Yes, we see this again and again on these forums do we not?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
While some atheists know the Bible remarkably well... you don't.
You have a lot of learning to do.
And... you also are remarkably unlearned when it comes to science.
What you have is a blind faith... not based on knowledge or reason.
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, one has to wonder about their whole purpose in claiming belief in God. Is it a facade and are they just covering for their own incompetence by claiming belief in God?
noguru
Well-known member
6days
New member
Yes... I'm addressing the goofball who thinks they understand scripture, but demonstrates a lack of knowledge.
And, I'm addressing the goofball who stated "both RNA and proteins have been created in the lab"
noguru
Well-known member
:think:
Coming from the goofball who has never admitted to even 1 of his myriad of errors this is priceless.
:rotfl:
Hold on to that thought for a moment...
Hmmm...
Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Creating functional artificial proteins.
Razeghifard R1, Wallace BB, Pace RJ, Wydrzynski T.
Abstract
Much is now known about how protein folding occurs, through the sequence analysis of proteins of known folding geometry and the sequence/structural analysis of proteins and their mutants. This has allowed not only the modification of natural proteins but also the construction of de novo polypeptides with predictable folding patterns. Structure/function analysis of natural proteins is used to construct derived versions that retain a degree of biological activity. The constructed versions made of either natural or artificial sequences contain critical residues for activity such as receptor binding. In some cases, the functionality is introduced by incorporating binding sites for other elements, such as organic cofactors or transition metals, into the protein scaffold. While these modified proteins can mimic the function of natural proteins, they can also be constructed to have novel activities. Recently engineered photoactive proteins are good examples of such systems in which a light-induced electron transfer can be established in normally light-insensitive proteins. The present review covers some aspects of protein design that have been used to investigate protein receptor binding, cofactor binding and biological electron transfer.
Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2007 Feb;8(1):3-18.
Please educate yourself.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26672-formation-of-lifes-building-blocks-recreated-in-lab/
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html
http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
In prior posts I have defined mainstream science as using a methodology that endeavors to understand nature free of allegiance to religious views or cultural ideas. Scientists from a wide spectrum of religious backgrounds and national origins agree that the only arbitrator is nature itself. Of course, you knew that, but that unwillingness in science to unquestioningly give primary credence to YEC doctrines is untenable in your parochial view of what science is.
Show me where the scientific method excludes looking at evidence to see if it supports common ancestry.
The terminology you use is fascinating. Since you are a YEC defender I would have expected you to choose a pejorative to describe secular humanism. But instead, you refer to it with the same label you use for your own beliefs – “religion”. It is not my place to define for you what you consider to be “religion”, but I know that from a long period during which I was an active Christian my ideas on religion must be markedly different than yours. My acceptance of and involvement in science is no more than a firm confidence in the correctness of the methodology and most of its conclusions, plus a willingness to abrogate any part of science that I become convinced is wrong. Is that all ‘religion” means to you – no ultimate human or divine authorities, no absolute commitment to a set of beliefs, no document that is inviolable? Maybe I misread you, and indeed you are willing to jettison belief in the supernatural gobbledygook in the Christian Bible.
But since you elected to ignore the list of specific fields in science that you and I diverge widely on, I will accord you another opportunity to step up to the plate and give a yea or nay response to each:
1 – Darwinian evolution (updated to reflect findings since Darwin) is an accepted part of science with which I concur. Do you?
2 – Science regularly uses multiple types of radiological dating that show the earth to be vastly older than ten thousand years. Do you see any fault in that?
3 – Astronomy routinely deals with observations of things that are billions of years old. That OK with you?
4 – Geology doesn’t buy into a global flood in the last few tens of millennia. You agree?
Hey, my young earth / old earth / don’t know/ young earth / old earth / young earth / uncertain buddy, were you “writ(ing) out of conviction in (your) heart and soul” the last time you said you were uncertain about the correctness of YEC and OEC – just a short while after you declared God had told you what He wanted you to be?
Have some angel soup tonight.
I don’t see that your belief in God did much to keep you from lying about the distance from Bear Mountain to NYC, and then hiding like a coward from admitting it.
Yes, the Devil spoke through the serpent. I feel the devil was talking then as it says in the Bible. And the donkey spoke also. I believe that an angel spoke through the power given to him. Isn't life a wonderful, awesome, thing, especially if you are on the right side of God. He is the winning team and He has told us the future and what will happen for us. Right now, It's up for grabs, but if you won't, then you won't. I don't mean this to just you Stuart! I've meant others as well. They know who they are.
Good to Chat With You!!
Much Love And Cheerio, Mate,
Michael
Dear noguru,
Perhaps he's not a forgiver except for Christians. Well, I'm exhausted and it's 2:30a.m. I need a break. They still have not fixed my computer problem yet. But I decided to take a day off from it. They take all day. I think I know what it needs. Well, gonna have some pudding and then go to bed. Will chat later!.
God Douse A Ton Of Good Spirit on You, noguru!
:rapture: :mario: :rapture: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9:
God Bless Your Heart, Mind and Soul!!
Michael
Snakes and donkeys don't talk. Not sure how I could have broken that to you gently.
Stuart
noguru
Well-known member
Hedshaker
New member
Thing is Michael, there's a fairly good chance it didn't happen. Snakes haven't got the Larynx so they can't talk, same for donkeys. And even in the unlikely event that angels and Satan are real and were doing a bit of amateur ventriloquism like you seem to suggest...... they're made of invisible spiritual stuff (whatever that is?) so they don't got the Larynx either.
But anyway, this is a perfect candidate for applying Occam's razor.
<The Razor> - either angels and devils are actually real and did the impossible by using a snake and donkeys as their ventriloquist dummies without solid Larynx, or a Biblical author had a sense of humour and made the whole thing up or just embellished what really happened - </The Razor>
Well it's a tough call Michael but I'm gonna have to go with the latter :chuckle:
I can't remember when or where I first heard that term, "The Creator God of the Bible", with the appropriate capitalizations. But it does flow off the lips nicely. Unfortunately it ignores "The Destroyer God of the Bible". Remember Noah's Flood (I am still not satisfied with any responses to "Why did the Creator God do that to all the infants? If the Creator God is all-knowing how did this happen?). Or the varied and sundry bits of genocide the Creator God allowed/demanded of the Israelites.
Nah, lets just focus on the good parts of the Holy Book, not the bad parts. The happy parts, we know are factual, the nasty parts, probably the metaphor and allegory sections. Well, except for that Big Flood.
Seriously, how can Christian fundamentalists live with themselves other than the extreme cognitive dissonance required to believe as they do?
Daniel1611
New member
God can't make a snake talk but nothing can turn into a snake by itself? Lol! Gotta love atheist logic.
- Status