|
|
Topic Originator: Number57
Date: Thu 7 Jun 19:09
What do folk think? Genuine interest.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pars1562
Date: Thu 7 Jun 19:13
what ark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 7 Jun 19:38
Ritchie explained it as such. They were eggs on the ark rather than giant Brontosauruses and raving mad T-Rex's stomping around. .....
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dave67
Date: Thu 7 Jun 19:54
Pretty sure the mother in law was
Let`s try making it till Christmas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 7 Jun 20:05
If they are flogging the bottom out of the idea there's a Jurassic Ark film out there surely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MDCCCLXXXV
Date: Thu 7 Jun 20:12
Like what you did there Ipswich 👍
 East End Park is a symbol of all that is DAFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Thu 7 Jun 21:17
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Thu 7 Jun 22:05
Sure.Some estimate over 50 kinds.(young)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 8 Jun 00:19
All of the science points to there never having been a global flood.
Even if there had been dinosaurs died out 65 million years before the earliest humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DRFC_no1
Date: Fri 8 Jun 06:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Fri 8 Jun 07:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 8 Jun 08:50
Do we really need to go back over this nonsense? I know it is the silly season and we are struggling for good gossip, but we really don't need to invite 100+ posts on irrational arguments around a completely fictitious story in the Bible.
Even the biggest ship in the world today, the Prelude, operated by Shell, which is almost 500 metres long, couldn't possibly accommodate two of every species on the planet (estimated to be 6.5 million land-based). The Ark was reported to be 300 cubits in length; that is 137 metres.
Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Fri 8 Jun 09:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: helensburghpar
Date: Fri 8 Jun 09:12
Must have been like the Tardis inside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Fri 8 Jun 09:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Fri 8 Jun 09:53
Quote:
OzPar, Fri 8 Jun 08:50
Do we really need to go back over this nonsense? I know it is the silly season and we are struggling for good gossip, but we really don't need to invite 100+ posts on irrational arguments around a completely fictitious story in the Bible.
Even the biggest ship in the world today, the Prelude, operated by Shell, which is almost 500 metres long, couldn't possibly accommodate two of every species on the planet (estimated to be 6.5 million land-based). The Ark was reported to be 300 cubits in length; that is 137 metres.
Really?
And it just so happens that she is registered in Fremantle.
With a Grt of 499167, a displacement of 600,000 tonnes and 488.8m × 74m in length and breadth she's a monster... But technically she is a floating liquefied natural gas platform. Built in South Korea she is the largest offshore facility ever constructed (so a ship... But a ship in the loosest sense of the word), so your argument is invalid... Or something...i don't know... I'm bored.
Neenur Neenur!!! 😂
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: east end swift
Date: Fri 8 Jun 10:19
Logged on for the first time in years ... can't believe some 'believers' are still dogmatically twisting logic to defend Creationist theory.
There are more than a million described insect species on the planet but even now no-one knows exactly how many millions are still to be discovered, identified and catalogued. Some estimates say that we've only ID'd 20%.
DNA tools have revealed many new species in taxonomically intractable groups – which can only be identified using modern scientific methods.
How did Noah collect pairs of maybe five million species of insect, some still to be described in the 21st Century, including those in the Americas and Australasia – continents that were unknown in his time – from all the different niches they inhabit? In my work, as an ecologist, I'll maybe find and ID a maximum of 500 insect species in a long summer survey season.
And how did he identify and catalogue them – was he a taxonomic specialist in diverse and cryptic groups of Coleoptera and Diptera? Could he determine microscopic features of 4mm Chalcid hymenoptera and the post-ventral spine arrangements on the thorax of 2mm Anthomyidae flies without a microscope?
If so he's cleverer than me – a professional entomologist with a high-powered binocular microscope and access to identification keys that, while modern, are complex and time-consuming to use.
And how did Noah distribute the species back to their origin countries post flood?How did he prevent them dying without their specific habitat requirements?
It's easy to talk about terrestrial mammals – there's hardly any of those compared to the insect kingdom. Let's see the flood theorists explain why we have so many insects?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Fri 8 Jun 11:33
Looking forward to Richies reply to this ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 8 Jun 12:37
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: east end swift
Date: Fri 8 Jun 12:46
I won't waste time in arguing with a season Creationist if god made the earth in six days.
Especially, if that link is the standard of your evidence.
I have skimmed it through – and it is totally preposterous.
Will reply more fully when I've time.
But it's interesting to note that parasitic insects developed AFTER the flood. Evolution at its most powerful, eh?
>>
Renegade, we've never met. I'm quite committed work wise but email me – address is in profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 8 Jun 12:57
That link wasn't the standard.Genesis 1 is.
That's the plot for evolution.Death is the way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 8 Jun 15:04
Widtink, yes I was aware of all the data you supplied on the Prelude. Technically, it is a platform, but most old salts looking at it would recognise it as a ship. I used it purely as an example to illustrate size and compare it with the biblical dimensions of the Ark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Fri 8 Jun 17:58
Yeah I was just bored... I know nothing of the bible... But I am a bit of a ship spotter.. So that was all really.
Incidentally... I do have a few pics of her ( the Prelude... Not the Ark) that were sent to me from a friend who works for Svitzer in Fremantle.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 8 Jun 18:45
Quote:
richie5401, Fri 8 Jun 12:57
That link wasn't the standard.Genesis 1 is.
That's the plot for evolution.Death is the way forward.
Genuine question for you mate.
Isn't it logical to assume science is correct in the timescale of the Earth and universe but still be able to believe in God and the Bible?
Think about the parables. They were never meant to be taken literally but to make you think.
It's possible Science and religion are both correct but if you take the scriptures word for word literally then you'll never move on.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Securitypar
Date: Fri 8 Jun 19:17
It’s all a load of pihs imo. Look what religion has done to this world. Nothing but hatred and murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 8 Jun 20:24
AAPS-There are parables in the Bible but Genesis isn't one of them.Science doesn't give us an accurate age for anything without making assumptions.
It always comes back to the same question.Cause or no cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: east end swift
Date: Fri 8 Jun 21:53
Re, your answersingenesis article
The author may be an ardent theologian but there's no basis in ecology for a lot of the stuff on here.
It seems 'no-one knows' if insects were on the ark. But if the planet's estimated five million species were accommodated, in pairs, we learn that god brought them to Noah. Gosh, that was convenient! It certainly answers a lot of my earlier questions!
I'd imagine that believers consider god to be the ultimate taxonomists but it would be interesting to learn more from you about the mechanics of this. Did he just magic them on to the ark? Maybe they were kept in earthen-ware pots for the duration of the voyage? Alive for around a year(?), with their specific ecological needs being met? They didn't die or fly away?
Now, we read that maybe insects weren't on the ark but survived on "floating debris" and maybe stowaways on the ark itself. You realise that most adult insects are short-lived? Some for just a few hours or days?
Being pounded by biblical rain for 40 days and nights isn't going to help their longevity either – in very wet, overcast conditions most flying insects are effectively grounded, preventing them from feeding, finding mates and procreating.
The author suggests, despite this, most insects were able to survive on presumably waterlogged vegetation immersed in saltwater. That would, I take it, include those insects that live in often specialised niche habitats, such as saproxylic conditions, the soil, freshwater margins and pools, as galls on tree leaves, sand dunes, dung and even in other insects as endoparasites, etc?
And those diverse Anthropods that live in caves, on tundra, in rainforests, in deserts and freshwater pools, all adjusted and coped with such exposed and extreme conditions for a prolonged period of time.
They author's suggesting they all found the food sources they require (and many insects for instance flies or micro-lepidoptera, have very specific ecological requirements) and were able to mate and find niches for their larval stages to survive for as long as it takes for the waters to recede.
Is all this credible? Or is the credible explanation actually that the biblical flood didn't happen. I know what I believe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 8 Jun 22:01
and yet we find sea creatures in rock layers all over the world.Most of the layers in Grand Canyon contain marine fossils.That seems a credible evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: east end swift
Date: Fri 8 Jun 23:27
Strange reply to my questions.
And I don't see your point – are you saying sea creatures died in the flood? I'm no marine biologist but I'd have thought them best equipped to cope with rising sea levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 8 Jun 23:34
According to the text most of the flood water came from the "fountains of the deep were broken up".It correlates with what we see today.
I thought the questions were addressed with the article for and against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Sat 9 Jun 12:27
People who believe in things like the ark and the stories of the bible deserve our pity, not our mocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 12:34
Yeah,we just need to understand more fully how No one x nothing =everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 9 Jun 14:04
<<< Yeah,we just need to understand more fully how No one x nothing =everything.>>>
Hi Rich,
I think you're TIC there? Nevertheless it's an assumption that everything came from nothing. There is an alternative, that maybe something has always existed.
Some might say - yeh - God.
Others, myself included, might wonder about existence itself, of universe(s) or pre-universes having existed forever.
In other words, it might be staring us in the face - that if existence didn't exist now, it never would have existed.
I mean, pretend nothing ever existed. I presume you'd say God has always existed.
Then I'd say that's not God unless God = existence, of which we are part.
I wonder if we are just incapable of imagining the eternal existence of anything.
And yes folks I appreciate I might be in Rachel Riley/Carol Vorderman mode again, so I'm having a wee smile at myself. Probably I need my lunch: peppered mackerel - oily fish, good for the brain they say. I better have a lot. 😂
Post Edited (Sat 09 Jun 16:12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 14:10
That fair enough OUTP.You still have the problem of something popping into existence from nothing by no one.It violates the very fundamental nature of science,Cause and effect.
Peppered mackerel,very nice,bit of colemans mustard,lovely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 9 Jun 14:33
Yes Rich. lovely mustard. I prefer dijon.
I am questioning cause and effect, you're right there.
Because the idea of a God which is outside of existence, doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 14:39
It's the same concept that Steve Wozniak isn't inside any computer.The inventor is outside his creation.
Dijon works!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 9 Jun 15:00
I'm glad you like the dijon.
<< It's the same concept that Steve Wozniak isn't inside any computer.The inventor is outside his creation. >>
At first glance it sounds good. BUT (I'm sure you knew it was coming:)
I asked myself what's the difference between those two concepts?
There's:
a) God with absolutely nothing
b) Wozniak living in a universe in which all the materials of the computer pre-exist. He didn't create the universe in which he lives, nor the parts of the computer.
If it's the same concept, wouldn't that mean God was living in a universe he didn't create and made his creations out of pre-existing materials?
I've had experience of things that sound good but then you think a bit harder and see they're flawed. I think that's why a lot o' folk are taken in by such ideas - it takes quite a mental effort to see through them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 9 Jun 15:22
Quote:
Securitypar, Fri 8 Jun 19:17
It’s all a load of pihs imo. Look what religion has done to this world. Nothing but hatred and murder.
And if we ditch religion that will all stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 9 Jun 16:23
Of course it will.
We'll all link hands and sing 'I'd like to teach the world to sing' and sip on herbal teas.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 16:38
He didn't create the parts of his computer?I think he did.The analogy works just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 9 Jun 17:10
No he didn't create the elements that make up the computer parts.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Number57
Date: Sat 9 Jun 17:14
As it was a flood were the fish and sea creatures left behind as they'd be fine in the water? Would the flood have changed the salination levels of the sea. Either up or down? Let's say down. In which case the freshwater fish and such like would be OK but then the salt water ones would need to be on the ark. In special tanks. Filled with sea water. Which is pretty heavy.
Also, there are about 8 million species on earth. We've heard that 14 of each were needed so that's 112 million mouths to feed. Now I know a mosquito doesn't eat as much as an elephant but let's average it out and assume that each animal ate the equivalent of an apple. Of course mosquitoes would eat far less but an elephant would need far more so let's assume for the sake of argument (Us? Argue? On THF? never!) it balances. So, 1 apple per animal, creature etc per day. That's 112 million apples for 40 days and 40 nights. That's 4.5 billion apples (give or take). If an apple weighs 80g then that's about 360 000 metric tonnes of food required. Your average large container ship carries about 25 000 metric tonnes of cargo so Noah would have had to build 14 container ships to accompany the ark, packed with animal foodstuffs.
Maybe I'm over thinking this...
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Post Edited (Sat 09 Jun 17:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 17:29
Ok developed.Noah didn't take one of every species.He was to take 2 of every kind.(Genesis 6:19-21& Genesis 7:2-3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Number57
Date: Sat 9 Jun 17:33
Isnt seven mention in Genesis 7?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Sat 9 Jun 17:43
Which is why a Scientist will say "We don't have all the answers but here's our best evidence any we think that way" while a religious zealout will say "It was in an old book written hundreds or thousands of years after the event, which has to be interpreted in a certain way (which can't be agreed on by the way) and which forms the basis of other religions (which are all wrong by the way) so it must be true and there is no other possible explanation because I wasn't there to see it with my own eyes". Can you see the issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 17:51
Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sat 9 Jun 19:01
It's all rubbish and hearsay. Unless you were there when this happened you cannot prove any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 21:34
I wouldn't say that.It's certainly faith,on both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 9 Jun 21:58
Quote:
richie5401, Sat 9 Jun 21:34
I wouldn't say that.It's certainly faith,on both sides.
Doesn't faith have logistical facts to consider?
Think about when the Bible was written and where it was written.
Nobody even knew there were lands and continents outside of Israel to explore.
Think a little outside the box and it doesn't mean you have to believe any less.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 22:08
There are reasonable,logical positions I.E...Time,space,force,effect and matter dealt with in the first sentence.
That seems a pretty rational start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 9 Jun 22:13
Ref: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 16:38
<<< He didn't create the parts of his computer? I think he did.The analogy works just fine. >>>
It doesn't work for me because no human invention bears comparison with the idea of everything-created-from-nothing.
Anyway let's both keep eating the mackerel and mustard!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 9 Jun 22:14
sounds good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Sun 10 Jun 09:54
"Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe."
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Olbers Paradox, Galactic Redshift, the Temperature of deep space, the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, observations from the Hubble Deep Field, experimental analysis of the quark-gluon plasma... not perfect but evidence all the same. Much more than an old book of fairy tales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 10 Jun 10:53
Quote:
kelty_par, Sun 10 Jun 09:54
"Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe."
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Olbers Paradox, Galactic Redshift, the Temperature of deep space, the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, observations from the Hubble Deep Field, experimental analysis of the quark-gluon plasma... not perfect but evidence all the same. Much more than an old book of fairy tales.
To the layman that list there is bunch of fairy tales...that has to be taken on faith...no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 10 Jun 11:14
Quote:
Rastapari, Sun 10 Jun 10:53
Quote:
kelty_par, Sun 10 Jun 09:54
"Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe."
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Olbers Paradox, Galactic Redshift, the Temperature of deep space, the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, observations from the Hubble Deep Field, experimental analysis of the quark-gluon plasma... not perfect but evidence all the same. Much more than an old book of fairy tales.
To the layman that list there is bunch of fairy tales...that has to be taken on faith...no?
Yes it's faith for the populace. But if you are interested I'm sure you could contact a relevant expert to show you these things and how they are observed. Not sure there is anyone who can allow you to observe the Bible fables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 10 Jun 11:27
Quote:
Rastapari, Sun 10 Jun 10:53
Quote:
kelty_par, Sun 10 Jun 09:54
"Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe."
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Olbers Paradox, Galactic Redshift, the Temperature of deep space, the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, observations from the Hubble Deep Field, experimental analysis of the quark-gluon plasma... not perfect but evidence all the same. Much more than an old book of fairy tales.
To the layman that list there is bunch of fairy tales...that has to be taken on faith...no?
But if you want to you can study these things and carry out experiments yourself. The results of which will support all these things.
Religious texts on the other hand were written by primitive goat herders.
Now if I don't want to study these things and need to take other peoples word based on "faith" what is more likely to be accurate? Claims made by modern scientists and peer reviewed by other scientists to confirm the results or texts written around 4000 years ago by uneducated people to explain things they didn't understand.
For example Ark story explains why we have rainbows. Tower of Babel explains why there are different languages. etc. Science has since explained rainbows and etymology and linguistics reveal the spread of different languages.
Do you believe the tower of Babel myth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berry
Date: Sun 10 Jun 11:34
I just wonder how all the species were caught...some are fast as fook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 12:38
All things you can study and observe KP and as you said not flawless.The major problem the Big Bang theory has is the laws of Physics cannot explain how a singularity could exist.The idea of cause and effect also fails as there is never an explanation for the cause of said explosion.Faith plays a larger part than most would admit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Sun 10 Jun 12:40
"To the layman that list there is bunch of fairy tales...that has to be taken on faith...no?"
No, because as described above you could carry out these measurements yourself without too much instruction and it doesn't require faith to see the results. You'll have seen CMBR yourself if you've ever been between channels on an analogue TV. I don't have a Scooby how a car works but I know it does and I know that my car gets me from A to B. I also know if my car breaks down I need to take it to a mechanic. Jist because I don't know how my car works doesn't mean I just take it on faith that the car will work because God (or Henry Ford) says it will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 10 Jun 13:00
Quote:
moviescot, Sun 10 Jun 11:14
Quote:
Rastapari, Sun 10 Jun 10:53
Quote:
kelty_par, Sun 10 Jun 09:54
"Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe."
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Olbers Paradox, Galactic Redshift, the Temperature of deep space, the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, observations from the Hubble Deep Field, experimental analysis of the quark-gluon plasma... not perfect but evidence all the same. Much more than an old book of fairy tales.
To the layman that list there is bunch of fairy tales...that has to be taken on faith...no?
Yes it's faith for the populace. But if you are interested I'm sure you could contact a relevant expert to show you these things and how they are observed. Not sure there is anyone who can allow you to observe the Bible fables.
Fair...however being shown is not understanding.
For the avoidance of doubt I don't God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 10 Jun 13:01
Quote:
richie5401, Sun 10 Jun 12:38
All things you can study and observe KP and as you said not flawless.The major problem the Big Bang theory has is the laws of Physics cannot explain how a singularity could exist.The idea of cause and effect also fails as there is never an explanation for the cause of said explosion.Faith plays a larger part than most would admit.
It's been pointed out to you before that the big bang was not an explosion but the expansion of extremely condensed material.
Your complete lack of integrity is why you keep misrepresenting things that have been explained to you. All so you can keep believing in primative myths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 13:02
Where did all the material come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 10 Jun 13:10
Quote:
Rastapari, Sun 10 Jun 13:00
Quote:
moviescot, Sun 10 Jun 11:14
Quote:
Rastapari, Sun 10 Jun 10:53
Quote:
kelty_par, Sun 10 Jun 09:54
"Modern science and evidence very rarely collide in the origin of our universe."
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Olbers Paradox, Galactic Redshift, the Temperature of deep space, the abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe, observations from the Hubble Deep Field, experimental analysis of the quark-gluon plasma... not perfect but evidence all the same. Much more than an old book of fairy tales.
To the layman that list there is bunch of fairy tales...that has to be taken on faith...no?
Yes it's faith for the populace. But if you are interested I'm sure you could contact a relevant expert to show you these things and how they are observed. Not sure there is anyone who can allow you to observe the Bible fables.
Fair...however being shown is not understanding.
For the avoidance of doubt I don't God.
No it's not understanding but if you are really really interested you could start to understand. Knowledge is power I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 10 Jun 14:01
Quote:
richie5401, Sun 10 Jun 13:02
Where did all the material come from?
I don't know and that's fine.
Goat herders 4000 years ago also didn't know but you believe the stories they made up to explain things.
Maybe scientists could study your brain if they need to look at really really dense material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 14:06
Oh but they did."In the Beginning God" eliminate that and you open yourself to some very weird and wonderful speculations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 14:45
Ref: Rastapari
Date: Sun 10 Jun 13:00
<< Fair...however being shown is not understanding.>>
Ref: moviescot
Date: Sun 10 Jun 13:10
<<No it's not understanding >>
I don't follow that. When someone showed me how to work the TV I understood. That's how I understood and knew how to do it.
Or do you mean something else: you're not talking about being shown how to do something, you're talking about second hand information?
Is that what you mean Rasta by 'being shown is not understanding' - you mean being shown is taking someone else's word for it?
I'm not sure that is so crucial. There's lots of things we believe and understand on the basis of second hand information.
I guess then you may be saying belief in God is an/the exception? And that you have to experience it direct?
OK but then why the Biblical God? The Bible is not direct experience of God, it's what somebody else wrote about God. Why not nature, for example. And by that I mean the creative universe and its Laws and whatever else exists besides (new stars are always in the making - new life is always in the making in our world - creation is always happening now - isn't that God? )
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 14:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 14:52
"New stars are always in the making" we see stars blow up in the form of nova and supernova,no one has ever seen a star forming or can point to valid theory of how one could form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 15:04
OK Rich, to believe that new stars are being formed is to accept second-hand information. I accept it as probable, I guess you may not.
But you see the point I was making about a creative universe. Well OK let's not look beyond this Earth. The ongoing process of creation that we can see for ourselves around us. Is that not God? If it is, it's an impersonal. amoral God - and to my mind no less wonderful for that - unlike the personal and partisan God the Bible represents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 15:14
It depends what you mean by "ongoing".God and his creation are separate.How do you explain our ability to tell right from wrong if an amoral God reigns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 15:32
I believe most humans and some animals exhibit moral behaviour. Most of us can tell right from wrong because, historically we have lived ( woops - second-hand information again ) /we live in groups and societies, moral behaviour is part of the upbringing of most of us, who are intelligent and capable of empathy.
And on that other point - who says God and his creation are separate? The Bible? Second-hand information! 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 15:35
How do you explain giving people absolute free will when humans as a whole are clearly not fit for self-government?
To my mind there are big problems with the idea of a moral God. Similarly with the idea of an immoral God. But with an amoral God the problems disappear.
And it fits what I see around me.
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 15:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 16:01
So morality is historical ,not inherent?By that standard we should be getting better not worse.(more killings in the 20th century that all others combined)
If you believe the Biblical account humans were given clear instruction.Free will was given to make that choice.They chose badly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 10 Jun 16:48
Serious question...does Satan have a bible?
I'd like a wee read, for balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 16:50
Ref: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 16:01
<<We should be getting better not worse.>>
I think that's over-simplifying.
And we know Laws were very harsh in the past - and working conditions of adults and children, the way slow-learners were treated; these and others are moral issues which have improved. Probably there has been some improvement in some areas and some worsening in other areas. I don't think I'd agree that human morals overall are going downhill. It's a hot debate.
Free will to choose to love God? The God of the Bible?
But there's no limit to the harm anyone can do to others. If there is a super-duper inventive- design- mega-genius God why ABSOLUTE free will? Why not a wee cut-out device that prevents individuals from doing such harm to others - a wee device that needn't affect our choosing to love God or not.
I've heard the one about humans having to be free to work out their own destiny. It just doesn't satisfy me. Absolute free will seems to be only interested in us as a species rather than as individuals, because some individuals have their free will crushed or killed by others and your God made no provision to prevent that.
On the other hand - no God-given free will - but just a natural self-will in us, and an amoral God. Makes sense to me.
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 17:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 16:58
I don't agree it's a hot debate,the numbers don't lie.
Forced obedience?That's not love.
Sure he made provision.A entrance back.The cross.
Rasta-No he doesn't have a Bible,he just prefers deception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 17:17
<<<The numbers don't lie.>>>
I wonder if Elizabeth the first had nuclear weapons how many would've been killed in the 16th century when Britain and Spain were at war? Or if Henry the eighth had them might he have sought complete world domination? I think technology has to be taken account of in those numbers, and other things.
I didn't suggest forced obedience, just a wee limiter on the harm we are each capable of inflicting. For a God who made every astonishing and amazing thing from nothing, was it impossible?
The cross? How's that a way back for say, victims of Brady? Or those killed by tsunamis or by falling down sink holes? Even if it remains a way back for humanity in the future, it's no way back for individuals who have already suffered in the extreme.
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 17:22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 17:20
Well conscience is a limiter when working correctly.
I wouldn't know if each individual of any murderer or natural disaster had his/her belief in Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 17:37
Then conscience should be something everyone has. It, and not absolute free will, should be in us all from birth, because the ones who don't have a conscience are free to do untold harm.
And how would a baby know anything about Christ?
And an individual's beliefs can take many years to develop, or (in the case of a sudden revelation) might not happen in their youth but in adulthood, middle age or later. Who's to say that a person who falls down a sink hole one day would not have come to Christ the next?
Some people are believers from a very young age, some it takes a lifetime. Unless everyone gets a full long life how could a God know whether or not a person who dies young, or even at the age of 95, would not have chosen to love him, or come to Christ if they had lived longer?
Too many problems with the Biblical God.
As I see it, only the idea of no God, or an amoral God, solves all those problems at a stroke.
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 23:16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 17:47
The ones that silence the conscience certainly.
The Bible indicates that babies are innocent because of their inability to discern good and evil.So they would be excluded from judgement.
No God or an amoral God doesn't solve the question of evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:01
A baby that falls down a sink hole or is killed by a perv needn't be upset at losing his or her life? Come on Rich. It's not good enough is it, for a moral God to make no provision to prevent these things.
When is a baby not a baby? At age 2? 4?
Are we really to believe a person is a baby one day and therefore free from judgement, but then at some point, the next day, is not a baby and is therefore subject to judgement?
'No God' and an 'amoral God' mean there is no evil, in the sense of a devil's influence. It's all down to animal nature, uncontrolled desire, lack of empathy etc.
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 18:27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:06
See we are all just animals who can't control themselves and have no hope to?
Bleak indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:12
I skimmed past one of your points there Rich.
<<<The ones that silence the conscience certainly>>>
You're suggesting we ARE all born with a conscience but then some people silence it.
I don't follow. Because if a young child doesn't know wrong from right, that would mean they don't have a conscience and it's something we develop as we grow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:24
Ref: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:06
<<<See we are all just animals who can't control themselves and have no hope to?
Bleak indeed.>>>
You have a very low opinion of life. I mean we are, I think, highly sophisticated animals, capable of extremes of beauty, passion, loyalty, tenderness, honour, devotion, humour, self-sacrifice, all manner of noble and admirable qualities. SOME humans do very bad things.
Strange why we think of people so differently.
I wonder why? I've read some terrible things, for instance 'The Killing Fields' about Cambodia during the time of Pol Pot. One of two most harrowing books I ever read. So I don't think I am just unaware of how bad people can be.
I live in a fairly peaceful place near the countryside. D'you live in a big city, surrounded by lots of bad stuff?
Post Edited (Sun 10 Jun 23:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:45
I meant to say"So we are all just animals who can't control themselves and have no hope to"
animal or sophisticated animal,is way off the mark.We are made in God''s image and when we forget that we turn to dehumanising each other.The trend is increasing daily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 18:59
I wonder if, in some respects, the internet is a dehumanising factor ? In other ways it's a boon. You and I couldn't communicate so easily otherwise Rich. I've got to go and get my tea. Omelette and curried chips with Pepsi., followed by cream crackers and cheese. Scrummy! Bye now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sun 10 Jun 19:04
It can be.I'd keep the windows open after that lot:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 10 Jun 23:47
I did better than keep the windows open Rich, I went out for a walk in the fields. Enjoyed seeing eight hares and a barn owl flying low.
I was just thinking though of this in your last post but one:
<<< We are made in God''s image and when we forget that we turn to dehumanising each other. >>>
As you know I don't believe I am made in the image of the Biblical God - am I someone you'd say has forgotten that?
If so surely you wouldn't accuse me of dehumanising anyone? And there must be many like me. I don't think rejecting the idea of being made in the image of the Biblical God necessarily equates to dehumanising each other. And if you're implying it's the main reason for increased violence, intolerance and supposed moral decline in the world, I would've thought there are other more significant reasons.
Anyway, just remember, I'm non-Biblical but I wouldn't hurt a fly or even a wasp! (Well not unless I needed to)😂
Post Edited (Mon 11 Jun 00:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 00:11
Increasing your carbon footprint eh tsk tsk;)
I suppose it comes down to whether you believe a man has evolved from the slime or devolved into it.
The evidence for the former is non existent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 11 Jun 00:17
Increasing my carbon footprint? What d'you mean Rich?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 00:23
Farting around the fields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 11 Jun 00:50
Oh got you. 😂
I think just after a meal is a good time for a walk. I feel I've got lots of energy then.
As for our, possibly, humble origins - aye but all the evidence isn't in yet! It might take a few more centuries.
Post Edited (Mon 11 Jun 00:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 11:34
"all the evidence isn't in yet" i think you mean failed experiments/observations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Mon 11 Jun 20:19
Go on then, how have they failed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 11 Jun 20:23
Ref: Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 11:34
<<< "all the evidence isn't in yet" I think you mean failed experiments/observations. >>>
No, I mean there's no cut-off date for such a big subject as our own origins - for observing, experimenting and enquiring about them. We're human after all. we're never gonna give up noticing and discovering new things, having new ideas and trying them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Mon 11 Jun 20:31
What about Neanderthals? Were they on the ark?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 23:22
Failed in the sense KP that no experiment has been able re-create the so called "conditions for life to appear".
The problems are myriad.
Science has discovered a great deal,namely we are at our fundamental core an information rich system.
Who was the programmer?Chance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 23:54
No.Parsfan.Just 8 folks.Noah and Mrs Noah ,Shem.Ham and Japeth and 3 wives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 02:07
Ref: richie5401
Date: Mon 11 Jun 23:22
<<< Failed in the sense KP that no experiment has been able to re-create the so called "conditions for life to appear". >>>
It's a big assumption that, because it hasn't been done yet, it never will be. And then even bigger assumptions to say that the conditions for life to appear must have been the work of a supernatural God, and that God must be as presented in the Bible.
Chance as it relates to the conditions for life to exist and develop? I may be wrong but I have a feeling that, to you, chance in this context means something blind, random and chaotic? whereas to me it means more like variability and limited possibilities based on the circumstances existing at a particular time and place. It's a bit of a complex issue!
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 02:08)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Tue 12 Jun 09:02
Quote:
richie5401, Mon 11 Jun 23:54
No.Parsfan.Just 8 folks.Noah and Mrs Noah ,Shem.Ham and Japeth and 3 wives.
So which of them was carrying Neanderthal DNA? I'm surprised that in such a cleansing the opportunity wasn't taken to keep the human bloodline pure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 12 Jun 10:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 10:48
Intermission! I know it's off-topic but there's always time for a wee bit light entertainment:
Shall we have more intermission or back to the debate?
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 10:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 12:15
I don't think it's an assumption at all OAUTP,it's the only reasonable conclusion given the facts we can observe.
"Variability and limited possibilities based on circumstances existing at a particular time and place".In other words we believe it occurred naturally,we just don't how.
Amino acids,RNA,DNA all occurred naturally under just the right conditions?Does your faith really stretch that far?
Why would you assume neanderthals were less than pure human?PF?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 13:02
Ref: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 12:15
<<<I don't think it's an assumption at all OAUTP, it's the only reasonable conclusion given the facts we can observe.>>>
Strictly speaking though Rich, it is an assumption, because you don't know the future. Fair enough, it's a conclusion you've come to based on the story so far, but you'd have to say it's your opinion based on what you've read, thought and heard. It's not the 'only reasonable conclusion', because my conclusion is also reasonable, is it not, that there's much still to be discovered?
Is my view unreasonable or just different to yours?
<<< Amino acids,RNA,DNA all occurred naturally under just the right conditions?Does your faith really stretch that far?>>>
I don't think it's impossible that they did. Isn't it the same sort of improbability as that someone who lived, say, ten thousand years ago, looking into the future, should find there are two guys who call themselves Richie5401 and Onandupthepars posting the exact words we have posted? How likely was that?
From 10,000 years ago it must have been astronomically unlikely. But from an hour ago, the odds were - still exceedingly long - but shorter, given that we are here and given the previous posts on this thread.
Evolution I think could have been like that. The possibilities for what happened next were limited and dare I suggest, prompted, by what was there, and by the conditions.
I mean, take a hydrothermal vent - once it exists and is pouring out sulphorous gas and there's high temperatures and you've got chemicals and stuff in contact ( I know this is crude - but just the idea) - when you've got those things in close proximity, maybe you're gonna get some new, creative outcomes, even self-replicating material or proto-life? The odds for that outcome in those conditions I imagine would have been far less than the other odds I referred to.
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 13:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 13:08
You think it's possible that a 20-40 amino acids(all left handed BTW) could emerge from a chemical soup and form a protein?Wow.that's faith brother.
How did the hydrothermal vents appear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 13:24
But things could happen in steps couldn't they - and accumulate? *
But first off I'm not just gonna accept that a 20-40 amino acids - what? Chain? 'all left handed'. would have to have been made in one step? Is that your view? One step?
I imagine you must have a reference for the amino acids idea. If you have, could you link it for me?
*(Likewise, hydrothermal vents could have been formed by processes of accumulation and change, stretching way back to hydrogen in a sun?)
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 13:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 13:45
Just google "life is left handed" or "amino acids left handed " The other problem is DNA is right handed.The odds are decreasing rapidly this could happen in a vent or puddle.
Hydrogen in the sun?
How did the sun emerge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 12 Jun 14:08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 14:12
Apart from every culture having a flood story,yep there is none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Slevin Kelevra
Date: Tue 12 Jun 14:50
Quote:
richie5401, Tue 12 Jun 14:12
Apart from every culture having a flood story,yep there is none.
Must be true then. Fair enough.
We got style and we got grace
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 12 Jun 15:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 15:37
Can't have one without the other.
Pre-flood the world was very different.One huge land mass with very little water.
Post flood less land more water.The oceans you see today is the water that came forth from the earth when the "fountains of the deep" were broken up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 15:49
<<< How did the sun emerge? >>>
Science seems to say from hydrogen by a process driven by gravity. Sounds possible to me.
We're talking about a source for the elements that exist on earth, as being a sun or suns. Plus, it is said, some were made in supernovae.
To my mind, once hydrogen and gravity existed, everything else could have developed by processes of change as yet only partly understood.
On the other hand, the Biblical God it seems didn't even have to make the elements or parts; he just made everything in all its intricacies of form and relationship with each other (eg. ecology, gravitational pull of the moon and other cosmic bodies etc) as complete functioning systems. From nothing to finished working articles in six days, i.e.almost instantly. Sounds impossible to me.
I must have a look at that left-handed stuff, Rich.
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 15:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 12 Jun 16:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 16:36
..and where did the hydrogen and the gravity emerge from?
Well six days isn't " almost instantly" of course it's impossible to us.Trying to trap the mind of God inside our 3 pound brain is impossible.We can only marvel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 16:37
Erm,Global? Worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 12 Jun 17:13
Let's just all agree Richie is 100% correct please. Then we can stop having this stupid debate every month under a different thread title. It's boring and tedious especially when Richie starts getting into preacher mode. You can't change his closed mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 17:39
"Stupid debate under a different thread" if you don't find it interesting or have a relevant comment just ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 12 Jun 20:38
Quote:
richie5401, Tue 12 Jun 17:39
"Stupid debate under a different thread" if you don't find it interesting or have a relevant comment just ignore it.
I did for 7 pointless pages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 21:27
Ref: moviescot
Date: Tue 12 Jun 17:13 & 20:38
I'm sorry it's boring to you moviescot. I can understand that. I'm just a boring old codge. But I think it can be good for me to be mentally stretched and have to put my ideas into words.
Anyway, you could always say when you agree with posts.
I think there have been some terrific ones on this thread:
examples such as East End Swift, Friday 8 June 10:19 & 21:53.
Also Number57 Sat 9 June 17:14 and many others.
Some of these got no feedback.
Maybe if they got positive feedback they'd post more and the quality of the 'debates' would rise?
I mean sarcasm and ridicule are OK but never likely to lead to much.
Surely you agree with some of what's been posted on this thread?
Like Ritchie says - try not to let it bother you if you find us boring.
Maybe start a thread about something that interests you?👍😁
What d'you think?
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 21:28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 22:02
ref: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 16:36
.<<< and where did the hydrogen and the gravity emerge from?>>>
Well, thinking about how they might have come into existence is different from thinking about a supernatural being who made every finished article more or less in six days.
Of course nobody knows. Maybe hydrogen and gravity were made by a super-being. If so, it wouldn't need to have much to do with the Biblical God. It could be a being which is not much interested in us humans.
The originator of hydrogen and gravity could be so much more interested in what's happening with billions of other galaxies, black holes, and other massive cosmic features as yet undiscovered by us. He/She/ It could be so vast and us so tiny and insignificant by comparison that we're of no significance. He/She/It could be amoral. He/She/It could be of a different kind of existence to anything we know or have yet imagined, including life itself.
On the other hand, perhaps, hydrogen and gravity have always existed, or in another form. Perhaps natural laws do not apply in black holes. Perhaps cause and effect can be the same thing.
Post Edited (Tue 12 Jun 22:11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 12 Jun 22:10
You would be as well drawing yer heid ben a harled wa' than get Ritchie to stop spouting God c**p.
1) when was the Bible written?
2) who wrote it?
3) how long after the "events" were the stories written down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 12 Jun 22:50
As far as I can gather, Moviescot, the Old Testament was begun about 745 BC and finished about the first century BC.
The New Testament was written from about 55 AD, including the Gospels from about 80 AD.
(source:)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
Who was it written by? In a nutshell, lots o' different folk. The Bible is lots of different books gathered together into one. Were you thinking of any particular part or story?
Again. which part are you interested in? The Gospels it seems were begun about 47 years after Jesus is believed to have died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 00:17
The problem with your hypothesisOAUTP for the universe and beyond is there is zero evidence to suggest there is other life out there.
What the universe tells us is that we are extremely unique.
The only reason NASA get a thrill looking for water is they believe it happened naturally here.
Science completely destroys naturalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 00:21
Ref: richie5401
Date: Tue 12 Jun 13:08
<<< You think it's possible that a 20-40 amino acids(all left handed BTW) could emerge from a chemical soup and form a protein?>>>
Molecules of amino acids can be structurally different, being the mirror image of each other, referred to as left- and right -handed.
DNA is most often right-handed. As a subject this 'handedness' is called 'chirality.'
What's this to do with anything?
Well, I think you implied, Ritch, that this would be most unlikely to have happened without divine design.
But I've looked at some Net stuff on the subject and I don't see that there's any controversy about it. Scientists seem to have a satisfactory explanation for how it has come about. I did find a post which says, 'chirality is a very relevant and hot debate', but it doesn't seem to refer to any difficulties over how it arose, more to do with differences in the details.
'The 1996 chirality debate' : These proceedings represent a first step toward the definition, quantititation, and, finally refinement of our understanding of this key process.'
(source:)https://www.nature.com/articles/467789e
Post Edited (Wed 13 Jun 00:27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 00:24
You have to remember these molecules apparently got together in a pool by themselves and arranged perfectly.Try that in your local swimming bath.
Hang on, you can't.That would need an intelligence ,namely me or you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 01:03
Ref: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 00:24
I think you're getting too simplistic again, Ritch.
Let's see, what can I do with my imagination?
Just for instance, a big rock pool. It contains ordinary water of the time, call it sea water (I think it would contain lots of stuff and in different concentrations from what sea water does now).
OK, add fierce heat from let's say a lava spill. Temperature gets way past boiling. Most of the water's gone. Plus the lava has added elements, some of which could act as catalysts.(Certain metals I think, can act as catalysts). You've now got a concentrate with let's say just the right components for those amino acids. Still, what's gonna make them join up? Well, how about catalytic action? And maybe it gets so concentrated they're brought into very close contact. We know for example that a super-saturated solution of alum will form crystals. And also high heat would greatly increase the reactivity of substances.
That's just my imagination but maybe it contains an inkling of an idea that could have worked.
Here is an interesting piece about making amino acids in the lab:
'In 1953, Miller and Urey attempted to re-create the conditions of primordial Earth. In a flask, they combined ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapour plus electrical sparks (Miller 1953). They found that new molecules were formed, and they identified these molecules as eleven standard amino acids. From this observation, they posited that the first organisms likely arose in an environment similar to the one they constructed in their flask, one rich in organic compounds.'
(source:) https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/an-evolutionary-perspective-on-amino-acids-14568445
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 01:09
miller-Urey also excluded Oxygen.what they actually got was both left and right handed molecules.
Even if they had managed to create something near atmosphere necessary for life,it would only have proved one thing:You need intelligence to create life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 01:16
Ref: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 00:17
Just seen this post Ritch
<<The problem with your hypothesisOAUTP for the universe and beyond is there is zero evidence to suggest there is other life out there.>>
No problem. Like I suggested, maybe whatever has brought it about was never concerned with creating life anywhere. Maybe our kind of life is rare because it was a freak occurence, that in billions of galaxies, our planet and maybe a few others ended up in the 'goldilocks zone' etc.
<<The only reason NASA get a thrill looking for water is they believe it happened naturally here.
Science completely destroys naturalism.>>
I don't understand these points. What happened naturally here? What is naturalism?
Post Edited (Wed 13 Jun 01:33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 01:24
Topic Originator: richie5401 like | nolike
Date: Wed 13 Jun 01:09
<<<miller-Urey also excluded Oxygen.what they actually got was both left and right handed molecules.>>>
I could be wrong but I think the first amino acids are thought to date from before there was oxygen in the atmosphere. And there are both left and right handed molecules now - both of amino acids and DNA - so no problem there either.
<<<Even if they had managed to create something near atmosphere necessary for life,it would only have proved one thing:You need intelligence to create life.>>>
That seems illogical to me. They were attempting to simulate conditions as they were. How would it take intelligence for there to have been ammonia, hydrogen, methane and water vapour plus lightning in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 01:29
It's a philosophy that claims that everything can be explained by natural causes.
The key to life is the information code stored within DNA.I would be very interested to know who wrote that code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 06:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 13 Jun 08:13
Quote:
onandupthepars, Tue 12 Jun 22:50
As far as I can gather, Moviescot, the Old Testament was begun about 745 BC and finished about the first century BC.
The New Testament was written from about 55 AD, including the Gospels from about 80 AD.
(source:)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
Who was it written by? In a nutshell, lots o' different folk. The Bible is lots of different books gathered together into one. Were you thinking of any particular part or story?
Again. which part are you interested in? The Gospels it seems were begun about 47 years after Jesus is believed to have died.
Not really interested in the Bible per say. I was more interested in how long after the events are supposed to have happened that the details were written down.
So it really boils down to various people who were not actually present at the time of the events writing down random stuff down over hundreds of years. How anyone could put their faith in these various fairy tales amazes me.
Post Edited (Wed 13 Jun 12:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 12:04
Worst-Why would you need to build an ark and take animals of each kind in a local flood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 12:09
All theory OAUTP.Not one shred of evidence experimentally that could occur.The more science discovers the more unlikely naturalistic explanations become.
Information arising by itself?That's a hard sell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Wed 13 Jun 12:43
Quote:
richie5401, Tue 12 Jun 12:15
Why would you assume neanderthals were less than pure human?PF?
By human I was specifically meaning homo sapiens, which Neanderthals aren't. That said, that's a modern man classification system so if you want to consider them no less human than us I have no problem with that. We could breed with them after all.
I've answered your question, maybe you could answer mine. Who among the last eight people on earth was part Neanderthal? A previous answer suggests you think everyone was everything, does that apply here?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 12:48
Exactly,yes.Neaderthal's were fully human.It's a display of the scope of variation of human DNA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 13:20
Ref: moviescot
Date: Wed 13 Jun 08:13
<<< Not really interested in the Bible per say. I was more interested in how long after the events are supposed to have happened that the details were written down. >>>
Fair enough Movie. I thought that's what you were getting at, but if I just said it was all written long after the 'events', that's not telling you much.
So I gave what to the best of my knowledge, are facts, date-wise.
We're all making judgements all the time and it helps to be informed if we can, don't you agree?
I'm no expert on the Bible or Chemistry or Evolution, but I try to check out what's being said - from both sides. Then I think, hm - do they make sense to me? That's one way I learn stuff. The other is to think hard about my own ideas and whether they've got merit.
Questioning is good. You asked some questions and so you could think, well where do I go from here?
Here is an example of how knowing the dates was useful to me. I had a JW trying to convince me that there's stuff in the Bible that people of the time it was written could not have known. Because of knowing the dates, there's nothing I have yet come across in it in terms of knowledge that could not have been known by the authors at that time. For example I have read that mariners knew the world was round, hundreds of years BC, so any reference in the Bible that suggests a circular or spherical world is not miraculous or ahead of its time.
I actually think Genesis Chapter one is a remarkable piece of writing. Read it without trying to take a side and isn't it remarkable how concise and close to what we think of reality it is? It's not all correct but it shows the author(s) and advisors were scholars and probably some of the brightest minds around. There's actually some history in Genesis chapter 2 - place names and references to agriculture. In chapter 3 there seems to be no history - all myth and contrivance - a poor attempt IMO. Anyway, if you think the Bible's all crap - don't read it - read what you like and what does you good - The non-religious world is fascinating... Who needs religion? I don't have it, but I still have a wonderful, meaningful life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:07
Ref: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 12:09
<<<Information arising by itself?That's a hard sell.>>>
You mean DNA?
Code?
Isn't it amazing that TV images are nothing but streams of electrons? (Or they used to be).
Isn't it amazing how our computer info systems are based on nothing more than molecular on-off switches?
Doesn't it make you wonder how the grooves and bumps in a piece of vinyl, a needle and some electronic valves etc could reproduce the complexities and subtleties of music?
OK all of these things might indicate how simple code can be, but none made themselves, they were all made by an intelligence - us.
How could nature, undirected, unguided, make code?
Good question.
I don't know the answer.
Any Physicist or Chemist able to help out with that?
I'm gonna start a new thread for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:09
It is a good question.I think inwardly we all know the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
