Debunking Original Sin

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

It is a consideration outside what is already believed - that is all.
I don't get insights in a book.

And what kind of insights are you looking for? Subjective speculation that operates independently of scientifically verified data, or scientifically verified data that determines the results of objective speculation?

If I were a scientist I would investigate my idea. If I found it to hold merit I would publish it and see if it could be proved wrong. But I am not a scientist - it was just an idea that arose.

I have watched bumble bees and it is truly amazing that they can fly - but they sort of bumble about and seem to get swept away in the breeze. Air seems to be a lot thicker for bumble bees somehow.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

How about you do some reading so you aren't just perpetually feeding off of your limited personal database?

I find it strange that you consider yourself to be a kind person. Would you like to read a reply like this posted to you when you put forward a consideration?

I find it strange that you don't do your research. I'm not here to please people, I am here to learn and help others learn. If you want to know how bumblebees fly, read a book or Google it and do some studying so when someone asks you, you don't have to speculate. When I have a question, I look it up and educate myself. It does tend to annoy people when strange trivia comes up and I jump in with an ad nauseum lesson because I just happened to look it up beforehand. But hey, how else do you learn?

edit on 7-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I do research what has been written but I also see for myself what is happening. Second hand knowledge is one thing but direct seeing will reveal so much more.

Originally posted by ItisnowagainI have watched bubble bees and it is truly amazing that they can fly - but they sort of bubble about and seem to get swept away in the breeze. Air seems to be a lot thicker for bubble bees somehow.

They bumble about...an important detail if you do decide to publish a paper...

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by ItisnowagainI have watched bubble bees and it is truly amazing that they can fly - but they sort of bubble about and seem to get swept away in the breeze. Air seems to be a lot thicker for bubble bees somehow.

They bumble about...an important detail if you do decide to publish a paper...

edit on 7-8-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

Do you know it took me so long for me to see that I had written 'bubble'. I totally had a blind spot - I just could not see it, lol.
Thank you - I will change it because no one else will see 'bumble' when they read 'bubble'. Or would they?

OMG - I had written it 4 times and did not know it -wow. What a bubblehead?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I have watched bumble bees and it is truly amazing that they can fly - but they sort of bumble about and seem to get swept away in the breeze. Air seems to be a lot thicker for bumble bees somehow.

That happens to all insects. You'd stumble around if you were experiencing hurricane conditions. Notice that when any sort of insect is facing minimal resistance, they are actually quite swift and agile. Butterflies, one of the slowest avionic insects one might imagine, have been known to cross vast bodies of water. Unfortunately, when they are hit by our equivalent of a hurricane, they tend to suffer much worse than just "bumbling around" on the wind. Hence, the endangerment of the monarch species of butterfly when they were accosted by inclement weather near Spain all those years ago.

Originally posted by Prezbo369


Well you obviously know what you're talking about.....these are issues that have never ever been brought up before so hopefully at least one scientist will read your post and pick up the mantle and address them.

That is unless scientists in the field have already addressed such questions many many times over the past 100 years or so, ever since it became clear that a lot of people are willfully ignorant on the subject and will gain all their knowledge on evolution from religious sources that, of course, have an ulterior motive.

They've even been addressed many many times here on the ATS forums, almost on a weekly basis.

But yeah keep laughing about science, while using the internet.......

Meyer uses complete science

So obviously you did not watch the video. Thanks for commenting in complete ignorance of what I posted.

reply to post by Kody27


My post was dealing with the issue of evolution which was brought up as some sort of debunking issue for this OP. I think science has proven that darwin did not deal with how life stared. Now for original sin, were you there? So, you base original sin not existing on what factual evidence?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Kody27

 

My post was dealing with the issue of evolution which was brought up as some sort of debunking issue for this OP. I think science has proven that darwin did not deal with how life stared. Now for original sin, were you there? So, you base original sin not existing on what factual evidence?

You weren't there eithe genius haha. Failed by your own argument.

What "factual evidence" do you have on original sin? That's the most ignoramus thing I've ever heard. The fact comes down to whether or not you believe in fairy tales or not.

Science didn't have to prove that Darwin wasn't concerned with how life started* , he was merely making observations after the fact, that's common knowledge.

Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Kody27

The slightest evolutionary change in a species takes millions of years to take place.

Modern humans have only been around for thousands of years. Not millions (not that we know of anyway)
Basically just saying that our known recorded history hasn't even been around long enough to witness evolutionary changes. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.

I love it when science tears down their own theories with better science. I always laugh about "science" because a bumble bee supposedly on paper cannot fly and yet there they are flying around and doing their thing. Many scientists who work in DNA and genetics have been silent for a long time because evolution is a religion and anyone in their community who speaks against it is black balled and treated like a traitor! Just talk to these scientists and they very clearly and scientifically explain why evolution is absolutely impossible. If it takes millions of years to evolve, how long would a creature live who needs a reproductive system to develop it and thus reproduce? What about digestion? What about sight? What about any number of proteins needed to live and if you lack just one you die? Do you not see the fallacy that this millions of years to change prevents change? THEY WOULD ALL DIE!

Darwin believed we would find the evidence in the fossil record, but it just does not exist. The mammals all just showed up one day basically.


I chose to remove the other Meyer videos for simplicity sake. He covers it all in this one.

edit on 7-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: changed out video for simplicity

So you've basically said nothing with this post. Evolution and creation can exist simultaneously, but that doesn't mean that there was some Christian entity called God who made us. For all we know there was no big bang, the universe might not have a beginning nor an end, that's the thing with the existence of time. There couldn't have been a "time" in which time itself came into existence. What was happening before there was time? Things were timeless? So there were no linear progressions, therefore you cannot pinpoint "when" time itself popped out of timelessness. It makes more sense to say that it has always been and always will be, because the same thing applies for the end of time. What then? Timelessness? At what point in "time" does timelessness take over again? it just doesn't make sense, logically, to even say that. Anyway, yes evolution takes millions of years to take place. A single cell organism can evolve into a multicellular organism and so on, they wouldn't have to die while evolving slowly. What the hell are you even talking about?

Actually she said a lot. Apparently you read none of it, because she never mentioned a Christian entity called God once. She was speaking only of intelligent design which can go a bunch of different places as far as this goes. Maybe you don't know what the hell she is talking about because you didn't watch the damned video?

Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Kody27

 

My post was dealing with the issue of evolution which was brought up as some sort of debunking issue for this OP. I think science has proven that darwin did not deal with how life stared. Now for original sin, were you there? So, you base original sin not existing on what factual evidence?

You weren't there eithe genius haha. Failed by your own argument.

What "factual evidence" do you have on original sin? That's the most ignoramus thing I've ever heard. The fact comes down to whether or not you believe in fairy tales or not.

Science didn't have to prove that Darwin wasn't concerned with how life started* , he was merely making observations after the fact, that's common knowledge.

This is idiotic. First off she says she wasn't there, and her previous post was based solely on intelligent design as opposed to evolution for clarification to another poster.

Original Sin is a biblical term referring to an action taken by Eve. She is asking you what factual evidence you have on original sin not existing. This thread is about debunking original sin, she is staying on topic by asking you that question. You are shifting the conversation and being divisive to avoid answering a question you know you cannot answer.

Stale Mate. Admit when you don't know something, it's classy.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Now for original sin, were you there? So, you base original sin not existing on what factual evidence?

You have no factual evidence to state that original sin DID happen. The burden of proof lies with you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Now for original sin, were you there? So, you base original sin not existing on what factual evidence?

You have no factual evidence to state that original sin DID happen. The burden of proof lies with you.

Ok, let's be infantile... "I know you are but what am I" is that your tactic? I posted very clear scientific facts about ribosomes, dna, complex systems and such and you want to pull that? Ok, I know you can't defend anything, so keep up with the childish crap. This thread OP debunks nothing. I have proven evolution is crap.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

This thread OP debunks nothing. I have proven evolution is crap.

Hi UnifiedSerenity,

My intention, in the OP, was never to prove or disprove evolution. The question it poses is, "In light of the fact that many churches, including the Catholic church, are now accepting evolution, and see the Garden of Eden story as allegory, not literally, doesn't that "debunk" original sin? If there was no Adam and Eve, as evolution asserts, as churches now claim, there can be no point in which the original sin took place.

Additionally, even if some still take the story as literal, the people who lived outside of Eden, who Cain was afraid of, and were not off spring of Adam and Eve, wouldn't be subject to original sin. Right?

It was never my intention to discredit intelligent design, just "original sin", as being caused by Adam and Eve.

Originally posted by windword


Hi UnifiedSerenity,

My intention, in the OP, was never to prove or disprove evolution. The question it poses is, "In light of the fact that many churches, including the Catholic church, are now accepting evolution, and see the Garden of Eden story as allegory, not literally, doesn't that "debunk" original sin? If there was no Adam and Eve, as evolution asserts, as churches now claim, there can be no point in which the original sin took place.

Additionally, even if some still take the story as literal, the people who lived outside of Eden, who Cain was afraid of, and were not off spring of Adam and Eve, wouldn't be subject to original sin. Right?

It was never my intention to discredit intelligent design, just "original sin", as being caused by Adam and Eve.

edit on 7-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Evolution was brought up and used as if it was proven, so I posted what I did about science negating what is still taught in many schools. Now, regarding the RCC, I would expect nothing less from them. The bible never said God only made two people to start the whole show off. That is a false teaching because the bible clearly says, God saw there were some for hunting and fishing but saw no man to till the ground and so he made THE man Adam, and it was to his wife,Eve, that he said the prophecy of the coming messiah through her seed, thus the promised virgin birth. There was some special purpose for this particular line if one just goes by the bible. Lucifer tried to completely pollute that line by his fallen angels taking women and having the nephilim and we see that in Noah's were two different words are translated as "generation" but one means peers and the other mean lineage. Noah was the last son of The man Adam who had not polluted his lineage and thus kept the means to bring forth messiah per the bible.

Cain is part of the parable of the wheat and the tares. Cain is not listed in Adam's genealogy because he is NOT The man Adam's son. He is Eve's son, and he looks like The man Adam's children as do his children, but they are not part of that lineage. They are the Rechabites in Chronicles who change from Kenite to Rechabite which read of in Jeremiah 25 and they moved into Judea and got called Jews, but Jews are part of Adam's lineage. They are the ones claiming to be Jews and are not. They can't grow anything, they are tent makers (Think false Apostle Paul who RCC loves) and they subvert the bible at every chance. They are always seeking to draw away from the bible and they have taken over every society by graft, usury and ultimately denying the creator God. So, this might be a lot more than you were asking about. I personally think God loves all the races he created, and each has their natural talents.

Original sin for me does go back to what happened when Eve listened to the shining one (snake is nachash in Hebrew which translates shining one) and felt she could be Like God. Who does that sound like? That does go back to the very original sin of Lucifer seeking to be as God and be worshiped.

We cannot prove Adam and Eve. We cannot prove original sin. It is a spiritual issue and I am as guilty as any other born from above into this age of serving self and being less than perfect. I don't need to blame Adam and Eve.

I made a typo that I missed and cannot fix now. It is Jeremiah 35 not 25 which shows these Rechabites.

I apologize if there was any confusion.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Ok, let's be infantile... "I know you are but what am I" is that your tactic? I posted very clear scientific facts about ribosomes, dna, complex systems and such and you want to pull that? Ok, I know you can't defend anything, so keep up with the childish crap. This thread OP debunks nothing. I have proven evolution is crap.

If someone is claiming bigfoot exists then it is up to THEM to prove it.
If someone claims unicorns exists, then it is up to them to prove it.

There is no reason to believe original sin exists unless you provide evidence.

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin

Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Kody27

The slightest evolutionary change in a species takes millions of years to take place.

Modern humans have only been around for thousands of years. Not millions (not that we know of anyway)
Basically just saying that our known recorded history hasn't even been around long enough to witness evolutionary changes. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.

I love it when science tears down their own theories with better science. I always laugh about "science" because a bumble bee supposedly on paper cannot fly and yet there they are flying around and doing their thing. Many scientists who work in DNA and genetics have been silent for a long time because evolution is a religion and anyone in their community who speaks against it is black balled and treated like a traitor! Just talk to these scientists and they very clearly and scientifically explain why evolution is absolutely impossible. If it takes millions of years to evolve, how long would a creature live who needs a reproductive system to develop it and thus reproduce? What about digestion? What about sight? What about any number of proteins needed to live and if you lack just one you die? Do you not see the fallacy that this millions of years to change prevents change? THEY WOULD ALL DIE!

Darwin believed we would find the evidence in the fossil record, but it just does not exist. The mammals all just showed up one day basically.


I chose to remove the other Meyer videos for simplicity sake. He covers it all in this one.

edit on 7-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: changed out video for simplicity

So you've basically said nothing with this post. Evolution and creation can exist simultaneously, but that doesn't mean that there was some Christian entity called God who made us. For all we know there was no big bang, the universe might not have a beginning nor an end, that's the thing with the existence of time. There couldn't have been a "time" in which time itself came into existence. What was happening before there was time? Things were timeless? So there were no linear progressions, therefore you cannot pinpoint "when" time itself popped out of timelessness. It makes more sense to say that it has always been and always will be, because the same thing applies for the end of time. What then? Timelessness? At what point in "time" does timelessness take over again? it just doesn't make sense, logically, to even say that. Anyway, yes evolution takes millions of years to take place. A single cell organism can evolve into a multicellular organism and so on, they wouldn't have to die while evolving slowly. What the hell are you even talking about?

Actually she said a lot. Apparently you read none of it, because she never mentioned a Christian entity called God once. She was speaking only of intelligent design which can go a bunch of different places as far as this goes. Maybe you don't know what the hell she is talking about because you didn't watch the damned video?

If you expect me to sit down and watch a youtube video that's an hour and a half long on "intelligent design" you're crazy. Anyone who believes in creationism is obviously the product of un-intelligent design.

reply to post by Kody27


I would hope anyone who is presented evidence that presents a better scientific explanation would want to hear what it is. That is what science is about. I mean, at one time science thought the earth was flat! Or that the Earth was the central object all things orbited around in space. True science and intellectual honesty requires one to be willing to examine the evidence. What I posted was an amazing and outstanding explanation of molecular biology and the facts of code within DNA. Here is a shorter one, but not nearly as in depth.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Meyer uses complete science

I have no idea what 'complete'means, and how it's different to just 'science'...

So obviously you did not watch the video. Thanks for commenting in complete ignorance of what I posted.

The video at the end of your post? the 2 hr long train wreck? I did watch some, but the long list of inaccuracies and fallacies being spewed out are at this point incredibly boring. I'd rather watch Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind give me the exact same disinformation, at least they're comical.

I responded to what you posted, not a video recording of someone else's argument. To expect anyone to watch such a long video before responding is the height of arrogance.

Here are some more short videos:

Stephen Meyer - Proteins by Design - Doing The Math

This is about a 7 minute video explaining the improbable chance model because of how proteins are made

www.metacafe.com...

Extreme Software Design In Cells - Stephen Meyer

This is about a 4 minute video on complex cell design

www.metacafe.com...

Challenging Darwin's theory with the facts of molecular biology

Stephen Meyer - Molecular Machines & Information

9 min video

www.metacafe.com...


Nano Machine inside of a Cell





Meyer proves pure chance cannot possibly create the incredibly complex code needed to make just a protein chain.

But even if we concede the perfect conditions that would be necessary for the bonding of amino acids, we still face impossible odds. The mathematical odds of a single DNA molecule occurring by chance exceed, even by conservative estimates, 1:1010000.

In fact, some scientists have said that it is even greater. Dr. Fred Hoyle, a scientist and one-time atheistic evolutionist, said it this way, "Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."

Here's a simple way to think about how big this number (1040000) is. The number of atoms in the universe (yes, the entire universe - space, matter - all of it) is estimated to be about 1087. If we consider Emil Burrel's conclusion that anything with a probability smaller than1:1050 will never occur, it's clear that we are toying in the realm of silliness.

This kind of thinking is tantamount to reasoning that if the Scrabble factory explodes enough times, the letters will eventually land so they spell out War and Peace. Ridiculous! Later Hoyle added,

"The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems cannot in our view be generated by what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly." SOURCE