|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2017 15:40:56 GMT
I'm just saying it's retarded to outright dismiss it when it is the life begetting life is the ONLY proof we have of life being started.
So you invent something else we don't have evidence of to explain it?
I hope you realize that you just admitted how dumb that is.
I didn't invent anything.
We most certainly do not have one shred of evidence abiogenesis has ever happened. us creating something is the opposite of proving that.
We have no evidence that amino acids form on their own and that's a long way from even an amoeba.
However, let's assume that we find an amino acid out in the wild happily forming. To make a wild leap from that to proving billions of different species could arise from that is the equivalent of saying a cockroach will inevitably become Galactus.
That said, as unlikely as that could be, it's a consideration that people are more than welcome to embrace. It has no impact on my life one way or the other until its proven.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 21, 2017 15:50:50 GMT
So you invent something else we don't have evidence of to explain it?
I hope you realize that you just admitted how dumb that is.
I didn't invent anything.
We most certainly do not have one shred of evidence abiogenesis has ever happened. us creating something is the opposite of proving that.
We have no evidence that amino acids form on their own and that's a long way from even an amoeba.
However, let's assume that we find an amino acid out in the wild happily forming. To make a wild leap from that to proving billions of different species could arise from that is the equivalent of saying a cockroach will inevitably become Galactus.
That said, as unlikely as that could be, it's a consideration that people are more than welcome to embrace. It has no impact on my life one way or the other until its proven.
Yes, we do have evidence amino acids can arise on their own, and we can show they can link into self replicating RNA. We also know it's possible for RNA to mutate into DNA. There are a lot of steps left, but nobody is making any wild leaps.
Also you invented god. You're saying we have no evidence for abiogenesis, but you're perfectly willing to accept the idea of a god, which we have even less evidence for.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 21, 2017 15:57:48 GMT
tpfkar Nah, you're supposed to have a loopy conclusion all wrapped up in the first one, and then follow up by going even further afield with each reply. Who's on first
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2017 15:59:25 GMT
I didn't invent anything.
We most certainly do not have one shred of evidence abiogenesis has ever happened. us creating something is the opposite of proving that.
We have no evidence that amino acids form on their own and that's a long way from even an amoeba.
However, let's assume that we find an amino acid out in the wild happily forming. To make a wild leap from that to proving billions of different species could arise from that is the equivalent of saying a cockroach will inevitably become Galactus.
That said, as unlikely as that could be, it's a consideration that people are more than welcome to embrace. It has no impact on my life one way or the other until its proven.
Yes, we do have evidence amino acids can arise on their own, and we can show they can link into self replicating RNA. We also know it's possible for RNA to mutate into DNA. There are a lot of steps left, but nobody is making any wild leaps.
Also you invented god. You're saying we have no evidence for abiogenesis, but you're perfectly willing to accept the idea of a god, which we have even less evidence for.
This isn't an either or scenario dude.
I am more than willing to accept the logical existence of God over the illogical notion of stuff just happening exactly how they could possibly happen a million times over until we get her we are now.
However, my view has no bearing on yours, so I'm OK with you continuing to accept your impossible assumptions and there no reason you can't accept mine. Of course, even if you continue to whine about my view, it's not like you can really do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 21, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
This isn't an either or scenario dude.
I am more than willing to accept the logical existence of God over the illogical notion of stuff just happening exactly how they could possibly happen a million times over until we get her we are now.
However, my view has no bearing on yours, so I'm OK with you continuing to accept your impossible assumptions and there no reason you can't accept mine. Of course, even if you continue to whine about my view, it's not like you can really do anything about it.
Sure there is a reason I don't accept your view. You don't have any evidence.
And are you under the impression that we are some sort of intended result? No matter how things exist, even if life never exited, things still had to happen in an exact way for them to be the way they are. Evolution wasn't trying to make us specifically. Just so you know.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 21, 2017 17:49:03 GMT
From CoolJGS...
It's not semantics. It's context. Further it may not be inaccurate because the moon does reflect light. It is a luminary. The writer didn't say that a deep dark hole was providing light so there's really no issue
I feel that we're spinning our wheels. I didn't say that the moon doesn't reflect light. I said that the moon is not a light source.
Regarding the crazy stories, what are some other ones?
If the examples I gave aren't sufficient for you, then pointing out others won't help.
Usually, you can tell the difference. No where in the story you mentioned did it hint that this was a scientific method and you can tell that as to whether it was repeated by people not blessed by God.
My whole point is...not everyone can tell the difference. Many people believe everything in the Bible is true, regardless of the context. That may not pertain to you, but it does for some people. I'm not sure why this is a point for debate.
All this boils down to, and it has always been the case, is whether you try to explain the Bible as if God wasn't in it and to me that is a ridiculous premise. It is far better to simply outright reject t and move on with your life. If the repercussions don't exist then nothing is going to happen to you.
Well sure, God is in the Bible. Now to determine if any of the subject matter pertaining to God in the Bible is true....that's another issue all together.
People are free to believe whatever they want, but that belief shouldn't affect others.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 21, 2017 21:43:56 GMT
From CoolJGS...It's not semantics. It's context. Further it may not be inaccurate because the moon does reflect light. It is a luminary. The writer didn't say that a deep dark hole was providing light so there's really no issueI feel that we're spinning our wheels. I didn't say that the moon doesn't reflect light. I said that the moon is not a light source.Regarding the crazy stories, what are some other ones?If the examples I gave aren't sufficient for you, then pointing out others won't help.Usually, you can tell the difference. No where in the story you mentioned did it hint that this was a scientific method and you can tell that as to whether it was repeated by people not blessed by God.My whole point is...not everyone can tell the difference. Many people believe everything in the Bible is true, regardless of the context. That may not pertain to you, but it does for some people. I'm not sure why this is a point for debate.All this boils down to, and it has always been the case, is whether you try to explain the Bible as if God wasn't in it and to me that is a ridiculous premise. It is far better to simply outright reject t and move on with your life. If the repercussions don't exist then nothing is going to happen to you.Well sure, God is in the Bible. Now to determine if any of the subject matter pertaining to God in the Bible is true....that's another issue all together.
People are free to believe whatever they want, but that belief shouldn't affect others. I hate the copy/past here and it is not allowing me to do it now for some reason, so I'll number for each quote:
1. I was saying that I'm not sure the Bible said the moon was a light source or a luminary in regards to it reflecting light. There is no doubt this is being nitpicky at this point though.
2. They were not because they were pretty easy to explain. If there aren't anymore, that's fine with me.
3. People not being able to tell the difference is not the problem of the book. Reading Scripture takes some effort because we did not live in their time. It's no different than reading Shakespeare. Once you get the language and the culture of the time down, he is easier to understand.
4. Which is not an issue I'm bringing up. I have no concern for a person's belief in God, only my own. What makes discussions disingenuous is the notion of the book being the problem rather than the reader. Most things not understood by some in Scripture can be explained away with information already found in Scripture or with accurate knowledge of the culture and times.
5. Agreed, but the danger of belief's affects on others is overstated unless we are simply discussing hurt feelings which are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by lockardthegoat on Mar 24, 2017 20:11:52 GMT
The Bible is a book of fairy tales. FACT.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 24, 2017 20:15:16 GMT
The Bible is a book of fairy tales. FACT. Whoa dude, that is very controversial. Some Christian might have a heated response for you if they can't see through your trolling attempt. It's a good thing you're not serious. You had me worried there for a second.
|
|
|
Post by lockardthegoat on Mar 24, 2017 20:26:18 GMT
The Bible is a book of fairy tales. FACT. Whoa dude, that is very controversial. Some Christian might have a heated response for you if they can't see through your trolling attempt. It's a good thing you're not serious. You had me worried there for a second. lol I am serious, though. No trolling.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 20:35:14 GMT
Whoa dude, that is very controversial. Some Christian might have a heated response for you if they can't see through your trolling attempt. It's a good thing you're not serious. You had me worried there for a second. lol I am serious, though. No trolling. Well, even though Blade is the stupidest man in history, what you posted is a little harsh although i readily admit to having said the same thing when in heated discussions with those who foolishly insist that the Bible is actual history. Rather than fairy tales, it is more accurate to say the Bible is mythology and fables. These have actual value. Aesop's Fables, by comparison, can teach important lessons even though nobody seriously believes there was an actual boy who cried wolf. Now, with some of the more fantastical stories in the Bible, the real valuable message may be difficult for someone to determine unless they are a mindless believer who just takes everything at face value and believes those stories are real events. The book of Job, for instance, is one seriously fucked up account of God killing a man's entire family and causing him to lose everything he owned just to win a bet with Satan. If I ever figure out the moral of that one I'll be sure to post it. But a cursory examination seems to indicate that the moral is "Don't be too devoted to God or he might just murder everyone you love to win a pointless wager with his arch-nemesis."
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 24, 2017 20:38:15 GMT
The Bible is a book of fairy tales. FACT. Whoa dude, that is very controversial. Some Christian might have a heated response for you if they can't see through your trolling attempt. It's a good thing you're not serious. You had me worried there for a second. "Not acknowledging the point means you missed the point- Cash" Link, you lying little shitweasel?
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 24, 2017 20:47:34 GMT
Whoa dude, that is very controversial. Some Christian might have a heated response for you if they can't see through your trolling attempt. It's a good thing you're not serious. You had me worried there for a second. lol I am serious, though. No trolling. uh huh, sure you are.
|
|