Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you continue to illustrate the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. all humans share approximately 99.5% of their DNA. we're all cousins.Brewtus;733076; said:This is essentially the "Argument from Incredulity" or "god of the gaps," which in essence means that it is inconceivable to you that life could have originated naturally, therefore it must have been created by God.
The problem with this argument is that as human knowledge and abilities increase, the power of God decreases. At one time Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking. If one day humans are able to create life from non-life in a laboratory, what would this mean about the existence of God? It is predicted that sometime in the next 10 years humans will have the ability to create a unique artificial life form that has never existed before. Basically new and unique DNA will be created by splicing together strands of DNA from other life forms or from pieces created in a lab. The first new life form will most likely be very simple but it will have the ability to take in energy and reproduce. While this is not exactly "creating life from non-life", it is a huge leap in that direction.
And humans are not "devolving". In fact there is more genetic variety between any two random humans now than in thousands of years as a result of people migrating all over the world and reproducing with others of completely difference races and societies. But the basic genetic code for humans has not significantly changed in over 100,000 years. If we do have more genetic diseases it's a result of longer life spans or other factor, not a degradation of our DNA.
lvbuckeye;734520; said:you continue to illustrate the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. all humans share approximately 99.5% of their DNA. we're all cousins.
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heavan is perfect."Jagdaddy;734086; said:What evidence? Is there actually a bible passage or other divine instruction that demands perfection from human beings? I don't think that even Jesus claimed to be perfect.
Brewtus;734099; said:Sorry, I don't buy "atheists have no reason to be moral" argument. Imagine, for argument's sake, that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to you? If you believe that God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, you would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness you might feel, abandon your wife and children (assuming you have either), steal and even murder thus wrecking what should have been a close, loving family?
How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that committing crimes or abandoning one's family is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that "if God does not exist, then there is no reason to be moral" is false. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to act immoral only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to act immoral regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian.
does the lion know better?lvbuckeye;734534; said:what makes it an immoral act? if a lion kills another lion has it sinned?
He does not demand perfection. while we should strive towards perfection, nothing is demanded.lvbuckeye;734536; said:He does. and none of us are perfect. however He paid the price to atone for our sins. it is a gift, but that doesn't mean that we HAVE to accept it.
it was a trick question. the replication will not take place in the presence of oxygen, yet the cell cannot live without it. wrap your head around that.Buckeyeskickbuttocks;734424; said:Well, these guys seem to think they were successful:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
On the isue of oxygen, I suppose I'll have to remind you that I don't make my living as a lab scientist, so I don't have the expertise to answer your question on that, and frankly don't feel like researching it.
once you've accepted the presence of a Deity, isn't it kind of lame to question that Deity's power by assuming that Deity couldn't get it right the first time? no offense, but my God doesn't make mistakes. evolution posits millions years of mistakes, or 'failed attempts,' if you will, before we finally came out right.But, you balk at the notion that evolution could be the way God set up the universe? I don't understand that.
suspect in whose eyes? we've already determined that there is no natural process that produces life from non-life. therefore life must be the result of a SUPERNATURAL process. QED.Maybe, maybe not. My point was that Pasteur's research was to answer a limited question, which you have taken to become a "sweeping" law. While I have to concede that we have not ever observed the spontaneous creation of life out of nothing, I don't know how that helps your argument as we therefore have no evidence to support that God breathed life in to Adam, or created a bovine out of thin air. You may have faith that he did so at some point in time, but to pontificate that science is failing without recognition of the failures consequent in your analysis as it applies to Biblical stories seems a bit suspect.
He doesn't violate the laws, He supercedes them. we've all sinned. the wages of sin is death. we are all damned by the laws of God because we've broken them. however, God paid the price for our sins by sacrificing himself. as Christ said, "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."And if we are to believe the Bible, this is EXACTLY what God is to have done.. violate his own rules of nature, and create life from non life. What good is a "LAW" if it must be broken in the first instance to ever be observed in the second? Seems more likely that God created life using a process which I would suspect we do not as yet understand fully (at all?) than to say He sets up laws of nature and then violates them because he can't do what he sets out to do if the law is in fact a law.
In this respect, I think a scientist would leave room for the refinement of understanding. The guy who appeals to the Bible, on the other hand (at least in my expierence), doesn't seem to leave room for any refinement of understanding.
the apple in the garden :)lvbuckeye;734554; said:where does that awareness come from?
i agree. the act itsself is meaningless unless the knowlege of sin exists. now, my dog can go slinking out of the bathroom after he's been in there eating tiolet paper, but that is because when i catch him, i bust his ass. he hasn't sinned, but he knows he'll get in trouble... the difference in humans is that we feel that guilt BEFORE we've been busted for something we're not supposed to be doing. sometimes we feel that prick before we've even committed the act.Bleed S & G;734563; said:the apple in the garden :)
knowledge? knowing better and still doing wrong? conscious? the minds eye?
the reason why i asked if the lion knew better, its my opinion if it didn't know better it would not be a sin.
i've often wondered why christ was drawn towards kids, i assume because of the innocence. in gnostic texts he appears to the apostles in the form of a child sometimes.. maybe buckeyegrad knows
Originally Posted by Brewtus
Sorry, I don't buy "atheists have no reason to be moral" argument. Imagine, for argument's sake, that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God. What would happen to you? If you believe that God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral. So in the face of proof that God does not exist, you would apparently give in to whatever lust and laziness you might feel, abandon your wife and children (assuming you have either), steal and even murder thus wrecking what should have been a close, loving family?
How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that committing crimes or abandoning one's family is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that "if God does not exist, then there is no reason to be moral" is false. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to act immoral only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to act immoral regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian.