Religion IS crazy!

[rumpole]

God the architect implies order and purpose without randomness.

I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of God, but randomness could be part of the purpose, giving a form of freewill to the Universe's inhabitants. The Laws of physics give the order and the randomness gives an enjoyment of the variety and diversity of life, and the ability to make decisions and change one's own destiny. Otherwise our fates will be predetermined, and I see no point in that.

If a God always existed transcending time, then it's quite reasonable to argue that our universe has always existed in some form as well.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. If you view the universe as some sort of computer simulation designed by a programmer God, the the Universe can only come into existence when the programmer presses [Enter]. The universe then has laws defined by the program as to how it operates and initial conditions (time=0).

The program then advances at a time rate determined by the programmer, so the universe is then subject to the built in time factor, it doesn't create its own.

 

[FxTrader]

Will you please make up your mind! (To play or not to play, that is the question!)

I have, that is not to play by your rules and dictates here.

I am simply repeating the truth as I understand it. The fact that the things I've posted represent a challenge to your personal religion does not entitle you to denigrate, myself, my honesty nor my mental faculties!

More baseless repetition and assertion, I have no personal religion period and no amount of semantic trickery on your part can successfully argue that I do. I have given your supernatural claims here the lack of respect they deserve as they are asserted without evidence.

On the contrary I am attempting to bring clarity to the argument!

Oh please, your sophistry here is saturated with obfuscating argument.

You could've fooled me! Do I need to sift through your posts in order to alert you to the theme of theistic intolerance that can be seen to permeate your posts to this thread?

If by theistic intolerance you mean my focus on the falsehoods and fantastic supernatural claims embodied in religion and the gullibility of those who believe such things on faith then yes, guilty as charged.

Yes! I see what you mean, Newton, the druids, alchemy, monasteries, Pythagoras etc. What would they have to do with historical facts? Must be all just religious superstition eh!!?

No, you don't. Whatever mystical origin you attach to any branch of science, it does not logically lead to the conclusion that all scientific endeavor is therefore a religious activity or that those who ascribe credibility to the scientific method are practicing religious worship. This is clearly a non sequitur.

 

[cynic]

I have, that is not to play by your rules and dictates here.

Rightio then!

I'll leave you to play by yourself.

Farewell and god bless!

 

[Value Collector]

No I say "we don't know therefore all possibilities are still open", but your last statement is fine as well. (maybe we won't find out is also a possibility)

That opens up the discussion of possibilities, how do we know whats possible. Is it even possible for a god to exist, is it even possible for "nothing" to exist.

This is a great video that quickly outlines probabilities and possibilities,

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LqNDrOxhZho[/video]

 

[Tink]

Excellent posts, cynic

 

[lindsayf]

Tink

It appears that you and others achieve some level of gain/satisfaction by equating athiesm with religion. Can you tell me how this actually helps you?


Lindsay

 

[cbc]

I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?

Sounds like your starting to believe. I've heard of lots of evolutionists who talk like that before they became christians. Struggling to believe how everything could have evolved.

So if cells needed DNA to reproduce. How did the first cells reproduce without DNA, or even know how to reproduce?

How many of these simple cells formed before they started mysteriously reproducing?

 

[Value Collector]

From one of the other religious threads:


Given that some are accusing me of word games I thought I'd mention that the definitions of the terms "religion", "faith" and "worship" have all been taken from the same dictionary. As I was not the author of said dictionary I cannot be rightfully accused of redefining the language in respect to those words!

Furthermore it may interest some to know my reasons for preferring this dictionary. The first paragraph of the preface amply reflects the reasoning behind my choice:



P.S. Aforementioned dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a defintion of "worship".

You have to admit you are really stretching the definition though, In common usage I don't think that many people would assume that when you used the word "worship" you were just talking about something you hold dear.

I still think you are muddying the water by insisting on these alternate definitions when it is clear that they do not represent what the people in the discussion are trying to describe.

Some words can have up to 7 meanings listed, but when your involved in a conversation you have to keep to the context the person is using, as I explained its useless to bring out the meaning of gay as happy when it is clear the person is talking about same sex relationships.

So if I am talking about religious faith, being faith that something is true despite the evidence against it or believing something without evidence, It is different to me describing a blind man having faith in his guide dog.

Faith to the religious person is believing without evidence.

faith to the blind man is reasonable expectations based on evidence and earned trust.

the religious people say, "I don't need evidence because I have faith"

the blindman would say. "I have faith in my dog because I have been shown evidence he knows what to do"

 

[Value Collector]

So if cells needed DNA to reproduce. How did the first cells reproduce without DNA, or even know how to reproduce?

How many of these simple cells formed before they started mysteriously reproducing?

DNA developed after the first self replicating molecules had already been replicating.

Not everything that reproduces has dna, and not everything that reproduces is alive.

Its not as simple as living matter vs non living matter. There is a grey area, where some non living matter has many properties of living matter.

It is from these very early nonliving self replicating material that the first life probably came from.

at the end of the day we are all chemistry, life is just a long chain of unbroken chemical reactions, If you don't believe me see how long you can hold your breath, you rely on a constant chain of chemical reactions and without oxygen, carbon and hydrogen life ends.

 

[rumpole]

Sounds like your starting to believe.

Believe what ? That God created the world and all living creatures in seven days ?

I don't think so.

 

[pavilion103]

DNA developed after the first self replicating molecules had already been replicating. Not everything that reproduces has dna, and not everything that reproduces is alive. Its not as simple as living matter vs non living matter. There is a grey area, where some non living matter has many properties of living matter. It is from these very early nonliving self replicating material that the first life probably came from. at the end of the day we are all chemistry, life is just a long chain of unbroken chemical reactions, If you don't believe me see how long you can hold your breath, you rely on a constant chain of chemical reactions and without oxygen, carbon and hydrogen life ends.

Living matter has similar properties to non-living matter. That is all. It means nothing more than me having similar features to a statue.

You're just connecting dots that aren't their. Not using science but building your own bridge and walking over it.

I love people using science.
But it is intellectually dishonest when they use science and then join their own dots and call that science.

Silly.

 

[cbc]

DNA developed after the first self replicating molecules had already been replicating.

Not everything that reproduces has dna, and not everything that reproduces is alive.

Its not as simple as living matter vs non living matter. There is a grey area, where some non living matter has many properties of living matter.

It is from these very early nonliving self replicating material that the first life probably came from.

at the end of the day we are all chemistry, life is just a long chain of unbroken chemical reactions, If you don't believe me see how long you can hold your breath, you rely on a constant chain of chemical reactions and without oxygen, carbon and hydrogen life ends.

Oh.... Dna forming in matter that was replicating itself?


So howz that work? Cells started forming around this DNA that was replicating itself from matter that was replicating itself. Then started forming into these highly advanced molecular structures. Which somehow knew that they had to split in half each time.

Ul believe anything....

I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins. That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.

 

[bunyip]

Here’s some more ‘light reading’ that shows just how ugly and repulsive some of the bible really is. This should be of particular interest to women who understandably don’t like the sexism that females are frequently subjected to.

http://www.evilbible.com/sexism_in_the_torah.htm

But it's not all ugly and repulsive - there's some amusement to be found in the bible too as you read through some of the absurd claims. For example......

In ‘Genesis’, Chapter 5, we’re told that Adam fathered a son at the age of 130. But the wondrously virile Adam didn’t stop there, he continued to father children and finally died at the age of 930. (presumably from sexual exhaustion!)
Adam appears to have passed on his amazing virility and longevity on to his son Seth, who fathered a son he named Enosh at the age of 105. Like his father before him, Seth’s sexual and reproductive prowess enabled him to have even more children, and he finally died at the age of 912.
Seth’s son Enosh was clearly a bit of a stud like his father and grandfather before him – the randy old rooster fathered a boy named Kenan at the ripe old age of 90, then went on to father more children before dying at the age of 905.
As Adam’s lineage continued, they appear to have even further increased their capacity for longevity and amazing sexual and reproductive feats. We’re told that Enoch, who was about the sixth generation after Adam, fathered a child when he was 65 (good grief – the lad was barely out of his teens!) and then went on to father more children during the next three hundred years. Perhaps that explains why he was only a young fella of 365 when he died – three hundred years of constant procreation can really take a toll on a man!
But even the extraordinary feat of fathering children for three hundred yeas was eclipsed by the intrepid Noah who had three sons after he was 500 years old!


Of course, it wasn’t only sons who were born, there were daughters too, some of them so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted!

Anyway, it’s probably a good thing that the bible provides a few laughs to take the edge of all the ugliness of condoning and glorifying rape, murder, slavery, stealing, burning towns and killing innocent people including little children.

 

[Value Collector]

Oh.... Dna forming in matter that was replicating itself?


So howz that work? Cells started forming around this DNA that was replicating itself from matter that was replicating itself. Then started forming into these highly advanced molecular structures. Which somehow knew that they had to split in half each time.

Ul believe anything....

I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins. That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.

DNA is just a complex self replicating chemical molecule. It would not have been at the start of the process. Before DNA there would have been simpler chemical molecules that were self replicating. Over time there was very gradual changes that caused these simple self replicating molecules to increase in complexity that lead to the formation of the molecules we now call DNA.

Remember there are things in nature that replicate themselves that don't have dna and are not considered alive even though they grow and replicate them selves.

 

[cbc]

1.An enzyme called DNA gyrase makes a nick in the double helix and each side separates
2.An enzyme called helicase unwinds the double-stranded DNA
3.Several small proteins called single strand binding proteins (SSB) temporarily bind to each side and keep them separated
4.An enzyme complex called DNA polymerase "walks" down the DNA strands and adds new nucleotides to each strand. The nucleotides pair with the complementary nucleotides on the existing stand (A with T, G with C).
5.A subunit of the DNA polymerase proofreads the new DNA
6.An enzyme called DNA ligase seals up the fragments into one long continuous strand
7.The new copies automatically wind up again



It says here in the process that the polymerase goes up the DNA strand to proofread the DNA to make sure its correct.

I don't know much about matter replicating as you have previouly posted but does it do this with non-living matter?

 

[Value Collector]

View attachment 56929

Living matter has similar properties to non-living matter. That is all. It means nothing more than me having similar features to a statue.

.

only if the statue was replicating itself and producing more statues,

I am not saying similar looking features, I mean they grow and reproduce and have some characteristics of living matter but not enough to be considered alive or living.

 

[Value Collector]

1.An enzyme called DNA gyrase makes a nick in the double helix and each side separates
2.An enzyme called helicase unwinds the double-stranded DNA
3.Several small proteins called single strand binding proteins (SSB) temporarily bind to each side and keep them separated
4.An enzyme complex called DNA polymerase "walks" down the DNA strands and adds new nucleotides to each strand. The nucleotides pair with the complementary nucleotides on the existing stand (A with T, G with C).
5.A subunit of the DNA polymerase proofreads the new DNA
6.An enzyme called DNA ligase seals up the fragments into one long continuous strand
7.The new copies automatically wind up again



It says here in the process that the polymerase goes up the DNA strand to proofread the DNA to make sure its correct.

I don't know much about matter replicating as you have previouly posted but does it do this with non-living matter?

There is no attribute of DNA that couldn't have been produced in increments from a simpler self replicating molecule.

Here is a brief video that gives an example of the grey area between life and non life.

 

[cbc]

You didn't answer my question. Is there a polymerase present in non-living matter?

 

[Value Collector]

You didn't answer my question. Is there a polymerase present in non-living matter?

I am not a DNA expert (and I don't think you are either), But if that feature is common in all dna, and the matter has DNA then yes it would.

Because some nonliving matter has DNA, In the case of viruses it can be a simpler form of DNA, sometimes only a single strand of DNA rather than the double helix.

But not all self replicating non living matter has DNA, so in the self replicating matter than doesn't use DNA then it wouldn't have that feature.

 

[bunyip]

I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins. That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.

Good luck. When you get there you can give my regards to Father John Day and sundry other vermin as well.

I think a more likely scenario is that you'll spend eternity as a pile of skin and bones rotting in the ground.