The Problem with Christians

[Bob Kelso]

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

Fuck me, really AJW?

[robvalue]

No, that's not the argument from ignorance, it's credulous belief of incredible claims based on nothing.

Wow! So if I write a book, and I write in it that the information came from God, or Einstein dictated it from beyond the grave, then it's true? It really did come from them?

This is massive. Why didn't anyone tell me before!

Does it also apply to forum posts?

[Bob Kelso]

I'm not intentionally trying to be a dick, but goddamnit man that kind of shit gets on my nerves.

I mean what are you, AJW, fucking ten years old? Because that's the kind of thinking you're doing.

Fuck.

[robvalue]

I'm surprised he hasn't noticed the rather obvious problem of two people both having contradictory books, both "from God". How many gods are there?

There's one for each theist. That's how many. "Personal God" couldn't be more accurate.

[AJW333]

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?

What temple are we talking about? The mosque on top of the temple mount?

Don't you even realize what nonsense this is right from the start? It's symbolistic gibberish for everyone to interpret in the way of his liking.

The third Jewish temple. Hasn't been built yet but all the plans are in place. So technically this is not yet a fulfilled prophecy (my mistake) but it will happen as soon as the location is decided on. The re-formation of Israel is undoubtedly a fulfillment of prophecy and that is no small thing. No nation in the history of the world has ceased to exist for 2000 years and then been re-established in its original location. That is not symbolic gibberish.

---

I checked the whole page and found no proof that RNA is generated apart from DNA, just a theory that it did (in the video). I did see this though;

"Propagation  DNA is self-replicating.
 RNA is synthesized from DNA when needed.

It's always the same with people like you... Can't understand that this planet, once, didn't have DNA around... It had something else...
http://www.wired.com/2013/02/proto-rna/

"Origin-of-life researchers have long thought that RNA, the molecular cousin of the DNA that encodes our genes, may have played a starring role in the initial evolution of life from a soup of organic molecules. RNA has a simpler structure than DNA and is a more adept chemical catalyst. So it would seem that RNA-based life might arise more readily than DNA-based life.
...
“The nice thing [about the current study] is this is a demonstration of self-assembly in water,” says Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, an origin-of-life chemist at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California. “That is a step in the right direction.”

Certainly, the puzzle is not solved yet... But this research is promising results in line with the standard theory... From simple elements, molecules, some rudimentary form of genetics spontaneously appeared and then evolved to the complex DNA we see everywhere, today.

Seems like the theory has some significant problems,

"But there are problems with this so-called RNA World hypothesis. For starters, in water, the four chemical components of RNA — the nucleotides abbreviated A, G, C, and U — don’t spontaneously assemble to create sizable molecules. So it remains a mystery how the first long gene-length chains of RNA could have taken shape in Earth’s ancient oceans..............

Unfortunately, in water CA and TAP clump together in large ribbons and sheets and quickly fall out of solution, making it hard to conceive of how these proto-RNAs could have stored genetic information in the earliest stages of life."

---

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?

I have two choices, one is to believe that amazingly complex living systems created themselves via random activity, or that each of these systems has a unique design from an external creative source. You believe that the odds of the former are acceptable and I believe the odds are far better for the latter.

---

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

The cluster is slowly moving in the direction of the feet of what is currently the constellation of Orion. Like most open clusters, the Pleiades will not stay gravitationally bound forever. Some component stars will be ejected after close encounters with other stars; others will be stripped by tidal gravitational fields. Calculations suggest that the cluster will take about 250 million years to disperse, with gravitational interactions with giant molecular clouds and the spiral arms of our galaxy also hastening its demise. [29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades

---

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

"Viruses depend on the host cells that they infect to reproduce. When found outside of host cells, viruses exist as a protein coat or capsid, sometimes enclosed within a membrane. The capsid encloses either DNA or RNA which codes for the virus elements. While in this form outside the cell, the virus is metabollically inert."   http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/virus.html

---

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.

https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/20...k-job-1-5/

---

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

---

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.

It says that the stars of the Pleiades were bound. If not by a force of gravity (or some other force) , then what is it talking about?

[abaris]

https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/20...k-job-1-5/

---

So, a blog, not providing any links to any kind of scientific finds. Good job, but that's not what I meant with "serious".

[AJW333]

---

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.

The point is that the writer knew that the stars in the Pleiades were linked (as Wiki states, by gravity) and that the stars that make up the constellation of Orion were not.

---

I'm not intentionally trying to be a dick, but goddamnit man that kind of shit gets on my nerves.

I mean what are you, AJW, fucking ten years old? Because that's the kind of thinking you're doing.

Fuck.

Easy tiger, you'll give yourself high blood pressure or an aneurysm or something.

As I understand it, an argument from ignorance is asserts that something is true because it has not yet been proven false. This isn't what the Bible is claiming. It is saying that the truth is known and that it has been revealed by God.

[robvalue]

You're applying a high level of scepticism to science, which is good, even if I don't agree with your objections.

Do you think you're applying the same level of scepticism when you say a book is from God because it says it's from God?

[Pat Mustard]

You're applying a high level of scepticism to science, which is good, even if I don't agree with your objections.

The problem is, Rob, he's not applying scepticism to science, he's applyong denialism. It can clearly seen from this thread that like YECs and other biblical literalists, ajw will ignore any evidence or phenomenon which contradicts his personal interpretation of the biblical mythology.

[pocaracas]

It's always the same with people like you... Can't understand that this planet, once, didn't have DNA around... It had something else...
http://www.wired.com/2013/02/proto-rna/

"Origin-of-life researchers have long thought that RNA, the molecular cousin of the DNA that encodes our genes, may have played a starring role in the initial evolution of life from a soup of organic molecules. RNA has a simpler structure than DNA and is a more adept chemical catalyst. So it would seem that RNA-based life might arise more readily than DNA-based life.
...
“The nice thing [about the current study] is this is a demonstration of self-assembly in water,” says Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, an origin-of-life chemist at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California. “That is a step in the right direction.”

Certainly, the puzzle is not solved yet... But this research is promising results in line with the standard theory... From simple elements, molecules, some rudimentary form of genetics spontaneously appeared and then evolved to the complex DNA we see everywhere, today.

Seems like the theory has some significant problems,

"But there are problems with this so-called RNA World hypothesis. For starters, in water, the four chemical components of RNA — the nucleotides abbreviated A, G, C, and U — don’t spontaneously assemble to create sizable molecules. So it remains a mystery how the first long gene-length chains of RNA could have taken shape in Earth’s ancient oceans..............

Unfortunately, in water CA and TAP clump together in large ribbons and sheets and quickly fall out of solution, making it hard to conceive of how these proto-RNAs could have stored genetic information in the earliest stages of life."

Why did you stop reading at that and miss the part I quoted from that article?
“The nice thing [about the current study] is this is a demonstration of self-assembly in water,”... thus providing a mechanism to skip that difficulty where you got stuck.