Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Nope, that is merely a verse in the Bible. It has nothing to do with Christian martyrs. You are merely cherry picking. That is an abuse of the Bible.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wow -- just wow.
Here's what God thinks of them ...
Hebrews 11:38a ( Of whom the world was not worthy: )
I prefer the word the Bible uses more: "saint."
"Christian" was conferred on us by our first century educated antagonists.
It's a good thing religions use miracles and not magic.
Miracles are fit the exact same definition as magic.
Do you honestly think I don't know that?
Religions know that people will not believe in magic but they can be fooled into believing in miracles.
Religions are not about what is true they about what people want to be true.
I've been talking about DNA, because imo any abiogenesis theory that doesn't result in living things has no explanatory power.
I find this unconvincing because I think it's storytelling, which you have confidence in but I don't.
I see numerous interdependencies between the elements of cells that I consider evidence of engineering. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but imo it hasn't explained away those interdependencies.
As I understand it, the Miller-Urey gadget needed a trap at the bottom (as depicted in the link) to trap gasses that would have destroyed the amino acids.
Nature has no such trap, and the same process that created the amino acids would have destroyed them.
I totally, totally disagree with this.Religions know that people will not believe in magic ...
Ya ... I heard a rumor that our body produces amino acids regularly.Nevertheless, it is a proof of concept that indicates that getting amino acids is not that difficult.
Religions know that people will not believe in magic.
I totally, totally disagree with this.
I've been here for nine years, and I can attest that the word of choice among the educated here is "magic."
I think that's because the educated do not believe in "magic" or "miracles" that's why they refer to miracles as magic.
According to them, they believe "magic" and "miracles" are one and the same thing ... synonyms.
I can't get around their text book education and explain to them they are two different things.
Jesus, for example, didn't walk on water, because Jesus didn't have the technology back then that Chriss Angel used to [allegedly] do the same thing.
I'll repeat myself: any theory of abiogenesis that tries to explain how life came to be must explain how cells came to be, because cells are our definition of life. If you're satisfied with the RNA world I think you're satisfied with half a loaf.And what makes you say that DNA must have been there from the beginning? Maybe DNA was one of the adaptations these self replicating molecules developed to give them an advantage. In fact, if I recall correctly, there's quite a bit of evidence that RNA was around before there was DNA.
I thought your answer was too vague to explain the supposed evolution of DNA repair mechanisms, that's all.It is based in science, and there is nothing in there that is impossible. I am not saying that this is definitely what happened, but it is plausible.
I've been talking about interdependencies between the contents of DNA and the products they are used to produce, specifically DNA repair mechanisms.Are you talking about irreducible complexity? That has been thoroughly disproven, you know.
I'll try, but experience tells me I'll fail.Why don't you try explaining to me what the difference is?
Magic runs on sleight-of-hand or some set-up prior to the performance (such as setting up the equipment for Chriss Angel to walk on water).
First cells and the living things made of them.
I'll repeat myself: any theory of abiogenesis that tries to explain how life came to be must explain how cells came to be, because cells are our definition of life. If you're satisfied with the RNA world I think you're satisfied with half a loaf.
I thought your answer was too vague to explain the supposed evolution of DNA repair mechanisms, that's all.
I've been talking about interdependencies between the contents of DNA and the products they are used to produce, specifically DNA repair mechanisms.
Then a person "that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch" is performing miracles?I'll try, but experience tells me I'll fail.
Magic runs on sleight-of-hand or some set-up prior to the performance (such as setting up the equipment for Chriss Angel to walk on water).
Miracles, on the other hand, rely on the laws of nature being suspended.
Since I've read that in biology textbooks and study guides. My wife has a degree in biology so I've got some of these things lying around.Woah, hold on here. Since when are cells the definition for life?
Sure.Any self replicating thing that has a means to correct any errors in the copying process is going to have a reproductive advantage, and will thus become more common.
I've read that the DNA in each of our cells requires repair between 10,000 and 1,000,000 times every day. We're talking about broken rungs, etc. So I think almost all of the errors must be fixed.You aren't thinking that the repair mechanism had to appear in the form we see it today, are you? Because it could have been a very basic thing. Even if it only fixed 1% of the errors, it would still have been better than nothing and would have given a reproductive advantage.
What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. .... The code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code.
When possible I try to talk specifically instead of broadly.And since you seem to think that it could only appear in the same form it exists in today, that seems like irreducible complexity.
Since I've read that in biology textbooks and study guides. My wife has a degree in biology so I've got some of these things lying around.
Sure.
I've read that the DNA in each of our cells requires repair between 10,000 and 1,000,000 times every day. We're talking about broken rungs, etc. So I think almost all of the errors must be fixed.
What's more, the transcription specifications for these repair mechanisms just happen to be contained in the DNA itself. To satisfy me, your explanation must result in what we see today. Otherwise it has no explanatory power. As Karl Popper once said:
When possible I try to talk specifically instead of broadly.
i question them both, but since this a thread about "what determines design" i will give it my best shot.This thread is for those who believe in Intelligent Design and also for those who believe in Evolution. I don't like using the word believe for either one but there it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?