
tho, i do not need any evidence to believe. i have faith, in god, and in humanity, i have faith that something as amazing and wonderful as humanity is not a meaningless acident. i have faith that man can know god!

Your very sensible words bring an air of logical refreshment to this forum. It is a real pity that there are those who dismiss legitimate scientists who are also believers in God as being unscientific or lesser scientists due to their belief. Actually, Capuchin provides NOTHING to prove his pet idea. All he does is complain whenever he is shown any evidence of a scientist's opinion to the contrary. Then he either begins attacking the source where the statement appears or begins digging up irrelevant data about the scientist. He doesn't even take time to provide the sources to his statements and expects us to believe them simply because he says so. Whether this is due to sheer academic laziness or sheer haughtiness mixed in with blind faith in his pet ideas is beyond me. But one thing is for sure, it definitely isn't good scholarship.

He also seems to miss the entire point of my response which is that to believe in God one need not be a moron as he seems to insinuate. The people I quoted have impressive credentials in science. They have been thoroughly trained in the scientific method and it is the misapplication of the scientific method by the evolutionists that they find error in. So Capuchin's claim that these scientists' opinions are irrelevant is not valid.

Neither is his claim that because Flew might have changed his mind the reasons he gave for his original rejection of atheism are wrong. Not at all. The reasons remain untouched even if he did recant. Notice also that Copernicus seemingly recanted in order to be left alone. Scientists who recant often do so due to peer pressure and not because they really agree with their persecutors. So with this in mind there if Capuchin's claim is true, it really proves very little.

Also, Capuchin has provided absolutely no reason, either scientific or logical why I or anyone else should place his claims above the opinions of theses noted scientists who do believe in God. Presented with evidence to the contrary he merely sits back and claims not to understand or see. Which proves only that he claims to neither understand or see--nothing more.


In any case, thanks for the positive feedback.

BTW

A well prepared response to his most recent post was erased. Perhaps my most recent response was considered tiresome?

Hello:

I don't know. I don't leave my teeth under my pillow just in case there's a tooth fairy.

excon

Unfortunately many christians don't know anything about christianity further than the name, the true ones won't do that, because a christian is a representative of Christ

Starman, in response to your reddie, nothing in science is uncontested fact, where did you get the idea that it was?

You have faith, I have belief, I have no problems in admitting that evolution is wrong if real evidence shows that it is the case, but you will always continue to believe in Creation, because you have faith. That's the difference between faith and belief.

All you have done is decidedly cloud the matter, sadly a familiar creationist "tactic". The extent to which you have twisted my words it testament to the lengths you will go to protect your faith.

I certainly have not insinuated that anyone who believes in God is a moron. That is not even my belief.

"Neither is his claim that because Flew might have changed his mind the reasons he gave for his original rejection of atheism are wrong."
And what of his initial rejection of religion?

"Capuchin has provided absolutely no reason, either scientific or logical why I or anyone else should place his claims above the opinions of theses noted scientists who do believe in God."
But there's plenty of reason to place the claims of noted scientists who do believe in God above noted scientists who do not believe in God, right? This is why I cannot "understand or see". You hold some humans in higher regard than others, just because they agree with yout belief system. It is not I who is doing this.

"He doesn't even take time to provide the sources to his statements"
Many times I have said "I can provide sources if you wish", you never ask though.

"Capuchin provides NOTHING to prove his pet idea"
My pet idea? While I would have been honoured to have come up with evolution, the honor you give me here is unfounded, it is not my idea. I haven't had a chance to provide evidence, I'm too busy refuting misrepresentation of scientific understanding.

I can't carry on "discussing" this with you, because you don't seem to be able to make a logical argument. Please take a leaf out of inthebox's book. I'm here to learn and to teach, you are not here to learn, you're here to "win".

I was just wondering what judgment day is?

Last Judgment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_day)

Remember, science isn't fact.
Its theory, and theory is really just another form of belief.
Also, should I trust what a scientist says? Should I believe them, just because he has some uni degree and some ideas about physics? He could be lying through his teeth, for money, or even to deliberately decieve me.
I don't trust what I see on TV or what I read in the textbooks, it could be propaganda, lies or half truths (such as the japanese school texts books, which overlooked japanese war atrocities, an example of the fact that what we young people are taught can be bent to what the government wants us to think)

also, should i trust what a scientist says? should i believe them, just because he has some uni degree and some ideas about physics? he could be lying through his teeth, for money, or even to deliberatly decieve me.
i dont trust what i see on tv or what i read in the textbooks, it could be propoganda, lies or half truths (such as the japanese school texts books, which overlooked japanese war attrocities, an example of the fact that what we young people are taught can be bent to what the government wants us to think)

And how about the bible?

The bible? The bible was written by 40 different long dead writers, who were born before the days of book royalites. They have nothing to gain from decieving me.

And how about the people who translated the bible?

Christians.
A huge part of the christian faith, is honesty and morals and stuff, so why would a christian decieve me?

Why would anyone else? We're all sinners.

By the way, science is both fact and theory. Theories describe the facts.

Starman, in response to your reddie, nothing in science is uncontested fact, where did you get the idea that it was?

You have faith, I have belief, I have no problems in admitting that evolution is wrong if real evidence shows that it is the case, but you will always continue to believe in Creation, because you have faith. That's the difference between faith and belief.

All you have done is decidedly cloud the matter, sadly a familiar creationist "tactic". The extent to which you have twisted my words it testament to the lengths you will go to protect your faith.

I certainly have not insinuated that anyone who believes in God is a moron. That is not even my belief.

"Neither is his claim that because Flew might have changed his mind the reasons he gave for his original rejection of atheism are wrong."
And what of his initial rejection of religion?

"Capuchin has provided absolutely no reason, either scientific or logical why I or anyone else should place his claims above the opinions of theses noted scientists who do believe in God."
But there's plenty of reason to place the claims of noted scientists who do believe in God above noted scientists who do not believe in God, right? This is why I cannot "understand or see". You hold some humans in higher regard than others, just because they agree with yout belief system. It is not I who is doing this.

"He doesn't even take time to provide the sources to his statements"
Many times I have said "I can provide sources if you wish", you never ask though.

"Capuchin provides NOTHING to prove his pet idea"
My pet idea? While I would have been honoured to have come up with evolution, the honor you give me here is unfounded, it is not my idea. I haven't had a chance to provide evidence, I'm too busy refuting misrepresentation of scientific understanding.

I can't carry on "discussing" this with you, because you don't seem to be able to make a logical argument. Please take a leaf out of inthebox's book. I'm here to learn and to teach, you are not here to learn, you're here to "win".

I tried to put you on my censure list due to your offensive provocative tone and it turns out you are and administrator and a moderator so I can't. Which might explain why my detailed answer suddenly disappeared. In any case, I wish no further communication with you. I will keep my distance and would apreciate that you keep yours.

I only moderate some of the science boards, not christianity. I son't see where I was offensive, and I'd like to understand where I was offensive, so I would like you to point out where that is the case, if you wish.

>thread closed<