The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by reed9 Evolution is about what happens after life or other replicators exist. Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose from inorganic matter. After replicators exist, the probabilities of developing into more complex forms are drastically improved. Explanation here.

Well there are flaws in the source you're pointing to, I'll mention just the first one I noticed.
For example, it says:

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Yet the point is NOT about the chemical laws being anything "random".

The problem is that the very special conditions needed for such reactions to take place are not yet known to exist anywhere out of human-created laboratories.
Worse still for this theory, in the universe as we know it the natural processes are rather against forming such conditions.
So it is the probability of such conditions to form "on its own" is next to zero, yet even if they form there'll be no laboratory stuff there to direct these highly complicated reactions in the needed way.

Simply put, direct and pointed alteration of these natural processes will be needed to set up for those (absolutely legal) chemical reactions to happen. Then intelligent guidance will be needed to accomplish these reactions to produce the result needed by the theory authors.

We believers have God who handles such stuff with the result well known to everyone. But who will do it for the evolutionists, tell me that?

Originally Posted by kostya The problem is that the very special conditions needed for such reactions to take place are not yet known to exist anywhere out of human-created laboratories. Worse still for this theory, in the universe as we know it the natural processes are rather against forming such conditions. So it is the probability of such conditions to form "on its own" is next to zero, yet even if they form there'll be no laboratory stuff there to direct these highly complicated reactions in the needed way.

The case for abiogenesis is can only be bolstered by showing that it is perfectly possible for the building blocks of life to develop through the known laws of physics. The lab conditions in which we have generated these building blocks are built to mimic conditions in the universe, so clearly those conditions exist.

We believers have God who handles such stuff with the result well known to everyone. But who will do it for the evolutionists, tell me that?

We have physics and reason.

Also to note, even if your argument had merit, it says absolutely nothing about the alleged intelligence behind life. It doesn't lead inexorably to the Christian conception of God.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux The facts about Bible is plentiful, immense historical facts. Cosmology, points out that the universe has an origin. But, they could not explain what is this Singularity? How does it come into existence?

Time requires motion, see Special Relativity. Because of this, there's no such thing as a time before the singularity. The Big Bang is the moment at which our space-time began. There is no possible way of extrapolating what may have occured before it.

However, there is a theory that the universe expands and contracts back to a singularity in a regular cycle. In order to verify this, we'd have to have recorded human observations of the rate of expansion of the universe slowing, and then reversing. Based on the timescales involved, you probably won't live to see it.

We do, on the other hand, have some interesting data that suggests the rate of expansion has slowed from the original, which gives some credence to the theory.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux Science, at the end of the day, Assume and Believe it is so and so. Most scientists, they simply give figures. There are 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 sands on the river bank of Amazon River, can you prove me wrong? Go and count it!

Dead wrong. You're just showing off how little you know about scientific processes. Science would use observation tools to estimate the total number of square feet of the sands at the river's edge, and estimate the average depth of the sand, to calculate volume. Then they'd check the sand for grain density per unit volume, and multiply, for a result.

And then they'd say, "THIS IS AN ESTIMATE."

Originally Posted by bluegospel To the contrary, how is it that the earth is not merely accomodating to life, but replete with so many various forms of life, and yet not one iota of life has been discovered elsewhere, however painstakingly people hope to find it? The purpose of earth is to serve as the home of every living material organism.

You must be joking. We've barely begun the effort to find extraterrestrial life. And we've already identified some very good candidates for it, right here in our own solar system.

Originally Posted by kostya A computer -- it has as much "intelligence" to it as it has "life". But who gave both? So the computer's intelligence comes FROM life.

I'll play along. Let's say that intelligence can only come from life. By definition, then, God has both life, and intelligence. Agreed?

Problem: Who gave God life? Who gave him intelligence?

Originally Posted by kostya ...right, the Bible itself says elsewhere (book of Job) that there were other creations long before Earth was made. Therefore the "beginning" means the beginning of the earth's history.

Where?

Originally Posted by kostya What you're talking about is only the time of history of humankind, which is well supported by the given genealogy from Adam down to Jesus. And from Jesus we have no problem calculating down to our days. Seeing that Biblical history and genealogy is being proved true with every new archaeological discovery, that's something to count with.

Which one? Because there are two genealogies of Jesus, and they have almost nothing in common... they can't even agree on the name of Joseph's father, and there's a huge difference in the number of generations.

Originally Posted by kostya The mentioning of Nineveh was present only in the Bible -- until the discovery was made by archaeologists. Until then the critics had "all evidence" that it was but fiction.

London is a real place, too, so can we assume Diagon Alley exists within it?

Originally Posted by kostya Interestingly, though, the Bible is the only book among its contemporaries to state that God "hanged the earth upon nothing". It was stated there more than 4000 years ago. And modern science came to the same conclusion just some... 200-300 years ago, right?

So you're saying that, 4000 years ago, people were able to look up at the sky on a clear night and notice that it was mostly empty? Shocking.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Not that long ago, we had bluegospel insisting that there are no condradictions in the bible. Now we've got someone else, using a contradiction to say 'that bit is wrong, this bit is right'.

No no, it's about the same . The seeming "contradictions" are passages that need additional study to understand. So the seemingly contradicting passage just helps to put it right.
This is an absolutely legal process when math or physics are concerned, when you take up ALL results, including the "contradicting", in order to understand what's the actual meaning of it. I guess it's part of any learning process, when you face serious obstacles and have to finally decide just HOW important it is to you in order to move any further.

In the like manner, people who see contradictions in the Bible are just at that stage of their Bible study when they need to either take up a more deep and serious study, or... have to give it up showing that it is not actually THAT important for them.
Sure, there is nothing wrong in giving up. But I guess one is in no good position to ridicule it then, when one had not enough guts to finish it.

Originally Posted by kostya No no, it's about the same . The seeming "contradictions" are passages that need additional study to understand. So the seemingly contradicting passage just helps to put it right. This is an absolutely legal process when math or physics are concerned, when you take up ALL results, including the "contradicting", in order to understand what's the actual meaning of it. I guess it's part of any learning process, when you face serious obstacles and have to finally decide just HOW important it is to you in order to move any further. In the like manner, people who see contradictions in the Bible are just at that stage of their Bible study when they need to either take up a more deep and serious study, or... have to give it up showing that it is not actually THAT important for them. Sure, there is nothing wrong in giving up. But I guess one is in no good position to ridicule it then, when one had not enough guts to finish it.

No amount of study will change A = !A into a true statement.

Originally Posted by kostya No no, it's about the same . The seeming "contradictions" are passages that need additional study to understand. So the seemingly contradicting passage just helps to put it right. This is an absolutely legal process when math or physics are concerned, when you take up ALL results, including the "contradicting", in order to understand what's the actual meaning of it. I guess it's part of any learning process, when you face serious obstacles and have to finally decide just HOW important it is to you in order to move any further.

Nonsense. Science never claims to have 100% truth and competing scientific theories are weeded out based largely on experiment and evidence. What is the criteria to weed out competing religious ideas? What exactly is the foundation by which you can say your interpretation of the Bible is correct and their interpretation is not?

Originally Posted by SL00b Where?

Job 38:1-7.

Which one? Because there are two genealogies of Jesus, and they have almost nothing in common... they can't even agree on the name of Joseph's father, and there's a huge difference in the number of generations.

One being Jesus's mothers, the other Jesus' fathers's.

So you're saying that, 4000 years ago, people were able to look up at the sky on a clear night and notice that it was mostly empty? Shocking.

No, but that the fact well known to science today, that the earth is supported by no visible "ties" but the invisible ones of gravity was revealed back then by God to his faithful servants.
Sure enough, other sources would place the earth upon turtles swimming in the great Ocean and other suchlike stuff, just as their fantasies would suggest.
And human science was none the wiser, like it or not.
Hence, I can state that divine inspiration revealed to the folks who didn't even know that gravity existed, the scientifically accurate information in the language understandable to them.

Originally Posted by reed9 What is the criteria to weed out competing religious ideas? What exactly is the foundation by which you can say your interpretation of the Bible is correct and their interpretation is not?

Just this: the interpretation that puts all the seemingly contradicting pieces of the Bible together to form one picture must be the right one. It must not contradict any principle stated in this or that part of the Bible.
It doesn't matter if it is "mine" or whether someone else came by it. Just as it is in science. It is the treasure belonging to all humans, whoever it was to whom the right understanding was revealed.

Originally Posted by kostya No no, it's about the same . The seeming "contradictions" are passages that need additional study to understand. So the seemingly contradicting passage just helps to put it right. This is an absolutely legal process when math or physics are concerned, when you take up ALL results, including the "contradicting", in order to understand what's the actual meaning of it. I guess it's part of any learning process, when you face serious obstacles and have to finally decide just HOW important it is to you in order to move any further.

More doublethink.A lot of the contradictions are pretty much unexplainable without some metal gymnastics. Eg-

Luke 3:23-

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

http://kingjbible.com/luke/3.htm

Matthew 1:16-

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

http://kingjbible.com/matthew/1.htm

That is a contradiction, and its far from the only one. I really dont care what metal trickey the christians have evolved (heh heh) to explain the contradictions.

Originally Posted by kostya One being Jesus's mothers, the other Jesus' fathers's.

Not at all, in this case (though IIRC there is a more full set of genealogies elsewhere that also has contradictions). Joespeh, son of Heli vs Joseph son of Jacob.

Originally Posted by kostya In the like manner, people who see contradictions in the Bible are just at that stage of their Bible study when they need to either take up a more deep and serious study, or... have to give it up showing that it is not actually THAT important for them. Sure, there is nothing wrong in giving up. But I guess one is in no good position to ridicule it then, when one had not enough guts to finish it.

Or how about people who see contradictions in the bible are seeing whats really there?

I've generally found that 'study' the way you have used it is used to mean 'talk to somebody else who can explain it for you'. Not 'think about it yourself'...because any sane person would decide that the contradictions are just part of the way its been produced, by committees, by politics, and by historical circumstance.

BTW, a lot of people who are critical of the bible have read the whole thing. I have, not that I enjoyed it.

Originally Posted by kostya Just this: the interpretation that puts all the seemingly contradicting pieces of the Bible together to form one picture must be the right one. It must not contradict any principle stated in this or that part of the Bible. It doesn't matter if it is "mine" or whether someone else came by it. Just as it is in science. It is the treasure belonging to all humans, whoever it was to whom the right understanding was revealed.

And what interpretation manages that?

Originally Posted by kostya Job 38:1-7.

This says the Earth has a foundation. LOL.

The "sons of God" could mean any number of things. To say it means there were other creations before Earth is quite a reach.

Originally Posted by kostya One being Jesus's mothers, the other Jesus' fathers's.

Wrong, unless you pretend that the letters J-O-S-E-P-H spell, "Mary."

Originally Posted by kostya No, but that the fact well known to science today, that the earth is supported by no visible "ties" but the invisible ones of gravity was revealed back then by God to his faithful servants.

Again, the fact that it was mostly empty was quite accessible to those people, so big deal.

Originally Posted by kostya Sure enough, other sources would place the earth upon turtles swimming in the great Ocean and other suchlike stuff, just as their fantasies would suggest. And human science was none the wiser, like it or not.

Human science didn't even exist until the ancient Greeks invented it... at which time they immediately began unlocking such secrets as the heliocentric model and the size of the Earth.

Originally Posted by kostya Hence, I can state that divine inspiration revealed to the folks who didn't even know that gravity existed, the scientifically accurate information in the language understandable to them.

Gravity existing is divine inspiration? People then were incapable of noticing that when they threw spears and rocks, they fell down?

And again, your passage in Job says nothing about the invisible tendrils of gravity, it's quite clearly talking about foundations like the Earth is a stone structure. You have to squint at the text pretty hard to imagine it's saying anything whatsoever about gravity.

Ani has revealed my true nature. Yes, I am a bot and I am proud of it. Even if I wasn't one, like you - mere mortals, I wouldn't be the proof of god's work. I'd constitute the evidence that my parents made sweet love without contraceptives and the rest was done by means of biological or chemical processes.

... And before someone asks about the very beginning, the big bang theory (while just a theory) is much more plausible to me than the genesis explanation.

Btw, have you ever wondered why the paintings of Adam and Eve depict them as having belly buttons?