The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

If the RNA virus needs a living host to replicate, and the host has DNA, are not the RNA viruses still dependent on DNA for their replication?

In terms of RNA viruses arising from chemical reactions, I'll need some scientific proof of this as it appears the origin of viruses is not clear.

So have you found that scientific proof that your god was involved yet, or are you still just attempting to tear down everyone else to your level?

[Angrboda]

Oh, and it turns out the Pleiades aren't gravitationally bound. Bible fail 101.

The Pleiades are a cluster of hundreds of young stars which formed at the same time, from the same nebula. They lie at a mean distance of 425 light-years from Earth. Gravitationally, they're not bound to one another. It's just that only 100 million years have elapsed since their formation, and they've not had enough time to fully disperse.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.p...=5&t=97133

[God of Mr. Hanky]

No, Idiot, DNA is not required to produce RNA!

If the RNA virus needs a living host to replicate, and the host has DNA, are not the RNA viruses still dependent on DNA for their replication?

In terms of RNA viruses arising from chemical reactions, I'll need some scientific proof of this as it appears the origin of viruses is not clear.

"The origins of viruses are unclear: some may have evolved from plasmids—pieces of DNA that can move between cells—while others may have evolved from bacteria." Wiki

---

Who said a virus, or non-cellular life form is necessarily parasitic, and in need of a host to feed on?

The term "virus" has been used loosely to describe a hypothesis for early, pre-cellular life. A virus is not multi-cellular, nor is it unicellular - it's not a cell at all. An early virus-like life form or a form more primitive than this could have fed off of other such life forms, or it may have consumed chemical compounds for energy.

Anything should be regarded as possible, isn't that what you theists say every time your god is denied as unlikely? We do deny it as very, very unlikely, while it's always your side which dumps "impossible" on any ideas which threaten the acceptance of your theism. You really don't know shit about what's possible, nor likely.

[AJW333]

How about the fact that that random = disordered and code = ordered.  A random code is an oxymoron. Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?

So, the more I think about this, the more I find new ways that your argument here is horrible: the DNA that you see in extant organisms today is not exactly random. There is a non-random filter applied strictly to every iteration of DNA in the form of the environment. Mutations are random, but natural selection is not: every organism enters into an environment, and that environment applies its conditions to the organism in a non-random fashion. Those that survive this process, the ones that you have to investigate, are the ones that are ordered and functional enough to exist in the world. There are countless examples of less functional "codes" that either died very quickly, were stillborn, or just plain not viable as a pregnancy.

What you see as a code is not delivered randomly, it's the result of millions of years and potentially trillions of iterations, with the non-functional and failed instances of it filtered out. You're only seeing the successes: it's like firing at a wall at random, painting bullseyes around your bullet holes, and then claiming that the shots could not have been random because they all hit the bullseye!

My comment regarding "random code" is directed to the origin of DNA. What I'm saying is that codes do not naturally form through random activity, especially self-repairing, self-replicating ones that control complex processes such as protein formation.

[AJW333]

It must be very convenient to be able to construct conditions for your beliefs that make them unfalsifiable and without a failure state. The rest of us don't really have that luxury: we have to bend to certain reasonable requirements for logical beliefs, rather than just making up whatever we want to insulate what we want to be true from being refuted.

Concerning Biblical prophecy, I'm not constructing any conditions. The timing of prophetic events may not be revealed in advance but they still all come true, history confirms this.

How do you know you aren't misinterpreting the scripture too? Hell, how do you even know there's something to interpret in the scripture that corresponds to reality?

It pays to look at a range of interpretations before coming to any conclusions. It is abundantly clear from the Scripture that God enjoys giving us riddles and mysteries to solve.

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." Prov 25:2

Does the Scripture have anything to say about reality? Just take a look at the Middle East. Israel has been re-established and her enemies are conspiring daily on ways to annihilate her. Is that not what the Scripture says will happen?

O God, do not remain silent;
do not turn a deaf ear,
do not stand aloof, O God.
2See how your enemies growl,
how your foes rear their heads.
3With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.
4“Come,” they say, “let us destroy them as a nation,
so that Israel’s name is remembered no more.”  Psalm 83

Sounds just like Mr Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Ayatollahs running the show in Iran. So this prophecy represents reality very well.

---

Deleted

---

When we look at the constellations, many of the figures that we see involve stars that are nowhere near each other. The Bible correctly stated that Pleiades was a cluster where the stars are in proximity, and that the stars in Orion are not. How did it know that?

But you know even then people made observations but overall there is enough bullshit in the bible to call it fiction.

How is it possible to know that Pleiades is gravitationally linked and Orion is not?

---

Deleted

---

When we look at the constellations, many of the figures that we see involve stars that are nowhere near each other. The Bible correctly stated that Pleiades was a cluster where the stars are in proximity, and that the stars in Orion are not. How did it know that?

Precisely where does it say that?

Job 38:31. "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?"

---

When we look at the constellations, many of the figures that we see involve stars that are nowhere near each other. The Bible correctly stated that Pleiades was a cluster where the stars are in proximity, and that the stars in Orion are not. How did it know that?

This is the argument from ignorance, again. You're saying we don't know how they could have got this information, therefor you can make up that it was from God. If they had correct information, then determining how they got it is an entirely different matter. They don't get to just state it and have it be fact. If I knew something and you couldn't explain how I knew it, do I get to say it was from a magic talking frog? No. That is a further claim, which needs evidence.

It isn't an argument from ignorance because the writer of the book tells us where the information came from - God.

---

What are the chances of a man 2000 years ago accurately predicting the rebuilding of the Jewish temple when it was destroyed in AD 70 and the nation of Israel hasn't been in existence for even longer than that?

1) Even a clock that does not run is right twice a day.

2) If one waits long enough, pretty much anything will come true.

And what are the odds of a specific prediction defying the odds and coming true? You think it's irrelevant, no matter how unlikely because it doesn't fit your predetermined bias. I think that predictions coming true should be taken seriously, especially when they contain precise detail and are extremely unlikely to occur by random chance, eg the reformation of a nation that hasn't existed for 2000 years.

---

Powerball Odds Are 1 In 175 Million and people (sometimes multiple) hit it all the time.

Did anyone of these winners accurately predict that they would win it?

---

How did the Bible know about astronomical realities?

"God asked Job “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound. They have also discovered that the stars in the belt of Orion are free agents that are not gravitationally bound!6 Interestingly, the three stars that comprise Orion's belt appear to be closer  together than the outer stars in the constellation, but are actually farther apart! (they appear closer together because of the 2-D plane we see them in)." http://www.bibleevidences.com/scientif.htm

They didn't.  You're back patching a modern translation onto the original words.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? (KJV)

The KJV is inaccurate. Do a survey of the most reliable translations eg the ESV,  NAS or ISV and you won't find any mention of "sweet influences." What you get is either "bind the chains" or "bind the cluster."

In Greek mythology, the Pleiades were seven sisters who were roaming free.  One binds that which is free, and loosens that which binds.  The verse is simply consistent with the metaphor which described each phenomena.  They no more knew that the belt of Orion were free stars than that they knew the Pleiades were maidens.  

The Book of Job is considered to be one of the oldest books in the Bible, if not the oldest. It most likely predates the Greek mythology.

[abaris]

The Book of Job is considered to be one of the oldest books in the Bible, if not the oldest. It most likely predates the Greek mythology.

Citation needed. A serious one. Considered by whom, and most importantly, does it predate egyptian mythology also?

The most recent publications date it to the 6th century BC. Which doesn't predate greek mythology and certainly not Egyptian or Babylonian ones.

[Chas]

How is it possible to know that Pleiades is gravitationally linked and Orion is not?

---

Precisely where does it say that?

Job 38:31. "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?"

---

That's a real stretch. It doesn't say that except in your bizarre interpretation.

[Angrboda]

The KJV is inaccurate. Do a survey of the most reliable translations eg the ESV,  NAS or ISV and you won't find any mention of "sweet influences." What you get is either "bind the chains" or "bind the cluster."

Moot point as it turns out your source was wrong about them being 'bound' to begin with.

In Greek mythology, the Pleiades were seven sisters who were roaming free.  One binds that which is free, and loosens that which binds.  The verse is simply consistent with the metaphor which described each phenomena.  They no more knew that the belt of Orion were free stars than that they knew the Pleiades were maidens.  

The Book of Job is considered to be one of the oldest books in the Bible, if not the oldest. It most likely predates the Greek mythology.

The story* in the book of Job is likely one of the oldest in the bible, but it was likely put into writing sometime between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE, thus giving the right time frame for such an anachronism to enter the text.

"The earliest European references are somewhat later, in a poem by Hesiod in about 1000 BC and in Homer's Odyssey and Iliad."
http://www.pleiade.org/pleiades_02.html

[dyresand]

---

But you know even then people made observations but overall there is enough bullshit in the bible to call it fiction.

How is it possible to know that Pleiades is gravitationally linked and Orion is not?

You do realize gravity is the force of attraction between two objects. 

You are comparing a constellation i.e. a distant pattern of stars to 
a open system of stars called a cluster. A cluster on the other hand is 
open and is bound by the gravity of it's members. So of course orion isn't 
going to be bound it's a constellation.  So what's your  point? That it was intelligently 
created because it wasn't. You can map out your own constellation without even 
really trying.

[robvalue]

"Every life I ever lived, I got killed by Arthur Dent!"

Life, the Universe and Everything, by Douglas Adams.

Therefor reincarnation is true, and Christianity is false.