Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a false accusation. No one is "dead set against the Bible". It has merely been shown to be wrong in certain matters. And not just once, but again and again.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. At least not to date.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
How? Do tell!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well where did it all cone from?
You have no rational answer for the origin of any thing.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Bearing false witness again....
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not me.
What was the first living thing and what features did it have?
And what was the second living thing and what features did it have?
DNA
What about the first living creature?
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 base pairs for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^200,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^180,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^200,000 to 1 or more than 10^320,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^500,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one base pair is 30 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 7 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^7 million to 1 or greater than 10^14 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^13,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.
RNA
What about the first living creature?
The smallest free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Assume 100,000 nucleotides for the first living creature, a mere 1/13 of that size.
The odds against that sequence is 8^100,000 to 1 (8 kinds of nucleotides counting handedness and 2 per pair).
That comes to more than 10^90,000 to 1.
Now the proteome would have at least as many aminos as nucleotides since the body of all creatures are really made of proteins.
The odds against all those sequences of amino acids is more than 39^100,000 to 1 or more than 10^160,000 to 1.
The combined odds against it are more than 10^250,000 to 1.
But this was so very generous. Where did all these nucleotides and aminos come from?
Now the total number of atoms in one nucleotide is 15 and in about 20 in the average amino acid.
So, the total number of atoms in such a first living creature would be greater than that, but that still comes to over 3.5 million atoms.
Now each atom must be in a certain 3D arrangement with certain elements at each spot. Assume just 100 possibilities per atom.
The odds against that are over 100^3.5 million to 1 or greater than 10^7 million to 1.
The number of chances maybe 10^250 reduces those odds against to 10^7,999,750 to 1.
That is just absurd.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes, you. You said "You have no rational answer for the origin of any thing." This is clearly false. We have endless explanations for the origin of many different things.
Multiple different posters have pointed out why your absurd assumptions and silly calculations are wrong. Stop running away!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And what is the answer to the first living creature and where is your calculations?Yes, you. You said "You have no rational answer for the origin of any thing." This is clearly false. We have endless explanations for the origin of many different things.
Multiple different posters have pointed out why your absurd assumptions and silly calculations are wrong. Stop running away!
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I gave you one speculative answer. Your problem is that you seem to think that if science can't give you an exact answer to everything that that somehow justifies your baseless claims of god-magic. It really doesn't. That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.
I've also explained to you multiple times (as have others) why you can't make up baseless assumption to do calculations like this. You haven't even tried to justify your may, many assumptions.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, @SavedByTheLord is not bearing false witness even though I do not agree with her(?) about everything she says but when she asks for certain info she's not wrong. Because there is no scientific real answer. No one on earth knows how life started scientifically. Not one person knows. On the earth.
Yes, so what is your answer positively and accurately to what is the answer to what is "the first living creature and where is your calculations?"
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The lake of fire is symbolic for eternal death with no possibility of resurrection. Believe it or not. The judgment hasn't arrived yet anyway for all.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
And the ad nauseam sermons of preaching Christian doctrines and proselytizing, as well as the fearmongering threats of hell, in this thread. The more posts like that I read, the more relieved I am that I was able to free myself and detox from what I consider the entrapment of evangelical Christianity.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The demons do not want a person to understand what hell is and what the scriptures mean. They are happy when someone believes hell is fiery torture.
McBell
Unbound
So basically no different than if there is no god?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No. The Lake of Fire is symbolic for eternal death. Not everyone will be in the lake of fire. Many will have eternal life.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
This again? That's for YOU and anybody else willing to believe that toothless threat to worry about.
"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis
Interesting choice of words. In my church, we were told that our sins were paid for, not punished, and that the crucifixion was depicted as a sacrifice and act of love, not an act of wrath.
This gets us back to the Christian concept of love. Here, love is building a torture pit, stocking it full of demons and fire, and tossing people into it after "warning" them to comply with assorted commandments or else. "Why did you force me to hurt you?" asks the abusive boyfriend and this god. I'm also shocked at what passes for love in, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," which manifests as hating the sinner. Depicting a blood sacrifice as an act of love is pretty off-putting as well.
I hold that Pauline-Christians maintain such horrific ideas that have no origin in Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, are they on a mission to convert the masses to Atheism, please, right?
Regards
______________
Who is the oldest atheist?
Matthias Knutzen
The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674. He was followed by two other explicit atheist writers, the Polish ex-Jesuit philosopher Kazimierz Łyszczyński and in the 1720s by the French priest Jean Meslier.
en.wikipedia.org
Matthias Knutzen was born at Oldenswort (Schleswig-Holstein) early in 1646. His parents were Berend Knutzen, organist in Oldenswort and his wife Elisabeth (Elsebe). In the same year Knutzen was born his father died. As a boy, Knutzen was sent to his brother Johann Knutzen, an organist in Königsberg in East Prussia, and attended there a secondary school (the Altstädtisches Gymnasium) from 1661 to 1664. In 1664, he registered at the University of Königsberg and in 1668, at the University of Copenhagen, to study theology in its Lutheran seminary.[3] In between he earned money as a private tutor. In 1673, he took a position as a village schoolteacher and auxiliary Protestant preacher in the Kremper Marsch (Schleswig-Holstein).
en.wikipedia.org
This again? That's for YOU and anybody else willing to believe that toothless threat to worry about.
"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis
Interesting choice of words. In my church, we were told that our sins were paid for, not punished, and that the crucifixion was depicted as a sacrifice and act of love, not an act of wrath.
This gets us back to the Christian concept of love. Here, love is building a torture pit, stocking it full of demons and fire, and tossing people into it after "warning" them to comply with assorted commandments or else. "Why did you force me to hurt you?" asks the abusive boyfriend and this god. I'm also shocked at what passes for love in, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," which manifests as hating the sinner. Depicting a blood sacrifice as an act of love is pretty off-putting as well.
"Depicting a blood sacrifice as an act of love is pretty off-putting as well "!
I hold that Pauline-Christians maintain such horrific ideas that have no origin in Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, are they on a mission to convert the masses to Atheism, please, right?
Regards
______________
Who is the oldest atheist?
Matthias Knutzen
The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674. He was followed by two other explicit atheist writers, the Polish ex-Jesuit philosopher Kazimierz Łyszczyński and in the 1720s by the French priest Jean Meslier.
Atheism - Wikipedia
Matthias Knutzen was born at Oldenswort (Schleswig-Holstein) early in 1646. His parents were Berend Knutzen, organist in Oldenswort and his wife Elisabeth (Elsebe). In the same year Knutzen was born his father died. As a boy, Knutzen was sent to his brother Johann Knutzen, an organist in Königsberg in East Prussia, and attended there a secondary school (the Altstädtisches Gymnasium) from 1661 to 1664. In 1664, he registered at the University of Königsberg and in 1668, at the University of Copenhagen, to study theology in its Lutheran seminary.[3] In between he earned money as a private tutor. In 1673, he took a position as a village schoolteacher and auxiliary Protestant preacher in the Kremper Marsch (Schleswig-Holstein).
Matthias Knutzen - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
As a former Christian, I think you've saved yourselves from what I consider the fearmongering tactics of Christianity by rejecting it and not believing it.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Therefore never saved to begin with.
Christians are saved by the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Just because the science is beyond you does not mean that an explanation is not rational.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, once saved always saved goes against the scriptures.