Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I have seen compelling video footage of UFOs. That doesn't mean I believe in UFOs, but I certainly accept that there is plenty of evidence to support belief in them. Atheists won't even give that much to Christianity.
As for evolution, I would at least need to see one other species of animals develop human like speech, multiple languages, and the ability to reason, create art and music and demonstrate a moral consciousness. Funny that out of the thousands of paths of evolution, only humans can do such things.
You know I watched a quasi-documentary movie about UFOs last night for giggles & grins.
It took an interesting approach ... a guy who seems pretty sane and admits there are a lot of quacks and charlatans in the field, claims to run a sort of citizen's inquiry, walk a middle road, shows a lot of quotes from former government officials who believe there's a cover-up, etc. However ... he does claim that since the first nuclear tests in the 1940s that we've been visited pretty constantly by aliens, that we have crashed spacecraft, alien bodies, etc. At this point he has to explain how a massive cover up could succeed for about 70 years and then it gets crazier and crazier from there, to the point of claiming that the government is plotting to use reverse-engineered alien spacecraft to stage a fake alien attack on earth in order to manipulate the populace and bend them to their will. Also 100% of his UFO footage is shaky / fuzzy pixelated, corner-of-your-eye stuff. Ironically he starts using the term "deep state" just like The Donald -- that notion that much of the government is unaccountable to democratic institutions and is largely occupied covering up the reality of aliens, just like The Donald claims it's busy subverting him.
The way the film maker tries to draw you in a little at a time is very similar to how religion does it, too.
So if it makes you feel any better ... I reject a lot of things aside from your claims, including UFO conspiracies.
Not to get too far off topic, but there is a precedent for ETs leaving their home planet to visit some place else. We did it when we landed on the Moon (we were the ET astronaut visitors to that place).
Is there a precedent for an omnipotent being impregnating his own mother (non-sexually) with himself? Is there a precedent for someone raising himself from the dead 3 days after the fact?
Virgin pregnancies and death-cheating saviors aren't Christian-only themes. As a matter of fact, there's strong evidence that Christianity borrowed these themes from older religions as well as astro theology.
Honestly, Christianity (and almost all religions) are full of bold unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof is always on those who make bold claims. Built into Christianity is an exemption from burden of proof. That exemption is as follows: BELIEVE OR YOU WILL BURN FOREVER WHEN YOU DIE!!!!!
Not to get too far off topic, but there is a precedent for ETs leaving their home planet to visit some place else. We did it when we landed on the Moon (we were the ET astronaut visitors to that place).
Is there a precedent for an omnipotent being impregnating his own mother (non-sexually) with himself? Is there a precedent for someone raising himself from the dead 3 days after the fact?
Virgin pregnancies and death-cheating saviors aren't Christian-only themes. As a matter of fact, there's strong evidence that Christianity borrowed these themes from older religions as well as astro theology.
Honestly, Christianity (and almost all religions) are full of bold unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof is always on those who make bold claims. Built into Christianity is an exemption from burden of proof. That exemption is as follows: BELIEVE OR YOU WILL BURN FOREVER WHEN YOU DIE!!!!!
Hmmmmmmm?????? Sounds like a farce to me...
Yes, I was going to say despite all the nutter excess in that documentary, there's actually more chance that aliens are visiting earth and there's been a seamless 70 year cover-up and even US presidents have been denied seeing "the files" on all this ... than there is an invisible all powerful being in charge of reality. But I didn't feel like antagonizing Jeff that much.
And it's more likely than god-claims precisely for the reasons you cite. There's been 9 manned expeditions (Apollo 8 and 10 thru 17) to another planetary body, six of which (11, 12 and 14 thru 17) landed, and countless robotic expeditions to various planets and moons. The odds are in favor of there being life elsewhere in the universe, and there's a chance some of those could evolve far enough and survive long enough to make the journey here from other star systems. There IS *some* precedent from which an alien visitation could be extrapolated. There's even a concept design for a FTL starship drive that we simply don't know how to build yet but the math works out for it.
But there is zero precedent for the things you mention, and for so much more that's central to the ideology and dogma of the major religions.
Weird how same sex marriage is not listed. But that's the thing....it's up to interpretation. Marriage isn't really included. Heck..I don't even see a reference to "sexual orientation" in that defintion, but all liberals go ape if a baker decides to not bake a cake for a same sex marriage.
There is a wider net than what is actually named. 'Such as' and 'lawful' are the pointers here. The law decides what was previously illegal (homosexuality) shall become legal and entitled to Rights. The Law has turned against denying equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. And the Fundamentalisrts and bigots can't handle it and take refuge in soch piffling arguments such as 'well, the definitions doesn't actuallty mention Gays specifically.." And in fact atheists had little to do with the Gay Cake case and were willing to sit back and let the Law decide. It was actually those with a Doctrinal Dogmatic Hostility towards anything Gay (and Gay marriage was seen as a direct attack on the religious preserve) and it was the religious Fundamentalists (not a jood many of the more Liberal Christians) who 'went Ape' when the people involved went to court about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I prefer Mr. Bean, but thanks anyways. If this discussion has eroded to spoofs and mockery then it's time to move on.
You would probably like that, but showing up your ineffectual railing is doing us to much good to let you close the discussion down so easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Typical atheist venom. Disgusting as usual.
But what is really happening is that you are playing the "Respect" card (which is merely the thin edge of Blasphemy laws. It says "You should not be allowed to mock at Particular religious beliefs or claims, no matter how ludicrous they are". Unfortunately for you, "Respect" has been shown up for the Fraudulent ploy it is and so you people can only complain loudly about anything we say that you deem insufficiently respectful.
I am sorry to break some bad New Year News to you Jeff, but we are not going to be bullied and browbeaten into being respectful about walking snakes, Talking donkeys of Shekel -swallowing fish, and it is not going to get any better in 2018. But if you can't stomach it Jeff, here's the Good News. The Forum door is not locked.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-03-2018 at 09:52 PM..
You know I watched a quasi-documentary movie about UFOs last night for giggles & grins.
It took an interesting approach ... a guy who seems pretty sane and admits there are a lot of quacks and charlatans in the field, claims to run a sort of citizen's inquiry, walk a middle road, shows a lot of quotes from former government officials who believe there's a cover-up, etc. However ... he does claim that since the first nuclear tests in the 1940s that we've been visited pretty constantly by aliens, that we have crashed spacecraft, alien bodies, etc. At this point he has to explain how a massive cover up could succeed for about 70 years and then it gets crazier and crazier from there, to the point of claiming that the government is plotting to use reverse-engineered alien spacecraft to stage a fake alien attack on earth in order to manipulate the populace and bend them to their will. Also 100% of his UFO footage is shaky / fuzzy pixelated, corner-of-your-eye stuff. Ironically he starts using the term "deep state" just like The Donald -- that notion that much of the government is unaccountable to democratic institutions and is largely occupied covering up the reality of aliens, just like The Donald claims it's busy subverting him.
The way the film maker tries to draw you in a little at a time is very similar to how religion does it, too.
So if it makes you feel any better ... I reject a lot of things aside from your claims, including UFO conspiracies.
Yes. I have direct experience of the UFO thing and seen all sorts of claims of Government cover -ups. And it does beggar belief how every government and military leader plus a number of their immediate staff, not to mention a shedload of workers involved in the Alien relations thing could every one remain silent and not even be tempted to put it in a document to be found after their death. Such an effective cover - up does seem hard to credit.
Mind there is some suggestion that the UFO thing (in the days before Greys) was exploited by the US government to explain any of their testing with new aircraft technology for the Cold war.
How about you define what "impeachable evidence" is exactly? Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that my ancestor was a primate? No you can't but that seems to be the level of evidence that atheists demand to even consider if Christianity is true. Futhermore, can you can prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt? Evidence for anything can easily be torn apart. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
I have over 100 evidences that give me strong faith that I serve the one true God. It's the sum of evidences that is convincing, not one single smoking gun evidence.
Contrary to what you stated, it CAN most definitely be proven that our ancestors were primates. Actually, we (homo sapiens) are primates OURSELVES and we and the other primates have a common ancestor(s). And all this can be out-and-out proven. For instance, homo sapiens and chimpanzees have 90-something percent of the same DNA content and code. And a host of other evidences that CAN be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (as you expressed it). It is better to not offer up comments on subject areas for which you are apparently ill-informed. These mentioned proofs are not "beliefs" or "faith notions"; they are evidences (knowledge, not mere beliefs) that can be demonstrated to be definitively true. No ifs, ands, or buts.
And I have seen compelling video footage of UFOs. That doesn't mean I believe in UFOs, but I certainly accept that there is plenty of evidence to support belief in them. Atheists won't even give that much to Christianity.
That would be because Christianity doesn't have any compelling evidence.
I know that this is not going to be well received by the atheists or evolutionists on this boards, but the challenge of this thread is can Christians Cannot Defend What They Claim.
There is no way that the Christian can explain what they believe to be true to the atheist or evolutionist except in a language they will understand: Science
Many will look at this as me trying to debunk evolution, but how can one speak of creation without creation itself debunking evolution? Obviously both cannot be correct. ( I am speaking here only on the creation or evolution of man, nothing more) Evolution within kind/species does happen.
It there evidence for creation? What can science tell us? Atheists and evolutionist tell us that science points to evolution and only evolution. But can evolution explain everything? If not then is not creation just as viable of answer as evolution? And how can we trust the scientist's explanation of things via evolution if they refuse to look at things outside of their worldview?
Dr. Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, states: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that*we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes*to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for*we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons,"*New York Review of Books,*January 9, 1997, p. 28).
A professor of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
So with statement like; it is not the science that compels evolutionist to accept a material explanation but their own worldview to adhere to material causes and even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer they are excluded because they are not naturalistic how are we then expected to believe anything they tell us?
Physicist Mark Singham tell us that our kids, because of the trust they have in their professors, today are effectively being brainwashed into believing in evolution.
Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. states:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
Henry Gee is a British palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist and the senior editor of Nature, the scientific journal
So the question that begs to be answered is does evolution or creation give the best answer to man. Did man evolve from the primordial mud as evolutionists tell us or is man a creature of an intelligent design/er?
According to evolutionists, natural processes somehow caused ordinary chemicals to come together so as to produce DNA and all the machinery needed to read it and manufacture complex proteins.
So lets look at DNA, does it in fact support evolution from the primordial mud or does it better support creation IE design?
Philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994), states
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components*which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.
Is he correct? Has evolutionist views on the origins of life became an impenetrable barrier to science? If evolutionist will only look and try to explain away their own world view ( as previous quotes have shown)then it most certainly has become an impenetrable barrier to science. And if it is an impenetrable barrier to science how can it be said to be scientific?
Are we really ready to believe that what biochemist and some of the brightest minds in the scientific world cannot do with almost unlimited funding, time and experimentation that the primordial mud stew can?
According to The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.*Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
The belief in the primordial mud hypothesis seems to be on its last legs.
According to 30 simultaneously published high profile research papers in the field of human genomics, which proclaim that the human genome is a irreducibly complex and intelligently designed the long held belief of evolution from the primordial mud is about to go the way of the dodo.
Because of these research papers evolutionist Eugene Koonin stated
We cannot escape considerable scepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
Thus we can see that the idea of the genome with its multilayered codes, surveillance and repair systems, and four-dimensional exceptional complexity all somehow developed through random, purposeless processes is completely untenable.
Lets look more fully at what the ENCODE project found.
When the Human Genome Project published its first draft of the human genome in 2003, they already knew (or thought they knew) certain things in advance. These included:
• Coding segments (genes that coded for proteins) were a minor component of the total amount of DNA in each cell. It was embarrassing to find that we have only about as many genes as mice (about 25,000) which constitute only about 3% of the entire genome.
• The non-coding sections (i.e. the remaining 97%) were nearly all of unknown function. Many called it ‘junk DNA’; they thought it was the miscopied and mutation-riddled left-overs abandoned by our ancestors over millions of years. Molecular taxonomists routinely use this ‘junk DNA’ as a ‘molecular clock’—a silent record of mutations that have been undisturbed by natural selection for millions of years because it does not do anything.
• Genes were known to be functional segments of DNA (exons) interspersed with non-functional segments (introns) of unknown purpose. When the gene is copied (transcribed into RNA) and then translated into protein the introns are spliced out and the exons are joined up to produce the functional gene.
• Copying (transcription) of the gene began at a specially marked START position, and ended at a special STOP sign.
• Gene switches (the molecules involved are collectively called*transcription factors) were located on the chromosome adjacent to the START end of the gene.
• Transcription proceeds one way, from the START end to the STOP end.
• Genes were scattered throughout the chromosomes, somewhat like beads on a string, although some areas were gene-rich and others gene-poor.
• DNA is a double helix molecule, somewhat like a coiled zipper. Each strand of the DNA zipper is the complement of the other—as on a clothing zipper, one side has a lump that fits into a cavity on the other strand. Only one side of the DNA ‘zipper’ (called the ‘sense’ strand) makes the correct protein sequence. The complementary strand is called the ‘anti-sense’ strand. The sense strand is like an electrical extension cord where the ‘female’ end is safe to leave open until an appliance is attached, but the protruding ‘male’ end is active and for safety’s sake only works when plugged into a ‘female’ socket. Thus, protein production usually only comes from copying the sense strand, not the anti-sense strand. The anti-sense strand provides a template for copying the sense strand in a way that a photographic negative is used to produce a positive print. Some exceptions to this rule were known (i.e. that in some cases anti-sense strands were used to make protein) but no one expected the whole anti-sense strand to be transcribed.
But what happened to what they knew or thought they knew?
Their whole structure of understanding was turned on its head by studying just 1% of the human genome.
Their findings include the following inferences:
• About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as ‘junk DNA’.
• Exons are not gene-specific but are modules that can be joined to many different RNA transcripts. One exon (i.e. one part of one gene) can be used in combination with up to 33 different genes located on 14 different chromosomes. This means that one exon can specify one part shared in common by many different proteins.
• There is no ‘beads on a string’ linear arrangement of genes, but rather an interleaved structure of overlapping segments, with typically 5, 7, 9 or more transcripts coming from the one ‘gene’.
• Not just one strand, but*both*strands (sense and anti-sense) of the DNA are fully transcribed.
• Transcription proceeds not just one way but both backwards and forwards.
• Transcription factors can be tens or hundreds of thousands of base-pairs away from the gene that they control, even on different chromosomes.
• There is not just one START site, but many, in each particular gene region.
• There is not just one transcription triggering (switching) system for each region, but many.
The authors conclude:
These results are so astonishing, so shocking, that it is going to take an awful lot more work to untangle what is really going on in cells.
‘An interleaved genomic organization poses important mechanistic challenges for the cell. One involves the [use of] the same DNA molecules for multiple functions. The overlap of functionally important sequence motifs must be resolved in time and space for this organization to work properly. Another challenge is the need to compartmentalize RNA or mask RNAs that could potentially form long double-stranded regions, to prevent RNA-RNA interactions that could prompt apoptosis [programmed cell death].’
Because of these findings those who have been drawing up evolutionary histories for everything are going to have to undo all the years of junk DNA-based historical reconstructions. Thus the argument that man and chimpanzees shared non-functional DNA coding just got thrown out the window.
Lets look at some more recent details from the ENCODE project.
Before we do lets give in small detail the difference between DNA and RNA to help understand some of these findings.
DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information
RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work in our cells.
To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA*transcripts*that then do the work as instructed by that information.
• Traditional ‘beads-on-a-string’ type genes do form the basis of the protein-producing code, even though much greater complexity has now been uncovered. Genes found in the ENCODE project differ only about 2% from the existing catalogue of known protein-coding genes.
• We reported previously that the transcripts overlap the gene regions, but the overlaps are*huge*compared to the size of the genes. On average, the transcripts are 10 to 50 times the size of the gene region, overlapping on both sides. And as many as 20% of transcripts range up to*more than 100 times*the size of the gene region.
(This would be like photocopying a page in a book and having to get information from 10, 50 or even 100 other pages in order to use the information on that page.)
• The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far*more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in*five*different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in*seven*different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about*50*times more active than the genes.
(So much for all the hypostasis made from junk DNA)
• Transcription activity can best be predicted by just one factor, the way that the DNA is packaged into chromosomes. The DNA is coiled around protein globules called histones, then coiled again into a rope-like structure, then super-coiled in two stages around scaffold proteins to produce the thick chromosomes that we see under the microscope. This suggests that DNA information normally exists in a form similar to a closed book—all the coiling prevents the coded information from coming into contact with the translation machinery. When the cell wants some information it opens a particular page, ‘photocopies’ the information, then closes the book again.
Asifa Akhtar & Susan M. Gasser, The nuclear envelope and transcriptional control,*Nature Reviews Genetics*8:507–517, 2007 show how this is physically accomplished.
The chromosomes in each cell are stored in the membrane-bound nucleus. The nuclear membrane has about 2000 pores in it, through which molecules can be passed in and out. The required chromosome is brought near to one of these nuclear pores.
• The section of DNA to be transcribed is placed in front of the pore.
• The supercoil is unwound to expose the transcription region.
• The histone coils are twisted so as to expose the required copying site.
• The double-helix of the DNA is unzipped to expose the coded information.
• The DNA is grasped into a loop by the enzymes that do the copying, and this loop is copied onto an RNA transcript. The transcript is then checked for accuracy (and is degraded and recycled if it is faulty). The RNA transcript is then specially tagged for export, and is exported through the pore and carried to wherever it is needed in the cell.
• The ‘book’ of DNA information is then closed by a reversal of the coiling process and movement of the chromosome away from the nuclear pore region.
According to the ENCODE authors the most surprising result is that 95% of the functional transcripts (genic and UTR transcripts with at least one known function) show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate).
Because of the findings from ENCODE Darwin's theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution is in serious jeopardy as these finding contradict Darwin's theory.
It also looks like cells, not genes, are in control of life which is the direct opposite of what neo-Darwinists have long believed.
So Can a Christian defend what they claim via a scientific explanation? I think we can.
So which is it easier to believe? That man was created by a creator or to believe we somehow evolved from the primordial mud, which scientific study of DNA is now showing to be unsupportable?
Or should we all go with the atheist Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA structure)theory of panspermia.
*In his book*Life Itself,*insists that the probability of life’s chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick says: ‘What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events … . An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle …
So it would seem that because evolution has no way of explaining life other then by a miracle Crick goes to outer space to find his answers in extraterrestrial life who came to earth and left their DNA.
What will come next? first evolution from the primordial mud, then extraterrestrials leaving behind DNA. How much further will people go to try and prove man was not created?
I believe in evolution within kind/species, but the evolution that is taught in the main stream as science or scientific is a Singham stated, nothing more then propaganda to support a belief system that simply cannot be defended by science.
The more we learn about DNA, the more the hypothesis of evolution from primordial mud to man is being shown to be nothing more then a myth designed to undermined creation.
Thus science does support creation far better then it does the hypothesis that man evolved from the primordial mud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like a farce to me...
