Topic: Religion is a plague - page 7. (Read 11811 times)

That article says exactly jack about what they did.

I can tell you this, RNA did NOT form spontaneously from inert proteins in that experiment.

Do you know what DNA and RNA are? It contains the genetic instructions to build a specific life form AND a digital computer! It is an error correcting (3 of 4-bit) and self-replicating code.

It is said that only 1 in 100 software engineers can build a 3 of 4 bit error correcting code.

It built itself? That's certifiably insane.

They recreated the conditions, and the molecules formed. How is that intelligent design?

Whoah whoah, whoah. Hold it right there. No laboratories, scientists, or scientific instruments are allowed to be present to reproduce the conditions that led to the supposed spontaneous formation of the "building blocks of life" (whatever those might be).

This the opposite of evolution. This is intelligent design. It is proof that life is a product of intelligence and information (and not chaotic random chance).


No, sorry I don't.

You were saying? Scientists create life’s building blocks in a laboratory (from Scratch)


Yes, an unbiased translation of Genesis might read:

"In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth"...etc
.
Now the Jehovah had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
.
"When the Jehovah saw that he had gone over to look, Jehovah called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” "

You get the idea.

Long-chain molecules are light-years from becoming life forms. Also not reproducible. And yeah, from rocks.


If that's the only way for you to visualize God in the 12th dimension, fine, i won't argue with you.


You should check out Chuck Missler's videos, especially The Beyond Collection. Fascinating stuff. Many of your doubts will be shaken. If you can't find them online, I can share them with you.


The Israelites and others worshiped idols made of stone, wood, metal. In the modern day, you can easily see why God would say this. There are hundreds of religions, each with their own god. The God of the bible claims precedence and power over them all, which, I think (i could be wrong), is unique among religions.

Long chain molecules forming under the influence of high electrical fields is more believable (and reproducible) than a bearded guy behind the clouds. So Sure, Great grandma was a rock, and great grandpa was a lightning bolt.

Also.. It's funny, but I don't think the original Torah was written in modern Hebrew, do you? Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Jehovah felt the need to specifically state, "Hold no other gods before me"?

Religion... because know you'll die someday is a pain!  

That's all it rounds to; because people is so afraid of die and go to be eaten by worms that they prefer to believe on "Paradises". And to go to those "Paradises" you need to act like an irrational freak preaching for a "God" 1000x worse than Ghaddafi and with a shitload of egocentric issues demanding you to "worship without question" that phony "Eternal dictator"...
Just too bad, religion is a notorious scam, and that God was created by the scammers. No God, no Paradise and the worms still wait you underground... sucks! But reality is as cold as steel and won't be changing by your delusions.

If you believe we evolved, then your great-great-great-great-great-great grand-daddy, was a rock. The rain washed down on the rocks, mixing together the building blocks needed to form protein, DNA, and single-celled organisms. That's the theory.


You're half-right, or half wrong, depending.
When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".  Source: Glinert Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar Routledge

A rock? lolwut?

And while we're on Hebrew definitions, "Elohim", the word generally translated as 'God' actually means "Gods". Plural.

Why is that hard for you to believe, since the books you stand behind say that we are descended from a rock. This is just the reverse!

Further to your point:

Paul Cilwa has noted that in the Hebrew text, the word used for "salt" also means "vapor". Lot's wife wasn't turned to salt. She was vaporized.

Please remember that you are arguing that a book which contains a description of a woman turning into salt is scientifically accurate because a crazy dude said "countless as the stars".

Your "observation" is severely clouded by prior knowledge, may I humbly point out.


Sure, I, can reason it. Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not. If they had, they could certainly never prove it. That's the point. They publicly stated their opinions for you and I to laugh at today. So there is no mistaking what their reasoning was.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I never said i directly observed that there were individual stars in the Milky way. I said I could directly observe a transition from individually differentiable stars to the white haze. I could then reason that perhaps, in that haze, there are simply more stars than I could distinguish.

If I show you a pattern of dots that gradually grow larger, and closer together, until finally it is solid black, could you not then reason that the solid black area is made up of dots so large and close that they touch or overlap?

That's not a scientific observation, because you cannot see the individual stars, unaided. The point is, Ptolemy and Hipparchus, the best of the day, did not believe what you assert to be true because they had no evidence for it. You KNOW it to be true, so don't tell me you imagined it.

Maybe you missed when I said 'naked eye'. I saw, with my naked eye, stars wedged in between stars. When I looked at the milky way, I saw, indeed, a 'white haze'. But the edge of that white haze was made up of more stars. I could deduce, then, that perhaps the stars there were simply so close in that haze that I could not differentiate them with my naked eye.

Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not imagine it, and they were astronomers. They didn't see "more stars", they saw a white haze.  You can have exactly ZERO imagination in 2011 and still know the white haze is more stars, thanks to the photographic evidence provided by Hubble and other telescopes.

The bible was reasonably accurate when it tells us the number, "like the sands of the sea".  That's not a mistake, or an accident.

No, there are not an infinite number of stars.  Modern scientists estimate it to be 10 sextillion.

You've never been outside, away from city lights, on a good clear night, have you?

The sky is almost white with stars. Everywhere you look, more stars. in the spaces between stars: more stars. Just naked eye, Yeah, I can imagine that there are an infinite number of them.

Yes, praise the Lord, we must convert them all.

The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. Look at the universe around us, its very existence is evidence of a KNOWN entity creator, not unknown. Look at what God tells us about the Number of the Stars in the Universe:


In the years 161-126 BC, the man who is said to have first started the study of astronomy, Hiparchus, counted the number of stars in the heavens, and put the number at 1,080. This number was considered to be fairly accurate 300 years later, when Ptolemy announced that the number was more like 1,056.

It wasn't until the invention of the telescope that people realized that the number of the stars was huge ...in the countless millions. The Bible didn't make the mistake of saying that the number was merely a few hundred or thousand, but rather, in about 600 BC, the prophet Jeremiah says the number is "countless as the stars of the sky and measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jer. 33:22). Also, from the year 1500 BC, the same concept comes from Genesis 22:17. And this is correct, because we now estimate the number of stars to be approximately 10 to the 26th (which may also be a fair estimate of the number of the grains of sand on all the earth's sea-shores), but the actual number is "countless" for us to attempt to precisely count. ---However, God, who is infinite in knowledge, knows the exact number, as the Bible says, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name" (Psalm 147:4).

Sure.  However, the risk is that by perpetuating these wrong and dangerous beliefs and passing them off as OK, you increase the likelihood that a child or a non-initiated would come to accept these flawed beliefs as truth.  Then they live their entire life for a lie.


Explain.  You mean they would submit to states and/or corporate brands?  So since people would anyway submit to something, it is OK to have them submit to religion?  Why not instead empower these helpless people to controlling their own lives instead so they can resist being controlled by the people who seek to control you?  It doesn't necessarily follow that if there were no religions, then people would still be controlled by something else.


Well, the greatest problem, IMHO, is ignorance.  Ignorance is a problem even greater than just religion.  Which is why it is best to focus on dispelling ignorance whenever possible.  That is why it is important to attack religion on internet forums as we are doing here.