96
   

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2019 08:37 pm
@coluber2001,
It sure did! Their message that believers can also get kicked upstairs after death is a good one! I, personally, would be bored to death.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 08:26 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You don't seem to understand what bigotry is, it's all about discriminating against people because of factors they cannot control.


Just to clarify which one of us doesn't understand.

Quote:
bigotry[big-uh-tree]

noun, plural big·ot·ries.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry



izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 08:39 am
@Leadfoot,
How has CI shown you intolerance? He's just disagreed with you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:07 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Instead of asking why you would build the temple why don't you ask the people to build?
Now, that's about as silly a response as you can provide. Why would I, and complete stranger and just a tourist, tell people to build their own church/temple? That's more ridiculous than most things I've read on able2know, and I've been around since its creation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2019 11:17 am
@coluber2001,
I know I've mentioned this before, but all my siblings are christians. I could not get over the Ten Commandments, "thou shalt not kill" followed by "kill all non-believers." The contradiction was too glaring to me even as a young teen. Many years later learning that the Bible put the earth's age at 7,000, while scientists determined it to be more than 4.5 billion years old. Those contradictions are too glaring including the fact that men have created over 1,000 religions in this world. Add to that the evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens. They are evidence that the Bible has too many errors and contradictions.
0 Replies
 
badger2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 11:19 am
Things such as the Miller-Urey volcanic spark experiment is how the prisoner of protection racketism and coercion can be sure.

Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 01:17 pm
@badger2,
Quote:
Things such as the Miller-Urey volcanic spark experiment is how the prisoner of protection racketism and coercion can be sure.

Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


You want to bank your origin on a handful of random amino acids in a flask?

I guess if you found a random pile of cement blocks in the woods you could say they explained the emergence of New York City. But only if you hypothesized a reason they assembled themselves so nicely. I mean something more sensible than random chance.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 02:03 pm
@badger2,
I trust evolution over any book that's 2000 years old that has too many errors, omissions, and contradictions. Science is the best us humans have to learn about evolution and our environment. The advances in technology in our ability to age different objects are always improving. Science continues to improve; a 2000 year old book is static until humans translate them into subjective narratives.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 02:58 am
@Leadfoot,
As usual your 'analogy' is riddled with semantic naivity, The words, 'cement blocks', 'city' etc all assume a concept of 'construction' involving human design. But the term 'amino acid' is no more related to design than the structure of a water molecule is related to the structure of a tornado.


Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 09:50 am
@fresco,
Quote:
... the term 'amino acid' is no more related to design than the structure of a water molecule is related to the structure of a tornado.

My point exactly. There is no more life in an amino acid than there is in water or a tornado.

And your analogy is an absurdity. I can create the structure of a tornado by flushing my toilet. Let's see you make life accidentally from amino acids. I just flushed a load of them.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 02:30 pm
@Leadfoot,
Your use of the word 'accidently' is merely a biased statement that a mechanism is not yet understood. It begs the question which religionists answer with their childish concept of a ' Creator'. Such shallow thinking exactly mirrors a medieval mindset which explained 'illness' in terms of 'God's Will'. By extrapolation you should be ascribing climatic tornados to God 'flushing away sinners'.
Science advances and religionists respond by moving the goalposts in order to maintain a concept of 'self integrity' in the hope of transcending a potentially mechanistic processes. The fact that the nature of 'self' is transient, inconsistent, and subject to chemical modification, is ignored by them.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 03:41 pm
@fresco,
he has no interest or understanding of various scales of chemical ractions. I think hes reduced his worlview to believe that chemistry can happen without guidance or intelligent thought.

Hes getting closer though. He still blows smoke up our collective asses by stray quotes by mssrs. Behe, Dembski and Meyers (steven)
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 04:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
he has no interest or understanding of various scales of chemical ractions. I think hes reduced his worlview to believe that chemistry can happen without guidance or intelligent thought.


You cannot understand chemistry without fully understanding quantum mechanics, entanglement, the structure of the empty space between pieces of matter and the structure of the space inside of all atoms. Not too mention how these spaces were constructed without destroying themselves during the chaos of the initial microseconds of the big bang.

You have nothing over LF.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 04:36 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I think hes reduced his worlview to believe that chemistry can happen without guidance or intelligent thought.

If you are talking about the chemistry that resulted in biological life, I think you are confused about which of us holds that worldview. (Among other things.)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 05:41 pm
@Leadfoot,
NO, if you would read more carefully, I was sort-of casting a compliment that youve begun to (seemingly) appreciate how chemical reactions can , do, and did occur. (Ive always been open and magisterial about my views about how "self regulating" all chemical reactions are). Theyve been shared by Bob Hazen, noted mineralogist who has carried the evolution of complex MINERALS from a base few that were on the planet in the HAdean. (ALL WITH forensic evidence). Nothing "intelligent" needed.


I recall you talking about "front loading" of chemical reactions. Thats about as close youve come to agreeing with me through all these epochs of debate. (Unless of course, thats not what you meant to say an you wish to flop to another pole).


Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 07:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
NO, if you would read more carefully, I was sort-of casting a compliment that youve begun to (seemingly) appreciate how chemical reactions can , do, and did occur.

I don't quite get the trail of logic there but I've never questioned that chemical reactions can, do and did occur. But I think what you are refering to is my agreement that the chemical links between nucleotides that make up RNA can happen spontaneously and naturally under the right conditions.

But they link up randomly, with no specific order. In other words, there is no information in that random order in which they self assemble (aside from 'Shannon Information' which is really only the capacity to hold information, not information itself). Explaining the origin of biological life via random chance then invites the statistical probability analysis that somebody else here keeps wanting me to go through yet again. The 'front loading' I was talking about was the front loading of information in the first life form(s). The science of biology has become the science of information flow in living organisms. Evolutionists recognize this, they just don't recognize that it had to come from somewhere other than chance.

But this has to be at least the tenth time we have been through these steps. I hoped it would go on from there, not just start over again.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2019 05:54 am
@Leadfoot,
I id NOT SAY that they just do, can, and did, occur but I clearly said HOW. Dont be trying to test my malleability.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2019 08:06 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I id NOT SAY that they just do, can, and did, occur but I clearly said HOW. Dont be trying to test my malleability.
Yes, I assumed you meant the covalent bonds, ionic bonds, etc. that describe those chemical reactions. We agree about those. I thought. Correct me if I didn't follow your meaning though.

But we were talking about abiogenesis. Are you saying you know HOW those chemical reactions proceeded to create first life?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2019 08:24 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
The fact that the nature of 'self' is transient, inconsistent, and subject to chemical modification, is ignored by them.

There is some truth to that last bit. They say that the chemical modification of ethanol on the self makes some perfectly good people turn into assholes. I totally disagree. They were assholes before those 'chemical modifications' happened. They became an asshole by a long chain of choices. Yet another thing you don't believe exists.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2019 08:31 pm
@Leadfoot,
no, Im not sure about every reaction but of you line up all the known compositions, there are but a few modes of reaction,combination,bonding, surface reactions etc.

I think research is now howing that "abiogenesis" was a chemical response to an environmental condition. We do knwo petty much how a proto cell wall was created(that is basically a series of polymerizations of fatty acid monomers, stuff which will resolve itself in self directed reactions (thats been known for quite a while)

Earliest life did NOT have nuclei just like prokaryotes we know of. The only thing I have no idea which dirction was followed was the actual chemistry of nutrition and reproduction.
vidence does NOT support some series of "poofery". Life seems to have slowly risen via time, acquiring" more and more complex structures after evidence of aborted tries and most of the time of the planet.
I see that some UK an Oz scientists have found fossil evidence of hard shell animals 50 million years before what we called the Cambrian Explosion.

You've got your work cut out for you to be convincing about an IDer, because as time and research proceeds, we find more and more data that refutes thebases by which rapid appearance and "Irreducible complexity" has rested.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/20/2019 at 07:28:26