• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sooo -- are viruses alive?

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What does "no one has seen" have to do with anything? No one in Noah's time had ever seen two hydrogen atoms attaching to one oxygen atom - yet, according to you, there was lots and lots of water.

Do you not understand how really weak an argument based on "no one has seen" is?

In any case, we already discussed the fact that there is no agreed-on definition of life. Therefore, there is no fine line between what is "living" and what is not.

I realize you cannot comprehend an ongoing transition from atoms to molecules to monomers to polymers to - eventually - you. That would require a bit of education in science.
Yes. Interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting. But you really don't want to let it sink in that YOU cannot exist if we use your way of thinking about odds.



No. Not "IF". By your way of thinking long odds equal impossibility. With YOUR existence, it's not just the input from your parents, it's their parents and their parents and their parents. 1 in 500,000,000 for 200 generations back to Noah. Do the math (or ask polymath nicely, and maybe he'll do it for you.)
Again, use of words. On the other hand, as with the 1 in 500,000,000 for 200 generations back to noah in your way of comparison, it's actually not right. Why? Because the mechanics were there for progeneration, regardless of who comes forth. It's a bit of a problem when dealing with something supposedly coming from...nothing. or...from nonlife to life. Or the planets and stars coming about by themselves more or less, manner of speech, of course.
What does "no one has seen" have to do with anything? No one in Noah's time had ever seen two hydrogen atoms attaching to one oxygen atom - yet, according to you, there was lots and lots of water.

Do you not understand how really weak an argument based on "no one has seen" is?

In any case, we already discussed the fact that there is no agreed-on definition of life. Therefore, there is no fine line between what is "living" and what is not.

I realize you cannot comprehend an ongoing transition from atoms to molecules to monomers to polymers to - eventually - you. That would require a bit of education in science.
What no one has seen means that no one has seen either through an x-ray or with their eyes any form of life evolving in real time. And in fossils, it's all imagination as if somehow from one set of genes another grouping produced a different life form. You know, such as an unknown common ancestor moving in a direction of gorilla, bonobos, or human.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Again, use of words. On the other hand, as with the 1 in 500,000,000 for 200 generations back to noah in your way of comparison, it's actually not right. Why? Because the mechanics were there for progeneration, regardless of who comes forth.

Wrong. Why? Because we were discussing the impossibility of YOU existing. I know you want to try to avoid that fact.

It's a bit of a problem when dealing with something supposedly coming from...nothing. or...from nonlife to life. Or the planets and stars coming about by themselves more or less, manner of speech, of course.

We were discussing "impossible odds" because you posted the Penrose argument. Stop ducking. The bottom line is that, if we use Penrose's (and your) logic, YOU cannot exist. Yet you do. That proves that Penrose's argument, your argument, is flawed.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What no one has seen means that no one has seen either through an x-ray or with their eyes any form of life evolving in real time. And in fossils, it's all imagination as if somehow from one set of genes another grouping produced a different life form. You know, such as an unknown common ancestor moving in a direction of gorilla, bonobos, or human.

So, by your flawed logic, people back in Noah's time should not have seen water since no one saw two hydrogen atoms connect to an oxygen atom.

Yet they did see water. No one has to see a species evolving into another species for evolution to be as proven as just about anything else in science. There is evidence for it from multiple fields of scientific endeavor.
It is easy to dismiss evolution if you want to ignore physics and the concept of the half-life of an isotope.
It is easy to dismiss evolution if you want to ignore geology.
It is easy to dismiss evolution if you want to ignore biology.
It is easy to dismiss evolution if you want to ignore DNA.

You choose to ignore all these disciplines, the accumulated knowledge of mankind, and rely on the writings of men 4000 years ago. Men who based their stories on folklore passed down through the ages in their own tribes and civilizations and borrowed from other tribes and other civilizations. You must continue to pretend that man has learned nothing about nature for 4000 years.

Do you believe the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun? Or do you believe the sun travels around the earth and, at times, stops?

12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.​

14And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

15And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So, by your flawed logic, people back in Noah's time should not have seen water since no one saw two hydrogen atoms connect to an oxygen atom.

Why would you say that? They saw water. No matter interpretation, they saw water.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
How does "according to God" address my comment?
I second thief's statement. If one doesn't believe the Bible as to creation, then it really is something like, "according to the theory of evolution."
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Wrong. Why? Because we were discussing the impossibility of YOU existing. I know you want to try to avoid that fact.



We were discussing "impossible odds" because you posted the Penrose argument. Stop ducking. The bottom line is that, if we use Penrose's (and your) logic, YOU cannot exist. Yet you do. That proves that Penrose's argument, your argument, is flawed.
I came as a result of natural generation. Just like a seed can grow into a plant. Go figure the first seed, for a change, why don't you?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Why would you say that? They saw water. No matter interpretation, they saw water.
Did you already forget you said...
And yes, evolution as in the theory would very simply not be possible IF -- life did not start somehow. YET -- no one has seen evolution -- no one has seen 'life' starting and then "evolution" happening. (Sorry, very sorry - or sowwy, however ...)

You said, "no one has seen evolution" and "no one has seen 'life' starting". Your implication is that since no one saw life starting, there could be no evolution.

That's a ridiculous comment on several levels.

The most obvious one being that there could not have been humans to see life starting since, obviously, "life started" before there could have been humans.

No one saw hydrogen atoms combining with oxygen atoms, yet there was water. What anyone saw, or did not see is a ridiculous thing on which to base an argument. Yet that is exactly what you tried to do.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
If one doesn't believe the Bible as to creation, then it really is something like, "according to the theory of evolution."
Not necessarily. I keep trying to show you the world isn't binary.

You would be more accurate to say if one doesn't believe in Evolution, then be must turn to creation stories present in all manner of religions, one of which is the Hebrew Tanakh.

Or the
African Bushmen Creation Myth
People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.

Or the
Australian Aborigine Creation Myth
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep - or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
"Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms."

The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits.
Or any of thousands of creation myths that man has concocted over the centuries.

In any case, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Marcion had won out. You do know who Marcion was, don't you?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I came as a result of natural generation. Just like a seed can grow into a plant.
It's really sad when you first post an argument against nature based on odds and then prove you do not comprehend the concept of odds. More probably, you are OK with odds when they portend to show something you want to show, but dismiss odds when they work against your biased views. t's called pick and choose.
  • A day is 24 hours
  • A day is billions of years
  • Each day follows the previous day
  • There can be millions of years between days
  • Genesis is allegory
  • Genesis is absolute fact
It brings to mind Pseudolus singing:

Something familiar,
Something peculiar,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!

Something appealing,
Something appalling,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's not necessary for you to use terms like "first seed" to convince us that you have no clue regarding nature or the process of evolution. We've known that.
Yes? Why not? It sounds like you are saying there wasn't a first seed. (Do you know for sure?)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's really sad when you first post an argument against nature based on odds and then prove you do not comprehend the concept of odds. More probably, you are OK with odds when they portend to show something you want to show, but dismiss odds when they work against your biased views. t's called pick and choose.
  • A day is 24 hours
  • A day is billions of years
  • Each day follows the previous day
  • There can be millions of years between days
  • Genesis is allegory
  • Genesis is absolute fact
It brings to mind Pseudolus singing:

Something familiar,
Something peculiar,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!

Something appealing,
Something appalling,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!
It depends. :)
As I read your comments, though, a day usually follows the previous day. Doesn't it? Now, now, time travel -- :) -- perhaps some brilliant mind can figure time goes backwards? OK OK, I've seen it on "One Step Beyond," or whatever that fantasy show was called. And it could be fascinating. But was it true? :) Experiment, experiment ... proof, evidence. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's not necessary for you to use terms like "first seed" to convince us that you have no clue regarding nature or the process of evolution. We've known that.
By the way, whether you realize it or not, the more you keep insulting me, the more you're showing you really are not able to explain your belief in the veracity of the theory of evolution, But anyway -- (have a good night).
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not necessarily. I keep trying to show you the world isn't binary.

You would be more accurate to say if one doesn't believe in Evolution, then be must turn to creation stories present in all manner of religions, one of which is the Hebrew Tanakh.

Or the
African Bushmen Creation Myth
People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.

Or the
Australian Aborigine Creation Myth
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep - or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,
"Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms."

The Sun Mother glided down to Earth, which was bare at the time and began to walk in all directions and everywhere she walked plants grew. After returning to the field where she had begun her work the Mother rested, well pleased with herself. The Father of All Spirits came and saw her work, but instructed her to go into the caves and wake the spirits.
Or any of thousands of creation myths that man has concocted over the centuries.

In any case, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Marcion had won out. You do know who Marcion was, don't you?
I've heard of him. The Bible makes sense. As I examine it, the better and more wonderful it gets. So thanks anyway for the conversation.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
It's not necessary for you to use terms like "first seed" to convince us that you have no clue regarding nature or the process of evolution. We've known that.
Yes? Why not? It sounds like you are saying there wasn't a first seed. (Do you know for sure?)

Yep. If you had any clue about biology and nature you would know that too.

However, I do understand that you believe in "firsts" like the first man and the first woman. So, I don't expect you to understand. I just wanted to remind you that your views are well known.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It's really sad when you first post an argument against nature based on odds and then prove you do not comprehend the concept of odds. More probably, you are OK with odds when they portend to show something you want to show, but dismiss odds when they work against your biased views. t's called pick and choose.
  • A day is 24 hours
  • A day is billions of years
  • Each day follows the previous day
  • There can be millions of years between days
  • Genesis is allegory
  • Genesis is absolute fact
It depends. :)
As I read your comments, though, a day usually follows the previous day. Doesn't it? Now, now, time travel -- :) -- perhaps some brilliant mind can figure time goes backwards? OK OK, I've seen it on "One Step Beyond," or whatever that fantasy show was called. And it could be fascinating. But was it true? :) Experiment, experiment ... proof, evidence.


Duck and dodge.
Duck and dodge.
Duck and dodge.
Duck and dodge.

We were discussing the mental gymnastics Bible believers have to go through to sustain their beliefs.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
By the way, whether you realize it or not, the more you keep insulting me,

How am I insulting you?

Is my acknowledging that you have a fundamentalist belief in Genesis insulting? I don't understand why you would think so.

Is my acknowledging that you do not have an understanding of the Theory of Evolution insulting? I don't understand why you would think so.


the more you're showing you really are not able to explain your belief in the veracity of the theory of evolution

The Theory of Evolution has overwhelming support from scientists in many different fields of expertise including biology, chemistry, and pyhysics.

There is no support for a worldwide flood ~4000 years ago. None!

I believe in science.

You believe what a bunch of ignorant old men wrote. Are you Hebrew? If not, why do you believe old Hebrew tales?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I've heard of him.
Him? Who? Do you not understand that I just posted two alternative Creation myths. It wasn't about a "him". Perhaps you should try to read carefully before responding.

The Bible makes sense.

The Bible states the entire world was covered in water ~4000 years ago. That not only makes no sense, but it is also demonstrably wrong.


As I examine it, the better and more wonderful it gets.
Yes. Fantasy stories are so much better and more wonderful than facts. What kid didn't wish he had x-ray vision and could fly? Reality is a lot tougher.
 
Top