If Jesus would return?
- Thread starter Kal-el
- Start date
-
- Tags
- average biologists dating effective enormous equipment exercise extending extreme fitness gains genetics growing hands hanging homosexual larger loads massive masturbate methodology painful penis posts progress question research results sensitivity sex short shower shrink skin stories stretch support theoretical thick vacuum wide wrap
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 108
German Stallion said:
Ah, I see where our disagreement comes from. I thought you meant, you can't have faith without absolute hard evidence (i.e., what it would take to convince an athiest scientist of God). I understand better now what you're saying, so I agree now. That's why I hate internet talking sometimes...the subtlety of languages get lost when it's all in text.
Also, Bib, awesome post. I agree completely. I was the same way for a while. I didn't know what I thought, and you can find answers for so many things in the bible.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 108
Faith doesn't necessarily mean no evidence and science doesn't necessarily mean measured and proven. Science is full of theories that have yet to be proven, and faith is full of things that can be measured and proven.
Andithilion said:
Examples please? Ever since as long as one could remember, we were forcibly spoonfed an unqestioned belief in the Bible. As long as we are kept ignorant by putting down science, we could be "duped" by these fairy tales. Well actually, most of us anyway, learned to accept religion, which pretends to explain what it can't explain, mostly through "supernatural" mysteries. Then, there was no need for explanation.
badbal said:
I guess "God" condones of the hundreds of US coffins coming home? Or of the numerous tortures and abuses at the military prisons? Every country in the world went to war claiming "God" was with them. "God" just acts as a human lever for vengence.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
There are many things about religious beliefs that cannot be fully understand from a logical standpoint, but science has some unexplained gaps too. To hold too firm to one without acknowledging the criticisms of the other reflects dogmatism more than great intellect.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kal-el said:
In a word...yep. War is throughout the common sacred texts. My personal view is to deny its periodic inevitability is to deny our human nature. Nevertheless, war is a part of religious history and there is nothing to suggest that God abhors war in and of itself.
Through archeology, and over the decades, almost all of the Bible has been proven to be accurate, at least in terms of time and geography. One notable exception is Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed by God. They have not been conclusively found, or rather their remants. I can see that. Funny that, during this time, many archeologists were working from the standpoint of disproving the Bible's historical accuracy.
One huge question that for decades was a point of "proof" that the Bible was inaccurate, for non-believers, was King David. No mention of him could be found in the archeological record. Then, in '92, a stile was found that had been carved in his honor.
At any rate, the Bible does not change. People have been amazed at the accuracy of the Dead Sea Scrolls to today's Bible. I believe some of the copies of the Scrolls varied a bit in the book of Isaiah. That's it. Being more modern, the New Testament has copies back almost to the original authors. It is accurate.
On the other hand, science, by it's very nature, is constantly changing. Testing theories and subtheories. Reviewing the data. Then, reworking and starting over. At best, tedious, but usually effective depending on the question, and it's complexity.
For the types of questions brought out in this thread, science is extremely slow. To get any confidence in any subquestion will take centuries. That is where, for non-believers, faith comes in play. You have to have faith that the thoughts and posits of some scientists are accurate.
Take for example, spontaneous generation. This is the proposed method, for many, by which life came to be. Functioning organic matter arising by chance. The odds of this occuring naturally are greater than the total number of electrons in the known universe. I remember back in the 70's, some guys in a lab were going to create life in a test tube. Have not heard back from them yet. If you do not believe in God, you have to have faith that spontaneous generation occured.
Another great point is Neanderthal man. I remember well going to school as a kid, and seeing the evolutionary chart showing the progression from monkeys to modern man. Two slots before modern man was Neanderthal man, who lived up to about 20,000 years ago. However, a few years ago, mDNA testing of remains showed conclusively that Neanderthal is not an ancestor of modern man.
But still today, some scientists insists that modern man came out of Africa 2.5 million years ago, and that remains found from that time period in Africa are ancestors of modern man. Huh? I have a lot of confidence in that. Not.
Another great problem for non-believers is sex. That's right, sex. Now, how did that happen? Either an organism split, and the result was two opposite, but totally compatible beings, with the ability to procreate; or, two beings evolved, at the exact same point in time, into opposite sexes, with the proper equipment, and the ability to procreate. For me, either possibility requires greater faith than the amount of faith to believe in God.
There are many other examples, but those suffice.
Bigger
One huge question that for decades was a point of "proof" that the Bible was inaccurate, for non-believers, was King David. No mention of him could be found in the archeological record. Then, in '92, a stile was found that had been carved in his honor.
At any rate, the Bible does not change. People have been amazed at the accuracy of the Dead Sea Scrolls to today's Bible. I believe some of the copies of the Scrolls varied a bit in the book of Isaiah. That's it. Being more modern, the New Testament has copies back almost to the original authors. It is accurate.
On the other hand, science, by it's very nature, is constantly changing. Testing theories and subtheories. Reviewing the data. Then, reworking and starting over. At best, tedious, but usually effective depending on the question, and it's complexity.
For the types of questions brought out in this thread, science is extremely slow. To get any confidence in any subquestion will take centuries. That is where, for non-believers, faith comes in play. You have to have faith that the thoughts and posits of some scientists are accurate.
Take for example, spontaneous generation. This is the proposed method, for many, by which life came to be. Functioning organic matter arising by chance. The odds of this occuring naturally are greater than the total number of electrons in the known universe. I remember back in the 70's, some guys in a lab were going to create life in a test tube. Have not heard back from them yet. If you do not believe in God, you have to have faith that spontaneous generation occured.
Another great point is Neanderthal man. I remember well going to school as a kid, and seeing the evolutionary chart showing the progression from monkeys to modern man. Two slots before modern man was Neanderthal man, who lived up to about 20,000 years ago. However, a few years ago, mDNA testing of remains showed conclusively that Neanderthal is not an ancestor of modern man.
But still today, some scientists insists that modern man came out of Africa 2.5 million years ago, and that remains found from that time period in Africa are ancestors of modern man. Huh? I have a lot of confidence in that. Not.
Another great problem for non-believers is sex. That's right, sex. Now, how did that happen? Either an organism split, and the result was two opposite, but totally compatible beings, with the ability to procreate; or, two beings evolved, at the exact same point in time, into opposite sexes, with the proper equipment, and the ability to procreate. For me, either possibility requires greater faith than the amount of faith to believe in God.
There are many other examples, but those suffice.
Bigger
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,151
Andithilion said:
Which would take a scientific approach....so what's the commotion about anymore? They work together and science is not by any means an opponent of religion or god. Anyone that wants it to be is putting their own beliefs and stubbornness before science. It's easier for me to understand and believe things when i can read and research, yet I believe there is a God.
I believe in God just based on the fact of how much we've learned as a people that the generations before us thought impossible or couldn't even conceive. We're arrogant beings that want to understand our environment, existance, and origin. Imagine what could be discovered a thousand years from now. Hell, we don't know what new things will be discovered a year from now. If it can be tested or experiments can be conducted then it will be done in the name of science. We can only work within the knowledge that we are aware of and we don't know everything now do we.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Bib, you made some good points.
As difficult as it might be to believe in a literal six-day creation, evolutionists really have weak evidence for their accounts too. I would consider myself a theistic evolutionist, but I would subscribe to Genesis 1 long before I would subscribe to blatant violations of the laws of physics (such as the idea that matter could come from nothing at all). How funny it is that one must feel it has to be an either/or scenario. The agenda of some in the staunch evolutionist camp pretty much covers up the fact that Charles Darwin was a Christian. Darwin viewed Genesis 1 as a metaphor, but did not doubt that God was involved in the process. Later in life, Darwin re-examined some of his theories and had some question as to whether the six-day creation could have indeed had merit.
As difficult as it might be to believe in a literal six-day creation, evolutionists really have weak evidence for their accounts too. I would consider myself a theistic evolutionist, but I would subscribe to Genesis 1 long before I would subscribe to blatant violations of the laws of physics (such as the idea that matter could come from nothing at all). How funny it is that one must feel it has to be an either/or scenario. The agenda of some in the staunch evolutionist camp pretty much covers up the fact that Charles Darwin was a Christian. Darwin viewed Genesis 1 as a metaphor, but did not doubt that God was involved in the process. Later in life, Darwin re-examined some of his theories and had some question as to whether the six-day creation could have indeed had merit.
Let replying slide for a while...
First, a few earlier things I wanted to address:
Juggers
Based off of mapping of function to the physical brain, reaction of consciousness to the environment, drugs,etc, studies on those with brain damage, I find concluding the mind is a product of the physical brain reasonable. After death, brain activity ceases, so no more you. What is meant by soul? If it interacts with the body we should have evidence, and it should have some physical properties, right?
Andithilion
This one always annoys me, you're retroactively fitting the passage to current understanding. Had the steady state universe theory held, you would say the passage endorses that as god would have created it all at once, nice and balanced. What happens when a new cosmological theory gains support? I'm guessing the passage will change to mean whatever the new theory says.
TomdW, I like your anti-war/conflict take. Though I disagree about the "needing faith due to perception". We are able to discuss things, you can understand what I am writting. The labels we place on our subjective experience of the world line up and we are able to communicate. I don't see where belief without evidence comes into play.
Penguin, in science the response to many questions is, "we don't know" usually followed by "but, we're working on it". In many cases the proper position is to say we don't know. However, not knowing X, does not make Z the answer. Even if Darwin was a christian, how does that validate christianity or in any way falsify the theory?
BIB, I disagree on many points.
Yes, the template usually looks like this:
Q:Why does/did X happen?
A:God did it
Q:How?
A:Magic
That isn't a satisfying answer, or a real answer at all.
How are horoscopes so accurate? People shoehorn what they say to their own life, and the predictions are vague. You’re also assuming there is a message behind the confusion of the bible. What do you find so wise in it?
At least you admit that your belief in the Bible and therefore the christian God is an argument to ignorance and therefore fallacious.
Appeal to wonders. Our ignorance at certain extremems explains God?? Sorry you lost me. You still haven't said what this thing is you believe in and why.
There is no need for me to do this in order to lack belief in gods, it is the default position to take. A definition of the bounds of space-time, would be the set that is all the natural world.
By easier, I take it you mean emotionally comforting. As you've put forward no reason to believe. You last sentance is a mistake assumption, it requires no faith (unless you're purposely conflating definitions). When you were born you were an atheist and continued to be so until you were taught and accepted a god concept. Lack of belief is simply the default position, it requires no faith whatsoever.
No, it has not been. That the places mentioned have been confirmed does not validate the bible. The Illiad mentions places that have been found, spiderman is set in NY, doesn't mean they happened.
Actually the standard practice of archeology has been to confirm the bible and use it as a guide. Not to falsify it.
There is no NT text in the dead sea scrolls. They are not the same as the torrah. Lets not forget the many gospels that aren't included in what you call the bible today. Apocraphal gospels, etc. that were removed at the roman councils. Which bible do you mean anyway, NIV, KJV, etc.?
In your talk on science being slow and so on. Faith does not come into play, we have evidence that the process works based on improvements the last few hundred years. Anti-biotics, transplants, lights, computers, even the clothes you where. Science is mainly about disproving hypotheses, you try to prove things false. What survives the scrutiny and experimentation is becomes theory, and they are worked from. The fact that at any time new evidence could arrise and a revision or new hypothesis may be needed. It is not to be treated at 100%, which is where I think your misproception is. I'm guessing you think that if we aren't 100%, then you have to top it up with faith. That absolute knowledge is needed to act, which it isn't.
I see that science changes as one of its greatest strengths.
You are confused on what evolution is. Abiogenesis a question for biochemistry is seperate from evolution. Abiogenesis is about life from non-life (though defining life is actually difficult, is a virus alive?). Evolution starts after replicating organisms and variation are present. If the answer the abio remains, we don't know, that doesn't invalidate evolution.
I would recommend talk origins and panda's thumb as good resources for your evolution questions.
I would recommend a few books on atheism:
Smith - The Case Against God
Eller - Natural Atheism
Martin- Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
Carrier- Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism (more about naturalism than atheism, though it is a conclusion reached)
In terms of Jesus, I've heard good things about Empty Tomb - (Price & Lowder), and Suns of God - Acharya S. Though I haven't read them.
First, a few earlier things I wanted to address:
Juggers
Based off of mapping of function to the physical brain, reaction of consciousness to the environment, drugs,etc, studies on those with brain damage, I find concluding the mind is a product of the physical brain reasonable. After death, brain activity ceases, so no more you. What is meant by soul? If it interacts with the body we should have evidence, and it should have some physical properties, right?
Andithilion
This one always annoys me, you're retroactively fitting the passage to current understanding. Had the steady state universe theory held, you would say the passage endorses that as god would have created it all at once, nice and balanced. What happens when a new cosmological theory gains support? I'm guessing the passage will change to mean whatever the new theory says.
TomdW, I like your anti-war/conflict take. Though I disagree about the "needing faith due to perception". We are able to discuss things, you can understand what I am writting. The labels we place on our subjective experience of the world line up and we are able to communicate. I don't see where belief without evidence comes into play.
Penguin, in science the response to many questions is, "we don't know" usually followed by "but, we're working on it". In many cases the proper position is to say we don't know. However, not knowing X, does not make Z the answer. Even if Darwin was a christian, how does that validate christianity or in any way falsify the theory?
BIB, I disagree on many points.
Yes, the template usually looks like this:
Q:Why does/did X happen?
A:God did it
Q:How?
A:Magic
That isn't a satisfying answer, or a real answer at all.
How are horoscopes so accurate? People shoehorn what they say to their own life, and the predictions are vague. You’re also assuming there is a message behind the confusion of the bible. What do you find so wise in it?
At least you admit that your belief in the Bible and therefore the christian God is an argument to ignorance and therefore fallacious.
Appeal to wonders. Our ignorance at certain extremems explains God?? Sorry you lost me. You still haven't said what this thing is you believe in and why.
There is no need for me to do this in order to lack belief in gods, it is the default position to take. A definition of the bounds of space-time, would be the set that is all the natural world.
By easier, I take it you mean emotionally comforting. As you've put forward no reason to believe. You last sentance is a mistake assumption, it requires no faith (unless you're purposely conflating definitions). When you were born you were an atheist and continued to be so until you were taught and accepted a god concept. Lack of belief is simply the default position, it requires no faith whatsoever.
No, it has not been. That the places mentioned have been confirmed does not validate the bible. The Illiad mentions places that have been found, spiderman is set in NY, doesn't mean they happened.
Actually the standard practice of archeology has been to confirm the bible and use it as a guide. Not to falsify it.
There is no NT text in the dead sea scrolls. They are not the same as the torrah. Lets not forget the many gospels that aren't included in what you call the bible today. Apocraphal gospels, etc. that were removed at the roman councils. Which bible do you mean anyway, NIV, KJV, etc.?
In your talk on science being slow and so on. Faith does not come into play, we have evidence that the process works based on improvements the last few hundred years. Anti-biotics, transplants, lights, computers, even the clothes you where. Science is mainly about disproving hypotheses, you try to prove things false. What survives the scrutiny and experimentation is becomes theory, and they are worked from. The fact that at any time new evidence could arrise and a revision or new hypothesis may be needed. It is not to be treated at 100%, which is where I think your misproception is. I'm guessing you think that if we aren't 100%, then you have to top it up with faith. That absolute knowledge is needed to act, which it isn't.
I see that science changes as one of its greatest strengths.
You are confused on what evolution is. Abiogenesis a question for biochemistry is seperate from evolution. Abiogenesis is about life from non-life (though defining life is actually difficult, is a virus alive?). Evolution starts after replicating organisms and variation are present. If the answer the abio remains, we don't know, that doesn't invalidate evolution.
I would recommend talk origins and panda's thumb as good resources for your evolution questions.
I would recommend a few books on atheism:
Smith - The Case Against God
Eller - Natural Atheism
Martin- Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
Carrier- Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism (more about naturalism than atheism, though it is a conclusion reached)
In terms of Jesus, I've heard good things about Empty Tomb - (Price & Lowder), and Suns of God - Acharya S. Though I haven't read them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 3,707
Kraft said:
The science comment is true, but I've heard essentially the same thing in Christianity, an acknowledgement that some things may not make sense or seem contradictoy and that we'll never know the answer in this lifetime.
Penguin,
What exactly do you mean by the six day creation?
Kraft,
>BIB, I disagree on many points.<
I see that. But generally, I read blah blah blah. I see know specific arguement. But I will reply to what I do see.
>Yes, the template usually looks like this:
Q:Why does/did X happen?
A:God did it
Q:How?
A:Magic<
I did not, and have not, put into writing all I know and believe. But I have never assumed "magic" was involved.
>How are horoscopes so accurate? People shoehorn what they say to their own life, and the predictions are vague. You’re also assuming there is a message behind the confusion of the bible.<
I suppose you would just have to read the Bible a few dozen times to begin to see what is there. Reading words and understanding are two different things. I must admit, that if you read the Bible without a bit of reason that it might be true, you will get little from it.
Other than that, just the historical aspect of the Bible is fascinating.
>What do you find so wise in it?<
To numerous to write. But in general, the overall plan on how to live a successful, happy life. Whether you know it or believe it, many of the things you do throughout the day, and the way you live your life right now, comes from the Bible.
>At least you admit that your belief in the Bible and therefore the christian God is an argument to ignorance and therefore fallacious.<
There is no doubt that my ignorance is great. I freely admit it, and revel in my ignorance. Without it, there would be no reason to further explore, and to seek knowledge.
But simply because one is ignorant, does not mean that the arguement is fallacious, or that the beliefs are not true.
>Appeal to wonders. Our ignorance at certain extremems explains God?? Sorry you lost me.<
Surely. I believe, faith if you will, that God is as big, and as powerful, as time and space. In both directions, forward and back, big and small.
>You still haven't said what this thing is you believe in and why.<
I surely have. I believe in God, and his son, Jesus. I believe Dr Pepper tastes good, but bad for your health. Many other things also. What did you have in mind? If you mean God, much of it is faith. But I came to believe through research. I find the Bible to be extremely accurate on all fronts.
>There is no need for me to do this in order to lack belief in gods, it is the default position to take. A definition of the bounds of space-time, would be the set that is all the natural world.<
I have not a clue what you mean.
>By easier, I take it you mean emotionally comforting.<
No. I mean more believable.
>As you've put forward no reason to believe.<
In fact, I said at the beginning that one must find the answers on his on. I can give you many facts, and posit many theories. But I cannot give you a belief in God. Anyone must come to that on his/her own.
>You last sentance is a mistake assumption, it requires no faith (unless you're purposely conflating definitions). When you were born you were an atheist and continued to be so until you were taught and accepted a god concept. Lack of belief is simply the default position, it requires no faith whatsoever.<
You misunderstand. The given is the question, "How did we get here". The normal theories are spontaneous generation and evolution vs Divine Creation. Each requires faith.
>No, it has not been. That the places mentioned have been confirmed does not validate the bible. The Illiad mentions places that have been found, spiderman is set in NY, doesn't mean they happened.<
What did I say? As far as "time and geography". Then you go on to admit that this is true. Obviously, I did not say the events were accurate, because I was not there. Get a grip.
>Actually the standard practice of archeology has been to confirm the bible and use it as a guide. Not to falsify it.<
Actually, you are wrong. If you go back to the early days of middle east archeology, you will find that almost every digger was looking to disprove the accuracy of the Bible. In fact, they would not even use the Bible as a source.
>There is no NT text in the dead sea scrolls.<
I did not say there was.
>They are not the same as the torrah.<
What do you mean. The first five books, whether today's Bible, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, are identical.
>Lets not forget the many gospels that aren't included in what you call the bible today. Apocraphal gospels, etc. that were removed at the roman councils.<
Granted. But what do you find in the Apocraphal gospels that you find important to the subject at hand?
>Which bible do you mean anyway, NIV, KJV, etc.?<
KJV or NIV.
>In your talk on science being slow and so on. Faith does not come into play, we have evidence that the process works based on improvements the last few hundred years. Anti-biotics, transplants, lights, computers, even the clothes you where. Science is mainly about disproving hypotheses, you try to prove things false. What survives the scrutiny and experimentation is becomes theory, and they are worked from. The fact that at any time new evidence could arrise and a revision or new hypothesis may be needed. It is not to be treated at 100%, which is where I think your misproception is. I'm guessing you think that if we aren't 100%, then you have to top it up with faith.<
Being a scientist, I am well aware of how scientific method works. The problem today is: Researchers seem much more willing to release information as fact, when they actually have no clue as to whether the facts and evidence support their conclusions.
For example, as mentioned above, you will find many TV shows supporting the "out of Africa" theory, without the evidence to support the theory. Science theorized that Neanderthal was a modern human ancestor. Then proved he is not. And yet, they seem to claim as fact, that beings that lived 2.5 million years ago are the direct ancestors of modern human. They have no clue.
Many people do not realize that the entire case for human evolution, the actual evidence, the bones, would fit in the back of a standard pickup truck. This is over 100 years of digging. Some has been added, but it seems lately, much more evidence has to be taken out as not true.
>That absolute knowledge is needed to act, which it isn't.<
Ah, the main point. Absolute knowledge is a must, to change a theory to a law. You seem to want to place your faith behind unproven, weak, theories.
>I see that science changes as one of its greatest strengths.<
As do I. As you said above, the effort is in disproving the theory. However, many of today's scientists are leaving this thought behind. They are claiming facts not in evidence.
>You are confused on what evolution is.<
Surely not. I have been studying it for the last two decades.
>Abiogenesis a question for biochemistry is seperate from evolution. Abiogenesis is about life from non-life (though defining life is actually difficult, is a virus alive?).<
That is what I said. But to believe in the evolutionary track, you must start somewhere. That somewhere, for many scientists, is spontaneous generation.
>Evolution starts after replicating organisms and variation are present. If the answer the abio remains, we don't know, that doesn't invalidate evolution.<
I do not know what this means. Could you rephrase?
After answering this, I can onlly think of one thing that applies: College has ruined many a good plow hand.
I have always known and admitted that belief in God requires faith. You should realize that your beliefs also require faith, whatever they might be. Do not let your intelligence get in the way of truth.
Bigger
What exactly do you mean by the six day creation?
Kraft,
>BIB, I disagree on many points.<
I see that. But generally, I read blah blah blah. I see know specific arguement. But I will reply to what I do see.
>Yes, the template usually looks like this:
Q:Why does/did X happen?
A:God did it
Q:How?
A:Magic<
I did not, and have not, put into writing all I know and believe. But I have never assumed "magic" was involved.
>How are horoscopes so accurate? People shoehorn what they say to their own life, and the predictions are vague. You’re also assuming there is a message behind the confusion of the bible.<
I suppose you would just have to read the Bible a few dozen times to begin to see what is there. Reading words and understanding are two different things. I must admit, that if you read the Bible without a bit of reason that it might be true, you will get little from it.
Other than that, just the historical aspect of the Bible is fascinating.
>What do you find so wise in it?<
To numerous to write. But in general, the overall plan on how to live a successful, happy life. Whether you know it or believe it, many of the things you do throughout the day, and the way you live your life right now, comes from the Bible.
>At least you admit that your belief in the Bible and therefore the christian God is an argument to ignorance and therefore fallacious.<
There is no doubt that my ignorance is great. I freely admit it, and revel in my ignorance. Without it, there would be no reason to further explore, and to seek knowledge.
But simply because one is ignorant, does not mean that the arguement is fallacious, or that the beliefs are not true.
>Appeal to wonders. Our ignorance at certain extremems explains God?? Sorry you lost me.<
Surely. I believe, faith if you will, that God is as big, and as powerful, as time and space. In both directions, forward and back, big and small.
>You still haven't said what this thing is you believe in and why.<
I surely have. I believe in God, and his son, Jesus. I believe Dr Pepper tastes good, but bad for your health. Many other things also. What did you have in mind? If you mean God, much of it is faith. But I came to believe through research. I find the Bible to be extremely accurate on all fronts.
>There is no need for me to do this in order to lack belief in gods, it is the default position to take. A definition of the bounds of space-time, would be the set that is all the natural world.<
I have not a clue what you mean.
>By easier, I take it you mean emotionally comforting.<
No. I mean more believable.
>As you've put forward no reason to believe.<
In fact, I said at the beginning that one must find the answers on his on. I can give you many facts, and posit many theories. But I cannot give you a belief in God. Anyone must come to that on his/her own.
>You last sentance is a mistake assumption, it requires no faith (unless you're purposely conflating definitions). When you were born you were an atheist and continued to be so until you were taught and accepted a god concept. Lack of belief is simply the default position, it requires no faith whatsoever.<
You misunderstand. The given is the question, "How did we get here". The normal theories are spontaneous generation and evolution vs Divine Creation. Each requires faith.
>No, it has not been. That the places mentioned have been confirmed does not validate the bible. The Illiad mentions places that have been found, spiderman is set in NY, doesn't mean they happened.<
What did I say? As far as "time and geography". Then you go on to admit that this is true. Obviously, I did not say the events were accurate, because I was not there. Get a grip.
>Actually the standard practice of archeology has been to confirm the bible and use it as a guide. Not to falsify it.<
Actually, you are wrong. If you go back to the early days of middle east archeology, you will find that almost every digger was looking to disprove the accuracy of the Bible. In fact, they would not even use the Bible as a source.
>There is no NT text in the dead sea scrolls.<
I did not say there was.
>They are not the same as the torrah.<
What do you mean. The first five books, whether today's Bible, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, are identical.
>Lets not forget the many gospels that aren't included in what you call the bible today. Apocraphal gospels, etc. that were removed at the roman councils.<
Granted. But what do you find in the Apocraphal gospels that you find important to the subject at hand?
>Which bible do you mean anyway, NIV, KJV, etc.?<
KJV or NIV.
>In your talk on science being slow and so on. Faith does not come into play, we have evidence that the process works based on improvements the last few hundred years. Anti-biotics, transplants, lights, computers, even the clothes you where. Science is mainly about disproving hypotheses, you try to prove things false. What survives the scrutiny and experimentation is becomes theory, and they are worked from. The fact that at any time new evidence could arrise and a revision or new hypothesis may be needed. It is not to be treated at 100%, which is where I think your misproception is. I'm guessing you think that if we aren't 100%, then you have to top it up with faith.<
Being a scientist, I am well aware of how scientific method works. The problem today is: Researchers seem much more willing to release information as fact, when they actually have no clue as to whether the facts and evidence support their conclusions.
For example, as mentioned above, you will find many TV shows supporting the "out of Africa" theory, without the evidence to support the theory. Science theorized that Neanderthal was a modern human ancestor. Then proved he is not. And yet, they seem to claim as fact, that beings that lived 2.5 million years ago are the direct ancestors of modern human. They have no clue.
Many people do not realize that the entire case for human evolution, the actual evidence, the bones, would fit in the back of a standard pickup truck. This is over 100 years of digging. Some has been added, but it seems lately, much more evidence has to be taken out as not true.
>That absolute knowledge is needed to act, which it isn't.<
Ah, the main point. Absolute knowledge is a must, to change a theory to a law. You seem to want to place your faith behind unproven, weak, theories.
>I see that science changes as one of its greatest strengths.<
As do I. As you said above, the effort is in disproving the theory. However, many of today's scientists are leaving this thought behind. They are claiming facts not in evidence.
>You are confused on what evolution is.<
Surely not. I have been studying it for the last two decades.
>Abiogenesis a question for biochemistry is seperate from evolution. Abiogenesis is about life from non-life (though defining life is actually difficult, is a virus alive?).<
That is what I said. But to believe in the evolutionary track, you must start somewhere. That somewhere, for many scientists, is spontaneous generation.
>Evolution starts after replicating organisms and variation are present. If the answer the abio remains, we don't know, that doesn't invalidate evolution.<
I do not know what this means. Could you rephrase?
After answering this, I can onlly think of one thing that applies: College has ruined many a good plow hand.
I have always known and admitted that belief in God requires faith. You should realize that your beliefs also require faith, whatever they might be. Do not let your intelligence get in the way of truth.
Bigger
Kraft,
>You said you won't listen to a direct argument, so I didn't provide one.<
I do not know where or when I said that. Perhaps we have a communication problem.
>Just addressed some of your points. I'm at work right now, I'll get back to you later<
No worries.
Bigger
>You said you won't listen to a direct argument, so I didn't provide one.<
I do not know where or when I said that. Perhaps we have a communication problem.
>Just addressed some of your points. I'm at work right now, I'll get back to you later<
No worries.
Bigger
I'll try make this the last long post, and then get back to more friendly discussion. I have a tendency to go off on combative rants, which lead to nothing but offence and frustration...
Penguinsfan, I think the biblical examples might be along different lines than what I was going for. The argument to ignorance is more about positing an unjustified answer, simply based on our not knowing. The "things [that] may not make sense or seem contradictoy" are a problem when evaluating a claim, if we have one explanation that has those properties and another that is intelligible and has evidence, the latter wins is provisionally accepted. I try to use the sceptical approach, considering evidence and reason. A problem with this is that you are at risk of rejecting truths, but I think that's better than accepting falsity, with the amount of falsity around. The problem is still there, so some true items are discarded until evidence presents itself. I've been trying to take this more sceptical approach, but still have tons of work to do.
BIB, I could do without the insult, but I kind of deserve it for the hard line I took.
Your part about defining the bounds of space-time was what led me to think direct arguments would be ignored.
I assumed you weren't a naturalist due to being a theist, am I wrong on that? Magic would be things that require the suspension of natural law, like an acorn growing into a dog, or a man floating up to the sky. You could call it "miracle" or "divine intervention" if you like.
I can't deny that some parts of my daily life come from the Bible, being a christian for over half your life isn't something that just disappears. I don't however, think that the teachings are unique to christianity, they are simply good social principles. Be honest, be faithful, don't kill each other, etc. Pretty much common sense.
What I meant by argument to ignorance was that you were doing what I posted to penguin about "we don't know X, therefore Z". Z being your god.
I know you believe in the christian god, but every christian I meet takes that differently. I wanted to know what you believe or think you know about this being. Saying it's unlimited, then saying it's the christian god (that does seem to have certain properties) looks contradictory. Also, your theism seems in some ways like pantheism, simply calling the universe or existence itself god. I'm not one for throwing generic theistic arguments at people, just so they can say, "I don't define my god like that". The books I recommended are good resources for argument against theism and for atheism, as you said people have to come to it on their own, so check them out if you’re interested.
I would need to read the bible a lot more to debate it. Sources, dates, etc. I could find things to challenge you on, but it's really not my area.
The bounds thing, I am a naturalist, so the space-time bounds would include the entirety of the natural world.
Ah, I took it as just saying atheism in and of itself requires faith. I don't think spontaneous generation is actually faith, in some ways it's just an extension of naturalism. I don't have direct background in biochem so I can only go from articles I've read. Lipid bilayers form automatically, amino acids and organic compounds naturally occur, we have seen (or made, can't recall), self replicating proteins, etc. Is it not reasonable to think that whatever self replicating thing arose, it also came about naturally? What would have to be present for you to consider it life?
?
Somehow I skipped that part of the sentence, and the second one should really have been "Even if the places...". Sorry about that.
Hm, I've always heard it as originally they used the bible as a historical book, and only in recent decades have people been going against that. On Wiki, biblical archaeology looking to confirm the bible is what I'm familiar with, but in terms of middle east archaeology, you're right, it doesn't follow the bible.
The point in my mentioning all the other gospels and the DSS not including the NT, was that the Bible you have isn't something that has been passed down. It was against your claim that the bible does not change. I concede the differences in the DSS point, I know there are some, but am too lazy to search for them right now.
Agreed. The fact is they have such and such data, the conclusions are tentative and shouldn't be displayed as fact. They are simply the best we have for the time being.
I think you misunderstood me. The experiment should be repeatable, data available for scrutiny, however the conclusion isn't absolute. The conclusions drawn are tentative, and should be taken as such. Like you mentioned earlier, it shouldn't be passed off as fact. You know how science works, confirmation from more experimentation, other fields, strengthens a theory and we may call it a law if it stands enough scrutiny. Still it isn't absolute, it is just extremely well supported.
Rephrase:
That we don't know the origins of life does not impact the theory of evolution and its ability to explain things. Abiogenesis is a separate question. Evolution starts from a common ancestor or pool of ancestors, it is about the origin of species. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.
Once again I'm not sure what sense you're using faith in. As you have researched and feel your biblical belief justified, I have that kind of faith in my conclusions. As for the irrational type of faith, I'm trying to rid myself of any trace of it.
Odd you mention labour, I was going to do an apprenticeship in tool & die which looking back would have been a lot more fun than the microbio I've been doing.
Kraft
Penguinsfan, I think the biblical examples might be along different lines than what I was going for. The argument to ignorance is more about positing an unjustified answer, simply based on our not knowing. The "things [that] may not make sense or seem contradictoy" are a problem when evaluating a claim, if we have one explanation that has those properties and another that is intelligible and has evidence, the latter wins is provisionally accepted. I try to use the sceptical approach, considering evidence and reason. A problem with this is that you are at risk of rejecting truths, but I think that's better than accepting falsity, with the amount of falsity around. The problem is still there, so some true items are discarded until evidence presents itself. I've been trying to take this more sceptical approach, but still have tons of work to do.
BIB, I could do without the insult, but I kind of deserve it for the hard line I took.
Your part about defining the bounds of space-time was what led me to think direct arguments would be ignored.
I assumed you weren't a naturalist due to being a theist, am I wrong on that? Magic would be things that require the suspension of natural law, like an acorn growing into a dog, or a man floating up to the sky. You could call it "miracle" or "divine intervention" if you like.
I can't deny that some parts of my daily life come from the Bible, being a christian for over half your life isn't something that just disappears. I don't however, think that the teachings are unique to christianity, they are simply good social principles. Be honest, be faithful, don't kill each other, etc. Pretty much common sense.
What I meant by argument to ignorance was that you were doing what I posted to penguin about "we don't know X, therefore Z". Z being your god.
I know you believe in the christian god, but every christian I meet takes that differently. I wanted to know what you believe or think you know about this being. Saying it's unlimited, then saying it's the christian god (that does seem to have certain properties) looks contradictory. Also, your theism seems in some ways like pantheism, simply calling the universe or existence itself god. I'm not one for throwing generic theistic arguments at people, just so they can say, "I don't define my god like that". The books I recommended are good resources for argument against theism and for atheism, as you said people have to come to it on their own, so check them out if you’re interested.
I would need to read the bible a lot more to debate it. Sources, dates, etc. I could find things to challenge you on, but it's really not my area.
The bounds thing, I am a naturalist, so the space-time bounds would include the entirety of the natural world.
Ah, I took it as just saying atheism in and of itself requires faith. I don't think spontaneous generation is actually faith, in some ways it's just an extension of naturalism. I don't have direct background in biochem so I can only go from articles I've read. Lipid bilayers form automatically, amino acids and organic compounds naturally occur, we have seen (or made, can't recall), self replicating proteins, etc. Is it not reasonable to think that whatever self replicating thing arose, it also came about naturally? What would have to be present for you to consider it life?
?
Somehow I skipped that part of the sentence, and the second one should really have been "Even if the places...". Sorry about that. Hm, I've always heard it as originally they used the bible as a historical book, and only in recent decades have people been going against that. On Wiki, biblical archaeology looking to confirm the bible is what I'm familiar with, but in terms of middle east archaeology, you're right, it doesn't follow the bible.
The point in my mentioning all the other gospels and the DSS not including the NT, was that the Bible you have isn't something that has been passed down. It was against your claim that the bible does not change. I concede the differences in the DSS point, I know there are some, but am too lazy to search for them right now.
Agreed. The fact is they have such and such data, the conclusions are tentative and shouldn't be displayed as fact. They are simply the best we have for the time being.
I think you misunderstood me. The experiment should be repeatable, data available for scrutiny, however the conclusion isn't absolute. The conclusions drawn are tentative, and should be taken as such. Like you mentioned earlier, it shouldn't be passed off as fact. You know how science works, confirmation from more experimentation, other fields, strengthens a theory and we may call it a law if it stands enough scrutiny. Still it isn't absolute, it is just extremely well supported.
Rephrase:
That we don't know the origins of life does not impact the theory of evolution and its ability to explain things. Abiogenesis is a separate question. Evolution starts from a common ancestor or pool of ancestors, it is about the origin of species. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.
Once again I'm not sure what sense you're using faith in. As you have researched and feel your biblical belief justified, I have that kind of faith in my conclusions. As for the irrational type of faith, I'm trying to rid myself of any trace of it.
Odd you mention labour, I was going to do an apprenticeship in tool & die which looking back would have been a lot more fun than the microbio I've been doing.
Kraft
Kraft,
>BIB, I could do without the insult, but I kind of deserve it for the hard line I took.<
I looked, and could find no insults in my posts. The only thing I could find remotely possible was: "After answering this, I can only think of one thing that applies: College has ruined many a good plow hand."
I was referring to myself in that line, so I guess I insulted myself. But interesting, if you thought I was referring to you. You might check that out.
>Your part about defining the bounds of space-time was what led me to think direct arguments would be ignored.<
No. I would greatly like to get into details with you, if you have the time and desire. The line above was simply an attempt to quantify, or not quantify, the expanse and power of God, in my opinion.
>I assumed you weren't a naturalist due to being a theist, am I wrong on that? Magic would be things that require the suspension of natural law, like an acorn growing into a dog, or a man floating up to the sky. You could call it "miracle" or "divine intervention" if you like.<
I suppose in most instances, I am able to link science, and nature, into my beliefs in God. Actually quite easily by the way, but after a great deal of study. I actually have no problems, almost uniformly, with what science has produced as evidence (NOT theory), and with the literal Bible.
>I can't deny that some parts of my daily life come from the Bible, being a christian for over half your life isn't something that just disappears. I don't however, think that the teachings are unique to christianity, they are simply good social principles. Be honest, be faithful, don't kill each other, etc. Pretty much common sense.<
Actually, the morays passed down from Genesis were a new thing at that time. This was the Genesis of civilized society, if you will. These tenets have been passed down over thousands of years, and have survived the test of time. Some things have changed, but not much. No doubt, much of how you act is due to the Bible.
>What I meant by argument to ignorance was that you were doing what I posted to penguin about "we don't know X, therefore Z". Z being your god.<
Oh no. I actually enjoy and respect science, and most of the answers it provides. In the end, if there is an absolute answer, before the Lord returns, it will be that science proves God. In my opinion, it is well on it's way. I read quite a bit in this area. Each time I find a new bit of evidence, it fits very well into my template of how things have come about.
>I know you believe in the christian god, but every christian I meet takes that differently. I wanted to know what you believe or think you know about this being.<
Unlimited expanse and power. Able to instigate the Big Bang of Stephen Hawking. Not confined or constrained to a "body". Having and using conscious thought to achieve goals, and able to provide the means simply by "speaking". Able to jump tall buildings, etc.
>Saying it's unlimited, then saying it's the christian god (that does seem to have certain properties) looks contradictory.<
How so?
>Also, your theism seems in some ways like pantheism, simply calling the universe or existence itself god. I'm not one for throwing generic theistic arguments at people, just so they can say, "I don't define my god like that".<
No. I believe God is a true being. He has taken defined actions.
>I would need to read the bible a lot more to debate it. Sources, dates, etc. I could find things to challenge you on, but it's really not my area.<
Then just throw out some things that bother you about what you currently understand about the Bible. Not too many at one time though. I surely do not know everything, but I may have some good opinions on things.
>Ah, I took it as just saying atheism in and of itself requires faith. I don't think spontaneous generation is actually faith, in some ways it's just an extension of naturalism.<
I disagree. Something had to happen in order for organic forms to come about, and be able to self replicate. The natural state would tend toward chaos.
>I don't have direct background in biochem so I can only go from articles I've read. Lipid bilayers form automatically, amino acids and organic compounds naturally occur, we have seen (or made, can't recall), self replicating proteins, etc.<
Oh no. Carbon based substances can exist in a sterile vacuum. But not in any self replicating form, or even anything that could be termed amino acids, much less protein.
>Is it not reasonable to think that whatever self replicating thing arose, it also came about naturally? What would have to be present for you to consider it life?<
As far as life goes, self replication, and a functioning unit would suffice.
There are so many problems with spontaneous generation, it is hard to know where to start. Luckily, I have some things I can cut and paste.
Amino acids can not join in the presence of oxygen. If there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer and UV radiation would kill any life. Further, long chain amino acids cannot be formed in water.
What came first. The enzyme or DNA? Specific enzymes are needed in order to replicate DNA. However the instructions for making these enzymes are located on the DNA.
Why are there no primitive cells either today or in the fossil record?
PRIMATIVE CELL? J. MONOD........ we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell .... in .... its overall chemical plan is the same as that for all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing 'primitive' about them .... no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible. " .
SOURCE OF INFORMATION??? CARL SAGAN Cornell, "The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10 to the 12th power bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica."
RICHARD DAWKINS, Oxford, "Some species of the unjustly called primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopedia Britannicas.
CELL? MICHAEL DENTON Molecular Biologist (Agnostic), "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
What are the statistical odds that a primitive cell could be formed randomly? Again, scientists say the solar system is 4.6 billion years old. They say life began 3.5 billion years ago. Therefore it took 1.1 billion years to randomly form life. The simplest protein molecule of the simplest primitive cell has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. If only 100 elements are considered, the odds of these elements randomly coming together to form a single protein are 1 in 10 to the 158 power. There are only 10 to the 80 power electrons in the universe! If you had one billion attempts per second, for thirty billion years to make a 100 amino acid protein, the odds of success is 1 in 10 to the 53 power. The probability of chance formation of the DNA for a simple self replicating organism has been calculated at 1 in 10 to the 167,636 power.
EVIDENCE A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."
Finally, Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
If you believe in spontaneous generation, you must have great faith.
>Somehow I skipped that part of the sentence, and the second one should really have been "Even if the places...". Sorry about that.<
No problem.
>The point in my mentioning all the other gospels and the DSS not including the NT, was that the Bible you have isn't something that has been passed down. It was against your claim that the bible does not change. I concede the differences in the DSS point, I know there are some, but am too lazy to search for them right now.<
Why do you say, "was that the Bible you have isn't something that has been passed down."? Do you mean translations? If so, I often go back to the Hebrew to find the meaning of a word or phrase. Very helpful.
What evidence is there of textual changes? As far as I know, and I have researched it, the NT is accurate, back to the original authors. I know of no challenge in the Old Testament, except as noted concerning a couple books in the DSS, back to the original authors.
>Agreed. The fact is they have such and such data, the conclusions are tentative and shouldn't be displayed as fact. They are simply the best we have for the time being.<
But see, that is not science. There is nothing for the "time being". Only theory. You do not report any conclusions, until you are able to back up those conclusions. Look at the facts and evidence today: Almost every theory and subtheory concerning evolution, over the years, has been discarded. As of now, researchers are bumbling around, looking for something to latch onto. Most are defiant that they are getting there. But it now appears to be one step forward, and three steps back.
But the overall fact is, for research scientists, if you do not have a question or a problem, you do not eat. So they will continue to bumble, as long as they must eat.
>I think you misunderstood me. The experiment should be repeatable, data available for scrutiny, however the conclusion isn't absolute. The conclusions drawn are tentative, and should be taken as such. Like you mentioned earlier, it shouldn't be passed off as fact. You know how science works, confirmation from more experimentation, other fields, strengthens a theory and we may call it a law if it stands enough scrutiny. Still it isn't absolute, it is just extremely well supported.<
And concerning these questions, we are so far away from scientific conclusions, of any sort, no matter how small the subquestion, that no definitive position should be taken on anything.
>That we don't know the origins of life does not impact the theory of evolution and its ability to explain things.<
Why surely it does. You must start somewhere, have some foundation. It is not "magic", is it? How weak is that, to start in the middle of the story?
>Abiogenesis is a separate question. Evolution starts from a common ancestor or pool of ancestors, it is about the origin of species. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.<
No. Evolution must have started from at least one primitive cell. Period. I do not know of a scientist that disputes this. That one cell had to have come from somewhere. If not spontaneous generation, then what?
>Once again I'm not sure what sense you're using faith in. As you have researched and feel your biblical belief justified, I have that kind of faith in my conclusions. As for the irrational type of faith, I'm trying to rid myself of any trace of it.<
So, you admit that you have faith in your conclusions? That they are not absolute?
I am using faith in the sense that to believe that everything we see today, all life, came through evolution, you must have great faith. This is because it is far from proven. I posit that there is more evidence of divine creation. Surely not proven yet, and probably will not be. But evolution will never be proven. The hole is too deep.
Good stuff,
Bigger
>BIB, I could do without the insult, but I kind of deserve it for the hard line I took.<
I looked, and could find no insults in my posts. The only thing I could find remotely possible was: "After answering this, I can only think of one thing that applies: College has ruined many a good plow hand."
I was referring to myself in that line, so I guess I insulted myself. But interesting, if you thought I was referring to you. You might check that out.
>Your part about defining the bounds of space-time was what led me to think direct arguments would be ignored.<
No. I would greatly like to get into details with you, if you have the time and desire. The line above was simply an attempt to quantify, or not quantify, the expanse and power of God, in my opinion.
>I assumed you weren't a naturalist due to being a theist, am I wrong on that? Magic would be things that require the suspension of natural law, like an acorn growing into a dog, or a man floating up to the sky. You could call it "miracle" or "divine intervention" if you like.<
I suppose in most instances, I am able to link science, and nature, into my beliefs in God. Actually quite easily by the way, but after a great deal of study. I actually have no problems, almost uniformly, with what science has produced as evidence (NOT theory), and with the literal Bible.
>I can't deny that some parts of my daily life come from the Bible, being a christian for over half your life isn't something that just disappears. I don't however, think that the teachings are unique to christianity, they are simply good social principles. Be honest, be faithful, don't kill each other, etc. Pretty much common sense.<
Actually, the morays passed down from Genesis were a new thing at that time. This was the Genesis of civilized society, if you will. These tenets have been passed down over thousands of years, and have survived the test of time. Some things have changed, but not much. No doubt, much of how you act is due to the Bible.
>What I meant by argument to ignorance was that you were doing what I posted to penguin about "we don't know X, therefore Z". Z being your god.<
Oh no. I actually enjoy and respect science, and most of the answers it provides. In the end, if there is an absolute answer, before the Lord returns, it will be that science proves God. In my opinion, it is well on it's way. I read quite a bit in this area. Each time I find a new bit of evidence, it fits very well into my template of how things have come about.
>I know you believe in the christian god, but every christian I meet takes that differently. I wanted to know what you believe or think you know about this being.<
Unlimited expanse and power. Able to instigate the Big Bang of Stephen Hawking. Not confined or constrained to a "body". Having and using conscious thought to achieve goals, and able to provide the means simply by "speaking". Able to jump tall buildings, etc.
>Saying it's unlimited, then saying it's the christian god (that does seem to have certain properties) looks contradictory.<
How so?
>Also, your theism seems in some ways like pantheism, simply calling the universe or existence itself god. I'm not one for throwing generic theistic arguments at people, just so they can say, "I don't define my god like that".<
No. I believe God is a true being. He has taken defined actions.
>I would need to read the bible a lot more to debate it. Sources, dates, etc. I could find things to challenge you on, but it's really not my area.<
Then just throw out some things that bother you about what you currently understand about the Bible. Not too many at one time though. I surely do not know everything, but I may have some good opinions on things.
>Ah, I took it as just saying atheism in and of itself requires faith. I don't think spontaneous generation is actually faith, in some ways it's just an extension of naturalism.<
I disagree. Something had to happen in order for organic forms to come about, and be able to self replicate. The natural state would tend toward chaos.
>I don't have direct background in biochem so I can only go from articles I've read. Lipid bilayers form automatically, amino acids and organic compounds naturally occur, we have seen (or made, can't recall), self replicating proteins, etc.<
Oh no. Carbon based substances can exist in a sterile vacuum. But not in any self replicating form, or even anything that could be termed amino acids, much less protein.
>Is it not reasonable to think that whatever self replicating thing arose, it also came about naturally? What would have to be present for you to consider it life?<
As far as life goes, self replication, and a functioning unit would suffice.
There are so many problems with spontaneous generation, it is hard to know where to start. Luckily, I have some things I can cut and paste.
Amino acids can not join in the presence of oxygen. If there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer and UV radiation would kill any life. Further, long chain amino acids cannot be formed in water.
What came first. The enzyme or DNA? Specific enzymes are needed in order to replicate DNA. However the instructions for making these enzymes are located on the DNA.
Why are there no primitive cells either today or in the fossil record?
PRIMATIVE CELL? J. MONOD........ we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell .... in .... its overall chemical plan is the same as that for all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing 'primitive' about them .... no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible. " .
SOURCE OF INFORMATION??? CARL SAGAN Cornell, "The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10 to the 12th power bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica."
RICHARD DAWKINS, Oxford, "Some species of the unjustly called primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopedia Britannicas.
CELL? MICHAEL DENTON Molecular Biologist (Agnostic), "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
What are the statistical odds that a primitive cell could be formed randomly? Again, scientists say the solar system is 4.6 billion years old. They say life began 3.5 billion years ago. Therefore it took 1.1 billion years to randomly form life. The simplest protein molecule of the simplest primitive cell has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. If only 100 elements are considered, the odds of these elements randomly coming together to form a single protein are 1 in 10 to the 158 power. There are only 10 to the 80 power electrons in the universe! If you had one billion attempts per second, for thirty billion years to make a 100 amino acid protein, the odds of success is 1 in 10 to the 53 power. The probability of chance formation of the DNA for a simple self replicating organism has been calculated at 1 in 10 to the 167,636 power.
EVIDENCE A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."
Finally, Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
If you believe in spontaneous generation, you must have great faith.
>Somehow I skipped that part of the sentence, and the second one should really have been "Even if the places...". Sorry about that.<
No problem.
>The point in my mentioning all the other gospels and the DSS not including the NT, was that the Bible you have isn't something that has been passed down. It was against your claim that the bible does not change. I concede the differences in the DSS point, I know there are some, but am too lazy to search for them right now.<
Why do you say, "was that the Bible you have isn't something that has been passed down."? Do you mean translations? If so, I often go back to the Hebrew to find the meaning of a word or phrase. Very helpful.
What evidence is there of textual changes? As far as I know, and I have researched it, the NT is accurate, back to the original authors. I know of no challenge in the Old Testament, except as noted concerning a couple books in the DSS, back to the original authors.
>Agreed. The fact is they have such and such data, the conclusions are tentative and shouldn't be displayed as fact. They are simply the best we have for the time being.<
But see, that is not science. There is nothing for the "time being". Only theory. You do not report any conclusions, until you are able to back up those conclusions. Look at the facts and evidence today: Almost every theory and subtheory concerning evolution, over the years, has been discarded. As of now, researchers are bumbling around, looking for something to latch onto. Most are defiant that they are getting there. But it now appears to be one step forward, and three steps back.
But the overall fact is, for research scientists, if you do not have a question or a problem, you do not eat. So they will continue to bumble, as long as they must eat.
>I think you misunderstood me. The experiment should be repeatable, data available for scrutiny, however the conclusion isn't absolute. The conclusions drawn are tentative, and should be taken as such. Like you mentioned earlier, it shouldn't be passed off as fact. You know how science works, confirmation from more experimentation, other fields, strengthens a theory and we may call it a law if it stands enough scrutiny. Still it isn't absolute, it is just extremely well supported.<
And concerning these questions, we are so far away from scientific conclusions, of any sort, no matter how small the subquestion, that no definitive position should be taken on anything.
>That we don't know the origins of life does not impact the theory of evolution and its ability to explain things.<
Why surely it does. You must start somewhere, have some foundation. It is not "magic", is it? How weak is that, to start in the middle of the story?
>Abiogenesis is a separate question. Evolution starts from a common ancestor or pool of ancestors, it is about the origin of species. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.<
No. Evolution must have started from at least one primitive cell. Period. I do not know of a scientist that disputes this. That one cell had to have come from somewhere. If not spontaneous generation, then what?
>Once again I'm not sure what sense you're using faith in. As you have researched and feel your biblical belief justified, I have that kind of faith in my conclusions. As for the irrational type of faith, I'm trying to rid myself of any trace of it.<
So, you admit that you have faith in your conclusions? That they are not absolute?
I am using faith in the sense that to believe that everything we see today, all life, came through evolution, you must have great faith. This is because it is far from proven. I posit that there is more evidence of divine creation. Surely not proven yet, and probably will not be. But evolution will never be proven. The hole is too deep.
Good stuff,
Bigger
Similar threads
