How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

This will lead people to believe you think Christianity goes back to first Homo sapiens (presumably Adam and Eve).

I don't think they necessarily were, but that gets us into a whole different area so I'll leave it at that.

You do think that the first humans had clothes correct?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

It seems that you may have studied a little organic chemistry or did you find bible verses that talk about these organic compounds or elements?

Organic chemistry, eh? organic chemistry...

Tell me, you have the banana sharing 50% of their genome map with us.

Are you going to tell me that such 50% sharing is real?

This is to say, are you sure that we share the same 50% genome map?

Read careful what I'm asking you.

Almost 20 years ago I created the The Recycling Process of Life theory in the middle of a discussion with a group of ignorant dudes. (Evolutionist=Ignorant)

With this temporary theory (because I don't waste time in theories, I look for evidence only) I showed them what is the difference in the chemical composition of the genes of the different species, plus how it came to happen that micro-organisms became macro-organisms.

The explanation is very simple, because theories are about explanations.

So, according to you and your theory, when we talk of chemical and physical composition of genes, this sharing of 50% genome map make us far cousins of bananas.

We share similar percent in genetics with several other species, so, according to you, this genetic sharing make us cousins of lots of species?

Before you answer, look at the human genome alone, sharing the same genome map, do we share between humans exactly the same chemical composition in our genes?

My answer is, hell don't know.

What I have obtained as a result is a complete different scenario, where the chemical composition suffer fluctuations, is not regular neither identical, and that the sharing of genes between species mean nothing when the categorization is made according to the rules of your theory.

Evolutionists are always wrong, there is no doubt that they never ever will stop of being ignorant.

We are all composed with the same elements, however, when is about genetics, if you can't understand the recipe of each chemical composition and genetic information, then you will never be more than an ignorant/evolutionist.

Think.

3 Replies

@cameronleon,

If I were King, I'd make everyone learn to program in machine language before entering into a discussion of genomics.

The errors you make while learning (and after) are enough to educate anyone about the viability of random mutation to explain evolution.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

You can't see it, but your post is full of contradictions. You called your discussion group "ignorant dudes." I see it in the reverse. Figure that one out!

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If I were King, I'd make everyone learn to program in machine language before entering into a discussion of genomics.

The errors you make while learning (and after) are enough to educate anyone about the viability of random mutation to explain evolution.

What a degenerate message of yours... it is similar to the continued decay of the elements of the universe.

We are so lucky that instead of a king you are just a slave of your own ignorance.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You can't see it, but your post is full of contradictions. You called your discussion group "ignorant dudes." I see it in the reverse. Figure that one out!

There is nothing wrong about being an ignorant. The problem is not recognizing it when someone shows you your error.

Show me my errors and see how correct are you with your position against mine.

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

Quote:

We share similar percent in genetics with several other species, so, according to you, this genetic sharing make us cousins of lots of species?

Do we trust National Geographic or you? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-explore/shared-genes

How human DNA relates to other primates.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

How human DNA relates to other primates.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Your National Geographic link requires subscription, so we can disregard it.

Your second link is about ignorant dudes who believe that genes actually contain the same codes inside the genes.

As you can read in the link given by you

DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution.

Bunch of ignorant dudes trying to study a fake theory. No wonder why they never come out with a truth, at the end of the day they they always show up to be nothing but clowns.

Understand the following, any disturb in the human genome will cause the ape alike appearance or characteristic.

Any disturb in the ape genome won't cause the human alike appearance or characteristic.

With the fact from above, the theory of evolution has been proved false one more time.

Why do you insist in defending such a garbage when the theory of evolution has been wrong from the very moment of its birth, when Kant, the philosopher, wrote that humans evolved from chimpanzees and orangutans?

Play monkey now, you have no other choice when you follow such a fake theory.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

The article is quite straight forward. Rather than disregard the article, provide proof that their study of human evolution is wrong. Scientifically; and not from a bible full of errors and contradictions.
These are simple contradictions in the bible. Please explain them. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

How do you reconcile the age of this planet from the bible and science? Is it 7,000 years old since god's creation or 4.5 billion years old according to science?

Is it "thou shalt not kill" or "stone all infidels?" Have you stoned anyone to death yet? Why not? Are you a "real" christian who believes in the bible? Or just a christian in name only? Why are you not following god's instructions?

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/13-9.htm

4 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Directly from the bible.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 13:9 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.

New Living Translation
You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in.

English Standard Version
But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

New American Standard Bible
"But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

King James Bible
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Instead, you must kill him. Your hand is to be the first against him to put him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

International Standard Version
But you must surely execute him. You must be the first to put him to death with your own hand, and then the hands of the whole community.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The article is quite straight forward. Rather than disregard the article, provide proof that their study of human evolution is wrong. Scientifically; and not from a bible full of errors and contradictions.
These are simple contradictions in the bible. Please explain them. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

It is not my fault that Donald Morgan the ignorant don't know the difference between "create" and "make"

Lest use is first example, you follow the model.

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

As you can see, this idiot of Morgan is not writing what the bible says but his interpretation in base of his ignorance.

The bible says that at the beginning of this process of creation, God created heavens and earth. When heavens were created, the meaning is the whole cosmos, and the whole cosmos included galaxies,stars, planets, etc.

This was the first step or first day.

On the fourth day, God didn't create light, because light already happened at the first day, the bible says that in the fourth day God made two great lights or luminaries.

I don't see any contradiction, because in the first verse mentioning light it says "let it be light" and in the another verse says "God made two great luminaries" this is to say, sources that provide light.

Now well, the ancient Hebrew enjoyed the same characteristics of modern languages in many aspects, and the word (verb) "make" has different definitions or meanings. Apparently many dudes can't understand this linguistic fact.

Going back to your position using the link given above.

The poor lack of reading comprehension of Donald Morgan is obvious, because definitively God didn't create the Sun on the fourth day. No where in the bible says that God "created" the Sun on the fourth day.

_____________________________________________

You better come back with better arguments because by following that dude Donald Morgan, your attacks against the bible are simply ridiculous.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

How do you reconcile the age of this planet from the bible and science? Is it 7,000 years old since god's creation or 4.5 billion years old according to science?

No one knows.

Simple as that.

The radiometric method has never been verified. This is to say, the results obtained with this method of measuring age of things are just conjectures.

Science demands that every test, every experiment, every instrument of measure must be verified in order to be validate.

Then, those 4.5 billion years are nothing but a conjecture.

You can't argue about this, because this is real, no verification means no validation.

If you believe that the universe is 4.5 billion years old, you are expressing your belief, not so a fact. By consequence, science has not any available tool which has been verified in order to establish any age of the universe.

Otherwise, show here how that radiometric result for those 4.5 billion years has been verified.

Otherwise such amount of years will be taken in this discussion as conjecture, and you must accept it as such. Please don't argue about my proposal because is the right thing to do: no verified instrument/observation/evidence equals no science.

Quote:

Is it "thou shalt not kill" or "stone all infidels?" Have you stoned anyone to death yet? Why not? Are you a "real" christian who believes in the bible? Or just a christian in name only? Why are you not following god's instructions?

First of all, I'm not a christian, neither a religious person.

Second, the laws of the bible weren't only laws for the religious service but laws for the government of the Kingdom of Israel as well.

This is to say, those laws were legally accepted by the government and enforced by the government as well.

Notice that when Israel wasn't a kingdom anymore, the laws were only enforced by the religious authorities and the punishments were done under the permission of the government in charge. This is why the Israelite authorities asked the Roman authorities to sent Jesus to be killed.

Today, in this country, a follower of the bible can't enforce the biblical laws without the permit of the US government. The US government has its own laws which are not subjected to the biblical laws.

Then, today, in this world under governments not subjected to the bible, a follower of the bible can't kill the adulterous woman, neither the homosexual by using stones.

But, don't think that the killing of the adulterous woman was immediate as soon as she was found with her fornication. It was the same process than today in any court. She was taken to court, witness against her and also witness in her favor (if any). After the court ruling she was stoned to death or sent free.

The stoning wasn't an act of savages looking for revenge or similar, a court case was made and followed.

2 Replies

@cameronleon,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
I'd rather trust science to figure out the age of the earth, because they continue to improve the methods and technology. Until anyone can provide a better source, I'm stuck to what science tells us.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
I'd rather trust science to figure out the age of the earth, because they continue to improve the methods and technology. Until anyone can provide a better source, I'm stuck to what science tells us.

You are very easy to be deceived by those articles.

Read the main idea written at the top of the article given in your link.

Quote:

For centuries scholars sought to determine Earth’s age, but the answer had to wait for careful geologic observation, isotopic analyses of the elements and an understanding of radioactive decay

Geologic observation is not plausible by the huge diversity in number and forms of the layers all around the world.

No one has a single idea of the isotopes existing in other planetary systems, the obtained data is limited to what we have been able to explore, and we are lesser than a microscopical particle on a huge star when we compare ourselves to the entire observed universe.

Understanding radioactivity decay is an incomplete task.

I will repeat this again. The behavior of particles in our planet is completely different to the behavior these same particles have in outer space. It is a proven fact that all elements suffer changes when are sent from earth to the space station.

This is telling you, that if you perform the same radiometric method in outer space, the results will be totally different.

Do you understand now our current situation about "understanding radioactive decay"?

Science is telling you conjectures by thousands, and the age of the earth is one of them.

No problem if you believe in the conjecture that science provides for you, but you just can't come here with that conjecture as if it is a fact.

Those millions or billions of years "calculated" for the age of planet earth are just suppositions.

Again, no problem when you prefer trusting in those suppositions, the problem here is that you want to disregard what the bible says with your suppositions.

At the end of the day, this is about a belief obtained from the bible, and in your case, a belief obtained from science.

That's all.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

And you prefer a book full of errors and contradictions over current science.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

And you prefer a book full of errors and contradictions over current science.

I am intelligent enough to discern and accept what is valid from religion and what is valid from science.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

What is valid from religion?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

And what is valid from science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone said,

Quote:

What is valid from religion?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Wiki on religion

Quote:

Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".[1] However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]

su·per·nat·u·ral

Quote:

adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

tran·scen·den·tal

Quote:

adjective
1.
relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm.

Cicerone,
Would you please answer the following questions in your own words. (If you answer by posting a link, could you explain in your own words how the link supports the position you are taking).
1. Are Human thoughts important to developing science?

2. Are the cause and origin of Human thoughts understandable and explainable in a scientific way?

3. Is it possible that all human thought could originate from something other than the atoms that make up your mind and body, but instead your thoughts are originating from a spiritual or non physical realm?

4. Is the origins and purpose of human thought important to properly interpreting and understanding science?

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

You're barking up the wrong tree. I worked with nukes in the USAF in the 1950s. I know more about nukes than you do.

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know