User Tag List

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 113

Thread: Signature in the cell

  1. #31
    Titan of the Wasatch Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    13,483
    Thanks
    2,657
    Thanked 12,865 Times in 8,777 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)




    Rep Power
    2147351
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
    Where does it say RNA or DNA in Genesis 1 or Psalm 104?

    Stuart
    Oh snap! I didn't know that. Does Genesis mention microscopes too?

    While the technical details were not known by the writers of Psalms, he did know that God was in the details.

    Psalm 139:12-14


    12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
    But the night shines as the day;
    The darkness and the light
    are both alike to You.

    13 For You formed my inward parts;
    You covered me in my mother’s womb.
    14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully
    and wonderfully made;
    Marvelous are Your works,
    And
    that my soul knows very well.

  2. #32
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,277
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Inzl Kett View Post
    Oh snap! I didn't know that. Does Genesis mention microscopes too?

    While the technical details were not known by the writers of Psalms, he did know that God was in the details.

    Psalm 139:12-14


    12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
    But the night shines as the day;
    The darkness and the light
    are both alike to You.

    13 For You formed my inward parts;
    You covered me in my mother’s womb.
    14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully
    and wonderfully made;
    Marvelous are Your works,
    And
    that my soul knows very well.
    Thanks for your reply. Serpentdove made this claim:

    God created RNA and DNA

    ...and then failed to substantiate it. The reference given referred to neither RNA nor DNA. Then you also failed to add anything, because Psalm 139 also appears to say nothing about nucleic acids.

    So, if you aren't going to say anything about RNA or DNA either, why did you reply?

    Stuart

  3. #33
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147885
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveDodo007 View Post
    It sounds all very nice until you then have, who designed the designer and who designed the designer designer, ad infinitum. All you have done is added another step to an already difficult conundrum. Best to just lose that step and concentrate on the original problem.
    Except that no one designed the designer.


  4. #34
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147885
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
    Thanks for your reply. Serpentdove made this claim:

    God created RNA and DNA

    ...and then failed to substantiate it. The reference given referred to neither RNA nor DNA. Then you also failed to add anything, because Psalm 139 also appears to say nothing about nucleic acids.

    So, if you aren't going to say anything about RNA or DNA either, why did you reply?

    Stuart
    Idiot.


  5. #35
    TOL Legend serpentdove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    14,828
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,787 Times in 2,561 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    559960
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
    Where does it say RNA or DNA in Genesis 1 or Psalm 104?

    Stuart
    "The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." ~ Adrian Rogers

    See:

    How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers

    What's new?
    PlastikBuddah [aka Gamera] make-believer. Kmoney [aka Count Iblis] make-believer. Alate_One deceives students in the classroom. Arthur Brain wants answers. Eph 5:11

    "Being a square keeps you from going around in circles." ~ J Vernon McGee Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13.

  6. #36
    Over 2000 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,464
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 222 Times in 169 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    95008
    Quote Originally Posted by voltaire View Post
    Did PBS sue Ben Stein for copyright infringement?
    Not that I'm aware of, but then that isn't normally their "gig" if you know what I mean.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  7. #37
    Over 2000 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,464
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 222 Times in 169 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    95008
    Quote Originally Posted by serpentdove View Post
    "The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." ~ Adrian Rogers

    See:

    How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers
    Right, so we should trust the Southern Baptist convention president to know what is "scientifically accurate"?

    That's like trusting Richard Dawkins for Biblical understanding.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  8. #38
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,277
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by serpentdove View Post
    "The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." ~ Adrian Rogers

    See:

    How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers
    So when you say "God created RNA and DNA" you are not actually saying anything meaningful. You are not saying what chemistry was used or whether the sequence of bases was contained within a cell or anything like that. When you posted this:


    "Ben Stein: How did it [life] start?
    Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
    Ben Stein: And what was that?
    Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
    Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
    Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
    Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
    Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone..."Expelled April 18 2008 source



    ...you had nothing more to say than Dawkins or Stein on the question How did life start? And in fact, Dawkins knows what kind of event "must have happened" while you don't seem to know even that.

    Stuart

  9. #39
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,277
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by serpentdove View Post
    How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers

    The Bible is not the book of the month-- it is the book of the ages.
    Religious platitude.

    Man only has three problems: sin, sorrow, and death.
    Religious platitude.

    This is the only book in the world that has the answer to these problems.
    No True Scotsman fallacy.

    There are those like the cults that distort [the bible].”
    Hypocrisy.

    There are others who dissect it, reading it like a math book rather than a love story.
    A story of compulsory love inspired by fear.

    Why believe the Bible? Because your salvation depends upon it.
    Religious platitude.

    Your growth depends upon the word of God. Your sanctification depends upon the world of God. Your assurance depends upon the word of God.
    Three religious platitudes.

    We can believe the word of God (1) because of the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
    Logical fallacy of composition.

    Some say: "Of course the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it was was written thousands of years ago."
    Logical fallacy of strawman argument.

    Before you say that, make sure of two things--make certain that you know science and make certain that you know the word of God. The Bible does not always agree with science--and for that I am infinitely glad. If you've been to Paris, you may have visited the Louvre. There are 3 1/2 miles of books on science and almost every one of them is obsolete. Science is changing. What is scientific fact in one era is not in another era. In 1861 there was an anti-God French academy of science that gave 51 facts that prove the Bible wrong. Today, more than 100 years later, there is not a reputable scientist who believes one of those 51 facts. Aren't you glad the Bible did not agree with that science? Had the Bible agreed with that science the Bible would have been wrong. Give the scientists enough time, perhaps they'll catch up with the Bible.
    See the logical fallacy of composition above: science is not wrong because it has rejected old ideas. The bible is not right because some wrong claims about it have been disproved.

    The Bible teaches about science:

    The earth suspended in space (Job 26:7). How did Job know that?
    He got it wrong, didn’t he, because god corrects him later on:

    Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
    Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
    Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    And he should have known this:
    1 Samuel 2:8 The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
    Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.




    Earth is a sphere. Isa 40:22. How did Isaiah know that?
    It says the earth is a circle. Where does “sphere” come from?

    The stars are without number (human number, uncountable) [Jer 33:22].
    It’s not true that the stars are without number. We don’t know that number, but if we are going to be literal about it, there is a number, and it is constantly changing.

    How did they know? All scripture given by inspiration of God (2 Ti 3:16).
    Religious platitude.

    Now move into physiology and biology. Blood is in the life. We that that for granted. It was not until 1615 that William Harvey discovered that blood even circulates in the body--the incredible properties of human blood. In relatively recent times when men got sick they would attribute it to blood. The barber pole represented a bandage. They would bleed men in the hopes that they would get well. The father of our country George Washington got sick and they bled him three times. They bled him to death. Lev 17:14, blood--it is the life of all flesh, an incredible scientific statement.
    It’s pretty obvious that if you don’t take out too much blood a person will survive, and if you take out too much the person will die. There is nothing in Leviticus that says blood circulates. This is not an “incredible statement” at all. There is nothing surprising about it.

    In the Middle Ages there was a Bubonic Plague, called the Black Plague. 1 out of 4 died. They could not figure out what caused it. It was one of the greatest natural disasters in human history. The word of God was the solution. If a man had the plague quarantine him (Lev 13:46).
    Leviticus recommends quarantine for leprosy, not for bubonic plague.

    1840, in hospitals in Vienna 1 out of 5 mothers were dying of infection. They would go in for inspections and they were getting infected. Doctors did not wash their hands. Dr. Semmelweis said from now on, you will wash your hands before you examine. They would go from the morgue to make examinations. 1 out of 84 died. After this policy 11 out of 12 died. Then he said, you will wash between every examination. Doctors said, no we can't do that. Nu 19:14-19, when men die in a tent they shall be unclean 7 days (time for the bacteria to die) every open vessel is unclean, if you touch one slain, or a dead body or bone or one in the grave, they shall be unclean 7 days. They had no idea about a germ. God says don't contaminate. Edited sermon notes Adrienne Rogers: How to Know the Bible is the Word of God
    But all it reports is ideas of uncleanliness and washing rituals that in some cases would have helped but in other cases would not have helped. There is no discrimination that makes this modern science, it is the results of observing correlations, in other words they were doing “ancient science” with nothing in the way of variable control.

    I would be impressed if the bible said “Wash you hands before eating because disease can be caused by things too small for you to see”.

    "The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." ~ Adrian Rogers
    The earth did not exist before light. There never was a global flood. There never was a time of just two people.

    Have you got a logically valid argument for your claim?

    Stuart

  10. #40
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,626
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,139 Times in 2,113 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    Its mind boggling that our bodies evolved into such a complex machine when surely there are easier, just as functional ways we could have evolved.
    God could have stepped in and built a universe quite different by design. But He chose not to. Who are we to tell Him that evolution, messy as it is, was the wrong way to go? As the IDers say, a "space alien" could be the "designer." Only God can be the Creator.

    Its even more mind boggling that it all happened by chance.
    Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen by chance. He suggested that God created the first living things, after which they evolved into the present diversity of life. St. Augustine wrote something like that, too.

    It has the virtue of being consistent with reality. Not a bad thing, that.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  11. #41
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,277
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    God could have stepped in and built a universe quite different by design. But He chose not to. Who are we to tell Him that evolution, messy as it is, was the wrong way to go? As the IDers say, a "space alien" could be the "designer." Only God can be the Creator.
    This is a faith position not a scientific one, of course. There is no unambiguous evidence in existence that supports the idea of any kind of "intent" in the universe, apart from that exhibited by animals. There is no evidence that "intent" existed before animals evolved.

    Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen by chance. He suggested that God created the first living things, after which they evolved into the present diversity of life.
    Darwin did use the metaphor of "life being breathed into" but he came to regret the implication of a god, and especially the use of the word "creator" in the fifth and further editions of Origin of Species, which he had included at the insistence of others. Ironic that he felt compelled to include the suggestion of a god, given the increasing growth in his own agnosticism.

    Stuart

  12. #42
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Blue ridge mountains in Tennessee
    Posts
    738
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Before you say that, make sure of two things--make certain that you know science and make certain that you know the word of God. The Bible does not always agree with science--and for that I am infinitely glad. If you've been to Paris, you may have visited the Louvre. There are 3 1/2 miles of books on science and almost every one of them is obsolete. Science is changing. What is scientific fact in one era is not in another era. In 1861 there was an anti-God French academy of science that gave 51 facts that prove the Bible wrong. Today, more than 100 years later, there is not a reputable scientist who believes one of those 51 facts. Aren't you glad the Bible did not agree with that science? Had the Bible agreed with that science the Bible would have been wrong. Give the scientists enough time, perhaps they'll catch up with the Bible. --serpentdove

    science is not wrong because it has rejected old ideas.
    --stuu

    The supposed facts of science regarding the bible were indeed wrong at one time. How can you be sure that the supposed facts of science regarding the bible today are not wrong? Serpentdove brought this quote up because anti-theists say believing the bible is ridiculous and it's believers are idiots for it. The reason it is said the bible is ridiculous and believers are idiots is because science has supposedly shown the bible to be scientifically wrong. If science was wrong about the bible in the past, why should we believe it isn't wrong about the bible today?

  13. #43
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,626
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,139 Times in 2,113 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    The supposed facts of science regarding the bible were indeed wrong at one time. How can you be sure that the supposed facts of science regarding the bible today are not wrong?
    Science doesn't have anything to say about God or the supernatural. You've been had on that idea.

    Serpentdove brought this quote up
    She's brought up faked quotes before. How about showing us the scientists and these 51 facts with a checkable source?

    Then we'll talk.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  14. #44
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147885
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
    So when you say "God created RNA and DNA" you are not actually saying anything meaningful. You are not saying what chemistry was used or whether the sequence of bases was contained within a cell or anything like that. When you posted this:


    "Ben Stein: How did it [life] start?
    Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
    Ben Stein: And what was that?
    Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
    Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
    Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
    Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
    Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone..."Expelled April 18 2008 source



    ...you had nothing more to say than Dawkins or Stein on the question How did life start? And in fact, Dawkins knows what kind of event "must have happened" while you don't seem to know even that.

    Stuart
    And it's the evolutionist's insistence that it "must" have been such an event that turns my ears off; such arrogant ignorance is not worth listening to .
    Last edited by Lighthouse; October 24th, 2011 at 01:12 AM.


  15. #45
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,626
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 3,139 Times in 2,113 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    404492
    Did PBS sue Ben Stein for copyright infringement?
    The producers of "The Inner Life of the Cell" sued Stein for copying their film. Apparently, the tip-off was that Stein had also copied some minor errors in the original.

    Yoko Ono sued Stein for incorporating "Imagine" in his film without permission. Eventually, Stein deleted that song from the production cut.

    Why would it be surprising that he would do this, given the other blatant dishonesties he's committed?
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us