|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gupsfu
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919
|
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| In defense of Faith wrote: |
if god did not exist, then what or who created you?!!!!
Come on atheist fools, just use your brains.
how did you come into being if god the creator nourisher and sustainer of the universe did not exist? |
I don't know about you, but I exist because my parents gave birth to me.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Max4001
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gupsfu wrote: |
| In defense of Faith wrote: |
if god did not exist, then what or who created you?!!!!
Come on atheist fools, just use your brains.
how did you come into being if god the creator nourisher and sustainer of the universe did not exist? |
I don't know about you, but I exist because my parents gave birth to me. |
So the universe just popped into existence on its own out of nothing by nothing, matter self-ordered to form first life, it became complex enough to reproduce and genetic mutations did the rest, forming complex structures such as wings, eyes and brains without any help from God, ..wow, I admire your faith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max4001 wrote: |
| So the universe just popped into existence on its own out of nothing by nothing |
Not at all. It is by all evidence eternal and uncreated.
| Max4001 wrote: |
| matter self-ordered to form first life, it became complex enough to reproduce and genetic mutations did the rest, forming complex structures such as wings, eyes and brains without any help from God, ..wow, I admire your faith |
What does "faith" have to do with it?
Every day we witness matter self organizing without any sign of divine intervention.
And there is no obvious or objective elemental or chemical difference between living matter and non-living. In fact... the dividing line between living and non-living matter is completely arbitrary.
No faith necessary.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max4001
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THHuxley_redux wrote: |
| Max4001 wrote: |
| So the universe just popped into existence on its own out of nothing by nothing |
Not at all. It is by all evidence eternal and uncreated.
The standard Big Bang model (which points to a beginning for the universe) disputes this and makes things very awkward for the atheist.Oscillating theories and inflationary theories have fatal flaws.
| Max4001 wrote: |
| matter self-ordered to form first life, it became complex enough to reproduce and genetic mutations did the rest, forming complex structures such as wings, eyes and brains without any help from God, ..wow, I admire your faith |
What does "faith" have to do with it? a lot
Every day we witness matter self organizing without any sign of divine intervention. Really, well I would say the simple ordering of a vortex in the toilet and ice crystal structure are a bit less "ordered" than the sophisticated type of informational self-ordering that would have been required to create life.
And there is no obvious or objective elemental or chemical difference between living matter and non-living. In fact... the dividing line between living and non-living matter is completely arbitrary.
No faith necessary. |
Wow...no difference between living and non-living matter. If you could could post on this forum after you are dead then I will say you are onto something. And if that line is so blurred why is the origin of life research and all attempts to create life from non-life at a dead-end?
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Psycho Bunny
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max4001 wrote: |
Wow...no difference between living and non-living matter. If you could could post on this forum after you are dead then I will say you are onto something. And if that line is so blurred why is the origin of life research and all attempts to create life from non-life at a dead-end?
[/b] |
Putting your post into a bold type does not disguise the fact that your arguments are pure balderdash and bollocks.
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!
Love, bunny-style
________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max4001
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Psycho Bunny wrote: |
| Max4001 wrote: |
Wow...no difference between living and non-living matter. If you could could post on this forum after you are dead then I will say you are onto something. And if that line is so blurred why is the origin of life research and all attempts to create life from non-life at a dead-end?
[/b] |
Putting your post into a bold type does not disguise the fact that your arguments are pure balderdash and bollocks. |
Nice refutation....that sort of hard-hitting logic will take you a long way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Psycho Bunny
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max4001 wrote: |
| Psycho Bunny wrote: |
| Max4001 wrote: |
Wow...no difference between living and non-living matter. If you could could post on this forum after you are dead then I will say you are onto something. And if that line is so blurred why is the origin of life research and all attempts to create life from non-life at a dead-end?
[/b] |
Putting your post into a bold type does not disguise the fact that your arguments are pure balderdash and bollocks. |
Nice refutation....that sort of hard-hitting logic will take you a long way. |
Your knowledge of science is no better than balderdash.
And at least you appear to have responded by not posting your words in bold. So I have made some headway.
Your main failing is that you try to equate whatever philosophical "truths" that you may believe in with science, which demands physical evidence. And in the case of cosmology and "creation" science has provided far more objective proof than the confections of religionists.
And adopting a sarcastic tone still does not alter the fact that your attempt to discuss scientific facts as inferior to your God-view is preposterous balderdash.
Your belief in God is not something to be sneered at - but when you try to argue against science without using practical evidence your arguments are what I said they were - bollocks.
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!
Love, bunny-style
________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max4001
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Psycho Bunny wrote: |
| Max4001 wrote: |
| Psycho Bunny wrote: |
| Max4001 wrote: |
Wow...no difference between living and non-living matter. If you could could post on this forum after you are dead then I will say you are onto something. And if that line is so blurred why is the origin of life research and all attempts to create life from non-life at a dead-end?
[/b] |
Putting your post into a bold type does not disguise the fact that your arguments are pure balderdash and bollocks. |
Nice refutation....that sort of hard-hitting logic will take you a long way. |
Your knowledge of science is no better than balderdash.
And at least you appear to have responded by not posting your words in bold. So I have made some headway.
Your main failing is that you try to equate whatever philosophical "truths" that you may believe in with science, which demands physical evidence. And in the case of cosmology and "creation" science has provided far more objective proof than the confections of religionists.
And adopting a sarcastic tone still does not alter the fact that your attempt to discuss scientific facts as inferior to your God-view is preposterous balderdash.
Your belief in God is not something to be sneered at - but when you try to argue against science without using practical evidence your arguments are what I said they were - bollocks. |
Look psycho...I'm not arguing against science at all. I am a scientist and would argue scientific findings add to the probability God exists. My specific challenge to you was ignored. Why can't we create life if the distinction is so subtle and blurred as you so cavalierly stated? and why is is so difficult to explain origins from non-life to achieve the high level of informational content involved in living systems...if that leap from non-life to life is as easy as you have prescribed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Psycho Bunny
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
You've gone back to bold again. I feel I should be answering in some colour.
The fact that we have not created life and are so far unable to create life is not of itself an argument in favour of God.
There are still arguments about what processes led to the origins of life - we only have the fossil record to attest to the emergence of stromatolites and other proofs that life had reached certain stages in the fossil record.
How the four amino-acids comprising the DNA double helix arranged themselves is complex chemistry that we have so far not been given enough information to recreate from scratch in a laboratory - even if we could recreate life, what timescale would we need to reproduce the same conditions of original life?
At present we can identify, examine and manipulate DNA. But even if we could create life in a laboratory - life has now become so ubiqitous it would be hard to say that new life could be easily created in a life-free vacuum.
But we know enough about DNA to know that our DNA has origins, our mitochondria have their own DNA that appear to be cells of other life that were incorporated into our cell nuclei at a very early stage, and thus we can see patterns of evolution.
We can safely say that we as humans have evolved beyond the stage of yeast as we share the DNA of yeast, that 60% of our DNA is virtually identical to the DNA found in a banana.
There are a few theories about how life emerged. No one theory has been shown to surpass the others so far - and science has limits, in that it requires evidence and repeatable experiment to prove itself.
Because scientific knowledge has gaps, just as there are gaps in the evolutionary fossil record, does not mean that science is wrong or that it should be substituted by an unproven and unprovablee hypothesis of God.
Why would God wait so long to create life on earth - why would God wait for all the heavy complex atoms that became life to be formed from the furnaces of long-dead stars? Assuming God wanted life to happen, rather than life evolving from certain circumstances, why not go for the "six days and then he rested" model?
I do not see where God comes into any scientific discourse about creation.
God appepars to be something that religionists project onto the existing data.
The data we have may be incomplete, but do you have to know every single one of our individual ancestors to know for certain that we all have direct ancestors who were alive at the time of Julius Caesar? And with study of mitochondria we can all trace our ancestry back to one particular primate, mitochondrial Eve.
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!
Love, bunny-style
________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max4001 wrote: |
| Wow...no difference between living and non-living matter. If you could could post on this forum after you are dead then I will say you are onto something. And if that line is so blurred why is the origin of life research and all attempts to create life from non-life at a dead-end? |
Last question first.
It's not. Research on the origin of life is fruitful, exciting and making huge progress. You must not be paying attention.
Now to your opening observations... please....
Tell me exactly what the difference is between the matter that makes up a rock, and the matter that makes up a rabbit? What is the difference bewteen the rock's oxygen atoms and a rabbits? What is the difference between the rock's electrons and the lagomorphs?
What's the difference between a charmed quark in a stone and a charmed quark in a hare?
And tell me... is a virus living or dead? How about a prion?
What's the material difference in a human body in the second before death and the second following death? After all... even for long minutes and hours after a human dies, most of the 50 trillion cells in the human body are still alive..... so... the difference again is what exactly?
My assumption is that you believe in an afterlife. It is therefore weird that you agree I will not be able to post something on this forum after I am dead.
Aren't you the one of us who would find that a reasonable possibility?
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max4001 wrote: |
| Look psycho...I'm not arguing against science at all. I am a scientist and would argue scientific findings add to the probability God exists. My specific challenge to you was ignored. Why can't we create life if the distinction is so subtle and blurred as you so cavalierly stated? |
It was I that stated that.... not psycho.
That said... if you actually are a scientist, why then do you imagine that the current state of any technical art is the limit of its potential achievement? There are many things we once could not do that we can do today. There are many things that we cannot do today that we will one day be able to do.
If you actually are a scientist and this post is honestly a reflection of your beliefs in the potential of technology, then I suggest you slit your wrists, since you clearly believe that your chosen profession has nothing more it can accomplish.
| Max4001 wrote: |
| and why is is so difficult to explain origins from non-life to achieve the high level of informational content involved in living systems...if that leap from non-life to life is as easy as you have prescribed? |
What makes you imagine that is difficult to explain?
It's not.
What kind of science do you practice? Certainly not biology.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kereng
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THHuxley_redux wrote: |
| Max4001 wrote: |
| and why is is so difficult to explain origins from non-life to achieve the high level of informational content involved in living systems...if that leap from non-life to life is as easy as you have prescribed? |
What makes you imagine that is difficult to explain?
It's not. |
It is explained quite well in this 10 min video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max4001
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Psycho Bunny wrote: |
You've gone back to bold again. I feel I should be answering in some colour.
The fact that we have not created life and are so far unable to create life is not of itself an argument in favour of God.
There are still arguments about what processes led to the origins of life - we only have the fossil record to attest to the emergence of stromatolites and other proofs that life had reached certain stages in the fossil record.
How the four amino-acids comprising the DNA double helix arranged themselves is complex chemistry that we have so far not been given enough information to recreate from scratch in a laboratory - even if we could recreate life, what timescale would we need to reproduce the same conditions of original life?
At present we can identify, examine and manipulate DNA. But even if we could create life in a laboratory - life has now become so ubiqitous it would be hard to say that new life could be easily created in a life-free vacuum.
But we know enough about DNA to know that our DNA has origins, our mitochondria have their own DNA that appear to be cells of other life that were incorporated into our cell nuclei at a very early stage, and thus we can see patterns of evolution.
We can safely say that we as humans have evolved beyond the stage of yeast as we share the DNA of yeast, that 60% of our DNA is virtually identical to the DNA found in a banana.
There are a few theories about how life emerged. No one theory has been shown to surpass the others so far - and science has limits, in that it requires evidence and repeatable experiment to prove itself.
Because scientific knowledge has gaps, just as there are gaps in the evolutionary fossil record, does not mean that science is wrong or that it should be substituted by an unproven and unprovablee hypothesis of God.
Why would God wait so long to create life on earth - why would God wait for all the heavy complex atoms that became life to be formed from the furnaces of long-dead stars? Assuming God wanted life to happen, rather than life evolving from certain circumstances, why not go for the "six days and then he rested" model?
The evidence shows the earth is old, and the heavy elements are needed. The key thing is not whether you fully understand all the reasons for the timing but whether God did it or not. And the high level of informational content in DNA and the complexity of living things, not to mention the finely tuned parameters that permit live do argue that an intelligent cause was involved.
I do not see where God comes into any scientific discourse about creation.
God appepars to be something that religionists project onto the existing data.
The data we have may be incomplete, but do you have to know every single one of our individual ancestors to know for certain that we all have direct ancestors who were alive at the time of Julius Caesar? And with study of mitochondria we can all trace our ancestry back to one particular primate, mitochondrial Eve. |
By the way, I don't think your will ever develop a very good understanding of the issue if you believe DNA contains 4 amino acids  [/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Psycho Bunny
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK - four "nucleobases" - cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine.
I make no claims to be a scientist, though I respect the principles of evidence upon which scientific knowledge is built. Now you have "nit-picked" at my response (to a question you wrongly claimed I had refused to answer) - maybe you can be more impressive and try to demolish some of the other arguments presented by Mr Huxley-Redux.
I am a small target. Though not so small that I can't spot bullsh*t.
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!
Love, bunny-style
________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radagast
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max4001 wrote: |
| By the way, I don't think your will ever develop a very good understanding of the issue if you believe DNA contains 4 amino acids |
You mean it doesn't?????
Heck... maybe it is time I "jumped" into a parallel universe......
_________________
"You are, after all, an atheist. Religion is hardly your forte." Fathom 2008
"Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical" Fathom 2008. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
