Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…6263656768…78

Comments

  • #1922
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    J C wrote: »
    Jesus Christ AKA God wrote it.
    What did he write it on? When? Who did he give the book to, the Jerusalem public library?


  • #1923
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    J C wrote: »
    ... yes the Roman's and Jews did an even more comprehensive job of shredding any non-biblical mention of Jesus until well after His death as well.:eek:
    Do source this. I would like to read on it further.


  • #1924
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    What did he write it on? When? Who did he give the book to, the Jerusalem public library?
    Quote:-
    "Many people contributed to the writing of the Bible. Actually, the Bible is a collection of writings from about forty contributors, thirty in the Old Testament and ten in the New Testament.
    For example, the Psalms are a collection of the works of several authors, of whom David, the "sweet singer of Israel", is the best known. But psalms were also written by Moses, by Asaph, by a man named Ethan, and by the sons of Korah.

    The accounts which have been preserved in the Old Testament date from the earliest times and were both written down and communicated orally. As time passed, they were collected together and received by the Hebrews as coming to them by God's mandate. The prophets transmit God's message to humans, while many of the Psalms articulate cries of people to God. Both types of writing are preserved in the Bible as part of God's message to mankind.

    The New Testament stories and teachings were widely circulated among the early Christian churches. The letters of Paul to the Christians in several cities were likely the earliest writings now found in the New Testament. But many other letters and epistles were circulated as well. Gradually it became clear to the early churches which writings were truly inspired and which were spurious or simply edifying messages from pious authors.

    It is truly amazing that all forty of these authors, spread out over 1600 years, have such a unified message in spite of their great diversity in language, culture, and time. There is a reason for that! The reason is that these forty or so writers are all secondary authors. There is actually only one primary author, the one who inspired all the human authors, the eternal God.":)


  • #1925
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do source this. I would like to read on it further.
    Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)


  • #1926
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    more numbers with lots of zeros :o

    23 zeros because yesterday was mole day (atoms are small) ,15 zeros because of the amount of phosphorus in the oceans, 10 zeros because 8-20 billion earth like planets , 12 zeros because 100 billion galaxies in known universe. 16 zeros is the number of seconds in 300 million years.

    That's 76 zeros combinations of anything based on random self assembly of phosphorus based chemistry being a certainty of happening somewhere , sometime.

    except that chemistry usually takes a lot less than a second so more zero's

    And it isn't random, because of things like autocatalysis speeding stuff up and steric hinderance limiting choices because big molecules don't wizz about and contort in the way lighter gases can. And that's before you remember that RNA uses complimentary bases which means there is a degree of self organisation whereby the next base added isn't completely random.


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    or there's this , self assembling liposomes are nothing new, but the non-random concentration of molecules from a dilute solution looks interesting.

    liposomes themselves are very interesting because not only do they explain cell walls but they provide many isolated areas for life to evolve , a vast number of private primordial seas if needed.


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke/
    Stano and his colleagues do not yet understand why this happened. It may yet be a random process that a better statistical model will explain. It may be that these particular molecules are suited to this kind of self-organization because they are already highly evolved. An important next step is to see if similar, but less complex, molecules are also capable of this feat.

    Regardless of the limitations, Stano’s experiment has shown for the first time that self-assembly of molecular machines into simple cells may be an inevitable physical process. Finding out how exactly this self-assembly happens will mean taking a big step towards understanding how life was formed.


  • #1928
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    Ahh-but J C will say that the Universal Made Up theory will over come that because -add what ever drivel takes your fancy- and so you are wrong(add smiley for effect)


  • #1929
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    more numbers with lots of zeros :o

    23 zeros because yesterday was mole day (atoms are small) ,15 zeros because of the amount of phosphorus in the oceans, 10 zeros because 8-20 billion earth like planets , 12 zeros because 100 billion galaxies in known universe. 16 zeros is the number of seconds in 300 million years.

    That's 76 zeros combinations of anything based on random self assembly of phosphorus based chemistry being a certainty of happening somewhere , sometime.

    except that chemistry usually takes a lot less than a second so more zero's

    And it isn't random, because of things like autocatalysis speeding stuff up and steric hinderance limiting choices because big molecules don't wizz about and contort in the way lighter gases can. And that's before you remember that RNA uses complimentary bases which means there is a degree of self organisation whereby the next base added isn't completely random.
    Ordinary chemistry is an example of a deterministic system ... and it has predictable and certain results.

    However, DNA is an information containing molecule ... and it isn't a deterministic system.


  • #1930
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)

    Which is not answering what you were asked.
    Provide the source for the claim that Romans and Jews shred non biblical evidence of Jesus.


  • #1931
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Which is not answering what you were asked.
    Provide the source for the claim that Romans and Jews shred non biblical evidence of Jesus.
    They suppressed and persecuted the Christians ... and fed them to the Lions in the Colosseum ... is that enough evidence of 'shredding' on the part of the Romans for you?


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    ... please stop unfounded personal insults ... most Atheists aren't delusional or insane ... and calling their belief that they evolved from Pondscum 'simple minded' is also going a bit far.

    A deliberate misreading of a post again.
    Are the creationists delusional and or insane ?

    J C wrote: »
    Please stick to the topic at issue - and leave your trolling abusive comments behind you, when you come here to debate.:(

    You need to use bold print when you post with your Mod's hat on.


  • #1933
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?


  • #1934
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    They suppressed and persecuted the Christians ... and fed them to the Lions in the Colosseum ... is that enough evidence of 'shredding' on the part of the Romans for you?

    Those events seem to have written them into history. The Christian story has always loved its martyrs.

    Still though, the evidence that that non biblical evidence was shredded.....


  • #1935
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    A take this as a deliberate misreading a post again.
    Are the creationists delusional and or insane ?
    They are neither ... and again you are trolling and abusive in making such unfounded prejudicial personal remarks.
    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    You need to use bold print when you post with your Mod's hat on.
    I'm not a mod ... nor am I modding ... I'm just reaching objective conclusions based on your post.


  • #1936
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Those events seem to have written them into history. The Christian story has always loved its martyrs.

    Still though, the evidence that that non biblical evidence was shredded.....
    ... shredded metaphorically speaking ... you guys are such literalists!!!!:)


  • #1937
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    They are neither ... and again you are trolling and abusive in making such unfounded prejudicial personal remarks ... and that the objective truth.

    I'm not a mod ... nor am I modding ... I'm just reaching objective conclusions based on your post.

    It is neither personal nor prejudicial.

    Personal relates to an individual not a group.
    It is a question, therefore no conclusion has been drawn, and so not prejudicial.


  • #1938
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?
    I don't know.


  • #1939
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    It is neither personal nor prejudicial.

    Personal relates to an individual not a group.
    It is a question, therefore no conclusion has been drawn, and so not prejudicial.
    Personal relates to a person holding a particular belief ... and your question was rhetorical.
    Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave unfounded comments about their person out of it.


  • #1940
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?

    I would say that no atheist would even give it the time of day,All the science is against it and an atheist would have no interest in twisting the facts so that some old book will not look totally redundant,:rolleyes:


  • #1941
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Personal relates to a person holding a particular belief ... and your question was rhetorical.
    Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave comments about their person out of it.

    Again, the question isnt personal. It is about the group of creationists as a whole. Nevertheless, the question seems to trouble you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    ... shredded metaphorically speaking ... you guys are such literalists!!!!:)

    Shredded was taken as metaphorical. But you dont provide any source for your statement.


  • #1943
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    J C wrote: »
    Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)
    So how in the name of bollockology do you know the suppression of Christianity was suppressed if there's no source on earth available to show it happened?


  • #1944
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Again, the question isnt personal. It is about the group of creationists as a whole. Nevertheless, the question seems to trouble you.
    Your comments are now moving from personal name-calling to sectarian name-calling.
    One is bad and the other is worse ... and they're both unfounded


  • #1945
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Please stick to attacking Creationist ideas, by all means ... and leave unfounded comments about their person out of it.

    The mental state of those promoting the ideas is valid to question. If the state in unsound, then the ideas are worthless, and debating them pointless.


  • #1946
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So how in the name of bollockology do you know the suppression of Christianity was suppressed if it was supressed?
    The Roman State wasn't very subtle about it ... they Proscribed Christianity and publicly executed Christians.


  • #1947
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Your comments are now moving from personal name-calling to sectarian name-calling.
    One is bad and the other is worse ... and they're both unfounded

    They always referred to the group, despite your repeated effort to paint them thus. And it is not sectarian to refer to a group. That is now a personal accusation at me.


  • #1948
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    The mental state of those promoting the ideas is valid to question. If the state in unsound, then the ideas are worthless, and debating them pointless.
    Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity.

    It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad.

    Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.


  • #1949
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    J c is getting excited now-he must be close to coming, a few more posts should do it.


  • #1950
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    They always referred to the group, despite your repeated effort to paint them thus. And it is not sectarian to refer to a group. That is now a personal accusation at me.
    Sectarianism is a group directed form of name-calling.


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity.

    It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad.

    Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.

    It would be reprehensible. But I am not saying so. I am asking if they are objectively sane.

    Its not ad hominem...... is a question about the group. Substituting 'ad hominem for 'personal' doesnt change the point.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement