The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[GostHacked]

Evolution 3

Creationism/ID/Goddidit/ect ... 0

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I think Betsy has left mapleleafweb and is now posting in the Red Deer Express: http://www.reddeerexpress.com/express/edit...pinion-003.html

The comments on reddit.com are great: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8...or_atheists_to/

Five 'difficult to admit' points for atheists to consider

07/08/09

In response to the letter “Atheists have a problem claiming evidence to disprove God”, published in the July 1, 2009 paper, I think Johnnie Bachusky is using the media for free advertising for atheism especially now that he is the editor.

Unfortunately, the opinion of Kim Beach was another “same story” diatribe regarding this topic that Bachusky is using to sell papers.

Beach states there is no evidence for God. This is not true. There are some key factors involved in this thinking by atheists that are not usually published.

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

In closing, I would like to quote from the late Dr. J. Dominquez, MD, who said, “To be in error in Religion, is to have a ‘cancer in the soul’....it can ruin the only life on Earth, and the eternal one after Death. I am a Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. When I have a patient with cancer, I love the patient, but I hate his cancer, and I try my best to eradicate it from him... The ‘Greatest Love’ is to eradicate an ‘error’ from a person, even if it hurts!...and in fact, the ‘Greatest Love’ is to lay down your life to clean the sins, the bad karma, of your friends and foes, and to eradicate their errors once and for all...”

Nancy Greenwood

Red Deer

[GostHacked]

cHUCK u fARley

Good article indeed. This stands out for me

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god.

Ahahah.. no they don't.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Ahh, ya gotta get personal with it.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do.

I lol's real good at these. Bees fly, and that falls in laws of physics, or they would NOT be able to fly. It is scientifcy impossible for an F-117 fighter to fly without the computer on board to make it work. It is not areodynamically correct, but the end result is flight.

And the whole article does not have any evidence that a god exists. Just that athiests are lost people.

Science wins again people.

[M.Dancer]

DIE STUPID THREAD DIE

[GostHacked]

DIE STUPID THREAD DIE

You replying to it is not making it go away Good job.

[Bonam]

What a silly and poorly thought out article.

[BubberMiley]

I could offer you reams of evidence, but owing to the fact that evolutionists only consider evidence that supports their view point, I won't waste any more time.

Your problem is you don't know what science is. No true scientist "believes" anything scientifically unless it can be tested in a controlled setting. Real scientists would examine your reams of evidence objectively and see if it withstands the rigours of the scientific method.

But you're lying when you say you have reams of evidence of creationism that would withstand the scientific method, because no one does.

That's why you don't actually offer it, and then just scurry away.

[AngusThermopyle]

Ah, perhaps you haven't heard of Francis Crick. Won a Nobel Prize? Considered a genius? He supported the theory that aliens started life on earth. I don't believe he is either a 'crackpot' or a science fiction writer.

Having not finished reading the entire thread I'm not sure if this erroneous statement has been addressed already, sorry if it has. Crick did not believe that aliens seeded the earth with life, he believed that life evolved and his work pioneered many of the facts that are used as a basis for current research. He did not trust or believe in religion and actually surmised a field that has actually become a legitimate area of study regarding religion and its physical effects on the brain. He was no crackpot and not given to outlandish and unprovable theories.

In October 1969, Crick participated in a celebration of the 100th year of the journal Nature. Crick attempted to make some predictions about what the next 30 years would hold for molecular biology. His speculations were later published in Nature.[51] Near the end of the article, Crick briefly mentioned the search for life on other planets, but he held little hope that extraterrestrial life would be found by the year 2000. He also discussed what he described as a possible new direction for research, what he called "biochemical theology". Crick wrote, "So many people pray that one finds it hard to believe that they do not get some satisfaction from it".

Good info on Crick

If you take the time to read this article (a rather good one) you will see that he was a man with his feet firmly grounded in science and fact, not as claimed, in wild flights of fancy.

What you are refering to when you talk about directed panspermia is what Crick himself labeled speculation, not a theory. If you read the following you will see the fallacy in your statement. He speculated that this could happen given the correct circumstances, such as intelligent life. He never stated that he believed this had actually happened. Speculation does not indicate belief. I could speculate that people were a creation of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, however that does not mean I believe it to be so. There is a huge gap between speculation and belief. To claim that he believed this to be so based upon speculation with a fellow scientist is to make a huge assumption and an even greater leap.

During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[53] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[54] In a retrospective article,[55] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life. Crick addressed the Origin of Protein Synthesis in a famous paper with 3 independent Nobel laureates, including Sydney Brenner and Aaron Klug and Prof. Pieczenik. In this paper, based on Prof. Pieczenik's work, they speculate that code constraints on nucleotide sequences allow protein synthesis without the need for a ribosome. It, however, requires a five base binding between the mRNA and tRNA with a flip of the anti-codon creating a triplet coding, even though it is a five base physical interaction. Jukes pointed out that the code constraints on the mRNA sequence required for this translation mechanism is still preserved suggesting that Pieczenik's Genotypic Selection model for translation is a contemporary constraint and not just a historical constraint imposed on coding. see http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/archive/g_pieczenik.html Prof. Pieczenik's work was original sent to be reviewed for PNAS by Norton Zinder and later appeared as part of Francis Crick's work. Rollin Hotchkiss, the fourth man in the Avery, McCleod and McCarty team, showing DNA was the genetic material submitted Prof.Pieczenik's work to PNAS as The Theory of Genotypic Selection.

It is very important to make the distinction between speculation and actual belief, if you fail to do so any further arguments you put forth will be false as the starting premise for your argument is based upon a false assumption.

Edited July 11, 2009 by AngusThermopyle

[sharkman]

Your problem is you don't know what science is. No true scientist "believes" anything scientifically unless it can be tested in a controlled setting. Real scientists would examine your reams of evidence objectively and see if it withstands the rigours of the scientific method.

But you're lying when you say you have reams of evidence of creationism that would withstand the scientific method, because no one does.

That's why you don't actually offer it, and then just scurry away.

At first blush, that idea seems to be an accurate description of what science is all about, but when you dig deeper you find that things like evolution can not be truly tested in a controlled setting since the theory takes millions of years to prove.

I am once again disappointed in your flippant use of name calling and derogatory accusations. Grow up.

Edited August 23, 2009 by sharkman

[Oleg Bach]

At first blush, that idea seems to be an accurate description of what science is all about, but when you dig deeper you find that things like evolution can not be truly tested in a controlled setting since the theory takes millions of years to prove.

I am once again disappointed in your flippant use of name calling. Grow up.

There are bits and pieces of science within scripture - and there is also myth and deception. It takes a very inquisitive mind to go into the past and see mention of quantum mechanics. Millions of years are but a second to the "creator" - evolution and creation are the same thing- We as human beings being temporal creatures see things only from our perspective. We can not imagine an existance where time is not measured - because it does not really exist in the devine realm. Everyone seeks - evidence of proof. You would think once we saw the first great images sent down from the Huble telescope that we would have been slighly impressed to say the least. Or when we pick off a common burr from our pant cuff that traveled 5 kilometers in order to expand it's territory - that a burr has intelligence - That a simple sunflower seed is genetically coded to create every last little hair on the plant - every last little vein in every leaf...all pre-planned and contained with in a tiny seed.....so that's a miracle..that makes a computer chip seem simple.

Intelligent design? Does it exist? Of course it does - if it did not exist we would have a term called stupified design...or randon design - If it was random or accidental there would be no design!

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

1 It is scientifically possible for bees to fly that they shouldn't be able to is a myth. The guy who said they couldn't diddn't use proper science.

2 It is Impossible for our eyes to see? who is the moron who said that? If he was a scientist I hope he was fired and black listed

3 We know what part of our brain causes our heart to pump.

Did this person even bother with the simplist search.

Edited August 23, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Oleg Bach]

1 It is scientifically possible for bees to fly that they shouldn't be able to is a myth. The guy who said they couldn't diddn't use proper science.

2 It is Impossible for our eyes to see? who is the moron who said that? If he was a scientist I hope he was fired and black listed

3 We know what part of our brain causes our heart to pump.

Did this person even bother with the simplist search.

Thought it was drangon flys that are not supposed to fly - Helicopters fly - barely! It's impossible for a person who has terminal inoperative cancer to survive--once the science based doctor gives his death sentence - but some people in the worst shape go into remission and are fine for the duration. Science is created by man - and man is a creation of God - as are all living and mateiral things - Don't know why there is this competition between spirit and learned mind? And if you don't want to call life or conciousness or intelligence God - then don't call it that - Cos' God don't give a shit if you acknowledge him or not.. So it redundant to argue one way or another....science and bible should not be compared - most of the bible is just a record of crimminal activity...

[lukin]

I've always wondered why Adam Weishaupt repented on his death bed?

[lukin]

There are bits and pieces of science within scripture - and there is also myth and deception. It takes a very inquisitive mind to go into the past and see mention of quantum mechanics. Millions of years are but a second to the "creator" - evolution and creation are the same thing- We as human beings being temporal creatures see things only from our perspective. We can not imagine an existance where time is not measured - because it does not really exist in the devine realm. Everyone seeks - evidence of proof. You would think once we saw the first great images sent down from the Huble telescope that we would have been slighly impressed to say the least. Or when we pick off a common burr from our pant cuff that traveled 5 kilometers in order to expand it's territory - that a burr has intelligence - That a simple sunflower seed is genetically coded to create every last little hair on the plant - every last little vein in every leaf...all pre-planned and contained with in a tiny seed.....so that's a miracle..that makes a computer chip seem simple.

Intelligent design? Does it exist? Of course it does - if it did not exist we would have a term called stupified design...or randon design - If it was random or accidental there would be no design!

I've always wondered why Adam Weishaupt repented on his death bed, Oleg?

[Bonam]

At first blush, that idea seems to be an accurate description of what science is all about, but when you dig deeper you find that things like evolution can not be truly tested in a controlled setting since the theory takes millions of years to prove.

Actually evolution can be and has been tested in controlled settings. Some organisms have extremely short generations, ranging from bacteria and viruses to insects. I know for a fact that studies were conducted with flies where they were exposed to certain pesticides and subsequent generations became more resistant, since the surviving flies of each generation were naturally selected for resistance to the pesticide.

Same with bacteria and antibiotics.

Ever had to take antibiotics and had it emphasized to you that you MUST finish the prescription amount? Guess why. It's because you have to drown out the bacteria with it and overwhelm any natural resistance that any members of the bacterial population could have. If you don't take enough, and those that are antibiotic resistant survive, the next generation will all be antibiotic resistant, and you'll have a much more serious problem.

[Thomas Kwon]

I bet most, if not all, people bashing science and evolution in this thread have never taken a proper science course in post-secondary level.

[Remiel]

I bet most, if not all, people bashing science and evolution in this thread have never taken a proper science course in post-secondary level.

So? Most people who appreciate science and evolution have also probably never taken a science course at the post secondary level. Going by the age you divulged in another thread, chances are neither have you, since classes do not start for another six days and seventeen is the earliest most people get to university.

[Thomas Kwon]

So? Most people who appreciate science and evolution have also probably never taken a science course at the post secondary level. Going by the age you divulged in another thread, chances are neither have you, since classes do not start for another six days and seventeen is the earliest most people get to university.

AP, my friend. AP.

[Remiel]

AP, my friend. AP.

Could you use words instead of abbreviations?

[DogOnPorch]

Actually evolution can be and has been tested in controlled settings. Some organisms have extremely short generations, ranging from bacteria and viruses to insects. I know for a fact that studies were conducted with flies where they were exposed to certain pesticides and subsequent generations became more resistant, since the surviving flies of each generation were naturally selected for resistance to the pesticide.

Same with bacteria and antibiotics.

Ever had to take antibiotics and had it emphasized to you that you MUST finish the prescription amount? Guess why. It's because you have to drown out the bacteria with it and overwhelm any natural resistance that any members of the bacterial population could have. If you don't take enough, and those that are antibiotic resistant survive, the next generation will all be antibiotic resistant, and you'll have a much more serious problem.

I think it was Suzuki that pointed out that during his fruit-fly experiments, the male of the species had adapted/evolved a method to fertilize the females held in jars by doing mating 'dive bomb' missions at the moment the rubber stopper was removed from the top. He had been wondering how the females in these jars were becoming 'pregnant'. Future generations of this particular fruit-fly were adept at the same daring method of mating.

[DogOnPorch]

TM: It is Impossible for our eyes to see? who is the moron who said that? If he was a scientist I hope he was fired and black listed

Put in a shark tank with his pockets full of chum then reminded that sharks don't need to use their eyes to hunt.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Put in a shark tank with his pockets full of chum then reminded that sharks don't need to use their eyes to hunt.

Sharks actually have fairly good eyesight though.

[DogOnPorch]

Sharks actually have fairly good eyesight though.

Yup...but they don't need them to hunt. Their guard-lid actually closes while striking.

[DogOnPorch]

Here's some real religious insanity. Bring yer fire-proof skivies 'cause thar be sulphur & brimstone.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/index.php

Freaky...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Here's some real religious insanity. Bring yer fire-proof skivies 'cause thar be sulphur & brimstone.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/index.php

Freaky...

That actually hurts. One guy actually said all science books should be burnt, after not spelling stupid right at that. I'm afraid for the Human race. Even more afraid of America because of this.