Neuropteron
Active Member
Hi,
I understand that this is the current definition of faith, however it is not the Bible's definition of it.
Thanks for your reply
-
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!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Hi,
I understand that this is the current definition of faith, however it is not the Bible's definition of it.
Thanks for your reply
rational experiences
Veteran Member
In reality a human man self owned his life a human. Claiming by human ego I own dominion over all things. Chose a topic to write a book to be noteried amongst other just humans.
As humans chosen behaviour is status.
Claiming the life of a bird was a bird had changed by a mutation caused yet had survived to live expressing the mutation.
How one species adapted it's species.
So then you would compare that thesis to a human saying it must be why nationality and not just a one human type existed.
Hence humans claim we therefore are a mutant of an ape or as we own dominion an ape is a human mutant.
If you say dominant gene owner is the class species.
With no answer about any species not of it's own class.
And then accept that human answer only correlated because you can observe a topic you decide to discuss.
No chosen topic also defines no reason to argue in human life just being a human either.
As humans chosen behaviour is status.
Claiming the life of a bird was a bird had changed by a mutation caused yet had survived to live expressing the mutation.
How one species adapted it's species.
So then you would compare that thesis to a human saying it must be why nationality and not just a one human type existed.
Hence humans claim we therefore are a mutant of an ape or as we own dominion an ape is a human mutant.
If you say dominant gene owner is the class species.
With no answer about any species not of it's own class.
And then accept that human answer only correlated because you can observe a topic you decide to discuss.
No chosen topic also defines no reason to argue in human life just being a human either.
What do you believe is the Bible's definition of faith?
gnostic
The Lost One
Faith is not something that you can pass on from person to person or from God to person.
Either you have faith, accepted your belief in God or in Jesus and Jesus' teaching, in the scriptures themselves, OR you don't have faith.
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, etc, all have faith in their belief.
But faith isn't tangible or physical. And it get worse, when none of the names are considered historical figures. No books, scrolls and tablets of the Hebrew scriptures existed contemporary to these biblical figures.
Biblical texts written about them, only shown to exist from 6th century BCE and later. No Bronze Age scriptures (eg Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc) or early Iron Age scriptures (eg Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, etc), so none of the scriptures from Adam to Solomon exist contemporary to these people.
I am not saying Israel and its people didn't exist in the late 2nd millennium and early 1st millennium BCE.
There is one mention of "Israel" in the Egyptian hieroglyphs on a granite Merneptah Stele, dated to the late 13th century BCE. It commemorated Merneptah's reign (1213 - 1203 BCE), particularly his wars against the Libyans and Syrians and Canaanite, with single mention of Israel.There are no biblical names of anyone in the Stele.
Merneptah was a 19th dynasty king, son and successor of the famous Ramesses II (1279 and 1213 BCE).
And this Ramesses was responsible for completing the construction of Pi-Ramesses, started by Seti I (1294 - 1279 BCE), who named after his father, Ramesses I (1295 - 1294 BCE), the dynasty founder.
According to Exodus 1, Rameses and Pithom were 2 cities constructed by unnamed king, at the time of Moses' birth (Exodus 2). This biblical Rameses probably is Pi-Ramesses. But no city by that name (Rameses or Pi-Ramesses) exist in the 16th and 15 centuries BCE, the supposed time of Moses.
Plus Jericho's walls collapsed around 1570 BCE, which predated Pi-Ramesses by over 300 years.
The books of Genesis to 1 Kings 12 aren't eyewitnesses' accounts to Israel's history, and none of the events recorded in these books are contemporaries to any timeline in history.
All you have is faith that these people in bible are true, with no historical records and no archaeological evidence to support they exist.
I was wondering the same thing but was fairly certain I would only get asked about chimps if I enquired.
The bible's 'definition' -- I assume you mean Hebrews 11:1. -- is poetic gobbledygook.
"Faith," as opposed to knowledge, is generally used to mean unjustified belief; belief without objective evidence.
Neuropteron
Active Member
Hi,
The Bible explains that not all reality is seen.
Nonetheless it needs to be demonstrated in some way and some sort of assurance need to be given, as to it's reality, before a person can put faith in it, otherwise it just would be as the common definition of faith assert it to be, gullability.
Heb 11:1
ppp
Well-Known Member
That versus the opposite. It says that faith is the evidence.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
What is objective evidence? How can it be categorized as objective?
All perceived realities reside only in the human mind. In that sense, it’s a relative concept unless we can some how successfully identify the absolute reality independent of mind.
“Objective” is not a product of science. It’s a product of logic. Science itself is a product of logic. Logic is a product of Consciousness. The nature of Consciousness is highly controversial, at least from a scientific perspective.
Observation and data (evidence) itself is neither subjective nor objective, only the drawn conclusions can be categorized as objective if it can be proven that the appropriate logical analytical process was applied to evaluate the data and draw the conclusions.
The main logical principle of the objective analytical process is the principle of causality. It’s an intrinsic trusted logical principle. If properly applied, then drawn conclusions can be claimed to be objective.
Objective science is rooted in the logical principle of causality, if the drawn conclusion is a product of causality, then it’s categorized as objective.
The dilemma is that objective science that is totally dependent on the logical principle of causality ends up with the conclusion that everything (the entire universe and life itself) is causeless. How is that logical? The logic itself collapses, not only the logic but per the ToE the worthiness of the analytical power of the materialistic brain that evolved from lower species for the sole purpose of survival, also collapses. Hence, everything loses its meaning, no logic, no trustworthy mind to evaluate the data, no reference. Science disproved itself. It’s not logical. In absence of the absolute, no relative can have any meaning.
The claimed objective science cannot provide answers to fundamental questions. it’s beyond the jurisdiction of science. Scientists try to force answers within its jurisdiction, but along the process, the goalposts move and give the illusion of an answer. But its not.
Absolute beginnings are never explained by science. The ToE shifts the problem of life back to an unexplained origin. Dawkins shifted the origin further to outer space. The shift gives an illusion of an answer but it’s not. The problem stays.
Another example is the unexplained beginning of the entire universe around 14 billion years ago from nothing. The problem is shifted back in time but the reason for the instantiation of the universe in reality stays unexplained.
Even physical phenomena within the universe, Science also shifts the problem to a point where no further explanation can be provided. The phenomenon of an apple falling with specific acceleration is due to gravity but the existence of the gravitational force itself is an unexplained phenomenon, why it exists? How the geodesic curvature in spacetime is created? What gives it its specific calibrated value in relation to other physical forces? No answers. Same is true for the other physical phenomena such as electromagnetic force, cosmological constant, nuclear efficiency, etc. We can only observe its influence and measure how it affects the physical world but no explanation is possible for the nature of the phenomenon, its value or what caused it to exist. It’s beyond science. Science has limits and cannot answer fundamental questions unless we have a different holistic understanding of what science is. typically, at the level of root causes, Science can only observe and measure the influence of these physical phenomena but cannot provide any explanation further to understand its nature, why or how it exists.
Science is a product of logic. logic is not the objective conclusions drawn from observations and data. Logic governs the processes through which conclusions can be drawn. Logical conclusions are not limited to the objective evaluation of observations. Logic can also provide conclusions/predictions independent from observations. Such as the mathematical physics of the general theory of relativity, that successfully provided proven predictions consistent with experimental data. Logic and the intellectual power of the human mind can go further beyond physical observations.
To conclude,
- Science cannot answer fundamental questions.
- Science cannot continue further beyond roots and beginnings.
- The logical principle of causality cannot be the means of the scientific process to conclude that everything is causeless. If we conclude that the entire universe is causeless and life is causeless, then the principle of causality itself has to be false, in this case, the scientific analytical approach based on causality is false and all scientific findings on that basis are false.
- If the human brain evolved randomly from lower species through natural selection, then its not designed or wired to analyze complex data, but only to facilitate basic needs for survival, hence not trustworthy to draw credible conclusions from complex data.
- If the human brain is not trustworthy and causality is false, then science would totally collapse since all means of drawing any meaningful conclusions would be lost.
- Logically, we can understand the existence of jurisdictions beyond which, specific rules no longer apply. These boundaries establish the limits of science.
- The absolute existence imposes limits upon us as relative beings but we cannot impose our own limits on the process through which we try to understanding the absolute existence. The notion that if it’s beyond our senses, capacity, limits, or knowledge then it cannot exist, is not logical.
- Logic necessitates that all possible existence has to be rooted in the necessary existence. All things relative are meaningless without the Absolute.
So, what is your definition of faith from all of that?
Where does it explain about unseen reality or is that an opinion based on your personal interpretation?
How has this unseen been demonstrated if it is unseen? Are you saying that everyone that has faith has had this demonstration? How do you know? What demonstrates that?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Not to barge in but I am curious why you did not reply to this post:
Darwin's Illusion
I provided evidence for human/chimp phylogeny and exposed your plagiarism. I should think you might want to address such things.
Hosea 13:16
Astrophile
Active Member
What are you trying to do? Are you trying to show that the present hypotheses of abiogenesis are false and that you have an alternative hypothesis that gives a better explanation of the observed facts, or are you saying that abiogenesis is false and therefore the god that you worship is real? If it is the first, then you will become one of the most famous scientists of all time. If the second, probably not.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
How genetically similar are humans to chimpanzees? What is the significance of the similarity?
Under dogmatic control, scientific findings are typically interpreted to fit the presuppositions. the conclusion always precedes the experiment.
Genetic comparison of humans and chimpanzees is no exception. The famous 98.8% similarity between humans and chimpanzees was the conclusion of a study published in 2002. Here is how the conclusion was drawn.
-The human genome contains about 3.2 billion base pairs, the chimpanzee is about 3.0 billion bp.
-Total amount of chimpanzee DNA sequence analyzed is about 3 million bp, only about 0.001 of the chimpanzee genome.
-Only two thirds of the 0.001 could be unambiguously aligned to DNA sequences in humans.
-28% of the total amount of sequence was excluded from the analysis (not aligned to human DNA). Another 7% of the chimpanzee sequences showed no similarity in the human genome. 35% was excluded from the analysis of the 0.001 chimpanzee DNA sequence.
- After the exclusion of the 35%, total of 8,859 sequence pairs encompassing 1,944,162 nucleotides in the chimpanzee genome remained for analysis. (0.00065 of the chimpanzee genome)
-The program Blat was used for the analysis, which is programmed on the basis that evolution is true (database searching models depend upon the evolutionary insights of the Dayhoff model)
-The analysis identified the sequence differences (insertions, substitutions, deletions and duplications).
- Differences such as Insertions and deletions were ignored. Only substitutional differences of 1.24% was used to conclude that the average DNA sequence difference is 1.24%, then it was concluded that the average similarity is 100-1.24= 98.8%
- The calculated percentage of similarity is neither objective nor accurate. The conclusion precedes the experiment. All findings had to fit the presupposition.
Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees
similarly, many other studies were published with varying but typically lower percentages of similarity than the alleged 98.8%.
Another study on February 20, 2013 by Jeffrey P. Tomkins concluded that the average similarity is 70% “Comprehensive analysis of chimpanzee and human chromosomes reveals average DNA similarity of 70%. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.”
Obviously such research cannot be published in a mainstream Journal.
chimpanzee-human-chromosomes.pdf (answersingenesis.org)
It’s important to understand that the 98.8% similarity at the genetic level is misleading with respect to its significance. It serves no purpose but deceiving the uninformed reader specially in light of the other studies showing similarity of the human genome with the genome of other different species such as the mouse.
A study was published in nature in 2002 concluded that the analysis of mouse genome sequence showed that 99% of the genes have direct counterparts in humans.
Human biology by proxy - Nature
We don’t see much emphasis on this significant similarity. Apparently, a human is a lot different than a mouse. The similarity is misleading, the billions of codes contained in an organism genome, is only the beginning of the story. The real story unfolds in the gene expression.
All trillions of cells of different types that compose the human body, contains exact same 3 billion DNA base pairs of the human genome but each of the cell types interprets this identical information very differently in order to determine which function a cell will have to keep us alive such as nerve cell, heart cell, skin cell, immune cells, etc.
The different types of cells and proteins that make an organism and the specific cell function, is not only dependent on the DNA sequence. It also depends on the complex mechanisms that interpret the genetic codes.
Proteins are responsible for phenotypic differences. Protein variants in the human body are billions but the number of protein coding genes, is only about 20,000. Genes are transcribed with splice variants. Introns are involved in a broad spectrum of functions in every step in mRNA processing. Intronic sequence elements participate in the regulation of alternative splicing.
If we consider the example of the neuronal protein “Neurexins”, only three Neurexin genes, are responsible for the creation of thousands of Neurexins isoforms through alternative promoters and alternative splicing. Post-translational modifications (PTMs) continue further to create different types of more complex proteins. These mechanisms allow the creation of complex different organisms regardless of possible similarity of the DNA sequence.
80% of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees regardless of alleged similarity between humans and chimpanzees genome. Mice protein-encoding genes are 85% similar to humans.
These facts are important to put things in perspective, to better understand the misleading similarity percentages at the genetic level.
Dogmatic presuppositions held by scientists, don’t allow healthy scientific inquiry. Research with findings against the ruling dogma is met with dogmatic hostility and can’t be published in a mainstream Journals. But despite the dogmatic hostility, as Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution”
Even so its true that a single living cell is a complex structure beyond belief with highly sophisticated mechanisms and complex programming that contains billions of codes, but what is absolutely remarkable, is the coordinated work of trillions of different types of cells to execute an extremely accurate and complex plan to allow a living organism to exist.
With all technology and intellectual power of humans, it’s not possible to make a cell of a living organism directly from nonliving matter. Science can’t answer what life is or how to create life from nonliving matter, but science definitely confirms without any doubt that a single living cell is a highly sophisticated/complex structure on a whole different level that dwarfs the most complex engineering ever achieved by man. There is no comparison. It’s an undisputed fact.
A single living cell is a digital information processor with its own unique extremely complex software which is used to control complex mechanisms within the cell that function similar to 3D printers that print endless types of complex chains of protein structures from amino acids. Billions of proteins with different blueprints to serve as the building blocks of life with a variety of endless essential functions that allow a living organism to exist. All functions are coordinated and work in extreme harmony to execute the plan.
The nucleotide bases in DNA, function exactly as a program responsible for the machine code output, a direct programming with the machine language. The arrangement of the symbols determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Bill gates said “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created”
Under dogmatic control, scientific findings are typically interpreted to fit the presuppositions. the conclusion always precedes the experiment.
Genetic comparison of humans and chimpanzees is no exception. The famous 98.8% similarity between humans and chimpanzees was the conclusion of a study published in 2002. Here is how the conclusion was drawn.
-The human genome contains about 3.2 billion base pairs, the chimpanzee is about 3.0 billion bp.
-Total amount of chimpanzee DNA sequence analyzed is about 3 million bp, only about 0.001 of the chimpanzee genome.
-Only two thirds of the 0.001 could be unambiguously aligned to DNA sequences in humans.
-28% of the total amount of sequence was excluded from the analysis (not aligned to human DNA). Another 7% of the chimpanzee sequences showed no similarity in the human genome. 35% was excluded from the analysis of the 0.001 chimpanzee DNA sequence.
- After the exclusion of the 35%, total of 8,859 sequence pairs encompassing 1,944,162 nucleotides in the chimpanzee genome remained for analysis. (0.00065 of the chimpanzee genome)
-The program Blat was used for the analysis, which is programmed on the basis that evolution is true (database searching models depend upon the evolutionary insights of the Dayhoff model)
-The analysis identified the sequence differences (insertions, substitutions, deletions and duplications).
- Differences such as Insertions and deletions were ignored. Only substitutional differences of 1.24% was used to conclude that the average DNA sequence difference is 1.24%, then it was concluded that the average similarity is 100-1.24= 98.8%
- The calculated percentage of similarity is neither objective nor accurate. The conclusion precedes the experiment. All findings had to fit the presupposition.
Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees
similarly, many other studies were published with varying but typically lower percentages of similarity than the alleged 98.8%.
Another study on February 20, 2013 by Jeffrey P. Tomkins concluded that the average similarity is 70% “Comprehensive analysis of chimpanzee and human chromosomes reveals average DNA similarity of 70%. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.”
Obviously such research cannot be published in a mainstream Journal.
chimpanzee-human-chromosomes.pdf (answersingenesis.org)
It’s important to understand that the 98.8% similarity at the genetic level is misleading with respect to its significance. It serves no purpose but deceiving the uninformed reader specially in light of the other studies showing similarity of the human genome with the genome of other different species such as the mouse.
A study was published in nature in 2002 concluded that the analysis of mouse genome sequence showed that 99% of the genes have direct counterparts in humans.
Human biology by proxy - Nature
We don’t see much emphasis on this significant similarity. Apparently, a human is a lot different than a mouse. The similarity is misleading, the billions of codes contained in an organism genome, is only the beginning of the story. The real story unfolds in the gene expression.
All trillions of cells of different types that compose the human body, contains exact same 3 billion DNA base pairs of the human genome but each of the cell types interprets this identical information very differently in order to determine which function a cell will have to keep us alive such as nerve cell, heart cell, skin cell, immune cells, etc.
The different types of cells and proteins that make an organism and the specific cell function, is not only dependent on the DNA sequence. It also depends on the complex mechanisms that interpret the genetic codes.
Proteins are responsible for phenotypic differences. Protein variants in the human body are billions but the number of protein coding genes, is only about 20,000. Genes are transcribed with splice variants. Introns are involved in a broad spectrum of functions in every step in mRNA processing. Intronic sequence elements participate in the regulation of alternative splicing.
If we consider the example of the neuronal protein “Neurexins”, only three Neurexin genes, are responsible for the creation of thousands of Neurexins isoforms through alternative promoters and alternative splicing. Post-translational modifications (PTMs) continue further to create different types of more complex proteins. These mechanisms allow the creation of complex different organisms regardless of possible similarity of the DNA sequence.
80% of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees regardless of alleged similarity between humans and chimpanzees genome. Mice protein-encoding genes are 85% similar to humans.
These facts are important to put things in perspective, to better understand the misleading similarity percentages at the genetic level.
Dogmatic presuppositions held by scientists, don’t allow healthy scientific inquiry. Research with findings against the ruling dogma is met with dogmatic hostility and can’t be published in a mainstream Journals. But despite the dogmatic hostility, as Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution”
Even so its true that a single living cell is a complex structure beyond belief with highly sophisticated mechanisms and complex programming that contains billions of codes, but what is absolutely remarkable, is the coordinated work of trillions of different types of cells to execute an extremely accurate and complex plan to allow a living organism to exist.
With all technology and intellectual power of humans, it’s not possible to make a cell of a living organism directly from nonliving matter. Science can’t answer what life is or how to create life from nonliving matter, but science definitely confirms without any doubt that a single living cell is a highly sophisticated/complex structure on a whole different level that dwarfs the most complex engineering ever achieved by man. There is no comparison. It’s an undisputed fact.
A single living cell is a digital information processor with its own unique extremely complex software which is used to control complex mechanisms within the cell that function similar to 3D printers that print endless types of complex chains of protein structures from amino acids. Billions of proteins with different blueprints to serve as the building blocks of life with a variety of endless essential functions that allow a living organism to exist. All functions are coordinated and work in extreme harmony to execute the plan.
The nucleotide bases in DNA, function exactly as a program responsible for the machine code output, a direct programming with the machine language. The arrangement of the symbols determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Bill gates said “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created”
I read the unsupported opinion at the beginning and didn't see any need to read further. I get that you do not like science.
cladking
Well-Known Member
And without consciousness there is no life at all. There would also be no point in life and no means for it to evolve or for species to change. But we still believe we can just ignore all the hard questions and peak ahead at the answers.
gnostic
The Lost One
Can you demonstrate that all life have “consciousness”?
How are plants or fungi “conscious”?
How about any species of bacteria?
And when I say “demonstrate”, using your logic, can you show consciousness of the above examples (plants, fungi, bacteria) in “experiments”, without observations?
What experiments have you done that plants are “conscious”? Or that of fungi? Or bacteria?
Can you demonstrate in some experiments that any organisms without brains be conscious?
You are the so-called “expert” in experiments. Demonstrate.
I was just looking over some posts where you and others have previously asked this same question. There was no response to those posts that I could find.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
If you read further, you would see that my opinion is supported. You’re not making a rational argument. I get you don’t want to read, others will do.
You just demonstrated an example of jumping to illogical conclusion because of presuppositions that hinder the ability of logical reasoning. This example further proves my opinion at the beginning, which you claimed it to be unsupported.
What I don’t like is the dogmatic control of science that doesn’t allow healthy scientific inquiry.