PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- more mouths would not solve the problem; rather, the esophagus and the trachea shouldn't merge into a shared path at any point in the body.
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.
-_- more mouths would not solve the problem; rather, the esophagus and the trachea shouldn't merge into a shared path at any point in the body.So one mouth is not enough for you?
Perhaps a half dozen?
-_- how about only doing mutations which actually result in change in function? Plus, from a practical perspective, if the deity doesn't allow itself to be detected while it does something and gives the illusion of a natural process, that provides about as much evidence for it as doing nothing would.Do nothing which can be observed?
Yup, pretty much the only way to explain DNA in a few paragraphs is to compare it to a code/information. But, DNA has no code-like patterns and has a ridiculous amount of redundancy. Regions of DNA that precede genes aren't all super similar because that's a message to replication proteins to do it; those are the regions the transcription complex can actually bind to because it physically cannot fit onto the DNA otherwise.That's something new.
The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.
DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.
An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.
What is DNA?
Perhaps you should try reading The Social Record of Christianity by Joseph McCabe (1867-1955), which you may be able to buy online. Of course the book is very badly out of date (my copy was published in 1937), but it does at least give a different view of the progress of society in Europe from the normal Christian version. In my opinion, chapter IX is particularly interesting in its comparison of the contributions of atheists and Christians to social reform during the 19th century.
I believe there is an abundance of evidence of what good works or fruit looks like in the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle tells us to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh (Romans 8). Yet he qualifies what the fruits of the Spirit are:Yeah. I think you'd still need some understanding apart from any specific divine revelation of what it means to bear fruit, though, otherwise how could you ever know if that was in fact what was happening?
A valid question. James opines on this in James 2How could anyone else know?
Agreed.If the Christian lifestyle is truly good (at least when genuinely practiced), outsiders should be able to look at it and recognize that this particular person is bearing fruit.
I believe the ministry of Christ in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and epistles give an abundance of qualifiers.Otherwise, you're trapped in a loop where you get to decide what qualifies as fruit and whether you're bearing an
What do you mean by "if the deity doesn't allow itself to be detected while it does something..."-_- how about only doing mutations which actually result in change in function? Plus, from a practical perspective, if the deity doesn't allow itself to be detected while it does something and gives the illusion of a natural process, that provides about as much evidence for it as doing nothing would.
Which is just confirmation of information.Yup, pretty much the only way to explain DNA in a few paragraphs is to compare it to a code/information. But, DNA has no code-like patterns and has a ridiculous amount of redundancy. Regions of DNA that precede genes aren't all super similar because that's a message to replication proteins to do it; those are the regions the transcription complex can actually bind to because it physically cannot fit onto the DNA otherwise.
And now you add to the argument proteins function as machines. Yet another evidence information and intelligence is involved.There are so many proteins your cells have to produce in abundance because it relies on them just ending up where they are needed eventually, and yet people treat cells as if they work like computers. Designing a computer after a cell would have a huge portion of attempted uses of programs end in failure and would have failed attempts at code constantly have to be taken apart to retry construction.
I believe there is an abundance of evidence of what good works or fruit looks like in the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle tells us to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh (Romans 8). Yet he qualifies what the fruits of the Spirit are:
Doesn't it make sense that the God who is the embodiment of those virtues would be involved in our development, that the source of those virtues would be God himself. It makes no sense that he would just sit by and watch, the testimony of Scripture is that God is involved.Well, my point is more that if the picture of morality that the Gospel portrays truly is correct, if love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control truly are objective goods, then we should know this independently of revelation. We shouldn't need to look to Scripture to have any idea what morality or a life well lived means. If Christianity is true, the Gospel should be a reminder of what we know simply by the light of reason, not a revelation without which we'd all be knocking each other over the head with clubs. So if an atheist is borrowing from Christian values (and I think secular humanism does this a lot), it doesn't really make much sense to tell them they're not allowed to do this. Romans 2:14-17 would indicate that they should in fact be instinctively doing just that.
Yet fallen human nature is opposed to these very attributes.Well, my point is more that if the picture of morality that the Gospel portrays truly is correct, if love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control truly are objective goods, then we should know this independently of revelation.
Of course not. The teachings reinforce, exhort and encourage the transformed inner person (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16; Romans 7:22–23)We shouldn't need to look to Scripture to have any idea what morality or a life well lived means.
Actually, our own efforts fail as human history demonstrates. What YHWH promised for the new covenant hundreds of years before Christ was the following:If Christianity is true, the Gospel should be a reminder of what we know simply by the light of reason, not a revelation without which we'd all be knocking each other over the head with clubs.
Anyone can borrow from the Biblical morals and most of Western civilization have until the post modern era. But as Jesus said unless one is born again they will not enter the Kingdom of God. Reference back to my Ezekiel 36 quotes, being born again is an act of YHWH.So if an atheist is borrowing from Christian values (and I think secular humanism does this a lot), it doesn't really make much sense to tell them they're not allowed to do this. Romans 2:14-17 would indicate that they should in fact be instinctively doing just that.
Normally we teach these things so that is a form of revelation. Unless you have something else in mind when your appeal is to revelation. Equality before God is Judeo Christian. Equality is dismissed as religious superstition. In Godless nature equality is myth.You paint a disturbing picture here. If the merits of equality and other moral values are something that can only be known through revelation,
Inequality leads to tyranny and oppression, not equality. The road to slavery is paved with both inequality and the assumption man is another animal. A big-brained ape. By the opposite standard equality and man as image of God (moral man) leads to liberty, relationship with an Infinite Being who loves us fiercely. Why would anyone not want that?and there is no measurable indication that equality is better than tyranny and oppression,
Not for sure what you are attempting to say here since it comes across as garbled. Equality has nothing to do with tyranny and oppression.then it would be unclear why the former is to be considered better than the latter for anyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
The two Egyptian women (EX.1) who did not throw Hebrew male infants into the River were governed in their civil disobedience by fear of God. It overrode doing what was expedient. When called on the carpet by Pharaoh part of their explanation had to do with drawing a distinction between Hebrew and Egyptian women. v.19 ''they are vigorous'' can also be translated as ''they are animals.'' Unlike the refined Egyptian women, the Hebrew women gave birth like animals appealed to the prejudice of Pharaoh. It also reduced women in status as image of God. Just like we do today when humans are defined as another form of animal.Do you hold your values simply because God said they were good, or do you have reason to believe that they actually are good in and of themselves?
That was explained.Nor do I see how you can say that the only rational thing for an atheist to do is pull the trigger.
Have no reason to murder people. The problem with your question is no context. The stated reason for the two women not murdering infants even when it was legally required of them was because they feared God. Which may (?) exclude they had an inner moral compass void of God.Do you only refrain from murdering people because you fear divine judgment?
Human history says otherwise. Besides we have abortion on demand today. That calls into question your assumption most have a genuine respect for life. If one is pro-choice today then they really do not have a respect for life, do not fear God. We are to be governed by laws of God and not by human nature. Being image of God and moral, we are distinct from amoral nature.Most people, atheist and theist alike, do have genuine respect for life, even if many on the atheistic side seem to just view this as a subjective personal feeling these days.
Sorry I missed this most important "if."If Christianity is true
Sorry I missed this most important "if."
Actually, Christianity rises and falls on the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again a supernatural act.
Then we would be reliant on the testimony of the witnesses of Jesus's Bodily Resurrection.
Agnostic Simon Greenleaf, Harvard Law professor took on this endeavor in his work:
It's an accurate statement. The American Abolitionist movement was started and run by early Evangelical Christians of multiple denominations.
It is quite easy to see their actions and conclude they heard the voice of the Good Shepherd and followed His ways...aka were disciples.
Doesn't it make sense that the God who is the embodiment of those virtues would be involved in our development, that the source of those virtues would be God himself. It makes no sense that he would just sit by and watch, the testimony of Scripture is that God is involved.
I think the implication was pretty clear in the claim of the never-was-an-atheist - that it was Christians that ended slavery, therefore, it was those other people, bad people, that 'caused' it.FYI, Christianity was a pretty important force behind both Abolitionism and the Civil Rights Movement. Particularly the Quakers for the former and the Black Church for the latter. (Take a look at the second part here.)
Honestly, you could easily argue that the justification for slavery was rooted in Enlightenment thought with its sharp distinctions between the races and focus on European rationalism, with a biblical dross tossed on top. During the medieval period, slavery was generally regarded as an unfortunate result of the Fall. (See Augustine and Aquinas.)
Do you understand the math you're referring to though? Because I asked you earlier to explain the premise of the probability you keep referring to, but so far you don't appear to have done so.
This is what interests me the most. There is no purpose in the metaphysical design of Darwin and the imported views of the neo-Darwinist.
Where we can easily see in our universe there is information we usually assign there is an intelligence behind it.
Which is just confirmation of information.
And now you add to the argument proteins function as machines. Yet another evidence information and intelligence is involved.
Green leaf was also the founding Dean of Law at Harvard. He literally wrote the book for rules of evidence used in courts for half a century.Greenleaf was a Christian apologist, not an agnostic.
From your own link:
Several evangelical books and websites claim that Greenleaf was an atheist who set out to disprove the Gospels, but instead the evidence for Jesus' resurrection convinced him to become a Christian. Greenleaf was a devout evangelical Episcopalian, and no evidence exists that he ever doubted the truth of the Gospels.
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?