It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 





Saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it can't explain the origins of life is like saying the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it can't explain the origins of gravity. Damn those evil gravatationists!!!


This is getting so old, the same old lines getting regurgitated over and over again. Come up with something new and fresh for a change.

edit on 6-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it can't explain the origins of life is like saying the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it can't explain the origins of gravity. Damn those evil gravatationists!!!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Firepac
 





Saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it can't explain the origins of life is like saying the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it can't explain the origins of gravity. Damn those evil gravatationists!!!


This is getting so old, the same old lines getting regurgitated over and over again. Come up with something new and fresh for a change.

edit on 6-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


Awww you can't refute it so you come up with an excuse instead.

You still haven't explain why the Theory of Evolution depends on the origin of life. Your nonsense really is getting old and tiresome now.

The only reason that creationists conflate abiogenesis with evolution is because they think they can "disprove" evolution by finding flaws with abiogenesis.
edit on 6-2-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 





The only reason that creationists conflate abiogenesis with evolution is because they know they can "disprove" evolution by finding flaws with abiogenesis.


(Italics and bold my change)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Firepac
 


This is getting so old, the same old lines getting regurgitated over and over again. Come up with something new and fresh for a change.

edit on 6-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


The Theory of Evolution explains the process of evolution and the diversity of life.

It was never meant to explain the origin of life, just how it evolves.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Well, they're old arguments because this sort of thing came up and was knocked down ages ago. We know abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. I provided you will all sorts of arguments and you just dismissed them without ever proving your assertion that abiogenesis and evolution must be thought of as a whole.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Except that you can't. And your change was about as ignorant as anything else you've said in this thread.

I'm going to ask you for the umpteenth time: How would evolution be disproved by finding flaws in abiogenesis?

I'm seriously running out of ways to ask that question.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Bill Nye:



They're doing their job but they're under tremendous pressure. The 60 percent who are cautious--those are the people who are really up against it. They want to keep their job, and they love teaching science, and their children are really excited about it, and yet they've got some people insisting they can't teach the most fundamental idea in all of biology. There's the phrase "just a theory." Which shows you that I have failed. I'm a failure. When we have a theory in science, it's the greatest thing you can have. Relativity is a theory, and people test it every which way. They test it and test it and test it. Gravity is a theory. People have landed spacecraft on the moon within a few feet of accuracy because we understand gravity so well. People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick. Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That's all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it's a theory that you can test. We've tested evolution in many ways. You can't present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact.


He's spot on!



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



The Weasel applet mimics evolution, not abiogenesis.

But:

Conclusion
This applet's ability to guess phrases doesn't prove that evolution happened, of course.


As for the following statements quoted below:

I was planning on not responding to it but decided to in order to set matters straight and correct the slander.

You said:

...
Nothing. What they prove is that either God is evil – because He has the power to end suffering but refrains from doing so – or He does not exist. A subtle but important difference.


As a reminder, we are talking about origins, abiogenesis theory/evolution theory.

But since you brought this up then let me please reply because I find your statements above perplexing in that when man commits wicked acts, God is blamed for it. Or if God acts in behalf of his people – to rescue them from bondage, slavery and great suffering, non-believers are quick to point out and quick to accuse him of being evil.


For example (in addition to your statement) here's one of the favorites:

“God is evil because he killed the firstborn of Egypt”

This statement had been employed so many times to portray God as evil but always neglecting the fact that God’s people (Israel) were under the hard yoke of Egypt for 400 years. And that Pharaoh was warned so many times to let his people Israel go. Instead Pharaoh hardened his hearth and challenges God. But inspite of the challenge and disrespect to God, still he provided a way out in order to save the firstborn of both the Israelites and the Egyptians. Yet Pharaoh and his people continued to disobey and harden their hearts and the result was unavoidable.

But then, if God doesn’t do anything he is accused of being evil also for not acting quickly, even accused of being powerless or does not exist – case in point you own words (by mistake I hope).

“God is evil – because He has the power to end suffering but refrains from doing so – or He does not exist.”

The irony.
Next:

...
No – only that the designer recognized no moral responsibilty for the use of his invention. How about the rack, the thumbscrew and the high-tension electrode applied to the genitals? What does their existence prove?


Q is: “What does their existence prove”?

First, let's get the facts out of the way – do you agree that such things had a maker? That they didn't just happen to be? I'm sure you agree. Thus it proves that they have a creator (bad/good).

Since abiogenesis/evolution theory on the other hand does not care any of these things then it has no logical and satisfying answer.

But I'm aware of what you're trying to do (blindly I hope): portray God evil. And since you and others do not believe that he exists then any defense/argument presented is moot. In any case I still would like to present the facts in order to (as I already said) respond to the slander.

(Note: someone here on ATS is THE Champion on this line of reasoning. Love to ridicule and prove that God is -with a capital- E-vil. I'm sure he/she will show up any moment now.)

But this is to be expected because the scripture already revealed that:

“For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.”” (2 Peter 3:3-4)

Going further with your line of reasoning, let's add to your list the B1 bomber, the Trident nuclear submarine, the flamethrower and other instruments of death that you can imagine made by man. These instruments of death although used in such unimaginable way to kill and maim people, can also be used in a good and upright way. Do you agree?

Let's take your example:

“the rack, the thumbscrew and the high-tension electrode” – are there any practical / good usage that you can think of beyond what evil people originaly used them for?

Here's mine: The rack – this medieval instrument of torture can be used as firewood to cook food. The high-tension electrodes can be used to cook and warm food also and the thumbscrew can be used for pinning beautiful works of arts or paintings to the wall.

What about the B1 bomber – let's paint it blue and carry food supplies instead of bombs and deliver them to the so called enemies. Do the same thing with the nuclear subs. Do you have any idea at all what would be the result in a year or two?

In fact do you know what would happen to the world as a whole if each member nation of the United Nations Organization actually applied what's chiseled in front of its building? Any idea what will become of the earth?

Here's what it says:


“They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." — Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3.”


What would be the overwhelming result if ALL of these intruments of death were beaten up into "plowshares" and "pruning hooks"?

But do you know why man is unable to accomplish this task even though it’s the desire of man/woman living on earth since time immemorial - live in peace? Any idea why man’s government since the beginning of the first world power Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome down to our time – Anglo-American world power were/are powerless?

Here’s the main reason:

“We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.” (1 John 5:19)

“stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:11, 12)

The rest is due to man’s own imperfect/sinful inclination – his own (wrong) doing. (Rom 5:12)

Of course, since "abiogenesis/evolution theory" doesn't care any of these things - it doesn't matter to you (I guess).

But think about this for a moment or two, what would happen if mankind applied Jesus' words below?

“Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.” (John 7:16)

“All things, therefore, that YOU want men to do to YOU, YOU also must likewise do to them.” (Matthew 7:12) - The Golden Rule

““Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40). - The Greatest Commandments

God has given man life and the freedom to choose, yet majority of mankind choose to use this freedom to serve his own purpose, do his own will and sadly enslave and oppress his fellowman.

But happily time is almost over for man to rule his fellowman – God will need to step in the near future in order to save man from his own hands.

Remember the “Our Father Prayer”? Many people keep repeating it in churches but most have no idea what they are asking for.

When it says: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. (Matthew 6:10 ASV)

It means this:

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;” (Daniel 2:44)

The total removal of man's rule on earth once and for all times (including those who promoted and supported it – religionists are foremost on these – have the Bible/Koran on one hand, a gun/sword on the other hand).

Once accomplished – here's what follows:

“With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3, 4)

Is there any government that is able to do these: “wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore”? The former things have passed away? No! That is why we pray for this kingdom for it is the solution to mankind's long standing problems.

Note: there are more scriptures to cite but the above should give you an idea.

And since Jesus died for all – you too Astyanax are entitled to hear this:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the knowledge of God. He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love. By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:7-10)

And like what I said, time is fast running out (Matthew 24:14).

Soon he will use his power by means of His son Jesus Christ the King of kings to “crush and put an end to all these kingdoms” in order to save those loving him and his laws.

“For this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Following after [the] glory he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball” (Zechariah 2:8)

It pains him to see his people suffer at the hands of evildoers – like touching his eyeball, a very sensitive part of a body.

So no, just because man used and continue to use many his inventions in the wrong way does not mean that Jehovah God/Yahweh is responsible for their badness just as a father is not responsible for his son's badness nor a proof that the father does not exist.

Whether you believe these things or not – it's your (God given) choice. You can continue believing in a constantly changing theory or on the unchanging word of God.

Conundrum for you:

Since you don’t believe that a loving God/Creator exists, who then is responsible for all of the evil and wickedness done on earth since the “evolution of man”? Is it correct to say “abiogenenesis theory”, “organic evolution theory” or man himself is responsible? If so, will evil and wickedness end or will man eventually end himself?

But if you suddenly had a change of heart and mind and came to the conclusion that a loving God and Creator do exists, then why wickedness and suffering and death?

If you want to continue this discussion may I suggest going here – I’ve already explained it in great detail the real reasons why.


As for the quotes from “authorities” – I’m surprised that you’ve treated them as “assiduous quote-mining ”. With your knowledge and intellect you should be able to determine of these “authorities” were honest and forthcoming in their statements.

Reason why I provided them is that, on my own – I have no such authority on such complex subject matter. As a matter of fact, I was ridiculed one time when I tried to explain the problems facing such theories.

But now, if/when I provide statements from such authorities – you seem to brush them off as just mere “assiduous quote-mining”. Why is that? Don’t they carry any weight at all when their own finding goes against the accepted/expected results? Or do you/we only recognized them as authorities when it suites pre-conceived ideas?

Anyway…

...be back later to address the rest of your post.

Ciao,
edmc2

edit on 9-2-2011 by edmc^2 because: in/with



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

This statement had been employed so many times to portray God as evil but always neglecting the fact that God’s people (Israel) were under the hard yoke of Egypt for 400 years. And that Pharaoh was warned so many times to let his people Israel go.


That's enough for me right there.

A tribe of Hebrews assembled a collection of myths, distorted histories, rules and fictions and used them to prove god was theirs and they were superior to the rest of the human race. The Torah is all about the right - no, the obligation - to kill or enslave the surrounding peoples. It is a self-congratulatory justification for mass murder. The bible is full of blood-curdling records of god-ordained massacres and genocides, as the priests of this tribal theocracy drove the tribe to wipe out all rival tribes and steal their land in the name of Yahweh, their bloodthirsty deity.

If you are not one of "God's people", and you worship this god of the Jews, you are a fool.
If you are a Jew, and you worship him, you are an egomaniac.


The amazing thing is that so many posters, on a site which claims to deny ignorance, use a belief in that ancient warped fairytale as if it is some sort of counter to science.

Evolution happened/happens.

There is good reason to believe life could have started on earth through chemical reactions.

However if the first self-replicating RNA occurred though seeding from space, alien intervention, or some supernatural power, evolution still happened/happens.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Pardon me for not bothering to read beyond the first paragraph of your sermon. I have better things to do. Besides, this was far enough for me:


When man commits wicked acts, God is blamed for it.

On the contrary, the doctrine of original sin blames Man for God's wicked acts.

Did man create the ichneumon wasp?

Did man think up the virus?

Did man invent cancer?

Knowing how these things work, an honest deist has no option but to conclude that God is a sadistic fiend. But Christianity, a fundamentally dishonest enterprise, finds a way out by blaming their existence on Man. Adam's fall was, we are told, the origin of all these nasty little pieces of work.

Anyone who believes that is a potential customer for Brooklyn Bridge.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well thanks for going through the first paragraph but I wished you’ve gone further as it answers your questions. It shows plainly where the fault resides. Anyway that’s neither here nor there - unless you change your mind.

As for “Christianity” being “a fundamentally dishonest enterprise” – this is what confuses people, that is, Christendom vs. Christianity -a totally different sets of belief.

For example, a growing number in Christendom subscribe and are now subscribing to the “abiogenesis/evolution theory. Because of this many had abandoned the God of the Bible. They call themselves Theist Evolutionists. Foremost of these is a Professor named Ken Miller. Then there are the convicting records of Christendom. Throughout the centuries we have undeniable records of atrocities, wickedness, immorality committed by Christendom’s leaders and its members – from the dark ages to the present. A simple google results in thousands of hits just for starters. But to just name a few – Christendom's leaders and members are busy themselves in support of politicians and corrupt governments. In fact they themselves become part of politics, become political candidates themselves. Able to command thousands of followers to put them in office.They equate God with Country. They preach to their members that “to serve your country is to serve God”. “To give your life for your country is to give your life to God”. They hold the Bible on one hand while holding a gun on the other hand. The most reprehensible of all – abused of innocent children. This is the “fundamentally dishonest enterprise” that I believe you’re talking about.

“In the name of God, kill them all’ says the bishop of Germany. In the name of God, kill them all says the bishop of England. Go, fight in the name of God says the bishop of United States. Come here, I’ll bless your weapons says the priest before sending the troops to die in battle”. Praying to same god for the death of their fellow brother and believer.

What about today? Is it still happening?

On this Jesus’ own words apply:

“In that way YOU also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside YOU are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matthew 23:28)

On this also, the famous Mahatma Gandhi said:


I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


Because of the corruption of Christianity by Christendom many had abbandoned any form of pure worship and painted all religion as corrupt. Thus labled God as evil.

True Christianity on the other hand as taught by its founder - Jesus Christ is marked by superlative attributes. Foremost of these is love, then kindness, mercy, forgiveness and other wonderful attributes. And we have undeniable records of it in the Bible that when applied the results are undeniably Good and Right.

Just the application of two sets of commandments alone one can fulfill the ENTIRE commandments of God, namely:

‘The Golden Rule’ and ‘The Two Greatest Commandments’.

Because they are not just rules but Principles.

But since you do not believe in the existence of God / Creator, like what I said already, any explanation about God and evil is moot. On the other hand –a No God philosophy/belief then, means that man is truly responsible for all of the wickedness perpetrated on earth since his evolution. Don’t you agree? Unless you’re saying its “evolution” that is responsible and not its imperfect product.

So which one is responsible then: a God that (you believe) don’t exist, imperfect man or “evolution”?

BTW, are the statement that I ‘quote-mined’ (as you assiduously refer to) show the problems facing “abiogenesis/evolution theory”?

For example:


“These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955. – Dr. Miller


Is Dr. Miller himself correct?

Ciao,
edmc2.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Sorry to say this but, you’re statements are similar to “The Champion/s” that I mentioned. Any chance you’re that same person? Anyway, if you’re not, sorry to say this again, but you’ve been misled by them too. Sad thing is, most who say these things never read, or read just a few pages of the Bible and most gave up understanding and studying it for various reasons (including the ones you’ve mentioned above).

But since you don’t believed that it is God’s word, any explanation is moot, correct? Thus the only recourse of course, as expected – fall back to the same phrase.

That is:


Evolution happened/happens.


But at least you’re admitting that something rather than nothing started life, that is, the “chemical reactions” did not occur by “blind chance” or an “unguided process” as some here is fond of saying. Interesting thing is, you may not be that far off from other scientists who believed that “alien intervention, or some supernatural power” was responsible for the “spark” or as Darwin said “breath” of life.

In fact some of these brilliant people who honestly looked at the evidence became convinced that indeed, a “supernatural power” was behind all of these (both the invisible as well as the visible). Upon acknowledging God’s existence their knowledge became wisdom.

As for man - being of the elements of the earth/universe, it is a fact that we are composed of it. Only a fool will deny that, but the process by which it was put together, the causal force behind its eventual existence that is where the question lies. Abiogenesis don't have any answer.

But if you really believe that an “alien intervention, or some supernatural power” was responsible for it, then why is it difficult to say that Jehovah God/Yahweh was the Creator?

Is it because of the pre-conceived often mentioned ideas that you’ve mentioned above? Then you’re problem is with people who misrepresented God and those who distorted and misinterpreted his Words and actions. For if you study it closely with an open mind (as I did/others) you will come to a different conclusion as (I did and others).

Jesus said: God is Love (1 John 4:16).

From a lowly sheep herder (Moses):

“And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth,” (Exo 34:6 -American Standard Version)

Give it a chance and see what happens.

So any chance that "abiogenesis theory" will adapt your line of thought? That is, that an “alien intervention, or some supernatural power” was responsible for the existence of life?

Should I hold my breath?

Ciao,
edmc2



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




For example:


“These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955. – Dr. Miller



Is Dr. Miller himself correct?


Well, yes he was. In 1955

See that is something that distinguishes science from Bible fundamentalism. Science grows and accumulates knowledge over time. Questions that could be answered in 1955 may very well be answered today.

Miller's statement was from 55 years ago, a lot has changed in science since then. The newest parts of the Bible are almost 2000 years old, the part you are relying on are 3000 to 3500 years old, and nothing has changed since then, for you.

In the intervening 55 years since Dr. Miller pointed out the shortcomings in his knowledge, evidence has been accumulated for a reduction atmosphere: see Early Earth and the Evolution of the Atmosphere and Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth

On the other hand, other scientists point out that a reducing atmosphere is not the only environment that could hold the keys to abiogenesis. Deep sea thermal vents also provide a rich environment for organic chemistry. The Miller/Urey experiment is justifiably famous, but it is by no means the last word in abiogenesis hypotheses. Its value is that it proves beyond doubt that 100% natural chemistry can lead to the precursors of life. There has never been any claim that the assumptions he worked from was the exact set of circumstances that led to life on Earth as we know it. Your quote from Dr. Miller demonstrates this simple fact beyond doubt.

Creationist organizations like answersingenesis.org and biblicalcreation.org make much ado about nothing when they disparage the Miller/Urey experiment. To science, it really doesn't matter whether the Miller/Urey reducing atmosphere assumption is the right one, what matters is that there is at least one way for it to have happened, and therefore there may have been others. Some scientists continue to work on the reducing atmosphere models, especially since the reducing atmosphere is generally confirmed, but today most prefer deep sea vent models because the chemistry is so much easier. The final answer is likely to be found in some sort of combination, like maybe the Miller/Urey lightening created the organic compounds that found their way into the ocean and to the neighborhood of the vents, or something.

Creationists are just wasting their time attacking the idea of a reducing atmosphere in order to disprove that a 50 year old experiment that most scientists have moved past. Especially since disproving the reducing atmosphere doesn't have anything to do with proving a supernatural creation.


edit on 12/2/2011 by rnaa because: hilight the year of Dr. Miller quote



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




On the other hand –a No God philosophy/belief then, means that man is truly responsible for all of the wickedness perpetrated on earth since his evolution. Don’t you agree? Unless you’re saying its “evolution” that is responsible and not its imperfect product.


Not answering for Astyanax, but no I do not agree, your proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. Earthquakes and floods are not caused by man. Until recently floods, famine, drought, and pestilence were not caused by man. Man did not cause the evolution of viruses or bacteria, but recently have contributed to the multiplication of their deadliness.

Man invented God so there would be some kind of explanation for these occurrences. Even 'wickedness' that has not 'hidden', like war is blamed on God, in spite of the admonishment 'Thou shalt not kill' . Something like 90% of the human science and technology can be directly attributed to the necessity of war, yet war is Godly, and science is the embodiment Evil to you.

Understand that I am trying to claim that God is a bad concept. Humanity simply would not be humanity were it not for God. I think that God was needed as a scapegoat to preserve the psychology of the race, sure, but equally it was needed to inspire to greater things. Art is at least as important a factor in the ascent of man as war.

Whether God exists or not is really irrelevant as a question, because if it does not, then it would have been necessary to invent it.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Kailassa
 

Sorry to say this but, you’re statements are similar to “The Champion/s” that I mentioned. Any chance you’re that same person? Anyway, if you’re not, sorry to say this again, but you’ve been misled by them too.

great way to start.

I find it very insulting that you begin by suggesting I'm using sockies. I don't recall even seeing that name online.
I can hardly have been misled by someone whose writings I have never read.


Sad thing is, most who say these things never read, or read just a few pages of the Bible and most gave up understanding and studying it for various reasons (including the ones you’ve mentioned above).

This is where you show, by making presumptions that people with a different point of view haven't done their research, you have no interest in a dialogue. I've quite likely read the bible through more times than you've had birthdays. I've also read many commentaries on it.


But since you don’t believed that it is God’s word, any explanation is moot, correct? Thus the only recourse of course, as expected – fall back to the same phrase.

Ah, your fall-back position - if you have read it you wouldn't have been able to understand it anyway.



That is:
Evolution happened/happens.

Evolution quite provably happens. Do you have a problem with that?


But at least you’re admitting that something rather than nothing started life, that is, the “chemical reactions” did not occur by “blind chance” or an “unguided process” as some here is fond of saying. Interesting thing is, you may not be that far off from other scientists who believed that “alien intervention, or some supernatural power” was responsible for the “spark” or as Darwin said “breath” of life.

Really? Which of my posts do you get that I'm: "admitting that something rather than nothing started life"?
I find the experiments done testing the theory of abiogenesis quite compelling.
It's particularly interesting to see what happens when you mix the gasses present in the oxygen-free environment that existed on Earth billions of years ago into water and freeze them.

All I am saying is that naturally occurring abiogenesis is not a component of evolution, as even if the beginnings of life fell off an asteroid or were created, evolution still happened. Evolution is what happened after life began.


In fact some of these brilliant people who honestly looked at the evidence became convinced that indeed, a “supernatural power” was behind all of these (both the invisible as well as the visible). Upon acknowledging God’s existence their knowledge became wisdom.

And many other brilliant people have honestly looked at the evidence and been convinced this world happened without the intervention of a supernatural entity, and saw what you call wisdom as an inclination to believe in fairy-tales. What's more, they found this inclination to have a genetic component, and have studied the probable means by which this inclination evolved.


As for man - being of the elements of the earth/universe, it is a fact that we are composed of it. Only a fool will deny that, but the process by which it was put together, the causal force behind its eventual existence that is where the question lies. Abiogenesis don't have any answer.

You have not supplied any evidence for there being a causal force behind the existence of the universe.


But if you really believe that an “alien intervention, or some supernatural power” was responsible for it, then why is it difficult to say that Jehovah God/Yahweh was the Creator?

You have totally misunderstood my posts. I do not believe that at all.

I said:

Originally posted by Kailassa:
There is good reason to believe life could have started on earth through chemical reactions.

However if the first self-replicating RNA occurred though seeding from space, alien intervention, or some supernatural power, evolution still happened/happens.

Do I need to explain to you the meaning of "if"?


Is it because of the pre-conceived often mentioned ideas that you’ve mentioned above? Then you’re problem is with people who misrepresented God and those who distorted and misinterpreted his Words and actions. For if you study it closely with an open mind (as I did/others) you will come to a different conclusion as (I did and others).

You having an open mind?

I've read the bible, the same bible that glorifies a "god" who has a pet group of thugs who he repeatedly encourages to massacre all the surrounding tribes, and even kills a king for daring to show mercy by leaving a person alive.

Have you never thought about the purpose behind priests of a theocratic tribe glorifying a group of writings which states god has made the special and gives them the right, some would even say duty, to kill all those surrounding them?
You're blind to the truth because you have been indoctrinated into an offshoot of this ancient tribal sect, and have invested too much of yourself in it to be capable of standing back and looking at these beliefs with your eyes open.


Jesus said: God is Love (1 John 4:16).

Yet those who worshipped YaHWeH decided to kill him for healing and picking corn on the Sabbath.
I guess the whole old testament, with it's laws demanding slaughter of homosexuals, witches, raped girls who didn't scream loud enough to get rescued, and people who worked on the Sabbath was just a misunderstanding, right?


From a lowly sheep herder (Moses):
“And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth,” (Exo 34:6 -American Standard Version)

Moses ... the leader lucky enough to be mooned by YHWH and then killed off by him before the tribe entered the promised land.
I guess it was a different YHWH who burst into Abraham's tent, wanting to kill him for not having chopped the end off his penis.


Should I hold my breath?

That's an excellent idea.
But not for too long, just until the Rapture.




posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Understand that I am trying to claim that God is a bad concept.


I apologize.

That sentence is mistyped and actually conveys the exact opposite of what I meant to say. I left out the word 'not'. It is now too late for me to edit it.

It should have read:

Understand that I am NOT trying to claim that God is a bad concept.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The basic challenges to what is quoted above are so numerous that you could write full books on every one of them and you would have an encyclopedia of them. However I will not bore you with all that.

Really? Please, by all means, let's see this encyclopedic work you claim exists. It wouldn't be a bore at all. I'm betting a majority of it is just a refutation of the original Miller-Urey experiment, which has been refined over time as a better understanding of primordial conditions has been gained.

Still waiting on that encyclopedic body of evidence, OP.
edit on 13/2/2011 by iterationzero because: nested quote fail



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


And I'm still waiting for Blue_Jay33 to come back to this thread and back up his assertion in the title with something that amounts to a cogent argument.

Don't hold your breath.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



reply to post by rnaa
 



Not answering for Astyanax, but no I do not agree, your proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. Earthquakes and floods are not caused by man. Until recently floods, famine, drought, and pestilence were not caused by man.


rnaa - we were not talking about natural disasters but "evil" – wickedness committed by man. But since you thrown natural disasters it into the mix - then let me address it too.

BTW, to believe in the existence of a loving God is not a “ridiculous” proposition.

As it was brought up already, due to man's rejection of his Creator's guidance and protection. Due to man's greed and selfishness, he rejected his Father's loving hand. It was man's challenge to God that there was no need for him. That mankind can live by themselves, create their own way of life without any help from their Creator. In short, it is like slapping God in the face and saying to him leave us alone. So with sadness, God let man prove his claim. Yet when calamity strikes who gets blamed? By your words above - who are u blaming for "Earthquakes and floods"..."floods, famine, drought, and pestilence"? Is it not God?

Why blame him since you've rejected him and don't believe that he exist?

But here's what's ridiculous imho, let's take a look at your next statement. You said:


Man did not cause the evolution of viruses or bacteria, but recently have contributed to the multiplication of their deadliness.


So if not man – then who? I guess it's God's fault. But since you believe that he does not exist then where did “viruses or bacteria” came from? I thought you believe these living things evolved or products of abiogenesis? If so, then who or to be precise what is the caused of all of these? Is it evolution/abiogenesis? Unless you're saying that “God” created all of these? But how could that be since he does not exist?

Next one is amazing!


Man invented God so there would be some kind of explanation for these occurrences. Even 'wickedness' that has not 'hidden', like war is blamed on God, in spite of the admonishment 'Thou shalt not kill' . Something like 90% of the human science and technology can be directly attributed to the necessity of war, yet war is Godly, and science is the embodiment Evil to you.


Interesting psychoanalysis, this concept of yours rnaa, if that's what you really think or implying honest hearted religious people think and believed. Or is that what you really believed?

That is:


"Man invented God so there would be some kind of explanation for these occurrences."


If so are you saying then that man invented God so that he can have someone to blame (other than himself)? It's like someone blaming an imaginary person after robbing a bank – he made me do it. It's like a self justification don't you think?

Man kills man, man invents God, God gives command not to kill, but man kills man anyway and then blames his invented God. Disaster strikes (man-made/natural) blames his invented God for it. So who is it that man is actually blaming then? Is that what you really think how religious people think and believed?

That's exactly what you are saying as I see it. Do you actually believe this philosophy? And actually teach it to others?

That is, man came from nothing by unguided process – then evolves from lower form to higher form to the present then invents God so that he can attribute things to God, then used God to either advance himself or justify his wars and atrocities. Then tries to convince himself that there's no God, that he is all by himself, so those who believe are delusional or nuts. But in order to advance, invents God anyway at the same time says that there's no such thing. Is that like a self deception?

“Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.—Col. 2:8.”

But to those who really believe in him here's a promise:

"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” -- Revelation 21:3,4 (Isa 35:1-10)

Then you accused me that "science is the embodiment Evil to you."

On the contrary - let me repeat again what I said so many times.

Science or scientific achievement is not the issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of science and scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics (my field) have ushered in the computer age (iphone/ipad, etc), which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats (split the atoms/genome project), even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from small things (nanotechnology) to infinitely large ones (CERN). We are very grateful for SCIENCE because of these achievements.

But when scientific knowledge and inventions are used for the wrong purpose - then it becomes evil. I hope you get my point. If not, case in point:

The discovery of atom led to many useful inventions but it also led to the destruction and deaths of many people. This great invention might now the very thing that will destroy life as we know it (if not stopped). But who has the power to stop it? Man himself? What are the chances of success? Now if God as you say is just a figment of imagination then who will stop these madness? What's the guaranty that a nuclear war will not happen in the future? Can you or man guaranty that? Can the scientific community who is responsible of it's discovery is able to close "Pandora’s box'?


Happily the God that I believe in is a loving God and will not allow man to destroy his own creation:

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;” (Daniel 2:44)

Of course these promises to you are nonsense since they are only a figment of man's imagination, thus they are unreality.

Yet again, you say that:


Understand that I am trying to claim that God is [NOT] a bad concept. Humanity simply would not be humanity were it not for God. I think that God was needed as a scapegoat to preserve the psychology of the race, sure, but equally it was needed to inspire to greater things. Art is at least as important a factor in the ascent of man as war.

Whether God exists or not is really irrelevant as a question, because if it does not, then it would have been necessary to invent it.
-- insert [NOT]

So in other words, what your saying is that God is only a facade or as Carl Marx said: "religion is the opiate of the masses". It was needed to feed a "gnawing urge", the need to find an explanation to reality, a “scapegoat to preserve the psychology of the race”, and at the same time “inspire himself to greater things”.

In other words, “Humanity simply would not be humanity were it not for God.” An invented God, that is.


If so that must be one of the greatest invention of man. Imagine, the Genesis account, Jesus - his life and works, his unmatched teaching, the prophets, the Bible, the historical facts, the Golden Rules, the death of thousands of Christians at the hands of evildoers to stay loyal to their God - all of these are just figments of imagination. An invention to blame for man’s own shortcomings and also at the same time “to preserve the psychology of the race, sure, but equally it was needed to inspire to greater things. Art is at least as important a factor in the ascent of man as war.”

If so - imho man is doomed because if your concept of God is true, just a figment of imagination then man is truly is on his own.

Reality check:

This invention that your talking about - that is, an imaginary God - if this is all there is. Then there's nothing to worry about the future, correct?

Thus the prophecy below is just a figment of imagination, correct?

"Keep praying that YOUR flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.” (Matthew 24:15-22)

After all, we are all products of evolution - from lowly worm to brilliant minds - all brothers, correct?

Finally,

How confident are you with the future? Bright one? Can science resolve man's growing problems? Can man successfully solve his own problem - the threat of economic collapse, natural disasters, terrorism, pollution, population explosion, famine, increasing of lawlessness, collapse of moral values, nuclear as well as biological threats? This is the reality that man is now facing - at an incredibly alarming rate - in-spite of advancements in science and technology.

If man is just a product of evolution - then may an imaginary God have mercy on us.

ciao,
edmc2



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join