A
_A
Guest
Unless you have something to demonstrate that either:
i) any god is as good as any other; or
ii) non-religious people cannot have this standard;
I must go with Mirdath here, who said…
- Status
i) any god is as good as any other; or
ii) non-religious people cannot have this standard;
I must go with Mirdath here, who said…
A
_A
Guest
It certainly doesn’t matter in this case.
She is an authority on her own feelings.
A
_A
Guest
So if someone with no theological knowledge demonstrated a moral standard (such as not murdering), then your claim is refuted?
Is that correct?
A
Armor_of_God
Guest
Hi A,
I have some information to report: I now have evidence of measurable results concerning prayer!
After 9 days of fasting and praying for you, I have lost 4.5 lbs.
Would you like me to repeat the trial to ensure that the results are statistically sound?
I have some information to report: I now have evidence of measurable results concerning prayer!
After 9 days of fasting and praying for you, I have lost 4.5 lbs.
Would you like me to repeat the trial to ensure that the results are statistically sound?
A
_A
Guest
I appreciate the effort which must have gone into that, though I should say that praying is not doing something for me. It is something for a theist. I think of prayer as something to avoid, and something that offends me when done in public places.Hi A,
I have some information to report: I now have evidence of measurable results concerning prayer!
After 9 days of fasting and praying for you, I have lost 4.5 lbs.
Would you like me to repeat the trial to ensure that the results are statistically sound?
Thank you for thinking of me, but I would prefer if you spent 9 days posting and defending your theistic views on www.richarddawkins.net/forum in the faith and religion section.
If you can abide by the rules, and have a bunch of discourse, I think you would find it a challenging and exciting forum.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Agreed. Selection pressures (or Charles Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection) certainly does help explain one way that the DNA of living organisms change over time. This, however, is not what we are considering. We are considering whether the your idea of selection pressures explains how the genetic code for the first living organisms was created.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Well, whether it will remain to be unknown to you or i remains to be seen! How the first genetic code was created is the very question you and i are considering. That is, is it possible to create the genetic code without the aid of some intelligent being?
I don’t think we need to consider the controversial ideas of theology to come up with a reasonable answer. You and i only need to turn to the scientific method to guide us in making a decision about this important question.
Please tell me, reasonable A, what you think about the scientific method: Would you say that a scientist should accept a hypothesis as true before or after scientific experimentation has been done to demonstrate the validity of that hypothesis?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
LOL! When will it ever end?
Wow, another thread!
Speaking of never-ending sagas, is there any thought of your conversation with me in the previous thread you would like to continue Phooney? Which of the unanswered questions would you like to address, if any?
I’d very much like to continue the conversation we were having, but if you are sick of the discussion, or me, just let me know. I won’t be offended!
A
_A
Guest
Nope.
I think that it is dangerous to accept it as true (because that suggests belief). I think that when a scientist sees an hypothesis, he or she should try to disprove it. If those efforts are frustrated long enough, then the hypothesis graduates and becomes a theory.
Which is STILL not true.
A
_A
Guest
I would like to know if there are any prophecies in the bible which meet phooneys strict criteria. The city which was found a few ways does not qualify, but that does not mean that it is impossible to find a valid prophecy…LOL! When will it ever end?
Speaking of never-ending sagas, is there any thought of your conversation with me in the previous thread you would like to continue Phooney? Which of the unanswered questions would you like to address, if any?
I’d very much like to continue the conversation we were having, but if you are sick of the discussion, or me, just let me know. I won’t be offended!
P
phooney
Guest
@Socrates4Jesus
I suspect that the beginning of life might be equally difficult to quantify. When do we decide it is ‘life’? Is it as simple as a self catalising, and hence self-replicating, molecule? There are numerous examples of such molecules, and they are not neccesarily ridiculously complex. However, once there IS a self replicating molecule, selection pressures can come into effect if the replication is good, but not perfect. This is all that is required to get things going, and this comes before “genetic code”, so in a word “yes” A’s selection pressures can explain genetic code in the form of DNA, but is it a living organism yet?
Is it after the self catalysing molecule has been surrounded by molecules that are attracted to water on one side and repelled by it on another, effectively forming a wall around it, thus creating the first distinction between inside and outside, the first ‘me’ and ‘you’ or from a chemical perspective ‘us’ and ‘them’. This was a simple cell, which was an environment that allowed the self-replicating molecules to replicate better than other molecules floating around free in the ocean. Many kinds of molecules form spherical shapes in water, but is it a living organism yet?
This is still pre-DNA, with much simpler replicators, probably RNA. But the ball is already rolling.
Do you require the cells to be Eukaryotic (have the genetic material walled off from the rest of the cell in another internal compartment) to consider it a living organism? Do you require that the cells harness bacteria in the form of mitochondria or chloroplasts and incorporate their chemical reactions for the benefit of the cell before you consider it life? Do you consider a virus to be alive?
Darwin’s THEORY (not hypothesis, let’s not cheapen the discussion by such wordplay, please) of Evolution by Natural selection can cope just fine from here, but has nothing to say about how the first ‘life’ arose.
The problam at hand is not to explain how poof a Tyranosaurus Rex jumped out of the water one day with a fully fledged DNA-based genome, it is to try to find out exactly what those first simple self-replicating molecules were, and what conditions were required to allow them to form. This kind of hypothesis is one that can be tested and falsified. What sort of testing and falsification does your hypothesis subject itself to? Note I am not required to believe either hypothesis until there is enough evidence to support it, but what I have presented doesn’t fly in the face of any established theory and it isn’t a hypothesis that was plucked from the clear blue sky. Instead it builds on what we already know.
What do you think DNA is? What do you think the letters A, C, G and T stand for? They aren’t a language unto themselves, they are the first letters of particular molecules Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. In a ridiculously extreme nutshell, having these monomers in different orders catalyses different chemical reactions, which accounts for how our bodies end up being built, and at least some portion of our behaviour, which in turn dictates on average how much we end up mating and replicating again.
I too have merely scratched the surface, but I am always reading more, it is a fascinating process regardless of whether God exists, but there is no need to put a God in the gaps in understanding here either.
There are a number of things here that would require defining, S4J. From what I’ve read, to pick out what was the first ‘living’ organism would be quite difficult. About as difficult as picking out the precise point where we humans became a different species from the homonid that preceded us, if a representative from every generation was to stand in a line. Somebody at our modern end may be able to successfully mate from somebody around the middle, that middle person may be able to mate with the person at the end, but the modern person and the ancient one would be too far ‘apart’ genetically. It is not quite as cut and dry as new species/same species. For modern examples that illustrate this, look up “ring species”
I suspect that the beginning of life might be equally difficult to quantify. When do we decide it is ‘life’? Is it as simple as a self catalising, and hence self-replicating, molecule? There are numerous examples of such molecules, and they are not neccesarily ridiculously complex. However, once there IS a self replicating molecule, selection pressures can come into effect if the replication is good, but not perfect. This is all that is required to get things going, and this comes before “genetic code”, so in a word “yes” A’s selection pressures can explain genetic code in the form of DNA, but is it a living organism yet?
Is it after the self catalysing molecule has been surrounded by molecules that are attracted to water on one side and repelled by it on another, effectively forming a wall around it, thus creating the first distinction between inside and outside, the first ‘me’ and ‘you’ or from a chemical perspective ‘us’ and ‘them’. This was a simple cell, which was an environment that allowed the self-replicating molecules to replicate better than other molecules floating around free in the ocean. Many kinds of molecules form spherical shapes in water, but is it a living organism yet?
This is still pre-DNA, with much simpler replicators, probably RNA. But the ball is already rolling.
Do you require the cells to be Eukaryotic (have the genetic material walled off from the rest of the cell in another internal compartment) to consider it a living organism? Do you require that the cells harness bacteria in the form of mitochondria or chloroplasts and incorporate their chemical reactions for the benefit of the cell before you consider it life? Do you consider a virus to be alive?
Darwin’s THEORY (not hypothesis, let’s not cheapen the discussion by such wordplay, please) of Evolution by Natural selection can cope just fine from here, but has nothing to say about how the first ‘life’ arose.
The problam at hand is not to explain how poof a Tyranosaurus Rex jumped out of the water one day with a fully fledged DNA-based genome, it is to try to find out exactly what those first simple self-replicating molecules were, and what conditions were required to allow them to form. This kind of hypothesis is one that can be tested and falsified. What sort of testing and falsification does your hypothesis subject itself to? Note I am not required to believe either hypothesis until there is enough evidence to support it, but what I have presented doesn’t fly in the face of any established theory and it isn’t a hypothesis that was plucked from the clear blue sky. Instead it builds on what we already know.
What do you think DNA is? What do you think the letters A, C, G and T stand for? They aren’t a language unto themselves, they are the first letters of particular molecules Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. In a ridiculously extreme nutshell, having these monomers in different orders catalyses different chemical reactions, which accounts for how our bodies end up being built, and at least some portion of our behaviour, which in turn dictates on average how much we end up mating and replicating again.
I too have merely scratched the surface, but I am always reading more, it is a fascinating process regardless of whether God exists, but there is no need to put a God in the gaps in understanding here either.
P
phooney
Guest
continued@Socrates4Jesus
If you don’t mind, I think that particular horse is pretty much dead, I see no reason for me to keep on beating the hell out of it. I must give you credit though and thank you, I have seen it as the most interesting topic that has been brought up in all three (four if you count my introductory thread!) threads. I hope our discussion might have helped you to question the veracity of this prophecy, and maybe others as well, seeing as you described this as probably the most striking example (if I recall correctly).
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, that is the wise thing to do.
What would you say, my good A, if, after years of scientific research and experimentation no evidence is found that a specific hypothesis is true? Would you agree that it would be reasonable for a scientist to reject the hypothesis on the grounds that no scientific inquiry supports it?
A
Armor_of_God
Guest
Yes, that was my attempt to inject a little humor here, knowing your views on prayer as well as your demands for measurable “evidence” - and your response was as I expected. I do hope you understand I didn’t do it for myself, but rather for you, and I believe that God doesn’t discriminate regarding earnest prayer.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I do spend quite a bit of time already “defending the Faith”. I’m not really into finding more avenues from which to receive pot shots. Thanks also for sending the link - I’ve been checking it out, and have found it to be pretty condescending in tone so far.
Thanks again - I am honestly not looking for more challenge and excitement, as I have enough of that in my real life!
A
Armor_of_God
Guest
(Below [in the yellow boxes] is part of a response by the OP to a post from oneGODoneCHURCH. Bolding, as well as the comments in the salmon-colored area, have been added by Armor of God.)
The trouble with Christianity, A, is that Christians believe that He is your God, too. And that He loves you as much as He loves them.
The other problem with Christianity is that Christians believe that God is seeking you, with great love and compassion.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
There are hundreds of predictions in the Bible that are specific and verifiable. I’d like to discuss the ones mentioned in this passage from the New Testament in the Book of Acts:
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.” 34The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
(Acts, chapter 8)
From the context of the passage you or i may glean that the Ethiopian was quoting from the 53rd chapter of the writings of the prophet Isaiah. The Christian evangelist Philip makes such a persuasive case that the words were predictive of Jesus Christ that the Ethiopian, later in the chapter, is persuaded to become baptized and commit his life to following this Jesus.
If you are game, my good A, i’d like to point out the predictions in this one chapter of Isaiah and ask your opinion as to whether they are divine, rather than human, in origin. Whether or not they meet Phooney’s nod of approval is up to him to say, if he is willing to participate in the dialog.
A
_A
Guest
No.
However, if a large, diverse group of scientists attempt to prove an hypothesis false and fail over decades, then it is a pretty good bet that it is a very solid theory indeed.
When someone tries to prove their hypothesis correct, they are looking at it the wrong way. It is much easier, generally, to disprove an hypothesis.
A
_A
Guest
Thanks for considering it. I will admit that the tone is quite different there. One of the main differences is that preaching and witnessing are not allowed. That means that if you have asserted something (such as ‘prayer will improve your life’), you must provide evidence to support it, or it is considered unwelcome.
One of the really nice things is that they have a rule against ad-hom attacks. This means that, while your ideas are going to be roughly handled, your person is not open to the same kind of criticism.
Also they have a wealth of resources in their Evolution section. Lots of good info.
- Status