RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
June 9, 2016 at 2:15 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2016 at 2:21 am by Redbeard The Pink.)
(June 8, 2016 at 11:55 pm)snowtracks Wrote:(April 22, 2016 at 1:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Can you hear yourself? "My book says ... so it must be true." Can you seriously not see a problem with such a statement?Well, just no other way to say this: Abiogenesis has been dealt a death blow. It turns out the DNA module is not stable as formerly thought but is in need of continuously repair and maintenance which is performed by the cell itself. This means that the DNA and the cell couldn’t have arisen independent of each other; the cell repairs the DNA, and the DNA preserves the cell’s genetics by copying the original (after repairs, if needed) via cell division.
No, it's possible Darwin could be right about some things and wrong about others. If he "had enough evidence" for whatever God, it has not been preserved for us to examine. A quote from him, in context or otherwise, is not evidence of anything but his state of mind.
We don't believe (some of) his ideas just because he said them. We believe them because they have passed scrutiny. And I should note that his models of evolution have been significantly improved upon in the mean time. Again, by scientific testing. Not by appeals to authority.
“The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these repair systems function at a detailed molecular level”.* C'est la vie evolution, you been found wanting.
*http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...press.html
Please tell me you're not that dumb...
Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same process. Demonstrating a problem with the previously conceived hypotheses about Abiogenesis does exactly fuck-all toward disproving the Theory of Evolution.
Also, Abiogenesis does not have to start at DNA. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when I was in highschool (over 10 years ago) they were already telling us that RNA most likely came before DNA, seeing as how it's more common, single-stranded, and is sometimes used to build and repair DNA. DNA is comprised of naturally occurring materials and is formed and replicated by naturally occurring processes. The fact that it is maintained by a bunch of (also natural) cellular activity does not even begin to prove that it requires supernatural intervention to exist.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
Also, I has a website: www.RedbeardThePink.com
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
Also, I has a website: www.RedbeardThePink.com