TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that even if he were to read the links and watch the vids, he'ld still be making these foolish claims.
-
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!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
being “inspired” don’t mean the stories are historically or scientifically correct, YoursTrue.
writers, poets, songwriters, musicians, artists (painters, sculptors, etc), architects, etc, all get inspiration from someone or from some things or from some places, when they do their works.
Even mathematicians and scientists can have inspired moments.
The inspirations come from how people feel and think before they do something (eg paint, draw, write, sing, build, etc).
but whether gods are real or not, inspirations are not supernaturally endowed on humans; there are nothing magical or supernatural about inspirations. Gods do not actually give inspirations, but people can be inspired to write whatever they believe in.
many people wrote inspiring mythological or fictional stories about gods, or about spiritual or supernatural entities, but that doesn’t mean what they write about them are true or real.
thinking that divine or angelic inspiration can magically give certain persons great wisdom or inerrant knowledge, is nothing but just more of the same superstitions; they are fantasie, nothing more, nothing less.
for instance, in the story of the young King Solomon being given the gift of wisdom by God, endowing him magically with wisdom, is a myth. You cannot gain wisdom in such manner.
And it would be the same with inspiration. No gods or spirits can supernaturally endow authors with writing masterpieces; inspired or not, masterpieces are and were made from each authors’ creative abilities or talent.
or take artists, like Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo or other Renaissance great masters. They may have been inspired by stories from the Bible and by their own personal beliefs, but artistic masterpieces all come from their geniuses, their talents and their skills. God, Jesus or any other biblical characters are not for the actual painters or sculptors.
That famous sculpture of King David may have inspired Michelangelo to sculpt the stone into muscular human form, but David himself did create the sculpture.
So likewise people who wrote the texts for each books in the Bible, but inspired or not, God himself didn’t write a single word in the Bible.
but as I said before, inspired or not, large parts of the Bible is historically reliable or accurate, nor any part of Genesis creation or flood are scientifically true.
That happens every time the creationists bring their memes to a forum with critical thinkers with scientific understanding. Those memes are intended for the faithful to convince them that their religion is reasonable and supported by science, or those who are susceptible and not able to judge them critically as in a Sunday school or a church sermon. Bring them to a venue like this, and that same apologetics is counterproductive, serving only to show that the science is correct and the religion wrong.
Here's more on that.
Agreed. Inspired isn't good enough. The Flintstones were inspired by the Honeymooners, and West Side Story by Romeo and Juliet.
Correct. That's you. He also cannot see the answers given to him. That's how a faith-based confirmation bias works.
And here's more on that.
He wrote, "Not if 0<m<1" in response to "m^- infinity -> 0." This is easier if m^-∞ -> 0 is rewritten m^∞->∞ by inverting it. For what values of m is that statement incorrect? Numbers that get smaller as their power increases, which are the fractions between 0 and 1.
You've never refuted anything.
Yes, but not one you can understand. Your mind is closed, and thus your incredulity is irrelevant.
This is incorrect in the same way that Hoyle's fallacy is incorrect. You're assuming that the steps involved were independent events like the pieces of a 747 finding one another, orienting themselves and then connecting to form a working jet airplane in a junkyard tornado. They weren't. Natural selection constrained the process the way gravity constrains the possible ways that the pieces of a planet find one another and arrange themselves into a spheroid. Cubes aren't possible even if we calculate the very long odds of the pieces forming a cube absent gravity. Likewise, not all gene sequences are equally likely to be selected for.
So you're saying those people who provide us all with such tragi-comedic entertainment on forums such as this are looked up at on other forums and considered great authorities and are widely respected?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Natural selection does not help because there is nothing advantageous to select without some miracle to create new genes.
LOL that has nothing to do with anything he wrote!
You are just shouting out random nonsense!
Is that the best you can do????
That was a deliberate duck. You implied that God givez the gift of belief to some and not to others. The Prodigal Son fable does not speak to that in any way.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as previous genes would have had to exist.
And a copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene.
And a gene transferred from another species cannot also be the answer because it is still the same gene.
And a new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer.
Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness.
There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease, and they are looking for a cure.
So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated cannot be the answer.
Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2.300,000 base pairs.
So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes.
Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and then a mutation or 2.
The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against that. The odds against a large number are extremely large against that.
Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event.
The median size of a gene is about 25,000 base pairs. The odds against that coming into being is 8^25,000 to 1 or 10^22,500 to 1.
It is estimated that there are 8.7 million species in the world. It is also estimated that 99.9% of all species have become extinct. Thus, there have been about 870 million species that have ever lived. With an average of about 20,000 genes per species that comes to about 17.4 trillion genes that have ever existed. Assuming that 95% is the average duplication rate across all species, that comes to almost 1 trillion unique genes that have ever existed. Thus, that is almost 1 trillion incredible miracles to account for all unique genes that have ever existed. However, sexual reproduction does present a significant obstacle as only the individual receiving the miraculous new gene can only donate one copy, and no one else has that copy. This would probably be detrimental in any offspring. But even if by some miracle that offspring survives it only has one copy to donate, so only ½ of its offspring receives the new gene. And it still must mate with another individual without the new gene. It would take a number of generations before that new gene could take a foothold in the species population. Thus, it would also take a number of miraculous events for this to happen. The odds against this are greater than 10^20,000 trillion to 1.
So, all genes in all living creatures would require about a trillion miracles. And for each of these miracles, there are about maybe 100 mini miracles. This is so preposterous.
Also note that some genes produce a protein that requires a specific enzyme that itself comes from a gene. So, for these 2 simultaneous miracles are needed either for copy and mutate or come from nothing. A copy of a gene with several mutations would require a matching copy of the gene that produces the enzyme, and that gene itself would have miraculously randomly mutated to work with the new protein from the new gene. And both would still be stopped by the requirement of sexual reproduction.
Thus is your argument:
1) I don't understand how it actually happens even though others obviously do, they have built a whole science around it
2) Therefore a mythological entity of my choice did it by magic
I'm sorry but that's plainly ridiculous
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Already done.
The pointless verbiage that follows just demonstrates your total ignorance of the subject.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
As usual no answer to the existence of anything as Evolution is the Theory of Nothing.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
More blatant false witness. People keep answering your questions and you either ignore then or just dismiss it without any apparent thought with baseless claims of false assumptions and circularity.
There's no point in giving you answers any more.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not any retional answer.
Can anyone explain the origin of any gene?
Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?
A copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the first question as previous genes would have had to exist.
And a copy of a gene cannot be the answer to the second question as it is just a copy and not a new gene.
And a gene transferred from another species cannot also be the answer because it is still the same gene.
And a new allele is not a new gene. So that is not the answer.
Also note that mutations are either deadly, disadvantageous, or have no effect. So that will not lead to survival of the fitness.
There are no beneficial mutations. Some say sickle cell anemia, but that is a disease, and they are looking for a cure.
So, a copy of a gene that is slowly mutated cannot be the answer.
Also note that genes come in widely carrying sizes. Those in mankind range from 14 to 2.300,000 base pairs.
So even a copy with a mutation or 2 will not lead to the diversity of gene sizes.
Further the codes of genes are mostly very dissimilar, not just a copy and then a mutation or 2.
The odds against even a single beneficial mutation are very much against that. The odds against a large number are extremely large against that.
Almost all genes are large enough that just randomly happening by chance is a miraculous event.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. Already given to you.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
no real answer then.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You don't seem to like real answers, or reality in general, come to think of it....
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Out of nothing is preposterous and a copy is not anything new.
I'm sorry, but in Genesis didn't God create things out of nothing?
He said "let there be light" and light existed, out of nothing having not previously existing
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, he only claimed that. Lennox is not a physicist.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
To you? Probably not since you refuse to learn the basics of science. Could I do so for a person who can reason rationally? Yes.