Miracles upon Miracles
David
Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
entity to survive.
How about repeatedly throwing mud and every other element in the
universe against a rock for even a trillion years, and then throwing
in the evolutionist's theoretical additives, like lightning, nitrogen,
other atmospheres, the right this and that, and watching it until
something began to animate, with all the necessary components to
procreate, digest, eliminate, and all the nutrition necessary for
same.
All of the parts of every cell and every creature must be fully
functional in order for the entity to survive and procreate. No
scientist has ever gotten past this ONE issue with anything other than
a theory.
Why not just face the facts? There is no such thing as a "simple
cell", since even the smallest cell requires over 350 components in
order to do everything necessary to live and reproduce. What might be
the chances that all these components came together at the same moment
in time?
Look at all the components of the human body, and realize that all of
them are inextricably linked to each other and to living animation and
purpose. How convenient to have been put in place all at once, eh?
Isn't it also quite convenient that the most powerful entity on earth
is the invisible mind? Isn't is also quite convenient that this
powerful invisible entity is attached to our brain and the brain to
the body? Eyes? How convenient!
Keep slapping that mud against a rock, and let's watch it for a
trillion years, waiting for eyes to develop.
You say they evolved? Example: A working brain is required for the
instinct of ingesting food for nutrition to operate. Did the brain
come first and just sit there waiting for body parts to go into? What
biological creature on earth has been shown to be in a state of
evolution, with a partially grown body part? These are the great
questions that evos always say: "well, this question is as old as can
be, and there are no new questions".
There doesn't have to be any other questions past the few above. Just
stay on point and answer them, but you'll find they cannot be answered
except by proposing wild theory stacked upon wild theory.
God is tough to believe in, yes, but all these miracles stacked upon
miracles, and all at the same necessary moment in time (which is
absolutely necessary to sustain life), is much tougher to believe. We
humans are anxious to find an alternative to God because we just don't
want to think that we have an authority over us.
Yet, the truth of fundamental Christianity says: believe on Christ and
eternal life is given you as a free gift. Then, the Christian life
follows, with all levels of success and failure, but none of which
have any bearing on the permanent gift of eternal life, once it is
accepted, since rewards and loss of rewards are the result, not loss
of eternal life.
Just like the thief on the cross who received eternal life for having
done nothing good, except for "believing" Christ was who and what he
had said he was. He didn't receive rewards according to what's taught
in the Bible, but eternal life was his through simple childlike faith
in Christ.
I can easily understand that God does not want to live in eternity
with people who rejected him during their lives, but rather chose to
make up stories similar to Pinnochio (the wooden puppet that became
human) in order to explain away God. I wouldn't want to live for a
week with someone who was that antagonistic toward me, much less for
eternity.
Think for yourselves using your powerful invisible mind that God
created, which is part of the spiritual world, instead of listening to
the billions of writings on theories, written by men who are being
paid big salaries to produce and/or expand on fairy tales of
evolutionary theory, and most of these scientists know they are
feeding nonsense to the world, and do not really believe their own
theories themselves.
JohnN
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
And yet every mother knows what it feels like to experience just such
an event as the fetus grows in her womb. Amazing isn't it that
creationists never think that developmental biology, which is
happening all the time, would negate their little Jehovah's Witness
silliness.
JohnN
Grandbank
Home schooled??
KP
Boikat
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
<Snip traddle>
I still wonder why anyone thinks an argument frpom incredulity,
ignorance and bald faced stupidity, holds any weight.
Please enlighten me on how "I don't see how" = "Goddidit!"
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by David
<david7...@aol.com>:
>Hi Y'al,
>
>Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
>miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
>have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
>living entity.
Since no one rational and educated actually thinks that's
how life started the point is more than a bit moot.
BTW, when you decide to get an education you might want to
look up "strawman fallacy".
<snip Fruit of the Moronic Tree>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
chris thompson
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
Whoa, there, partner.
Now, I have every confidence that this is a drive-by post, but let's
address this idea just for fun.
In my time, I have known people who were missing a leg, missing an
arm, missing an eye, missing a kidney, missing a lung, missing a gall
bladder, missing an appendix, missing tonsils, missing fingers,
missing toes, missing testes, missing ovaries, missing a uterus,
missing a good part of their stomach and/or small intestine (that
would be me AND my father-in-law AND my brother AND my sister-in-law),
missing spinal column discs (that's also me), missing chunks of liver,
missing chunks of brain, or missing a pancreas. (And before the
Howlers chime in, no- no one I know has been missing all of those all
at once. It would certainly be distressing to be missing both testes
AND ovaries.)
If everything has to be in the right place at the same moment in time,
how do they (including me) survive?
Chris
snip
SkyEyes
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
Given that there undoubtedly were multiple locations having the proper
circumstances (chemical components, temperature, pressure, whatever)
and 4.4 billion years' worth of chances occurring simultaneously again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again
againandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainan
dagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainand
again in these many locations, the odds of it happening were extremely
good.
And by the way, you're misusing the term "miracle." It wasn't a
miracle, it was *chemistry*.
Have a nice day now, y'all come back if you have any more questions.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
wrote:
...and if somebody is missing a bone in each of their feet, let me
know; I've got extra ones.
jillery
Home-schooled in Texas?? That's a scary thought :)
jillery
> On Apr 26, 10:39 am, David <david77ja...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Y'al,
>
> > Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> > miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> > have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> > living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> > living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> > entity to survive.
>
> Given that there undoubtedly were multiple locations having the proper
> circumstances (chemical components, temperature, pressure, whatever)
> and 4.4 billion years' worth of chances occurring simultaneously again
> and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
> and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
> and again and again and again
againandagainan
>
> dagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainandagainand
Just out of curiosity, are you posting from a snowed-in mountain
hotel :)
Nathan Levesque
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles
Define miracle.
>(billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity.
It happens every day. So pregnancy is a miracle?
> Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
Not all components.
> How about repeatedly throwing mud and every other element in the
> universe against a rock for even a trillion years, and then throwing
> in the evolutionist's theoretical additives, like lightning, nitrogen,
Lightning and nitrogen are theoretical?
> other atmospheres, the right this and that, and watching it until
> something began to animate, with all the necessary components to
> procreate, digest, eliminate, and all the nutrition necessary for
> same.
Oh you're on about abiogenesis. In that case you don't actually have
something procreating and digesting. You have something that self
replicates and absorbs nutrients.
> All of the parts of every cell and every creature must be fully
> functional in order for the entity to survive and procreate. No
> scientist has ever gotten past this ONE issue with anything other than
> a theory.
Ok? And when the components of proto-life can come from chemical
reactions then we can theorize how they did using naturalistic
mechanisms proto life formed. This what we call rational inquiry.
> Why not just face the facts? There is no such thing as a "simple
> cell", since even the smallest cell requires over 350 components in
> order to do everything necessary to live and reproduce.
You want a living simple cell proxy to exist right now? That's
idiotic. After billions of years of evolution the simplest cells that
exist are much more complex than proto-life was. There is simply no
way in which a cell as simple as proto-life could exist amongst the
current competition. At the very most, not long enough for us to find
it. It would get eaten by bacteria right away.
> What might be
> the chances that all these components came together at the same moment
> in time?
A membrane and RNA? Pretty good chances.
> Look at all the components of the human body, and realize that all of
> them are inextricably linked to each other and to living animation and
> purpose.
Humans are the product of billions of years of evolution, what do you
expect?
>How convenient to have been put in place all at once, eh?
> Isn't it also quite convenient that the most powerful entity on earth
> is the invisible mind?
Invisible?
>Isn't is also quite convenient that this
> powerful invisible entity is attached to our brain and the brain to
> the body? Eyes? How convenient!
Our brain is our mind, there is no invisible entity attached to it.
> Keep slapping that mud against a rock, and let's watch it for a
> trillion years, waiting for eyes to develop.
>
> You say they evolved? Example: A working brain is required for the
> instinct of ingesting food for nutrition to operate. Did the brain
> come first and just sit there waiting for body parts to go into?
You're either deliberately dense and a troll, or you're incredibly
stupid. The brain and eye co-evoled in humans.
>What
> biological creature on earth has been shown to be in a state of
> evolution, with a partially grown body part?
Nobody is claiming that we should see that.
> These are the great
> questions that evos always say: "well, this question is as old as can
> be, and there are no new questions".
Who the hell says that??
> There doesn't have to be any other questions past the few above. Just
> stay on point and answer them, but you'll find they cannot be answered
> except by proposing wild theory stacked upon wild theory.
Or, I could point out that you're incredibly stupid and misinformed.
> God is tough to believe in, yes, but all these miracles stacked upon
> miracles, and all at the same necessary moment in time (which is
> absolutely necessary to sustain life), is much tougher to believe.
No. A series of naturalistic mechanisms are a demonstrable fact.
Believing in something that cannot be demonstrated is blind faith.
>We
> humans are anxious to find an alternative to God because we just don't
> want to think that we have an authority over us.
The stupid, it burns.
> Yet, the truth of fundamental Christianity says: believe on Christ and
> eternal life is given you as a free gift. Then, the Christian life
> follows, with all levels of success and failure, but none of which
> have any bearing on the permanent gift of eternal life, once it is
> accepted, since rewards and loss of rewards are the result, not loss
> of eternal life.
I'm not sure, but this might be the worst summation of Pascals wager
I've ever read. I just can't comprehend unintelligible sputtering, so
I may never know.
> Just like the thief on the cross who received eternal life for having
> done nothing good, except for "believing" Christ was who and what he
> had said he was. He didn't receive rewards according to what's taught
> in the Bible, but eternal life was his through simple childlike faith
> in Christ.
So be a horrible person and as long as you're an idiot everything's
going to be alright for you. That's not only immoral, and ignorant,
it's selfish.
> I can easily understand that God does not want to live in eternity
> with people who rejected him during their lives, but rather chose to
> make up stories similar to Pinnochio (the wooden puppet that became
> human) in order to explain away God.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.
>I wouldn't want to live for a
> week with someone who was that antagonistic toward me, much less for
> eternity.
So nobody should want to live with god then, considering he's
purportedly threatening us all with horrible torture.
> Think for yourselves
And try logic, reason, and basing beliefs on evidence rather than
negligent ignorance of reality.
>using your powerful invisible mind
It's not invisible.
> that God
> created
There is 0 evidence to support this, and there is already a sufficient
naturalistic explanation for the origin of the brain.
>, which is part of the spiritual world
Is it also apart of monkey hell, or zombie paradise, or any other
fictional realm of existence?
>, instead of listening to
> the billions of writings on theories
Which are thoroughly supported by evidence, and in fact are the only
one's that can account for such evidence.
>, written by men who are being
> paid big salaries to produce and/or expand on fairy tales of
> evolutionary theory
Right, they're definitely living the good life. With the salary they
get from people throwing away 10% of their income once a week, which
is incidentally the only day of the week they have to work. Oh wait,
that's Christian pastors.
>, and most of these scientists know they are
> feeding nonsense to the world, and do not really believe their own
> theories themselves.
They don't have to believe anything. They can demonstrate it as fact.
Steven L.
news:819a8207-191b-4ed9...@d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity.
They didn't all come together at the same time.
The first life form didn't have "billions of cell factories." It *may*
have had one cell.
Looks like it took well over a billion years from the time the first
life forms appeared, to the time that the first multicellular beasts
appeared.
A lot can change in a billion years.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55fe9967-2235-4e57...@b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
I had thought about that, but I suppose they could retort that the
instructions for making a baby are already encoded in the fertilized
ovum's genome. The Hox genes, for example.
You gotta admit, how babies get made from existing genetic instructions
is a different question from how the genetic code and the first life
forms came to be in the first place. I don't think you can analogize a
living process (like gestation) to abiogenesis, since abiogenesis was
driven by nonliving processes.
-- Steven L.
alextangent
Kept behind a year too.
Inez
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
The world is full of miracles if you don't know how anything works.
There is a cure for that, called education.
r norman
Even if you do know how things work, the world is still full of
miracles. Knowing about refraction of light and variation of
refractive index with wavelength does not make the rainbow less
beautiful. The world if filled with awewsome features (not to mention
love and that kind of stuff). That these miracles are based on
science and not supernatural events does not diminish their grandeur
and awesomeness.
OK, so that is pushing the notion of "miracle" just a wee bit. But I
get annoyed when people think that science takes all the joy and
wonder out of things. It just magnifies the joy and wonder.
Inez
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:38:32 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>
I'm fairly certain that I didn't say that science takes all the joy
r norman
No, you certainly didn't. You merely opened the door a glitch using
the traditional notion of "miracle" which was perfectly true. I just
felt like a rant and you happened to be the vehicle I rode in on.
Bill
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>
>
>
"When I hear the learned astronomer...."
Yes, that poem just about turned me off Walt Whitman altogether.
Davej
> [...]
> Why not just face the facts? There is no such thing as a "simple
> cell", since even the smallest cell requires over 350 components in
> order to do everything necessary to live and reproduce. What might
> be the chances that all these components came together at the
> same moment in time?
>
There is no such thing as a simple modern cell because modern cells
have been evolving for billions of years, but what was the proto-cell
that got things started? How many cubic centimeters of ocean water are
there, and how many years available?
Don Cates
r norman
Excellent!
rmj
Science does not negate the wonder, but too many scientists attempt to
do just that.
rmj
The old "in billions of years anything can happen" argument. Irrefutable
because it says nothing.
Mike Dworetsky
"When I heard the learned astronomer.."
If you have any idea what most mid-19th C astronomy was about, you might get
bored in a public lecture pretty quickly too. No nice pictures of galaxies
or nebulae, no stellar evolution, nothing about spectra, no cosmology at
all, and very little real knowledge about other planets. But celestial
mechanics, yes, lots of celestial mechanics, and lots of tables of proper
motions of stars, lots about coordinate systems and precession, very few
parallaxes, and not even knowledge of the main sequence.
Going outside and looking up at a beautiful star-filled sky seems a
respectable alternative.
>
> Yes, that poem just about turned me off Walt Whitman altogether.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Dakota
Nothing but strawmen and preaching here. It's all off topic.
> Hi Y'al,
>
Right back atcha, David.
>
> Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
>
Where do you get the idea that billions of 'cell factories' came
together at the same time. Are you unaware of the stages of development
from a single fertilized egg cell to a chicken or human? A lot survive
the process.
>
> How about repeatedly throwing mud and every other element in the
> universe against a rock for even a trillion years, and then throwing
> in the evolutionist's theoretical additives, like lightning, nitrogen,
> other atmospheres, the right this and that, and watching it until
> something began to animate, with all the necessary components to
> procreate, digest, eliminate, and all the nutrition necessary for
> same.
>
I don't think scientists figure that's how life began.
Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. That's
another subject entirely. Abiogenesis is the term you want. You might
also want to learn a bit about the Theory of Evolution if you're going
to post at talk.origins. I've posted a couple of helpful links below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>
> All of the parts of every cell and every creature must be fully
> functional in order for the entity to survive and procreate. No
> scientist has ever gotten past this ONE issue with anything other than
> a theory.
>
People with cancer or other diseases have lots of cells that are not
fully functional yet many survive for decades and procreate during that
time. People survive and procreate after losing limbs or a kidney.
It would be difficult to argue that all the parts of every cell are
fully functional in Steven Hawking's body. Yet he survives. And he has
procreated.
>
> Why not just face the facts? There is no such thing as a "simple
> cell", since even the smallest cell requires over 350 components in
> order to do everything necessary to live and reproduce. What might be
> the chances that all these components came together at the same moment
> in time?
>
How do you define components? 350 seem low for even simple prokaryotes.
We know that living cells exist so the probability is 1.
>
> Look at all the components of the human body, and realize that all of
> them are inextricably linked to each other and to living animation and
> purpose. How convenient to have been put in place all at once, eh?
> Isn't it also quite convenient that the most powerful entity on earth
> is the invisible mind? Isn't is also quite convenient that this
> powerful invisible entity is attached to our brain and the brain to
> the body? Eyes? How convenient!
>
My fingernails and hair are not inextricably linked to all the other
components of my body. They are regularly trimmed. My first set of teeth
fell out when I was a child. Yet here I am. Living and animated.
I suppose you could argue that the mind is the most powerful entity on
Earth but you'd have to have a unusual definition of powerful. When I
think of the most powerful entities on Earth, volcanos and Earthquakes
come to mind. For man made items, the Saturn V rocket and nuclear
weapons are mighty powerful.
I will agree that the human brain is the most complex thing we have yet
encountered.
It makes no sense to say that the mind is 'attached' to the brain. It is
a function of the brain. There is no evidence that a mind can exist
outside a brain.
If the brain is disconnected from other vital parts of the body, it will
not survive.
I find my eyes to be very convenient. Some people are born without
functioning eyes yet they survive and procreate.
>
> Keep slapping that mud against a rock, and let's watch it for a
> trillion years, waiting for eyes to develop.
>
Once again, mud slapping is not how it works.
If a random mutation causes a cell to become sensitive to light and that
sensitivity helps the organism better compete in it's environment,
organisms with that mutation will reproduce in greater numbers and the
mutation will be passed down to offspring in greater numbers. New
mutations build on previous mutations and so on. In that way complex
organs such as cilia, eyes or brains can develop over many, many
generations.
It's an easy to understand process. Random mutations and natural selection.
>
> You say they evolved? Example: A working brain is required for the
> instinct of ingesting food for nutrition to operate. Did the brain
> come first and just sit there waiting for body parts to go into? What
> biological creature on earth has been shown to be in a state of
> evolution, with a partially grown body part? These are the great
> questions that evos always say: "well, this question is as old as can
> be, and there are no new questions".
>
The very simple cells you mentioned earlier have no brains but still
ingest nutrients, expel wastes, survive, and reproduce by cell division.
Do you believe they have an invisible mind? Or is it more likely that
they obey the laws of physics and chemistry?
Evolution has been observed many times and is ongoing in all living
organisms. Disease organisms developing resistance to drugs via
evolutionary processes is an example that can be observed over a
relatively short time period.
Because the process of evolution has no goal, it is not possible to
predict what a particular body part's future use may be. A part that
might be useful in a particular environment may not be useful if that
environment changes. Yet the body part remains and is passed down to
future generations. Snakes and whales have skeletal vestiges of legs
which developed because they helped the ancestors of these creatures
compete in an earlier environment. That environment changed and now the
legs are no longer useful. I suppose one might call them partial body parts.
I've never heard an evolutionary scientist say anything like what you
claim. Your great questions are so silly that I would expect that even a
very polite scientist would have trouble stifling a chuckle.
>
> There doesn't have to be any other questions past the few above. Just
> stay on point and answer them, but you'll find they cannot be answered
> except by proposing wild theory stacked upon wild theory.
>
I'm glad to see we're moving on. I'm getting tired of stacking wild
theories on top of each other.
>
> God is tough to believe in, yes, but all these miracles stacked upon
> miracles, and all at the same necessary moment in time (which is
> absolutely necessary to sustain life), is much tougher to believe. We
> humans are anxious to find an alternative to God because we just don't
> want to think that we have an authority over us.
>
Speaking of wild theories. I'm still wondering how anyone can still
think that all the fabulous attributes of a God could have ever come
together at the same time in order to make an animated, living entity.
And to think that theists believe it happened without anyone throwing
mud at a rock.
>
> Yet, the truth of fundamental Christianity says: believe on Christ and
> eternal life is given you as a free gift. Then, the Christian life
> follows, with all levels of success and failure, but none of which
> have any bearing on the permanent gift of eternal life, once it is
> accepted, since rewards and loss of rewards are the result, not loss
> of eternal life.
>
The 'truths' of nearly all religions say: Believe in what we tell you
and you'll get eternal life or be reincarnated or receive some other
reward after you die. You left out the part where the 'truth' of
fundamental Christianity says: don't believe and our loving God will
torment you for eternity. Christians aren't alone in this part either.
Unfortunately, there has never been a shred of evidence that life goes
on after death. None. Not any. Ever,
There has also never been a shred of evidence that any god exists. None.
Not any. Ever.
>
> Just like the thief on the cross who received eternal life for having
> done nothing good, except for "believing" Christ was who and what he
> had said he was. He didn't receive rewards according to what's taught
> in the Bible, but eternal life was his through simple childlike faith
> in Christ.
>
I'm glad you brought that up. I've always wondered about the 'good'
thief story. According to Luke, Jesus said:
Luke 23:43 (King James Version)
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be
with me in paradise.
Some fundamentalist Christians say that Jesus descended into Hell and on
the third day He rose again to fulfill a prophecy. How does that square
with Jesus being in paradise the day he died?
Mark and Matthew don't talk about the good thief but then none of the
three who wrote about the crucifixion agree on Jesus's last words. I'm
guessing they were at different crucifixions. There were a a lot of them
back then I suppose.
I guess it doesn't make any difference if you rely on your simple
childlike faith rather than on reason and common sense.
>
> I can easily understand that God does not want to live in eternity
> with people who rejected him during their lives, but rather chose to
> make up stories similar to Pinnochio (the wooden puppet that became
> human) in order to explain away God. I wouldn't want to live for a
> week with someone who was that antagonistic toward me, much less for
> eternity.
>
Stories like Pinnochio were written to explain away God? I'm guessing
you were home schooled.
If you continue to bring your silly strawman arguments to talk.origins,
you can expect to find some people who will antagonize you. I wouldn't
want that to happen if I were you. I'd stay away if I were you.
Sorry. I forgot about the home schooling thing. Here's a helpful link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
>
> Think for yourselves using your powerful invisible mind that God
> created, which is part of the spiritual world, instead of listening to
> the billions of writings on theories, written by men who are being
> paid big salaries to produce and/or expand on fairy tales of
> evolutionary theory, and most of these scientists know they are
> feeding nonsense to the world, and do not really believe their own
> theories themselves.
>
Billions of books on evolutionary theory and you haven't read a single one.
Lots of religious leaders make big bucks hawking the fairy tales in
their holy books. Most of these religious leaders know they're feeding
nonsense to the world and do not believe the fairy tales themselves.
Why don't you think for yourself rather than accepting religious myths
with simple childlike faith.
nick humphrey
> The old "in billions of years anything can happen" argument. Irrefutable
> because it says nothing.
as opposed to the everything happened in the last 10,000 years =)
Ernest Major
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
could think that science takes the joy and wonder out of things. Without
science it's just some dots and blobs of light.
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9544a/
--
alias Ernest Major
Mitchell Coffey
> On 26/04/2011 10:07 PM, Inez wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 4:47 pm, r norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:38:32 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>>>
>>> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 26, 10:39 am, David<david77ja...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Y'al,
>>>
>>>>> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
>>>>> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
>>>>> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
>>>>> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of eve
>>>>> entity to survive.
>>>
>>>> The world is full of miracles if you don't know how anything works.
>>>> There is a cure for that, called education.
>>>
>>> Even if you do know how things work, the world is still full of
>>> miracles. Knowing about refraction of light and variation of
>>> refractive index with wavelength does not make the rainbow less
>>> beautiful. The world if filled with awewsome features (not to mention
>>> love and that kind of stuff). That these miracles are based on
>>> science and not supernatural events does not diminish their grandeur
>>> and awesomeness.
>>>
>>> OK, so that is pushing the notion of "miracle" just a wee bit. But I
>>> get annoyed when people think that science takes all the joy and
>>> wonder out of things. It just magnifies the joy and wonder.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain that I didn't say that science takes all the joy
>> and wonder out of things.
>>
> ob XKCD
> <http://xkcd.com/877/>
As with millions of Talk.Origins fans this morning, the first thing I
thought upon reading that was "OK, is there really such a thing as the
"dog vomit slime mold?", then feverishly googled. As I should have
known, as xkcd is not a comic but a documentary, of course there is.
Even cooler is how the dog vomit slime mold made "Tom Volk's Fungus of
the Month for June 1999":
http://botit.botany.wisc.edu/toms_fungi/june99.html .
Mitchell Coffey
r norman
Have you ever been to a seminar given by an organic chemist? That
will certainly drive you to go outside and look up at the star-filled
sky as an antidote and curative.
jillery
> In message <e93fr6h7kpi31en27e6vndeakhb99ei...@4ax.com>, r norman
> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> writes
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Inez
Absolutely. On the flip side, there are some people who manage to
trivialize even the most remarkable science:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/naturalwonders/ss/Eye-Of-God.htm
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
raven1
wrote:
>Hi Y'al,
>
>Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
>miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
>have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
>living entity.
Leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that it must have
happened by magic?
Arkalen
might be the chances that all these components came together at the same
Basically, the question is how likely abiogenesis is. We don't know the
answer to that question. This means that the people who assert that
abiogenesis can't have happened (which is a specific statement on how
likely abiogenesis is) need more evidence than bare assertion. When
someone says "abiogenesis is impossible because things would have to
come together exactly at the same time", "abiogenesis may have been a
process that took up all of Earth and lasted billions of years" is a
perfectly good rebuttal. It is NOT a claim that "anything" can happen in
billions of years.
Walter Bushell
Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. That's
> another subject entirely. Abiogenesis is the term you want. You might
> also want to learn a bit about the Theory of Evolution if you're going
> to post at talk.origins. I've posted a couple of helpful links below.
But if he does that he might lose his Salavation.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Putting an antic disposition on is almost necessary for anyone to tell
the truth in mass media. Otherwise you get shut down.
Kermit
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity.
It happens all the time, during gestation and development of
organisms. It's not chance; it's the expression of natural law. This
is how chemicals behave. Life did not appear in a flash as a modern
cell. It started as an environment in which several molecules under
certain conditions used the energy from chemical activity of other
molecules to reproduce more like themselves. Even the smallest of
puddles with a simple film - a protomembrane, if you will - would
contain trillions of these. This process took "only" a couple of
hundred million years, so it's probably inevitable given the right
conditions. Going from there to modern cells took ten times as long -
that was the hard part.
Exercise for the reader - how many complex molecules were interacting
for how long in several different kinds of environments on Earth over
200,000,000 years?
> Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
The simplest bacterium is far simpler than a human, and far more
complicated than the first life would have been.
>
> How about repeatedly throwing mud and every other element in the
> universe against a rock for even a trillion years, and then throwing
> in the evolutionist's theoretical additives, like lightning, nitrogen,
> other atmospheres, the right this and that, and watching it until
> something began to animate, with all the necessary components to
> procreate, digest, eliminate, and all the nutrition necessary for
> same.
The "nutrition" would have been energy: simple chemical reactions or
radiation (light).
The procreation would have been simple production of other molecules,
maybe not even different kinds (at first).
What digestion? What animation?
>
> All of the parts of every cell and every creature must be fully
> functional in order for the entity to survive and procreate. No
> scientist has ever gotten past this ONE issue with anything other than
> a theory.
"Theories" are as good as it gets in science. Scientists have
tentative but testable explanations for confirmed data. Religious
fanatics have certainty, no verifiable data, and models which cannot
be tested.
Certainty and ignorance are poor predictors of correct ideas.
>
> Why not just face the facts? There is no such thing as a "simple
> cell", since even the smallest cell requires over 350 components in
> order to do everything necessary to live and reproduce.
The simplest modern cell, yes.
Their precursors, simpler arrangements of self-replicating molecules,
would be called "food" by modern cells (if they could talk).
> What might be
> the chances that all these components came together at the same moment
> in time?
Why would they have to?
>
> Look at all the components of the human body, and realize that all of
> them are inextricably linked to each other and to living animation and
> purpose. How convenient to have been put in place all at once, eh?
I understand, I misplaced my liver one morning before my first coffee,
and I just couldn't get myself together all day.
> Isn't it also quite convenient that the most powerful entity on earth
> is the invisible mind? Isn't is also quite convenient that this
> powerful invisible entity is attached to our brain and the brain to
> the body? Eyes? How convenient!
The mind is part of the brain's behavior. It is not an entity anymore
than a dance is. The dance is just something that a dancer does (and
of course, not the only thing that he does).
>
> Keep slapping that mud against a rock, and let's watch it for a
> trillion years, waiting for eyes to develop.
Damn. And this was the most favored theory of abiogenesis, too. Oh,
wait, it wasn't.
>
> You say they evolved? Example: A working brain is required for the
> instinct of ingesting food for nutrition to operate.
<coughamoebascough>
> Did the brain
> come first and just sit there waiting for body parts to go into? What
> biological creature on earth has been shown to be in a state of
> evolution, with a partially grown body part? These are the great
> questions that evos always say: "well, this question is as old as can
> be, and there are no new questions".
No scientist would ever say "There are no new questions". You're
confusing them with your local preacher, I think.
>
> There doesn't have to be any other questions past the few above. Just
> stay on point and answer them, but you'll find they cannot be answered
> except by proposing wild theory stacked upon wild theory.
Theories aren't wild. They are testable models that fit *all the known
facts. They explain the current known facts, and are testable because
they predict new facts, the presence of which will add support to the
model, and the absence of which disprove the model (but which may be
salvageable by tweaking).
>
> God is tough to believe in, yes,
Believing in the existence of X is not tough or easy. It is inevitable
or impossible, depending on the experiences and other information
available to a person, interacting with his or her own natural
abilities.
I cannot decide that a god exists if my experience offers no
persuasive evidence (nor vice-versa). I can of course also determine
that I don't know whether X exists or not, based on insufficient or
ambiguous data.
Can you simply "decide" that the sky is green-striped with pink polka
dots?
> but all these miracles stacked upon
> miracles,
What miracles? Life follows basic chemistry and other natural law now
- we have no reason to think that its development required miracles.
We grow out of the world around us like an apple from a tree. This is
wondrous, yes, but not miraculous.
> and all at the same necessary moment in time (which is
> absolutely necessary to sustain life), is much tougher to believe. We
> humans are anxious to find an alternative to God because we just don't
> want to think that we have an authority over us.
Should I infer that you believe gods exist because you need an
authority over you?
Why should - and how could - the existence of X be determined by
somebody's imagined desires?
>
> Yet, the truth of fundamental Christianity says: believe on Christ and
> eternal life is given you as a free gift.
Raised that way; decided that they had nothing persuasive or even
interesting. What does that have to do with the way biochemistry
works?
I don't recall where Christian doctrine requires us to believe that
reality is a joke, and we cannot trust our senses on a routine basis.
> Then, the Christian life
> follows, with all levels of success and failure, but none of which
> have any bearing on the permanent gift of eternal life, once it is
> accepted, since rewards and loss of rewards are the result, not loss
> of eternal life.
>
> Just like the thief on the cross who received eternal life for having
> done nothing good, except for "believing" Christ was who and what he
> had said he was. He didn't receive rewards according to what's taught
> in the Bible, but eternal life was his through simple childlike faith
> in Christ.
>
> I can easily understand that God does not want to live in eternity
> with people who rejected him during their lives, but rather chose to
> make up stories similar to Pinnochio (the wooden puppet that became
> human) in order to explain away God. I wouldn't want to live for a
> week with someone who was that antagonistic toward me, much less for
> eternity.
I think you are conflating
"I believe X is true"
with
"I believe in the values of X way of life".
For example, believing that Mars is smaller than Earth is not the same
sort of thing as believing in a simple life and paying off one's
debts.
>
> Think for yourselves using your powerful invisible mind that God
> created,
Evidence?
> which is part of the spiritual world,
Evidence?
> instead of listening to the billions of writings on theories,
Millions maybe. These theories are the same ones which created the
internet you are using now. And which cure childhood leukemia.
> written by men who are being paid big salaries
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Heh. Hehehehahahahahaha!
<snort>
> to produce and/or expand on fairy tales of
> evolutionary theory,
How does that work? Why wouldn't they get paid to offer different
theories (e.g. "true" ones)?
And those big salaries don't compare to many jobs (e.g. business, law,
televangelist) that don't require nearly the same amount of training.
> and most of these scientists know they are
> feeding nonsense to the world, and do not really believe their own
> theories themselves.
You clearly don't know any scientists. Just as clearly, you were
raised to just make stuff up. They tried to teach me that, also, but
it didn't take.
One lie they told you was that you have to give up Jesus to learn
science. Quite a few respected scientists are theists - in America,
roughly half, and most of them are Christian.
My Christian college buddy said that "Science is studying how God does
things".
You can feed your ego by telling yourself how righteous you are, or
you can study the nature of Creation with an open eye.
Your choice. Are you brave enough to be honest? Look at the evidence,
read the science books if you want to know what scientists think.
Scientists have the courage to admit they can be wrong - do you?
Go to a university and buy a cup of coffee in the student lounge, and
listen to some science grad students talking. They won't be talking
about deception and making money. They'll be talking about how hard
they're working, or about the really cool thing somebody did in the
lab last night, or the exciting preliminary results from a year's
research. Well, that or beer.
Kermit
Inez
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Inez
>
>
>
>
>
It's traditional to buy me flowers first.
r norman
wrote:
>In article <yf2dncTDTYL...@giganews.com>,
> Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. That's
>> another subject entirely. Abiogenesis is the term you want. You might
>> also want to learn a bit about the Theory of Evolution if you're going
>> to post at talk.origins. I've posted a couple of helpful links below.
>
>But if he does that he might lose his Salavation.
That would be very useful if he has a tendency to drool.
Walter Bushell
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
I wrote it that way on porpoise.
Mike Lyle
Poor old Walt!
The first book I read by Dawkins was _Unweaving the Rainbow_: I found
it inspiring. I think what annoys some people about Dawkins may
actually be his poetic passion.
--
Mike.
Burkhard
Did you know that hot coffee expelled though the nose really hurts? :o)
r norman
>r norman wrote:
>
>> Even if you do know how things work, the world is still full of
>> miracles. Knowing about refraction of light and variation of refractive
>> index with wavelength does not make the rainbow less beautiful.
>
>Have you been watching "The pleasure of finding things out"?
>
>If not, you should:
><http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=164D02309D7C5438>
>
>Richard Feynman made the same point as you did, and he is a very
>entertaining to hear.
>
>Here is another playlist of Feynman in a chair, just fantastic:
><http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=D61C9EBCBFE45569>
I had "The pleasure of discovering Feynman-think" as an undergrad at
CalTech. Feynman used to "teach" a "course" he called Physics-X. It
met sporadically at a specific time when no regular classes were
supposed to be held in order to have student activities or official
functions but those were rarely scheduled. Anybody could come and
Feynman would do nothing except answer questions. Freshmen had
priority in asking questions and usually monopolized the hour. Feynman
could (and usually did) illustrate the great joy in knowing about
anything and everything under, around, and inside the sun; lucid
dreaming, perpetual motion machines, safe cracking, quantum
electrodynamics, whatever. Actually he often spent most of the time
not asking questions but turning them into other, more sophisticated
questions and demanding that we answer them!
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:38:32 -0700 (PDT), Inez
><savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 26, 10:39 am, David <david77ja...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Y'al,
>>>
>>> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
>>> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
>>> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
>>> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
>>> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
>>> entity to survive.
>>
>>The world is full of miracles if you don't know how anything works.
>>There is a cure for that, called education.
>
>Even if you do know how things work, the world is still full of
>miracles. Knowing about refraction of light and variation of
>refractive index with wavelength does not make the rainbow less
>beautiful. The world if filled with awewsome features (not to mention
>love and that kind of stuff). That these miracles are based on
>science and not supernatural events does not diminish their grandeur
>and awesomeness.
>
>OK, so that is pushing the notion of "miracle" just a wee bit. But I
>get annoyed when people think that science takes all the joy and
>wonder out of things. It just magnifies the joy and wonder.
Hear, hear!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
jillery
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:47:49 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by r norman
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:38:32 -0700 (PDT), Inez
> ><savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 26, 10:39 am, David <david77ja...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Y'al,
>
> >>> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> >>> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> >>> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> >>> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> >>> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> >>> entity to survive.
>
> >>The world is full of miracles if you don't know how anything works.
> >>There is a cure for that, called education.
>
> >Even if you do know how things work, the world is still full of
> >miracles. Knowing about refraction of light and variation of
> >refractive index with wavelength does not make the rainbow less
> >beautiful. The world if filled with awewsome features (not to mention
> >love and that kind of stuff). That these miracles are based on
> >science and not supernatural events does not diminish their grandeur
> >and awesomeness.
>
> >OK, so that is pushing the notion of "miracle" just a wee bit. But I
> >get annoyed when people think that science takes all the joy and
> >wonder out of things. It just magnifies the joy and wonder.
>
> Hear, hear!
Where wear!
Devils Advocaat
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity. Every scientist knows that all components of every
> living entity must be in place at the same moment in time for such
> entity to survive.
So how come you survived when you were just a single cell in your
mother's womb?
>
[snipped for brevity]
Leopoldo Perdomo
> r norman wrote:
> > Even if you do know how things work, the world is still full of
> > miracles. Knowing about refraction of light and variation of refractive
> > index with wavelength does not make the rainbow less beautiful.
>
>
> If not, you should:
> <http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=164D02309D7C5438>
>
> Richard Feynman made the same point as you did, and he is a very
> entertaining to hear.
>
> Here is another playlist of Feynman in a chair, just fantastic:
> <http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=D61C9EBCBFE45569>
wonderful, Feynnman. I had began to download all this videos.
Perseus
Stuart
> Hi Y'al,
>
> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> living entity.
So what happens during a living enitity's gestation?
Come back again for s'more learnin'
Stuart
Perseus
wonderful Feynman.
Jeffrey Turner
> In article<yf2dncTDTYL...@giganews.com>,
> Dakota<ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. That's
>> another subject entirely. Abiogenesis is the term you want. You might
>> also want to learn a bit about the Theory of Evolution if you're going
>> to post at talk.origins. I've posted a couple of helpful links below.
>
> But if he does that he might lose his Salavation.
Him and what army?
--Jeff
--
Money to get power;
Power to protect money.
--Medici family motto
Robert Grumbine
> On Apr 26, 12:39 pm, David <david77ja...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Hi Y'al,
>>
>> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
>> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
>> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
>
><Snip traddle>
>
> I still wonder why anyone thinks an argument frpom incredulity,
> ignorance and bald faced stupidity, holds any weight.
>
> Please enlighten me on how "I don't see how" = "Goddidit!"
Because the speaker is so fantastically brilliant and knowledgeable
that only miraculous action by an entity that was all knowing and
all powerful could elude the speaker's understanding.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
jillery
> In article <d0573868-48ce-4a18-b954-ef8f9f1cb...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Boikat wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 12:39 pm, David <david77ja...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Y'al,
>
> >> Still wondering how anyone can still think that all the fabulous
> >> miracles (billions of cell factories and all living entities) could
> >> have ever come together at the same time in order to make an animated,
> >> living entity.....
>
> ><Snip traddle>
>
> > I still wonder why anyone thinks an argument frpom incredulity,
> > ignorance and bald faced stupidity, holds any weight.
>
> > Please enlighten me on how "I don't see how" = "Goddidit!"
>
> Because the speaker is so fantastically brilliant and knowledgeable
> that only miraculous action by an entity that was all knowing and
> all powerful could elude the speaker's understanding.
I'm glad you cleared that up. It explains a lot of the posts in
T.O. :)
Mike Lyle
wrote:
Bear in mind also that for a few of those who wash up here it's clear
that God couldn't be smarter than they are.
But a few of these enquiries are probably sincere, so it's important
to respect the difficulty: if you haven't been taken through it step
by step, then deep time and biological evolution really are utterly
mind-boggling, to the point of incredibility.
--
Mike.