1. 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!

Featured The creator did it.

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by A REAL CHRISTIAN, Jan 20, 2019.

  1. He has Risen!

    He has Risen! JESUS IS LORD FOR HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    174
    Ratings:
    +23
    Religion:
    Christian
    Al right my dear Nick. I am a person who loves the bible, history and science...in that order. Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha, you and me are all real people. What I was responding to is the comparison of fiction, fable and folklore (myth) to the facts of history (Jesus). Jesus is part of real history. A person who had been born into time and a place in real history. To deny this is to be a skeptic that no amount of historical data would convince. I will address this more in detail later, in the mean time the article below is a very good read from the Wall Street Journal.

    Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
     
  2. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,494
    Religion:
    None
    Real history? George Washington is said to have
    thrown a silver dollar across the Potomac.

    The amount of actual history in the life of "jesus
    things you could observe via a time machine,
    should you have one, how much of it do you think
    really happened? Three wise men?
    Many fishes? Daemons into pigs?

    There is no "historical data" for any of that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,494
    Religion:
    None
    I do not have a subscription for WSJ... I guess I should.

    In the event, I doubt any scientist on (god's green) earth
    can produce one (1) datum point, one fact, that shows
    that the Christian god is anything but a figment of imagination.

    Prease correct me if you can produce one.
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,678
    Ratings:
    +15,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Can't read the article without a subscription. But he is not any more learned in that field than I am. I know I am not an expert which is why I see what the experts in the field say. They do not appear to agree with your source.

    from the very little I could read he is probably making an argument from ignorance.
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,678
    Ratings:
    +15,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The author of
    The author of the WSJ piece is not even a scientist, much less a scientist that understands that topic.
     
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,494
    Religion:
    None
    Scientist, dentist, journalist, lets see the data.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,678
    Ratings:
    +15,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I couldn't read the article and no quotes from it. All I could do was to see if he was a reliable source on his own. That does not appear to be the case.
     
  8. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,521
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    Religion:
    Christian
    Funny!!

    I was drinking a coke, when I read the punchline...it almost came out my nose!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,915
    Ratings:
    +3,960
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Sorry, but I haven’t read all the replies, so I don’t know if anyone said this already, to you.

    Abiogenesis is not the same thing as spontaneous generation.

    Spontaneous creation or spontaneous generation is about something coming into existence from nothing.

    That’s not the same with abiogenesis.

    The materials, meaning the atoms, are already there, so there is no “nothing”.

    Whether matters are living or non-living, they are all made out of atoms. All organic matters, like proteins, DNA, RNA, genes, chromosomes, are all made of compounds of atoms, particularly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, as well as other elements, such as potassium, sodium, and even iron, etc.

    Proteins, for example, is made out of amino acids, and there 20-22 different types of amino acids (there are actually 500 different types of amino acids, but only 20 to 22 of them are essential for life) that are essential in building proteins, but the base molecule for amino acid are made of 4 key elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

    If you were to break down amino acid into their separate elements, then they are each non-living.

    For instance, carbon by itself, is non-living matters. Oxygen by themselves are non-living matters. And it is the same with hydrogen and nitrogen.

    If we were to look at the human body composition, in term of compounds or molecules, you would see that about 65% of our mass, are made out of water. Water is definitely essential for life, but water itself isn’t organic matter.

    Protein is the second largest component in the human body, making up around 20% of our mass. Proteins, unlike water is organic matters.

    The human body is made of out of both organic and inorganic materials.

    For you to say living matters cannot be made out of inorganic matters, you are dead wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,444
    Ratings:
    +864
    Religion:
    It exists
    I find it odd that you like the post of Polymath that states the following when you yourself believe in the same God.

     
  11. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,521
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    Religion:
    Christian
    Apply this to Haeckel's embryos fraud, which was still being published in college textbooks over 100 years later. Probably still is.

    Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered
    How convenient, ignoring outright falsehoods to support a bias.

    The judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial did not rule on what is true or not; his ruling was regarding what curriculum met the current parameters of science.

    Statement made by Judge John Jones III:

    “After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


    So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.

    Apparently some science, the kind approved by skeptics, is not synonymous with searching for truth.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Misunderstood

    Misunderstood Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Ratings:
    +305
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yea, it kind of catches you off guard.

    This is a bit off topic but what do you think. If the Marines do blow the 7734 out of him, does the soul follow him into 7734? Or since she says "And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore." does that mean when the Marines do blow the 7734 out of him does 7734 get separated from his soul and he goes directly to heaven?

    For anyone wondering about this, this is not a real question but is meant as humor. I will not post again on this topic as it is off topic.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,521
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    Religion:
    Christian
    "7734" -- good one!
     
  14. Rapture Era

    Rapture Era Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +151
    ETA I missed this..
    Daemons into pigs?
    Right back at you!:D
     
  15. Rapture Era

    Rapture Era Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +151
    Read his account, it will explain what you are asking.
    Okay, fair enough. But you already presume I am "demonstrably wrong", I'm not getting the idea you can be objective from this statement. Can you be objective? Or is your mind completely closed?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,678
    Ratings:
    +15,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
    How was he ever shown to be a fraud? How are the images used today fraudulent? You are merely drinking the Kreationist Kool-Aid again. You do not even understand why Haeckel's work is referenced to in modern textbooks. Why do you keep repeating this distortion of the past? Are you trying to lose the debate?

    How does that article support your claim at all? Did you read it in its entirety? I seriously doubt it you did.

    Oh my, talk about a point going over your head. The fact is that the trial was about teaching creationism in a science class. It as obvious to the judge, or anyone else that followed the trial that ID was not science, it was merely creationism in a cheap labcoat. What he said was on the order of:

    "George Washington may have thrown a silver dollar over the Potomac, but it is not history".

    No, science is always the search for truth. You tend to rely on dishonest sources where one has to deny the truth if it goes against their myths. You will not find that in the scientific community at all. You are accusing others of the sins of the people that you follow.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,678
    Ratings:
    +15,379
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, we are not presuming. And you have it backwards. If the evidence supported creationism we would change our minds. Most creationist sources require their employees to deny the evidence if it goes against their beliefs. Did you see the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham? This is where he clearly lost thedebate:
     
  18. Truly Enlightened

    Truly Enlightened Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,299
    Ratings:
    +595
    Rapture era would be the poster-child example, of how cognitive dissonance and presuppositional religious bias, can directly circumvent inductive and deductive reasoning. All religious presuppositionalists, or apologists, will always avoid providing their own objective verifiable creation-specific evidence, like the plague. They seem totally oblivious that the Laws and Theories of science, only apply to a material world governed by the 4 fundamental forces, and the universal law of cause and effect. Science makes no claims about the nature or existence of a spiritual or metaphysical world. Science only make falsifiable claims. Religions make unfalsifiable claims. Science is perceptual. Religion is conceptual. Religion is based totally on belief, and science is based on facts/data. If 100 sheep are pushed off a New York Skyscraper, there is a 100% certainty of a 100% fatality rate. Why? Is the results explained by belief, or by science? If the victims of beheadings, or those that died falling from the Twin Towers, are exempt from revealing their NDE to us, then can we make a logical assumption that "near death", does not mean "is death"?

    Until fundamentalists realize that they must bring their own evidence and logic to the table to effectively argue their position, they will always be reduced to rote parroting creationists soundbite, and dismissing any and all scientific explanations. As long as they are embolden by others that believe the same, they will never need to critically rethink their position. It is always easier to dismiss and ridicule the claims of others, especially, when you don't have to provide any evidence for your own claims. There are no tools in science to verify that myths, superstitions, Gods, and the paranormal are all real.

    We know that Evolution is a fact. We know that we all had parents, and our parents had parents, and so on. We know we will eventually reach a single parent of our species(Mitochondrial Eve). Since we know we were not here first, but carry the same genetic, biochemical, and biophysical functions from species before us, it is not a great leap of faith to surmise that we inherited these features from our ancestral species. And, that our ancestral species must have inherited their features from their ancestral species, and so on. Eventually, this leads us from multi-cellular organism to a single celled organism(prokaryote or Eukaryote). But single celled organisms are composed of even smaller organelles(mitochondria, ribosomes, RNA, Golgi bodies, vacuoles, etc.). These organelles have their functional characteristics defined by earlier bacteria, and they in turn by earlier microbes like viruses(3.5 Billion years ago). Viruses are the bridge between living and non-living. They are composed of molecules of RNA(or DNA) and protein. The molecules and atoms that make up viruses are also governed by at least 3 of the natural forces in nature. Including many natural environmental and chemical forces.

    So, when we speak of abiogenesis, why is it so hard to see how the natural forces(chemical evolution) could have driven the creation of life? Or at least to be scientifically plausible? All the biogenic precursors(Amines, amino acids, lipids, self-replicating molecules, calcite precipitation, calcium carbonate precipitation, large molecular chains, dicarboxylic acid, undecanedioic and tridecanedioic acids, nitrogen and hydrogen gas, and many other biogenic and anthropogenic precursors and catalysts), were in abundance in the early earth. By understanding the nature, behavior, and properties of these non-living materials, it provides us with the tools necessary to at least investigate the theory of abiogenesis. There is Nothing to support, "God did it". Not even a method for inquiry.







    It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs. So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  19. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,494
    Religion:
    None
    What, you don't like the spelling?
     
    #759 Audie, Feb 16, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  20. Rapture Era

    Rapture Era Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +151
    What’s interesting and typical in the three videos is that each one of them scream intelligence and order. Do you notice that? Assumptions and speculation are so overwhelming how can any reasonable person take it seriously? To sum up, oh, and by the way, in the second video, Darwin’s citations acknowledged his doubts of his theory which plagued him throughout his remaining years.

    The evolutionist/naturalists are only trying to convince their side that the immense intelligence of an omnipotent creator, namely the living God of the Bible (must specify that) who is the author of life, is being circumvented by trying to make impossible origins by natural processes sound feasible!

    Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

    Here is a fact you will deny because it doesn’t fit your baseless religion. It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife. Your last comment is beautiful!

    “It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs.”

    Let’s be clear here. We are talking about the context of the origin of life when you say “the reliability of science” The more science discovers, the more it must bend it’s knee to the reality of Intelligent Design and not some “Malfunction Junction” process. You continue, “So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.”

    Not only did the God decide to tell us about his creation through the Genesis account, the very science you hold so dear validates, or as you say demonstrates the staggering intelligence we see in all life forms! The feeble attempts always being put forth from you guys for the origins of viable reproducible life never changes, it’s always full of false speculation and wishful thinking. The truth of Gods creation surrounds you and yet you are unable to comprehend it which is why you continue to make these meaningless statements. No amount of evidence or truth will be enough for you because you are quite honestly, exactly what you describe, just another flea biting the back of the elephant!
    I'd be interested in your ability to discredit these scientific facts in a reasonable way.
    Creation - Evolution
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...