Why Christians are not just a load of backwards imbeciles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

If God cannot be detected through the means of science, that means he can't, in any way at all, influence any events in our universe. Or to be more accurate, he doesn't exist.

---

This is not true. This is called scientism, in which natural science is held to be the only valid avenue of knowledge. It is one thing to say that everything that science has proven to be a fact is true, but it is quite another thing to say that everything that is true can be proven by science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Yet we do write in DNA ourself. DNA manipulation. We don't need to try hard to see patterns. It is a fact that DNA is patterned into phrases, paragraphes, chapters, it has words and even punctuation.

---

No, we do not write DNA, we splice two genes together and hope something good comes out. if we could write DNA, then we wouldn't have any more diseases or wars, because we would simply write it out of our DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Logic agreed upon by everyone. Of course the logic starts in my mind. But the thing is, there is a logic, like mathematics for example, which is undeniable, and that is what I mean by logical evidence.

---

Then why has this logic not been agreed upon by everyone?

I would say a good 99.999999% of people agree that the earth revolves around the sun, that two plus two equals four. Why is there so much debate over your logic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I wonder how many muslims/hindus/buddhists/non-christians have seen Jesus in near-death experiences.

---

Buddhists can be muslims, hindus, or Christian or athiest.

HAHA WTF?
My response to your post #74 somehow happened a minute before your post. Time for a RC.

It does not follow that if there was no creator then we would be able to map the or simulate creation ourselves. I don;t really have a situation in mind but the fact that I don't know how DNA was created doesn't mean that it was created by a supernatural being. It just means that I don;t fully understand the science behind it.

Basically through naturally occurring processes a very simple form of life was created with a much simpler DNA structure. Over time this structure adapted to conditions and became more complex and now we're here. Again I don't know science so well, but I believe that DNA is an open ended program, it changes with each generation.

How do you suppose it happened? Where was DNA written by God and how did he make it manifest? What is God even made of?

Plus who created God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

This is not true. This is called scientism, in which natural science is held to be the only valid avenue of knowledge. It is one thing to say that everything that science has proven to be a fact is true, but it is quite another thing to say that everything that is true can be proven by science.

---

I'm just saying that if something can't possibly be detected in any way, that means it practically doesn't exist. We can detect particles that constantly pass through entire planets unhindered, yet through the last 200-300 years where science has thrived, not a single credible incident has been recorded, which can be related to godlike qualities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennerman

No, we do not write DNA, we splice two genes together and hope something good comes out. if we could write DNA, then we wouldn't have any more diseases or wars, because we would simply write it out of our DNA.

---

Lol semantics. Do you really not get my point? We are manipulating DNA all the time, in plants for example to remove disease. But ok, I do get your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So you don't have physical evidence for God...but you have logical evidence. What, exactly, is your "logical evidence."

---

The arguments I made. But in order for logical evidence to be accepted, both sides have to believe in logical evidence. You for example only believe in physical evidence, which is completely normal every scientist would require and demand physical evidence, but it doesnt' allow for logical argumentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

Yes, you just described the concept of natural selection. The good mutations thrive, the bad mutations don't. The mutation wouldn't immediately affect the population, but it wouldn't die off and eventually it would affect the entire population, while the bad mutation would die off before it affects much more than a fraction of the population.

---

But there is only one good mutation, in order for it to thrive, it would have to mate with all the females.

Suppose there is a good mutation that gives animals a little bit more fur, what is the chance, that this random mutation will keep on occuring over and over, until there is enough extra fur to give extra advantage to survive through natural selection? The chance is a mathematical impossibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennerman

Then why has this logic not been agreed upon by everyone?

I would say a good 99.999999% of people agree that the earth revolves around the sun, that two plus two equals four. Why is there so much debate over your logic?

---

Not to be a dick, but this doesn't exactly make sense either. Just because something follows logic doesn't mean that everyone accepts it. It follows logic that we should legalize drugs because drug prohibition creates crime rather than preventing it, but weed, a fucking plant, is illegal. The general population doesn't always act logically.

The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because neither side has a solid answer so people mostly just believe what they believe and try to rationalize things based on that. I think that the scientific perspective has much more evidence, so I rationalize from that perspective. I also believe that if deities exist they can only influence this world through influencing peoples minds(though I doubt that they do exist).

There have been many christians who are very logical, yet the more logical they are the more wild their claims usually.

Actually after reading just the wiki on absiogenesis just now, maybe science does have a solid explanation, but I need to read more than just the wiki to really make a good judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

This is not true. This is called scientism, in which natural science is held to be the only valid avenue of knowledge. It is one thing to say that everything that science has proven to be a fact is true, but it is quite another thing to say that everything that is true can be proven by science.

---

You've conflated truth with knowledge. They're totally different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

But there is only one good mutation, in order for it to thrive, it would have to mate with all the females.

Suppose there is a good mutation that gives animals a little bit more fur, what is the chance, that this random mutation will keep on occuring over and over, until there is enough extra fur to give extra advantage to survive through natural selection? The chance is a mathematical impossibility.

---

Let's look at the fur example. A population of mice live in a warm environment. One day, a mouse is born with a little more fur. This allows the mouse to live in colder climates and to be more active during winter. This means that it is more likely to survive, thus it will most likely have a bigger amount of offspring than other mice. Over some time, maybe a hundred years, the entire population has the extra fur gene. It's quite simple really.
In farming, we employ the same concept. We take the big grain and use them for the next season and eat the small grain. We have been doing this for thousands of years and it is one of the reasons we're a successful species.

Marvo don't even bother, he's a troll, a lunatic, or a simpleton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

HAHA WTF?
My response to your post #74 somehow happened a minute before your post. Time for a RC.

It does not follow that if there was no creator then we would be able to map the or simulate creation ourselves. I don;t really have a situation in mind but the fact that I don't know how DNA was created doesn't mean that it was created by a supernatural being. It just means that I don;t fully understand the science behind it.

Basically through naturally occurring processes a very simple form of life was created with a much simpler DNA structure. Over time this structure adapted to conditions and became more complex and now we're here. Again I don't know science so well, but I believe that DNA is an open ended program, it changes with each generation.

How do you suppose it happened? Where was DNA written by God and how did he make it manifest? What is God even made of?

Plus who created God?

---

Hah! No need for a RC, I deleted and then reposted to add more quotes in my post so I wouldn't need to double or triple post.

There is no such thing as a simple DNA structure. All life shares the same complex DNA structure, all life is made out of cells. So where did this cell suddenly come from? That is a mystery. There is no precursor to the cell.

How do I think it happened? That is what I'm still trying to figure out, but I did figure out tho, that other explanations of how it supposed to have happened are impossible. So by the process of elimination, I arrived at God.

Who created God? No idea either, I guess he must have always been there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

Let's look at the fur example. A population of mice live in a warm environment. One day, a mouse is born with a little more fur. This allows the mouse to live in colder climates and to be more active during winter. This means that it is more likely to survive, thus it will most likely have a bigger amount of offspring than other mice. Over some time, maybe a hundred years, the entire population has the extra fur gene. It's quite simple really.
In farming, we employ the same concept. We take the big grain and use them for the next season and eat the small grain. We have been doing this for thousands of years and it is one of the reasons we're a successful species.

---

Yes agreed, but we're talking about random mutations here. The mouse would only get like a few extra hairs, that doesn't give it more chance to survive. Unless this random mutation would occur over and over, until there is enough fur to give it an advantage, which is a mathematical impossibility and which is the point I was making. I don't disagree with evolution theory, I disagree with the idea of random mutation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

The arguments I made. But in order for logical evidence to be accepted, both sides have to believe in logical evidence. You for example only believe in physical evidence, which is completely normal every scientist would require and demand physical evidence, but it doesnt' allow for logical argumentation.

---

Probably because arguing back and forth, even if logically, doesn't prove the existence of God or even count as evidence. Besides, your so-called arguments are misguided stem from a misunderstand of...well, just about anything and everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

Not to be a dick, but this doesn't exactly make sense either. Just because something follows logic doesn't mean that everyone accepts it. It follows logic that we should legalize drugs because drug prohibition creates crime rather than preventing it, but weed, a fucking plant, is illegal. The general population doesn't always act logically.

The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because neither side has a solid answer so people mostly just believe what they believe and try to rationalize things based on that. I think that the scientific perspective has much more evidence, so I rationalize from that perspective. I also believe that if deities exist they can only influence this world through influencing peoples minds(though I doubt that they do exist).

There have been many christians who are very logical, yet the more logical they are the more wild their claims usually.

Actually after reading just the wiki on absiogenesis just now, maybe science does have a solid explanation, but I need to read more than just the wiki to really make a good judgment.

---

My point was that he thinks that it is logic if everyone accepts it, and I was disproving that part. As well, although something that everyone agrees on isn't necessarily logic, things that are logical are generally agreed upon by the majority. that ain't science, simply an observation on my part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Yes agreed, but we're talking about random mutations here. The mouse would only get like a few extra hairs, that doesn't give it more chance to survive. Unless this random mutation would occur over and over, until there is enough fur to give it an advantage, which is a mathematical impossibility and which is the point I was making. I don't disagree with evolution theory, I disagree with the idea of random mutation.

---

So all the examples we have of humanly directed selection, such as modern day dogs and cats, grain, bananas, you deny their existence? Also, a mutation doesn't have to just cause one or two more hairs. Maybe it would cause an extension of the fur, like making it thicker. This would affect all the hair on the mouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennerman

My point was that he thinks that it is logic if everyone accepts it, and I was disproving that part. As well, although something that everyone agrees on isn't necessarily logic, things that are logical are generally agreed upon by the majority. that ain't science, simply an observation on my part

---

I agree, was just pointing out that in esoteric matters(God) the majority is usually clueless.

CHAYBA, isn;t it possible that we just don't know yet what caused the creation of the cell? Thousands of years ago people saw thunder and lightning and other natural phenomena and attributed them to God. Isn;t saying I don't know therefore God just a cop out? Why not stop at I don't know, it's a much more meaningful statement in my opinion. God is such a vague notion.

Also do you think God is a deity or something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

So all the examples we have of humanly directed selection, such as modern day dogs and cats, grain, bananas, you deny their existence? Also, a mutation doesn't have to just cause one or two more hairs. Maybe it would cause an extension of the fur, like making it thicker. This would affect all the hair on the mouse.

---

What does humanly directed selection have to do with random mutation? I'm arguing against the idea, that driving force behind evolution is random mutation. Random is nothing but a mechanism undiscovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennerman

My point was that he thinks that it is logic if everyone accepts it, and I was disproving that part.

---

Nah, I meant there is a type of logic everyone can agree upon or we wouldn't be able to debate. But ok, I get your point, good point, point taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

What does humanly directed selection have to do with random mutation? I'm arguing against the idea, that driving force behind evolution is random mutation. Random is nothing but a mechanism undiscovered.

---

Nice, everybody knows this. This is not a secret. Nobody has argued this. "Random mutation" is just a metaphor for what is actually happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

Nice, everybody knows this. This is not a secret. Nobody has argued this. "Random mutation" is just a metaphor for what is actually happening.

---

Nice, then we agree. I was arguing this tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

I agree, was just pointing out that in esoteric matters(God) the majority is usually clueless.

CHAYBA, isn;t it possible that we just don't know yet what caused the creation of the cell? Thousands of years ago people saw thunder and lightning and other natural phenomena and attributed them to God. Isn;t saying I don't know therefore God just a cop out? Why not stop at I don't know, it's a much more meaningful statement in my opinion. God is such a vague notion.

Also do you think God is a deity or something else?

---

Sure it is possible, but as things stand now, the cell is the most complex thing ever, and there is no precursor. There is just the cell. The scientific explanation would be that this cell came into existence of random chemicals bumping into eachother. The idea of God writing the cell is more logical to me, random chemicals bumping into eachother is not really an explanation anyway. If God did not create the cell, then why is there no simpler form of the cell, and a simpler form of that one?

I think God is the creator of this universe, I have no idea how he pulled it off, that is something I'm trying to figure out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

why is there no simpler form of the cell

---

Bacteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Bacteria.

---

Bacteria are cells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Bacteria are cells.

---

Virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Bacteria are cells.

---

Simple cells, which we refer to as prokaryotes.

Incidentally why did God make the cholera bacterium?

But a virus by definition, is something that infects a cell, so how could it be a precursor to a cell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Simple cells, which we refer to as prokaryotes.

Incidentally why did God make the cholera bacterium?

---

Becuase God hates your guts and wants you to die :lol:

If you take out the word random, the statement seems at least as logical as the idea that God did it if not more. It's not random, nature has a logic to it.

Sure nature has logic to it, but what is the logic behind a cell, or a virus, or a bacteria, being created out of nothing but chemicals bumping into eachother?

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/microarray/biol...files/cell.jpe


The cell is the most complex thing in existence, as the human body is created entirely, out of one cell. So how did this cell come into existence?