 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
what you say about this
- Very few Christians disagree with that notion- only the very liberal sort who can barely call themselves Christians, having no idea what it's about nor having read the bible on which it is based.
What's that little bit about "no one reaches the father except by me", not to mention constant 1 expression throughout the old testament- including in the 'ten commandments' about accepting YHWH or else… 2-Sure, religious people have the right to be hypocrites. If they don't want to be hypocrites, then if they want to 'correct' their points of views that have already been mandated in a 'perfect divinely inspired' book, then they need to admit that that book is pretty much useless as a source of any facts. It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3 Science accepts itself as self-correcting. Science is not based on 'revealed' truth, but reasoned truth, meaning things can be updated and improved, and as such, has nothing to do with religion. Religion is inherently conservative- it relies on it. what you say about this help me |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
What notion are you asking about?
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
I'm not understanding what the question is.
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Claims that science should stay out "of philosophy, origins, and religion." when it helps with origins, it can explain a lot of stuff that the bible is totally wrong on
God's word is always changing as there's a lot that people don't follow any more? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Are there any god?
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
God is real and His word never changes, it is people that change God's word to suit themselves.
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Gods word does not change, Gods covenant or agreements with man do at times. Originally man had to come to God only though the sacrifice of animals or earthly things as a way to cleanse their sins, they had ritual baths to clean. This was a start for the coming of Christ to be the final sacrifice. So no the rules have not changed, only the type of sacrifice required changed from animals to God's son.
And religion may at time laugh at science as it stumbles to find early knowledge but he has nothing against science since most science only proves the bible true. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
No, I have logical proofs that such a god does not exist. It only applies to certain definitions, but it covers every significant historical and common English definition- that god does not exist
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by snowgirl
As to the rest of your topic post : people should be free to believe whatever they prefer to believe, whether you agree with their belief or not. Because you also like to be free to believe whatever you prefer to believe. (Remember : do not to others, what you do not like others to do to you). In principle science is indeed self-correcting. In reality that self-correction can be improved upon, as scientists are also human beings with ego problems, specific interests, and prone to make mistakes. But that principle itself is correct ! Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence. Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith. A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand. May I ask you why you are attacking religious views here on this Christianity board? A better location for opposing views is the Religious Discussion board. John Secular Humanist Freethinker |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Cred:
Logically exlpain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how DNA , RNA came about? How did DNA become coordinated with ribosomes and amino acids to form proteins. How the vision or hearing or echo location or the clotting / fibrinolysis cascade come about? What specific genetic mutations caused humans to diverge from apes? How do you explain that for 2 billion years of only single cells. How do you explain the Cambrian "big bang" If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria [ has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab ] why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also? The best fit for survival. You can make atp 2 different ways rather than one. Think about it, plants take co2 water and sunlight to make oxygen and carbohydrates. Oxygen at high concentrations is toxic. We and animals take o2 and cabohydrates for energy and the byproducts are also co2 and water. A balance. Now which came first? How did random chance time and natural selection lead to this - again reproduce this in a lab. Oh wait in order to do lab experiments the scientists have to be INTELLIGENT You will understand science reporting about evolution these days when you memorize the Darwin Party M.O. A review. • Step 1: Assume evolution. • Step 2: Observe a fact. • Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution. Don't worry if you'll be scratching your head for a long time. These scientists are doing the same thing. Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution? "Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. ARE YOU STUNNED?" "Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN." "Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA" -----Evolution cannot explain DNA and yet these scientists think there is something more complex than just genes involved? ------ |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
inthebox I'm going to leave a more thorough refutation of your points to someone more trained in biology (I am not.)
But two elementary points. 1. First of all, your math is WAY off. 2×2x2×25,000 = 8×25,000 = 200,000 = 2×105^. It is nowhere NEAR the absurd figure of 107000^ you propose. Sorry, but you should check your work before you hand in your paper. . 2. Even if there are unexplained parts of evolutionary theory now, it does not mean they are 'unexplainable'. And the alternative solution you propose is way more complicated, and introduces way more unanswerable questions and logical inconsistencies than Darwinism. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
11
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by snowgirl
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sorry nothing
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Hi intheboxes questions are in bold as for this kind of thing the quote unquote thing gets very tedious. If I have skipped a question I have explained why just so it doesn’t look like I’m dodging things that I am not. I am not as eloquent as some people are on this subject or explaining things so bear with me!
Logically exlpain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how DNA , RNA came about? How did DNA become coordinated with ribosomes and amino acids to form proteins.? I personally don’t know the answer, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t one. How the vision or hearing or echo location or the clotting / fibrinolysis cascade come about? Through a step by step processes, the irreducible complexity argument just keeps on having to move its goalposts as each system is explored and explained. Of course there will be a couple of systems that haven’t been explained yet but I’m sure they will be (I am working on such a system for my Ph.D). Vision and hearing have been explained, as have most cascades which are quite simple really. I won’t explain them here as I am lazy. What specific genetic mutations caused humans to diverge from apes? There are a couple it wasn’t an overnight clear cut thing. Myself I am a supporter that the point mutation in the myosin (muscle component) gene allowing a decrease in energy expenditure and consequently brain expansion as being a fundamental change. Neuroscience for Kids - Brain Expansion How do you explain that for 2 billion years of only single cells. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria [ has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab ] why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also? Not all prokaryotes can photosynthesis. Obviously those incorporated did not. Also this is not as firm a theory as evolution. The best fit for survival. You can make atp 2 different ways rather than one. This also makes no sense to me. Think about it, plants take co2 water and sunlight to make oxygen and carbohydrates. Oxygen at high concentrations is toxic. We and animals take o2 and cabohydrates for energy and the byproducts are also co2 and water. A balance. Now which came first? The plants this is discussed in further here History of Atmospheric Oxygen Levels And very nicely here, it also discusses the Cambrian explosion How do you explain the Cambrian "big bang" What conditions led to the first animals − the mysterious Ediacara biota − How did random chance time and natural selection lead to this - again reproduce this in a lab. We don’t have that much time! Although many people have reproduced it in silico (computer models). Oh wait in order to do lab experiments the scientists have to be INTELLIGENT You’d be surprised... :eek: "Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA" Do you even know what epigenics is, what has it got to do with this argument? What does it matter if Dawin knew of the existence of DNA or not? The fact it exists and genetics explains his observations only further supports the theory. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Intdbx If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also
They did. Where do you think chlorophyll came from? Plants are Eukaryotes, and that's exactly what they did. Animals could have photosynthesized, but production of chlorophyll is expensive- it uses up a great deal of energy. Since they had a ready supply of plants and other animals to eat, they didn't need to, and thus didn't. Now which came first Chemosynthesis, which you probably know nothing about. Then photosynthesis, then standard respiration How do you explain the Cambrian big bang" It's the Cambrian explosion, not big bang. All of those things are explained easily by evolution, geophysics, and the particular conditions at the time- namely the increase in oxygen and the prior extinction. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by inthebox
My reaction to your post #10 of 04:14 PM should actually be : "Logically explain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how and why God came into being. (And don't give me that clincer that God always existed, as NOTHING exists forever (if you disagree please provide objective supporting evidence that anything - including God - (can) exist(s) forever)." But as I know you won't be able to provide a reply that makes any sense, I just note that : - You did not react in any way to my post itself, but instead attacked the Evolution Theory. - In my post I did not attack Creationism or "Intelligent Design" , or religion in general. So is this the way you react if you fail any serious reply to what I post here? Interesting (but also rather hypocrite) attitude... :rolleyes: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Templelane and Snowgirl :
Don't let inthebox draw you into a debate on his attacking post against the Evolution Theory. Simply because that is NOT the topic here. Inthebox just had to change the topic subject because he/she had no answer that made any sense against the logic and arguments of my reaction # 9. Did you note that inthebox actually completely failed to address my reaction ? . Therefore I repeat that post, to allow inthebox and others once more to do the right thing, and honestly reply to posts that relate to the topic question, instead of his/her fallacies (delusion perhaps?) on the Evolution Theory. . --- --- . Originally Posted by snowgirl
As to the rest of your topic post : people should be free to believe whatever they prefer to believe, whether you agree with their belief or not. Because you also like to be free to believe whatever you prefer to believe. (Remember : do not to others, what you do not like others to do to you). In principle science is indeed self-correcting. In reality that self-correction can be improved upon, as scientists are also human beings with ego problems, specific interests, and prone to make mistakes. But that principle itself is correct ! Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence. Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith. A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand. May I ask you why you are attacking religious views here on this Christianity board? A better location for opposing views is the Religious Discussion board. John Secular Humanist Freethinker |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Look at God from the believer's perspective. God is all powerful, He has limitless ability, Almighty, ever-present everywhere. If you believed God to have these characteristics as the believer does then it shouldn't be hard for you to understand that God did not have a beginning and will never end. He indeed exists forever. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Cred:
"Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence. Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith. A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand" I was responding to that: And so you answered my questions about the very faith based evolutionary theory with another question. Dodging are you? As to two ways of making atp - the energy currency of cells. We do it in our mitochondria through the krebs cycle and the electron transport chain: simply put: Glucose/ carbohydrate + o2 = atp + co2 + h2o PLants, in their chloroplasts, make atp via H2o + co2 + sunlight = atp + o2 + carbohydrate. Don't you see the symmetry and balance - plants use our expired co2 and we use plant's o2 produced. Think now folks: If evolution is about survival of the fittest, is not having two systems to produce atp the most efficient? Having chloroplasts and mitochondria in one cell. One that can get energy by eating and breathing o2 and when that is not enough switch to sun, co2 and h2o. The cellular equivalent of a Prius that can run on gas or electricity. THe cambrian big bang is bioloical - it debunks darwins "tree of life" In other words, most of today's phyla appeared in this geological time. How? Now Cred you claim to be a free thinker but offer no explanation other than parroting that it is all from evolution, but science does not know how or why. That seems unintelligent. NOw befoe you reply - I am in no way saying you should believe what I believe. I'm not "forcing " you. I know from other threads that you don't want to believe in a God. You make these erroneus statements that "Science " and Christianity are mutually exclusive and make dismissive statements. My point is that nothing could be further from the truth. Science supports the Bible and God. I'm not using the Bible which you don't believe, but actual observed scientific facts free from evolutionary assumptions and hypothesis. That is what all those pHDs are scratching their heads about. They believe in science and the facts but it points them in all sorts of different directions and conclusions. The origins of the universe, of life on this planet, how we all came to be is based on science / reasoned truth - and that truth is that there is a God who created. so Genesis 1 in the Bible is fact, human explanations are just theories. The opening post question is very obtuse. "It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3" They make these kind of statements and expect Bible believing Christian to respond how? 1] I believe that the God of the Old Testament and the New Tesytament are one in the same. 2] I am a hypocrite, I am a sinner, that is why I depend on and trust in God. The 10 Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount those are the standards, This Christian is not changing them. I get angry, I don't turn the other cheek, I've fornicated,. I'm not trying to change what is written in the Bible, to rid me of the need to repent. The Bible tells you the Good News that salvation is available and a choice for all. The best way to lead your life. I don't use it as a book of "facts" in the manner of what tomorrow's weather willl be or which stocks to invest in. |
||||
|
|
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
View more questions Search
|
