do you believe in jesus? (505)
MikeHD: Not sure I understood what you were saying, but it was pretty.
And so are you.
And so are you.
Thankyou
Just trying to say
To put a belief in a bowl
It must surround one with beauty..(their own beauty)
It can take away the "Why"
Let’s take a another approach at looking at this:
At the time of Jesus, the Jews had been persecuted for 700 years. Many Jews had been scattered and lived as captives in other nations. However, we still see Jews today, while we don’t see Hittites, Perizzites, Persians, Babylonians, Philistines, and other people who had been living in that time. Why? Because these people go captured by other nations, intermarried, and lost their national identity. Why didn’t that happen to the Jews? Because the things that made the Jews, Jews-the social structures that gave them their national identity-were unbelievably important to them. The Jews would pass these structures down to their children, celebrate them in synagogue meetings every Sabbath, and reinforce them with their rituals, because they knew if they didn’t, there soon would be no Jews left. They would be assimilated into the cultures that captured them.
And there’s another reason why these social institutions were so important: they believed these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death.
Now consider, in light of all this, that a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower-class region. He teaches for three years, gathers a following of lower- and middle- class people, gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified (along with 30,000 other Jewish men who were executed during this time period).
But five weeks after he’s crucified, over 10,000 Jews are following Him and claiming that He is the initiator of a new religion. And get this; they are willing to give up or alter all five of the social institutions that they have been taught since childhood has such importance both sociologically and theologically.
SOMETHING VERY BIG WAS GOING ON!
Christianity should have easily crushed this faith if it was nothing but falsehoods, embellishments, and contradictions.
At the time of Jesus, the Jews had been persecuted for 700 years. Many Jews had been scattered and lived as captives in other nations. However, we still see Jews today, while we don’t see Hittites, Perizzites, Persians, Babylonians, Philistines, and other people who had been living in that time. Why? Because these people go captured by other nations, intermarried, and lost their national identity. Why didn’t that happen to the Jews? Because the things that made the Jews, Jews-the social structures that gave them their national identity-were unbelievably important to them. The Jews would pass these structures down to their children, celebrate them in synagogue meetings every Sabbath, and reinforce them with their rituals, because they knew if they didn’t, there soon would be no Jews left. They would be assimilated into the cultures that captured them.
And there’s another reason why these social institutions were so important: they believed these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death.
Now consider, in light of all this, that a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower-class region. He teaches for three years, gathers a following of lower- and middle- class people, gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified (along with 30,000 other Jewish men who were executed during this time period).
But five weeks after he’s crucified, over 10,000 Jews are following Him and claiming that He is the initiator of a new religion. And get this; they are willing to give up or alter all five of the social institutions that they have been taught since childhood has such importance both sociologically and theologically.
SOMETHING VERY BIG WAS GOING ON!
Christianity should have easily crushed this faith if it was nothing but falsehoods, embellishments, and contradictions.
I am going to move on with more about why I believe in Jesus...
I hope as many as possible enjoy this.
Of the many reasons I believe in Jesus (my Savior, my Lord, my King, the Messiah described to us in the New Testament, and prophesied about in the Old Testament) – reasons like inerrancy of the bible, the symmetry between God's word and science, the perfection of the message’s logic, my personal experience, the vast amounts of literal, historical, archeological, and scientific evidence – is the reason that is not really talked about. That reason is the lack of suitable alternatives. I have found nothing to compare to it. Now I am just looking to discuss this, and if you are interpreting my statement as superior Christian piousness, I want to say it is not my intention. If I offend one of your sacred cows, please open a dialogue so that we might discuss it.
The first alternative I would like to discuss is this "naturalism" that most would not consider a religion at all. Because it is based on "science". Well that was a strong position to take maybe 30 years ago. But today, it is not as strong as it once was.
I will continue with the foundation of Naturalism on my next post...
EVOLUTION.
I hope as many as possible enjoy this.
Of the many reasons I believe in Jesus (my Savior, my Lord, my King, the Messiah described to us in the New Testament, and prophesied about in the Old Testament) – reasons like inerrancy of the bible, the symmetry between God's word and science, the perfection of the message’s logic, my personal experience, the vast amounts of literal, historical, archeological, and scientific evidence – is the reason that is not really talked about. That reason is the lack of suitable alternatives. I have found nothing to compare to it. Now I am just looking to discuss this, and if you are interpreting my statement as superior Christian piousness, I want to say it is not my intention. If I offend one of your sacred cows, please open a dialogue so that we might discuss it.
The first alternative I would like to discuss is this "naturalism" that most would not consider a religion at all. Because it is based on "science". Well that was a strong position to take maybe 30 years ago. But today, it is not as strong as it once was.
I will continue with the foundation of Naturalism on my next post...
EVOLUTION.
I hear a lot being said about how the THEORY of Evolution has been proven fact. I am sure many of you have been reading about it here. But the truth is a much different story, and the people who claim that have a whole bunch of stuff they don’t want you to know about.
For example:
It is commonly taught that the fossil record is the best evidence for the verification of the truth of evolution.
“Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The available ability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin were on the right track.” Luther Sunderland – Darwin’s Enigma
But this situation has not changed.
“…Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which you could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no; there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” Dr. Colin Patterson – Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
“…there is not one such fossil for which you could make a watertight argument.”
“But these stories are not part of science,”
hmmmm…
“Scientist concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” Time (news magazine) Nov.17, 1977
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we has in Darwin’s time.” David Raup – Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
For example:
It is commonly taught that the fossil record is the best evidence for the verification of the truth of evolution.
“Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The available ability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin were on the right track.” Luther Sunderland – Darwin’s Enigma
But this situation has not changed.
“…Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which you could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no; there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” Dr. Colin Patterson – Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
“…there is not one such fossil for which you could make a watertight argument.”
“But these stories are not part of science,”
hmmmm…“Scientist concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” Time (news magazine) Nov.17, 1977
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we has in Darwin’s time.” David Raup – Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
MikeHD: I am going to move on with more about why I believe in Jesus...
I hope as many as possible enjoy this.
Of the many reasons I believe in Jesus (my Savior, my Lord, my King, the Messiah described to us in the New Testament, and prophesied about in the Old Testament) – reasons like inerrancy of the bible, the symmetry between God's word and science, the perfection of the message’s logic, my personal experience, the vast amounts of literal, historical, archeological, and scientific evidence – is the reason that is not really talked about. That reason is the lack of suitable alternatives. I have found nothing to compare to it. Now I am just looking to discuss this, and if you are interpreting my statement as superior Christian piousness, I want to say it is not my intention. If I offend one of your sacred cows, please open a dialogue so that we might discuss it.
The first alternative I would like to discuss is this "naturalism" that most would not consider a religion at all. Because it is based on "science". Well that was a strong position to take maybe 30 years ago. But today, it is not as strong as it once was.
I will continue with the foundation of Naturalism on my next post...
EVOLUTION.
I hope as many as possible enjoy this.
Of the many reasons I believe in Jesus (my Savior, my Lord, my King, the Messiah described to us in the New Testament, and prophesied about in the Old Testament) – reasons like inerrancy of the bible, the symmetry between God's word and science, the perfection of the message’s logic, my personal experience, the vast amounts of literal, historical, archeological, and scientific evidence – is the reason that is not really talked about. That reason is the lack of suitable alternatives. I have found nothing to compare to it. Now I am just looking to discuss this, and if you are interpreting my statement as superior Christian piousness, I want to say it is not my intention. If I offend one of your sacred cows, please open a dialogue so that we might discuss it.
The first alternative I would like to discuss is this "naturalism" that most would not consider a religion at all. Because it is based on "science". Well that was a strong position to take maybe 30 years ago. But today, it is not as strong as it once was.
I will continue with the foundation of Naturalism on my next post...
EVOLUTION.
In the book of Isaiah, a circular well is mentioned, with circumference 30 units, and diameter 10 units. That'd give you p=3
I know I have posted this before, but it is one of my favorites.
Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled with only the right building blocks (amino acids) and only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids) joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct equence. I had been taught in school that if chemicals had an ample amount of time to interact in the “warm little ponds” of early earth, eventually the improbable would become probable and life would emerge. “Scientists once believed in the idea of random chance plus time yielding life, because they also believed in the steady-state theory of the universe,” scientist Walter Bradley said. “This meant the universe was infinitely old, and who knows what could happen if you had an infinite amount of time? But with the discovery of background radiation in 1965, the Big Bang theory came to dominate in cosmology. The bad news for evolution was that this meant the earth was probably less than five billion years old. “Actually, it’s not as long as you think. And not only was the time too short, but the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn’t work. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Biochemist Michael Behe has said the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert—and doing it not just once, but three different times.
Sir Frederick Hoyle put it colorfully when he said that this scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. “In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That’s why even though some people who aren’t educated in this field still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don’t believe it anymore.”
Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled with only the right building blocks (amino acids) and only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids) joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct equence. I had been taught in school that if chemicals had an ample amount of time to interact in the “warm little ponds” of early earth, eventually the improbable would become probable and life would emerge. “Scientists once believed in the idea of random chance plus time yielding life, because they also believed in the steady-state theory of the universe,” scientist Walter Bradley said. “This meant the universe was infinitely old, and who knows what could happen if you had an infinite amount of time? But with the discovery of background radiation in 1965, the Big Bang theory came to dominate in cosmology. The bad news for evolution was that this meant the earth was probably less than five billion years old. “Actually, it’s not as long as you think. And not only was the time too short, but the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn’t work. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Biochemist Michael Behe has said the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert—and doing it not just once, but three different times.
Sir Frederick Hoyle put it colorfully when he said that this scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. “In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That’s why even though some people who aren’t educated in this field still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don’t believe it anymore.”
Ron_de_Jeremy: In the book of Isaiah, a circular well is mentioned, with circumference 30 units, and diameter 10 units. That'd give you p=3
um... what?
Yes, I believe in Jesus. I talk to him every day.
MikeHD: If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
would love to see your Maths
In this calculation did you take in to consideration:
1. biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless if this is the assumption. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
2.Did you assume that the protein molecule must take one certain form. As i am sure you know there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
3.Did your calculation assume the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4. Did you include the fact that there would have been innumerable trials occurring simultaneouslyor did you use the same calculation as published in the 1985 publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Life--How Did It Get Here?
MikeHD: The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we has in Darwin’s time.” David Raup – Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
you really ought to read the full article
David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.
on the previous page the the quote you posted Raup writes:
We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:
What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. [Emphasis in original]
And later on the same page:
So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare.
It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.
MikeHD:
“…Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which you could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no; there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” Dr. Colin Patterson – Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
“…Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which you could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no; there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” Dr. Colin Patterson – Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History.
here is Patterson's own response to the mined quote
theoldestdear: you really ought to read the full article
David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.
on the previous page the the quote you posted Raup writes:
We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:
What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. [Emphasis in original]
And later on the same page:
So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare.
It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.
David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.
on the previous page the the quote you posted Raup writes:
We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:
What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. [Emphasis in original]
And later on the same page:
So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare.
It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.
So you are in agreement that evolutionist are having to abandon their previously "established" facts of evolution and embrace alternatives? As if all of these new species happening by chance gradually made sense, they now have to go on to more creative ways to explain their "fact" of evolution. Come on science, make up... I mean think up a way to explain where we came from. Give us truly creative ideas like Punctuated Equillibrium, Paleospecies, Selectionism, Deep Homology, or Atavism. Explore every imaginative option...
EXCEPT! anything that would point to I.D. or some other divine intervention. ALL SCIENTISTS GOING IN THIS DIRECTION ARE WRONG, simply because all those ideas are deemed blasphemous on the grounds that the established scientific community will not accept them no matter how much evidence there is.
theoldestdear: would love to see your Maths
In this calculation did you take in to consideration:
1. biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless if this is the assumption. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
I did find it interesting you brought up the topic of complex organisms. How complex was the first single cell organism? Science is finding out that the simple single cells are incredibly complex. And how did it instantly get that way? How did it give us the first existence of life? Organic molecules observed in space? Do you mean there are astronauts with microscopes observing the "formation" of these organic molecules? Outside, in space? Or do you mean they are in a safe laboratory, under controlled conditions, simulating space environments while maniplulating the formation process? I do like the way scientist use the words "possible", "might", "could have", "guess", and "maybe" when presenting their "fact" of evolution.
2.Did you assume that the protein molecule must take one certain form. As i am sure you know there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
Now I understand you are saying there are all these different proteins, but don't they all act like proteins?
3.Did your calculation assume the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
Are you saying the single cell organisms of today are radically different from the single cesll organisms of the past? What is your evidence of this? Single cell organism fossils perhaps? I am unfamiliar with this and will have to do some reading on it.
4. Did you include the fact that there would have been innumerable trials occurring simultaneouslyor did you use the same calculation as published in the 1985 publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Life--How Did It Get Here?
Well, I am not a Jehovah's Witness if that is what you are asking. This number came from Walter Bradley, PhD in Material Science from UT. He has been honored by Society of Plastics Engineers, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Eta Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, Pi Tau Sigma, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Chemical Society, and American Society for Materials. But he is a Christian, so I know that disquaifies him from being legitimate or having any kind of scientific credibility. I am sure you could contact him at Baylor University to see exactly how he came to his conclusions. I know, I know, Baylor is Baptist, so it has to be teaching more of that superstious nonsense.
In this calculation did you take in to consideration:
1. biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless if this is the assumption. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
I did find it interesting you brought up the topic of complex organisms. How complex was the first single cell organism? Science is finding out that the simple single cells are incredibly complex. And how did it instantly get that way? How did it give us the first existence of life? Organic molecules observed in space? Do you mean there are astronauts with microscopes observing the "formation" of these organic molecules? Outside, in space? Or do you mean they are in a safe laboratory, under controlled conditions, simulating space environments while maniplulating the formation process? I do like the way scientist use the words "possible", "might", "could have", "guess", and "maybe" when presenting their "fact" of evolution.
2.Did you assume that the protein molecule must take one certain form. As i am sure you know there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
Now I understand you are saying there are all these different proteins, but don't they all act like proteins?
3.Did your calculation assume the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
Are you saying the single cell organisms of today are radically different from the single cesll organisms of the past? What is your evidence of this? Single cell organism fossils perhaps? I am unfamiliar with this and will have to do some reading on it.
4. Did you include the fact that there would have been innumerable trials occurring simultaneouslyor did you use the same calculation as published in the 1985 publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Life--How Did It Get Here?
Well, I am not a Jehovah's Witness if that is what you are asking. This number came from Walter Bradley, PhD in Material Science from UT. He has been honored by Society of Plastics Engineers, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Eta Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, Pi Tau Sigma, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Chemical Society, and American Society for Materials. But he is a Christian, so I know that disquaifies him from being legitimate or having any kind of scientific credibility. I am sure you could contact him at Baylor University to see exactly how he came to his conclusions. I know, I know, Baylor is Baptist, so it has to be teaching more of that superstious nonsense.
Sir, this was an excellent post. I hope you are going to post many more.
MikeHD: So you are in agreement that evolutionist are having to abandon their previously "established" facts of evolution and embrace alternatives? As if all of these new species happening by chance gradually made sense, they now have to go on to more creative ways to explain their "fact" of evolution. Come on science, make up... I mean think up a way to explain where we came from. Give us truly creative ideas like Punctuated Equillibrium, Paleospecies, Selectionism, Deep Homology, or Atavism. Explore every imaginative option...
EXCEPT! anything that would point to I.D. or some other divine intervention. ALL SCIENTISTS GOING IN THIS DIRECTION ARE WRONG, simply because all those ideas are deemed blasphemous on the grounds that the established scientific community will not accept them no matter how much evidence there is.
Great posts yourself, Mike. It's very much appreciated EXCEPT! anything that would point to I.D. or some other divine intervention. ALL SCIENTISTS GOING IN THIS DIRECTION ARE WRONG, simply because all those ideas are deemed blasphemous on the grounds that the established scientific community will not accept them no matter how much evidence there is.
MikeHD: I did find it interesting you brought up the topic of complex organisms. How complex was the first single cell organism? Science is finding out that the simple single cells are incredibly complex. And how did it instantly get that way? How did it give us the first existence of life? Organic molecules observed in space? Do you mean there are astronauts with microscopes observing the "formation" of these organic molecules? Outside, in space? Or do you mean they are in a safe laboratory, under controlled conditions, simulating space environments while maniplulating the formation process? I do like the way scientist use the words "possible", "might", "could have", "guess", and "maybe" when presenting their "fact" of evolution.
Sir, this was an excellent post. I hope you are going to post many more.
Sir, this was an excellent post. I hope you are going to post many more.
I meant in space!!!
first amino acid on a comet 17 August 2009 by Maggie McKee
For similar stories, visit the Comets and Asteroids and Astrobiology Topic Guides
An amino acid has been found on a comet for the first time, a new analysis of samples from NASA's Stardust mission reveals. The discovery confirms that some of the building blocks of life were delivered to the early Earth from space.
Amino acids are crucial to life because they form the basis of proteins, the molecules that run cells. The acids form when organic, carbon-containing compounds and water are zapped with a source of energy, such as photons – a process that can take place on Earth or in space.
Previously, researchers have found amino acids in space rocks that fell to Earth as meteorites, and tentative evidence for the compounds has been detected in interstellar space. Now, an amino acid called glycine has been definitively traced to an icy comet for the first time.
"It's not necessarily surprising, but it's very satisfying to find it there because it hasn't been observed before," says Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, lead author of the new study. "It's been looked for [on comets] spectroscopically with telescopes but the content seems so low you can't see it that way."
The world is changing, that's true.
But it is changing in exactly the way Jesus said it would.
And his truths are just as valid for today as they were when he said them, even moreso.
But it is changing in exactly the way Jesus said it would.
And his truths are just as valid for today as they were when he said them, even moreso.
RayfromUSA: The world is changing, that's true.
But it is changing in exactly the way Jesus said it would.
And his truths are just as valid for today as they were when he said them, even moreso.
But it is changing in exactly the way Jesus said it would.
And his truths are just as valid for today as they were when he said them, even moreso.
where did Jesus say the world would change this way? And what ways did he say it would change exactly?
I believe he was one of the original celebrities who's story was passed down and made more and more ridiculous every time it was told 
pauldavid68: in an ever changing world, i just wonder if people believe in jesus.
no, I do not believe in Jesus.
I believe in Gaia.
jahzah: I believe he was one of the original celebrities who's story was passed down and made more and more ridiculous every time it was told
Well, it adapted stories that were already known before Jesus
The virgin birth, resurrecting from the dead, a human incantation of god, all these were in pagan religions well before jesus walked the earth. Th first gospels weren't even written till 50 years after Jesus died (Mathew and mark, Luke 60 years afterward, and John 80 years afterward), and that would make the authors 80 in a time were life expectancy was only 50 years of age at the very earliest of gospels. That is a long time to blow a story up. And either the authors were disciples and old and senile, or they were written by someone else claiming to be a disciple.
Jesus was a great teacher, to bad it seems his followers don;t pay attention to his lessons
Yes, I believe that he was once a man that lived and died a long time ago.
I do not believe that he is the son of "God" though.
I do not believe that he is the son of "God" though.
When Jesus died:
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
RayfromUSA: When Jesus died:
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
you have a point there.
I often wonder what the REAL Jesus would think, when he came back on earth. would he shake his head when he sees what people have done, and are still doing to each other, in HIS name?
I don't think this is what he had in mind when he 'developed' the concept of believe.
True faith comes from within the heart and the hope of better things to come.
not from other people claiming to be the incarnation of jesus or god.
but, this is my humble opinion. hope I have not offended anyone.
RayfromUSA: When Jesus died:
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
And with that point, you believe the recorded of his life is not altered in any fashion? The earliest gospels came a half a century after he died, most of the new testament books came out over a hundred years after he died, and the bible you recognize today was developed by the Romans three hundred years after he died. I am not saying he was not an outstanding guy with a place in history, but you have to question the legitimacy of the story.
MikeHD: Sir Frederick Hoyle put it colorfully when he said that this scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. “In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That’s why even though some people who aren’t educated in this field still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don’t believe it anymore.”
This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.
Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.
These are some outstanding posts! Thank you to everyone who is participating. This is so much fun! I will not be online today (currently I'm on my phone, which is taking me forever to post this short message), but I will be on next week. I am so looking forward to addressing everyone's points raised here. I can't wait!
See you guys soon.
See you guys soon.
Jihadmeathello: And with that point, you believe the recorded of his life is not altered in any fashion? The earliest gospels came a half a century after he died, most of the new testament books came out over a hundred years after he died, and the bible you recognize today was developed by the Romans three hundred years after he died. I am not saying he was not an outstanding guy with a place in history, but you have to question the legitimacy of the story.
We only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
More Threads
wanting beyond need
The weird and the random facts around the world
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
men's perspective towards women
Ladies
your personality
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Feel Good Music
Sleepy Don!
the way you look
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
It was needed, so it happened, which ever path the many prophets walked..
To some,belief that is cradled in hope
contains a solace of
Goodness..
A knowing
to make the heart beat
for a reason...
Not sure I understood what you were saying, but it was pretty.
And so are you.