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.
That is certainly not true in many non-Christian cultures, and it was not true in Christianity until roughly the time of Augustine. Eusebius, for example, includes among his lists of martyrs pious women who committed suicide to avoid rape.They can beg to differ all they want.
Martyrs do not kill themselves.
It is against the Koran to commit suicide, so they found a way around that by calling them "martyrs".The suicide bombers and most of the Muslim world disagrees with you.
The suicide bombers and most of the Muslim world disagrees with you.
it also says that if you die while killing your enemy your are a hero and get lots of sexy virgins.It is against the Koran to commit suicide, so they found a way around that by calling them "martyrs".
QV please: Islamic Suicide Bombers.
I'm confused as to how the semantical debate on the definition of a martyr ties into the overall discussion of Evolutionary Theory.
A martyr is someone who chooses to die rather than to deny their faith.
Murdering lots of people isn't martyrdom, I wish people would stop this slanderous comparison.
I never claimed otherwise. You asked how many of them died knowing that what they died for was a lie.Martyrs don't kill themselves.
A martyr is someone who chooses to die rather than to deny their faith.
Murdering lots of people isn't martyrdom, I wish people would stop this slanderous comparison.
Maybe it was God's powerful neighbor?To all. If God did not play a part in natural processes, just keep going back and back - how do you explain how it happened? Bearing in mind this is just your "explanation".
Traditionally, in Christianity, a martyr is someone who will die rather than deny the Lord. In Christianity, someone who kills many in an act of violence by committing suicide, is not considered a martyr. Suicide bombing is illegal, it causes grief for the many families whose loved ones were murdered, the victims did not consent. Comparing it to people who rather non-violently died for their faith is sort of equating them to something evil, thus I consider it slanderous.
I'm sure you have worked out, that I wasn't basing it solely on whether it was legal, more on the wrongness.
I'd define it as something that was consciously created in a specific way, to serve a specific purpose.
For example, a fork is created the way it is with a reason behind it. It's not a random shape, it's been created purposefully the way it is to fulfill a certain requirement.
That would be my definition as well.
Writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program.
Loading a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes.
The creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.
If something has been designed by an intelligent unknown designer, we, as beings limited in knowledge, might not understand the way it is as it is, but it has been designed that way for a reason.
The citation for the original article is:
Salisbury, Frank B, Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene, Nature 224, 342-343 (25 October 1969)
creationist site said:Salisbury put the question this way:
In reasonable time intervals, is mutation by random rearrangement of nucleotides [i.e., DNA bases] likely to produce an enzyme Will there be an enzyme (gene) for selection to act on? [3]
Heres the problem. Enzymes, like all proteins, are built within cells by linking amino acids together into long chains. There are 20 different amino acids, any one of which could potentially be placed at any position along the chain. But the actual chain sequences are anything but arbitrary. Rather, cells use elaborate machinery to link the amino acids according to the precise sequence specifications contained in genes. And because the protein chains are typically hundreds of amino acids long, the cellular machinery is hitting a very tight design specification every time a protein is made. So, even if we grant that some changes to these specifications are tolerable, the mere existence of a production line tuned to such precision implies that the precision is needed. If so, enzymes are much more complicated than they should be if they just happened. A short word might surface in your alphabet soup by chance, but a paragraph wont.
ht*p://biologicinstitute.org/2008/04/03/perspectives/
anti-creationist site said:First, he calculates that the odds against life beginning in the known expanse and age of the universe are 1 in 10^415, but, as he says himself, this is only true "if only one DNA molecule [1000 nucleotides large] were suitable" to get biology going. In other words, if many possible molecules could be substituted, these odds change for the better, as they also do if a smaller molecule could have gotten things started. Salisbury himself notes that the odds are rather good that at least one 141-nucleotide (or smaller) replicator could have formed, given the age and expanse of the universe as then understood. The discovery of the tetrahymena (see Addendum C) thus renders Salisbury's concerns moot: very small, simple replicators are now known to be possible.
ht*p://w*w.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Salisbury
Abstract
We suggest that the vastness of protein sequence space is actually completely explorable during the populating of the Earth by life by considering upper and lower limits for the number of organisms, genome size, mutation rate and the number of functionally distinct classes of amino acids. We conclude that rather than life having explored only an infinitesimally small part of sequence space in the last 4 Gyr, it is instead quite plausible for all of functional protein sequence space to have been explored and that furthermore, at the molecular level, there is no role for contingency.
ht*p://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/25/953.full.pdf+html
...a reduced alphabet of amino acids is quite capable of producing all protein folds (approx. a few thousand discrete folds; Denton 2008) and providing a scaffold capable of supporting all protein functions (we will ignore the space of natively unfolded proteins for this current discussion but since such proteins usually fold upon performing their function, the distinction is not important for our purposes; Dyson & Wright 2005). The phase space of function may be some orders of magnitude greater than the size of the folding space as metagenomics projects are revealing increasing numbers of unknown protein families as adjudged by the number of novel protein sequences (Raes et al. 2007). However, it is not clear that new folds are present as a conserved fold, such as the TIM barrel, is capable of displaying many functions (Nagano et al. 2002).
To further support this idea of a reduced alphabet of amino acids, there are also very plausible suggestions that the original amino acid repertoire consisted of only four or five amino acids like those found in the MillerUrey experiments and the Murchison meteorite (Miller et al. 1976), and that the genetic code was initially limited to these few amino acids that still predominate in proteins to the current day (e.g. Trifonov 2000; Brooks et al. 2002; Ikehara 2002). Proteins with reduced amino acid repertoires can fold and function successfully (e.g. Cordes et al. 1996; Riddle et al. 1997; Plaxco et al. 1998; Guo et al. 2004; Doi et al. 2005; Lo´pez de la Osa et al. 2007).
<...>
Finally, we conclude that the number 20^100 and similar large numbers (e.g. Salisbury 1969; Maynard Smith 1970; Mandecki 1998; Luisi 2003; Carrier 2004; de Duve 2005) are simply straw men advanced to initiate discussion in the same spirit as the Levinthal paradox of protein folding rates (Levinthal 1969; Zwanzig et al. 1992). 20^100 is now no more useful than the approximate 2x10^1 834097 books present in Borges (1999) fantastical Library of Babel and has no connection with the real world of amino acids and proteins. Hence, we hope that our calculation will also rule out any possible use of this big numbers game to provide justification for postulating divine intervention (Bradley 2004; Dembski 2004).
If you guys are going to keep moving the goalposts from the original link I posted, until evolution becomes a "must", then I'm out of this conversation.
That's because it's not alive.A characteristic of something designed by people is that it performs a function that doesn't help the object itself. The watch is not bothered what time it is, nor whether it is wound up or not
Humans can be do things beneficial only to other animals.but these are important issues for the designer and the user of the watch. Darwin, I believe, stated that evolution couldn't produce a characteristic in one species that was beneficial only to another species.
That's because it's not alive.Humans can be do things beneficial only to other animals.
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?