Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so I stand corrected. The question remains using the correct wording.

Breakthrough in search for alien life as scientists manufacture DNA-like molecule which can transmit genetic material | Mail Online

 

[EternalDragon]

Breakthrough in search for alien life as scientists manufacture DNA-like molecule which can transmit genetic material | Mail Online

Funny how you would believe fanciful fairy tales yet reject the truth and call it a fairy tale. There is zero evidence of anything mentioned in the article as actually happening or has happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny how you would believe fanciful fairy tales yet reject the truth and call it a fairy tale. There is zero evidence of anything mentioned in the article as actually happening or has happened.

Here you go:

There has been an error - New Scientist

Same story, treated a bit more seriously. And it has a link to the peer reviewed article about the molecule.

Not science fiction. It was really made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a bit ironic that E.D. calls things that have actually been done "science fiction" when he believes a Big Book of Myth that is not supported by an evidence of any kind.

 

[FatBurk]

Funny how you would believe fanciful fairy tales yet reject the truth and call it a fairy tale.

What is the truth? if you are talking about the bible that's nothing but fanciful tale after fanciful tale.

If you only believe the bible because it's old there are much older religions than Christianity out there and most of the stories in the bible were taken from older religions, or did you think the stories in the bible were the originals?
quite a few religions prior to Christianity had virgin births and resurrections so as far as the people at the time were concerned Christianity was just another religion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A few corrections. Your Wiki article also listed problems with applying the fine tuned argument in the manner that you have been using it. Why did you ignore those?

When anything is applied to support God it will be a problem. I am used to that why would I consider those? The issue is that it is a recognized real phenomena which is being examined. Stenger has been rebutted for his remarks by numerous Physicists. The fine tuning is real and there are only a few reasons that are being considered to explain it. Naturally God is not one of them, however, it has been used as a reason just one that is refused due to lack of falsifiability. Yet I find it interesting that so is the multiverse theory but that is being considered. It comes down to choice and presuppositions on what can be viewed scientifically.

Second your flat Earth Myth is in the wrong millennium. That was the Middle-Ages, not 2,000 BC to very very early AD.

I gave you the whole page. Flat earth is a myth. The Bible does not say there is a flat earth.

Third, the problem is that they did not use a word that translated as "round". They used a word that translates as "circle". All circles are round but not all round things are circles, do you understand your mistake yet?

You are just being stubborn. I gave you the definition which clearly says globe describes a circle. You choose to believe that in this case (with no evidence to support your belief) that it means flat which is absolutely not what the Bible teaches and in fact other scripture supports a round earth. It is your mistake. The definition proves it is your mistake and serves to show that you want to continue your belief even when provided proof that you are incorrect.

Fourth you are making the mistake of equating evolution with atheism. Though the vast majority of atheists probably accept the theory of evolution world wide most Christians do too. Just because somebody believes in God does not mean they don't accept the theory of evolution. In fact over 99% of biologists believe the theory of evolution. If you doubt me I would be more than happy to find sites that support this, Wikipedia for example.

Where did I equate evolution with atheism? Please provide any statement that you feel supports that claim.

I also asked you several questions in the response that I gave you. Please answer those. Thanks

 

[Oncedeceived]

Breakthrough in search for alien life as scientists manufacture DNA-like molecule which can transmit genetic material | Mail Online

This is clearly intelligently designed. IF they find some molecule that by total chance comes together without intelligent intervention and reproduces again without intelligent intervention then they may have something. Now, that doesn't mean that it is not totally interesting and worthy of effort but it is not something that is going to counter my claims.

Which by the way was not about life on other planets or universes but on earth. This effort to show how life might happen on another planet or the effort to use other universes to explain ours is simply seen as last ditch efforts to eliminate God as Creator. Science is lost to explain how life began on earth, how the universe came into being from nothing and how it is so fine tuned that if anything were changed in even the most miniscule way life as we know it would not exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is the truth? if you are talking about the bible that's nothing but fanciful tale after fanciful tale.

If you only believe the bible because it's old there are much older religions than Christianity out there and most of the stories in the bible were taken from older religions, or did you think the stories in the bible were the originals?
quite a few religions prior to Christianity had virgin births and resurrections so as far as the people at the time were concerned Christianity was just another religion.

Ok FatBurk prove it. I want you to prove that there are older religions that the Bible took the stories from. Please no one else answer this post. I want it to be just for FatBurk. Thanks in advance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is clearly intelligently designed. IF they find some molecule that by total chance comes together without intelligent intervention and reproduces again without intelligent intervention then they may have something. Now, that doesn't mean that it is not totally interesting and worthy of effort but it is not something that is going to counter my claims.

Which by the way was not about life on other planets or universes but on earth. This effort to show how life might happen on another planet or the effort to use other universes to explain ours is simply seen as last ditch efforts to eliminate God as Creator. Science is lost to explain how life began on earth, how the universe came into being from nothing and how it is so fine tuned that if anything were changed in even the most miniscule way life as we know it would not exist.

Wrong. It was designed in the laboratory by looking at nature and seeing if it could be altered to get the same result. The fact that we see only DNA based life when it looks like it is very possible is evidence for abiogenesis. That is all.

You are grasping at straws.

And it is known that at some times and places it was thought that the world was flat. Your "Flat Earth Myth" only says that the Earth was not thought to be flat at that time of the Middle Ages, not during the Bronze Ages. It supports your argument in no way at all. By the way, did you know that Columbus was wrong and he was initially rejected funds because the scientists at his time said he was wrong? Everyone knew the Earth was spherical at that time, so the question is how was Columbus wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You went the wrong way. The Bible uses a specific word for circle. If you ever took geometry you would know that circles are two dimensional. You took the definition for "round" which is a very general description.

If I said I saw a cat, and you somehow misread that to say that I saw a dog and then tried to defend your error by saying that they are both mammals and used the definition of mammal to prove that you are right, that is the sort of error that you made. You tried to use the definition of a general term to define a mistake made with a specific term.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wrong. It was designed in the laboratory by looking at nature and seeing if it could be altered to get the same result. The fact that we see only DNA based life when it looks like it is very possible is evidence for abiogenesis. That is all.

Designed in the lab to see if it could be altered to get the same result. I rest my case.

You are grasping at straws.

Oh, and how am I doing that?

And it is known that at some times and places it was thought that the world was flat. Your "Flat Earth Myth" only says that the Earth was not thought to be flat at that time of the Middle Ages, not during the Bronze Ages. It supports your argument in no way at all. By the way, did you know that Columbus was wrong and he was initially rejected funds because the scientists at his time said he was wrong? Everyone knew the Earth was spherical at that time, so the question is how was Columbus wrong?

Columbus was wrong about what? If you had read the link I provided you would see that the rejection of funds wasn't due to the anyone thinking he was wrong about the earth being round.

The only reason I presented the wiki is to quell your belief of the church or Bible claiming the earth was flat. It is a myth which is what I showed you. Regardless, the issue is all we have is that the earth was said to be a circle and I provided you with the common definition which includes globe, or ball in its definition. For you to imply it means flat is based solely on your own bias and nothing more.

 

[Papias]

OK, about the flat earth described in most Bibles:

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Nothing suggests otherwise. As we've seen, the only thing suggesting a sphere is a deliberate mistranslation of the word "chuwg", which means "flat disk", not sphere. The Hebrews have a word for "sphere", it is "dur". The writer would have used "dur" if he meant "sphere". This is clear in many other places in the Bibles where the world "dur" is used.

From a Christian standpoint, this is a good thing, because if Is 40 did read "dur" instead of "chuwg", then it would contradict all those other equally clear references to the earth as a flat disk.

Papias

 

[FatBurk]

What is the truth? if you are talking about the bible that's nothing but fanciful tale after fanciful tale.

If you only believe the bible because it's old there are much older religions than Christianity out there and most of the stories in the bible were taken from older religions, or did you think the stories in the bible were the originals?
quite a few religions prior to Christianity had virgin births and resurrections so as far as the people at the time were concerned Christianity was just another religion.

Ok FatBurk prove it. I want you to prove that there are older religions that the Bible took the stories from. Please no one else answer this post. I want it to be just for FatBurk. Thanks in advance.

Not that it will do any good at all but try these,

jesus - Virgin birth in other religions and relevance to Christianity - Christianity Stack Exchange
or
The Ancient Beginnings of the Virgin Birth Myth
or
Jesus' Birth, Nativity, Christmas, Virgin Birth, Bishop John Shelby Spong - Beliefnet.com
or
Rejection of Pascal's Wager:The Virgin Birth
or
The Virgin Birth: Mystery Or Myth? - J. R. Longsdorf - Google Books
or
Beliefs of many liberal theologians, skeptics, etc about the virgin birth
one more
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap5.html

Of course you can go to Christian websites where they will tell you all kinds of lies in order to keep you and themselves believing.
You could of course do your own checking after all don't you think you owe it to yourself to find out all the information you can about the things you believe?

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK, about the flat earth described in most Bibles:

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Nothing suggests otherwise. As we've seen, the only thing suggesting a sphere is a deliberate mistranslation of the word "chuwg", which means "flat disk", not sphere. The Hebrews have a word for "sphere", it is "dur". The writer would have used "dur" if he meant "sphere". This is clear in many other places in the Bibles where the world "dur" is used.

From a Christian standpoint, this is a good thing, because if Is 40 did read "dur" instead of "chuwg", then it would contradict all those other equally clear references to the earth as a flat disk.

Papias

I am going to just post a commentary that I think is a good illustration about this.

Dennis Jones Bible Commentary | Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

 

[Subduction Zone]

Designed in the lab to see if it could be altered to get the same result. I rest my case. [/quoute]

Oh you are so blind. The only way we could see if there was an alternative to DNA was to design it in a lab. You are being disingenuous at best here.

Oh, and how am I doing that?

You take anything that has the slightest bit of hope that it refers to a god, any god, to be evidence for your god. Even if the developers of that idea don't see it your way at all. Physicists do not think of the fine tuning as any sort of evidence for god. They are the ones who understand it best.

Columbus was wrong about what? If you had read the link I provided you would see that the rejection of funds wasn't due to the anyone thinking he was wrong about the earth being round.

I knew that they did not think the world was flat during the Middle Ages. Why did you try to move the goal posts to their in the first place. We are talking about very early AD and before. Second, you were supposed to answr the question about how Columbus was wrong. Your answer shows that you cannot even think of why Columbus was wrong. Tsk tsk, poor history and no reasoning skills. Okay, Columbus was first rejected because he thought the Earth was much smaller than it is. That is why his first attempt was rejected and he did not get funded. You have to remember his goal was to sail to India. Hence the word "Indians". His crew was almost about to mutiny when he hit the New World, specifically some islands in the Caribbean. Take a globe. Look how far it is from Genoa to the Caribbean, now see how much further it is to India going east from there. Columbus died thinking that he had found a route to India. He was wrong, the scientists were right.

The only reason I presented the wiki is to quell your belief of the church or Bible claiming the earth was flat. It is a myth which is what I showed you. Regardless, the issue is all we have is that the earth was said to be a circle and I provided you with the common definition which includes globe, or ball in its definition. For you to imply it means flat is based solely on your own bias and nothing more.

It did not make that point. One more time, that article was about the Middle Ages. If you want to claim that the writers of the Bible did not believe the world was flat you need to find an article about them. Not about Europeans of the Middle Ages.

And I gave you other examples of the world being flat besides that one verse. Remember the world being flat is shown by both verse and deed. In three different spots in the Bible it talks about the whole Earth being visible from a tall object. That is only possible on a flat Earth. From even the tallest mountain on the Earth you can only see less than 1% of the surface.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to just post a commentary that I think is a good illustration about this.

Dennis Jones Bible Commentary | Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

How lame. He refers to how that verse was translated by people who knew the world was a sphere. Others did not do so. Others were true to the original meaning.

How many times do you have to be told it is an error to retranslate the Bible in light of today's knowledge. You would not let a Muslim get away with this, and they are past masters at this art. They started retranslating the Koran long before Christians did so with the Bible. It used to be a forgivable sin that the writers of the Bible thought that the Earth was flat and they used poetic language to describe it. Now the fundamentalists, which is a relatively modern disease, have to have a perfect Bible and the writers of it cannot be wrong.

There is a reason I don't like apologists, I don't like dishonest people.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not that it will do any good at all but try these,

jesus - Virgin birth in other religions and relevance to Christianity - Christianity Stack Exchange
or
The Ancient Beginnings of the Virgin Birth Myth
or
Jesus' Birth, Nativity, Christmas, Virgin Birth, Bishop John Shelby Spong - Beliefnet.com
or
Rejection of Pascal's Wager:The Virgin Birth
or
The Virgin Birth: Mystery Or Myth? - J. R. Longsdorf - Google Books
or
Beliefs of many liberal theologians, skeptics, etc about the virgin birth
one more
Virgin Mothers and Virgin-Born Gods

Of course you can go to Christian websites where they will tell you all kinds of lies in order to keep you and themselves believing.
You could of course do your own checking after all don't you think you owe it to yourself to find out all the information you can about the things you believe?

No, I said give me proof of your claims. I could do the same for my position:

• Did Christianity Steal From Mithraism?
• Mithraism. Not an Influence on Christianity.
• Comparing Osiris, Horus, and Jesus.
• Zoroaster. Not an Influence on Christianity.
• Did Hinduism Influence the Christian Faith?
• Monotheism of the Ancient Hebrews: Evolved, Invented, Stolen or Revealed?
• Foundationless Origin Theory of the Bible.
• Akhenaten. Not an Influence on Jewish Monotheism.
• Did Sargon's Birth Legend Influence Moses' Story?

 

[FatBurk]

No, I said give me proof of your claims. I could do the same for my position:

Oh I see, you want me to prove that there is a Santa Claus and that Bigfoot is real, no problem.

Unfortunately unlike you I do not take things that matter to me on faith, I try to believe as many true things as possible and if I find myself believing something that I later find out is not true I stop believing it.
I do not believe in miracles, the supernatural, ghosts, faith healing or astrology, I also think prayer is nothing more than making yourself feel better by talking to yourself.
If you want to remain a Christian you will spend the rest of your life lying to yourself and others.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh I see, you want me to prove that there is a Santa Claus and that Bigfoot is real, no problem.

Out of all of the material that you gave me, there is not one other than Jesus that can be shown to really exist. It shouldn't be hard to find if one of these other "Christs" were born, lived and died in the way predicted in a document that was written prior to them being born, living and dying. IF Christianity borrowed from other religions, we should find some living proof of those who were born, lived and then died in other religions.

Unfortunately unlike you I do not take things that matter to me on faith, I try to believe as many true things as possible and if I find myself believing something that I later find out is not true I stop believing it.

So? Most people do.

I do not believe in miracles, the supernatural, ghosts, faith healing or astrology, I also think prayer is nothing more than making yourself feel better by talking to yourself.

And you think that is a good argument for your opinions? Why do you think your opinions hold more weight than others'?

If you want to remain a Christian you will spend the rest of your life lying to yourself and others.

Opinion. You may have felt that you were lying to yourself but that is your problem, don't project your failings on others.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How lame. He refers to how that verse was translated by people who knew the world was a sphere. Others did not do so. Others were true to the original meaning.

Specifically where does he do this?

How many times do you have to be told it is an error to retranslate the Bible in light of today's knowledge. You would not let a Muslim get away with this, and they are past masters at this art. They started retranslating the Koran long before Christians did so with the Bible. It used to be a forgivable sin that the writers of the Bible thought that the Earth was flat and they used poetic language to describe it. Now the fundamentalists, which is a relatively modern disease, have to have a perfect Bible and the writers of it cannot be wrong.

We are translating from Hebrew and it is a very difficult situation. I don't find that your interpretation of the earth being flat from the verses you site is anymore convincing. In two of the verses we see high places being used to show a flat earth but in both, people would be aware of that being impossible in actuality. No one who has gone atop a high structure believes that if they were just higher they could see the whole earth flat or round. The flatness or roundness of the earth makes no difference in these two examples. You could in no way see the entire earth from a very high structure on a flat earth any better than a round one. There is nothing to site as reasoning for that assumption. This as well as it being a supernatural occurrence is significant and can not be ignored when taking the entire verse.

There is a reason I don't like apologists, I don't like dishonest people.

In what way do you see him being dishonest?