|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
Strange isn't it, how so many have a hard on for Jesus Christ not making things here on earth perfect in their life, even though He said He was leaving us to be with The Father and saying that Satan and his minions would roam to and fro.
They are pissed that their Creator left them to go through but a taste of the misery He suffered for them and it all in vain.
Well, He should have made it easier on them to have everlasting life than having to ask for Him to come into their heart and make them spirit filled. I mean, no more valuable than everlasting life is He should have probably sent His son to die for their sorry asses.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
I've heard it presented that the odds of one complex organism evolving by the process of natural selection as currently described by "science" as one in one billion trillion. That seems fairly unlikely to me but I is just a hick.
I have also in my life seen a lot of scientific "facts" be later exposed as BS. I have also seen brilliant people be stunningly, astoundingly wrong about real important stuff. But they have probably got this evolution thing nailed.
RJY, I'm familiar that presentation, and it's fallacys. Here's the list: The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001). The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously. As a result the reported "odds" are invalid. As for scientific ideas being proven false, we have a name for that. It's Progress. And who proves these ideas wrong anyway? Is it the priest, or another scientist? AS, Well, I think RJY is correct with the conclusion. As, you disagree with the methodology but you seemingly do not disagree with the conclusion? It seems to me that the conclusion is correct. I wonder how many biologists have tried and failed to "produce life" in the lab. This seems to show that the odds are very long indeed. Now, one could conclude that it must have happened or life would not be here now...right? That of course is a statement of great faith. TF
Last edited by TF49; 07/15/14.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
I like the "Buick" idea. Correct. I dealt with this issue one time with a man I knew very well.
He told me he was a "Christian." I said ok, is Jesus your Lord and Savior? No answer....
I followed up with another question: Can you look me in the eye and tell me that Jesus is Lord? Again, I rec'd no answer.
There seems to be a huge difference between being a generic "christian" and a Follower of Jesus.
Those who do not recognize this difference simply do not understand ... or do not accept....the concept of being born again.
TF
btw... I am not sure there is anything "wrong" with church. We are surely flawed and limited and we are certainly guilty of our own sinning and hypocritical lifestyles. But that's why we need Jesus in the first place. As long as we are in this "body" of sin, we will fall short. God knows that. He expected that. He sees our sin and faults and loves us as His own. God expects us to fall short. He also expects us to strive to become more Christ like.
Do any of you really think that God did not "see this coming" when he looked into the future? Sure he did. The church of today is no surprise to Him.
Last edited by TF49; 07/15/14.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
Scott, thank-you for your kind reply.
A campfire and refreshments and a good conversation sounds really good right now. I also severed 7 years defending the Constitutional rights of all Americans, and seldom bring up personal philosophies in person unless asked. I enjoy these debates online, but in person I'd rather hear a good fishing story.
When a believer has experienced an apparent miracle such as your, there is no changing their mind. Period. You and I could still have an interesting comparative discussion, but no minds would be changed. I will say I've had my doubts about some of the Down syndrome testing. One of the girls I went to High School with was supposedly diagnosed with Downs syndrome, but to my eye, she never exhibited a single symptom. One of my Statistics Professors sued one of the local hospitals over their prenatal Downs testing. Some downs test can be difficult to interpret, and he discovered they were misinterpreting the data causing some parent to abort what were in all probably healthy babies. As part of the settlement the hospital was required to hire proper bio-statistician to read the results, after which their positive results dropped significantly.
Regardless, I'm glad to hear your daughter is doing well. As for her hard work, well, that builds character, something that's lacking in much of today's youth.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
Amen. He also saw those who would choose to follow the world (science) and reject Him, and He sent His Son to die for them anyway.
Last edited by eyeball; 07/15/14.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,867
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,867 |
RJY, I'm familiar that presentation, and it's fallacys. Here's the list:
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
As a result the reported "odds" are invalid.
Your arguement displays a major leap of blind faith. You equivocate on life. The problem with your post is you are starting with the assumption God was not involved. Therefore you have to start with nothing. Then you want us to accept the huge amount of pre-biotic combinations were never toxic, but benificial to acomplishing life. The reason the odds against life arising by chance is proven every year in laboratories. The toxic combinations out number any "good" combiniations by a magnitude. Then to top that off the toxic combinations will absorb or combine with any favorable chemicals causing their benificial "evolution" to come to an immediate halt. The number of attempts by extremely intelegent and educated scientist proves year after year the correct life combinations need more than the correct mixture. The chemicals need the spark of life. Since nothing can produce even the pre-biotic mixture, then nothing can produce life. When John Lachuck didn't wake up Saturday morning February 15, 2014, after going to bed quite alive, everything was present for a living human; except he was dead !Scientific information confirms year after year that life comes from life.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
It's not fair to use science to disprove science.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,867
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,867 |
eyeball,
Amen. He also saw those who would choose to follow the world (science) and reject Him, and He sent His Son to die for them anyway.
The "science" of the world is not science. It is a philosophical escape mechinism foisted on unsuspecting children until they are adults. That's why the movie Expelled: No intelegence allowed is rejected by them. It demonstrates their lack of tolerance of even questioning evolution.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
BC30cal, well put, and lovingly so as usual. To those here who do not believe or scorn the church: Christians are not only not perfect; some that are, are not. Even for those who truly are, in Romans 7, the Apostle Paul teaches us about the original,sinful nature we have to deal with once we come to Christ. We do this with varying degrees of success even though "born again." So you may see what you say is the hypocrite on occasion and perhaps he/she is; but perhaps not. I struggle with sinful patterns of behavior though I fight against them daily, but believe and trust in the redeeming blood of Christ and His spirit in me. People like me make the church imperfect--the spiritual hospital it was meant to be. But to BC's point, The Church is the body of all believers, crossing denominations, cultures, languages, and socioeconomic groups-all who believe in and trust Christ for their redemption. As a group, and organized, we can do things beyond the reach of the individual's resources, as Dwayne said, to bring the hand of Jesus and his healing words to the needy. For example, here I am, in-country, in Ghana, Africa under the auspices of the Lukes Society, a Christian Medical Mission outreach involved in bringing medical care to some thirty Third World countries. In Ghana, a surgeon believer and friend and his two sons, and I, went to a small country hospital and though in archaic and difficult conditions performed about twenty surgeries in a two week period. ![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/Georgedevries/P1010091.jpg) Did you know universities (the Ivy Leagues in our country), hospitals, and women's rights were initially brought to the light of day by Christians? The Church, here on earth, will never be perfect because of it's members, but that does not render false the message of it's Cornerstone, Jesus Christ. It only proves that His message concerning us two millennia ago was needed and exactly right. George, you make a good argument for the utility of the Christian Faith, but utility does not equate with truth. But in claiming the good, you must also claim the bad. It was Christians women who ushered in Prohibition in 1918 while our boys were away fighting WWI. This lead to the Gangster era, and the corruption of local governments in places Chicago. It's this corrupt machine that gave us Barrack Obama, so by extension, good intentioned Christians own the election of Barrack Obama to the Presidency. Further more, the missionaries in Africa are notorious for the opposition to birth control, specifically in the form of condoms. Do we really need to spread more over population and Aids and poverty across the Dark Continent?" Antelope-, there is no doubt true Christians are faulty and have done foolish, thoughtless, and unconscionable things down through the ages and still do in the name of their faith but two things: 1) "we" could give a historical laundry list of positive and very constructive things as well so you have to be even-handed in your honest appraisal. 2). The fact that Christians have done bad things is irrespective of their having The Truth. Rather, it's a matter of living it out with our human weakness that are so often at odds with living "the Christian life." George, IMO you last post applies near universally. You can replace the Christian with any other faith or philosophy, and it would still apply. We all have a duty to live the best life we can within our chosen faith/philosophy, and we all think we have the Truth...
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
Some fail to make a distinction between the brainwashing of public education with real science.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 39,301 |
She still has the physical signs, slanted eyes, wide hands and chest, and the webbing on the back of her neck but the testing is now negative. The big hole in her heart is gone too.
And yes, time spent around a real fire telling tales of big fish and enchanted hunts would be fun.
The first time I shot myself in the head...
Meniere's Sucks Big Time!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
If there is no creator with laws of right and wrong separating us from animals, then we are animals, which the libs claim we are anyway.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
Love thy neighbor as you lop off his head just doesn't sit well. eek Priceless.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
If there is no creator with laws of right and wrong separating us from animals, then we are animals, which the libs claim we are anyway. We are not plants nor minerals....so, yea.....we are animals. An animal, more specifically a primate, called Homo Sapien.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,645
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,645 |
AS, you are as full of horse wind as ever. Just sayin. ;-{>8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
I've heard it presented that the odds of one complex organism evolving by the process of natural selection as currently described by "science" as one in one billion trillion. That seems fairly unlikely to me but I is just a hick.
I have also in my life seen a lot of scientific "facts" be later exposed as BS. I have also seen brilliant people be stunningly, astoundingly wrong about real important stuff. But they have probably got this evolution thing nailed.
RJY, I'm familiar that presentation, and it's fallacys. Here's the list: The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001). The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously. As a result the reported "odds" are invalid. As for scientific ideas being proven false, we have a name for that. It's Progress. And who proves these ideas wrong anyway? Is it the priest, or another scientist? AS, Well, I think RJY is correct with the conclusion. As, you disagree with the methodology but you seemingly do not disagree with the conclusion? It seems to me that the conclusion is correct. I wonder how many biologists have tried and failed to "produce life" in the lab. This seems to show that the odds are very long indeed. Now, one could conclude that it must have happened or life would not be here now...right? That of course is a statement of great faith. TF TF, I disagree with the argument that based purely on statistic early life could not evolve on earth. You are correct to note that at this time, no scientist has created life in a lab, and we do not know the exact mechanism that created life of earth, however, you cannot logically jump from "we don't know" to "God did it". We don't know, just means, we don't know. At present there are at least a half dozen different hypothesis (nothing that qualifies as a theory) regarding abiogenesis. Where in science we are comfortable saying we don't know something, why is it the theologist feel they must instantly plug these holes with God?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
AS, you are as full of horse wind as ever. Just sayin. ;-{>8 Thanks OT. I hope I'm keeping you entertained.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,007 Likes: 2 |
RJY, I'm familiar that presentation, and it's fallacys. Here's the list:
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
As a result the reported "odds" are invalid.
Your arguement displays a major leap of blind faith. You equivocate on life. The problem with your post is you are starting with the assumption God was not involved. Therefore you have to start with nothing. Then you want us to accept the huge amount of pre-biotic combinations were never toxic, but benificial to acomplishing life. The reason the odds against life arising by chance is proven every year in laboratories. The toxic combinations out number any "good" combiniations by a magnitude. Then to top that off the toxic combinations will absorb or combine with any favorable chemicals causing their benificial "evolution" to come to an immediate halt. The number of attempts by extremely intelegent and educated scientist proves year after year the correct life combinations need more than the correct mixture. The chemicals need the spark of life. Since nothing can produce even the pre-biotic mixture, then nothing can produce life. When John Lachuck didn't wake up Saturday morning February 15, 2014, after going to bed quite alive, everything was present for a living human; except he was dead !Scientific information confirms year after year that life comes from life. No, I just said he made erroneous assumptions regarding how the probabilities should be calculated. But regarding your arguments about toxins, that's a 10 year old argument from the Discover Institute. What they are missing is that context matters. Cyanide and formaldehyde are necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including amino acids (Abelson 1996). They are not toxins in this context. Miller-Urey experiments produce amino acids among other chemical compounds (Kawamoto and Akaboshi 1982; Schlesinger and Miller 1983).
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
If there is no creator with laws of right and wrong separating us from animals, then we are animals, which the libs claim we are anyway. We are not plants nor minerals....so, yea.....we are animals. An animal, more specifically a primate, called Homo Sapien. Sure, and the only one with a three segmented brain? Sure, and as Ronald Reagan said to the reporter Sam Donaldson, your predecessors may have been apes, but mine weren't.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
What animal contemplates a life after death? None. What animal contemplates the purpose of its own existence, or humility, or developing meds to protect its progeny, or the solar system, or immigration?
You sell yourself too short.
It's a good excuse to justify a life of self gratification.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
580 members (1234, 007FJ, 17CalFan, 160user, 1beaver_shooter, 12344mag, 63 invisible),
2,456
guests, and
1,242
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,659
Posts18,493,524
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)