The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

Poe alert!

Seriously, this has to be a windup. The game's up AJW, if that is indeed your real name, or should I say Doctor X!

Remove that mask!

Doctor Evil to you. Thanks.

[robvalue]

I knew it.

Well, you kept that up a long time. Are you pleased with yourself?

[LadyForCamus]

I am STILL confused by the term "Poe." In this case does it mean that AJW isn't a Christian at all? He was faking it the whole time?

[LadyForCamus]

Are you kidding?  You already know the answer to that mr. Science student.

Recapping the question

"Christians believe that God is very active in this world and in the lives of those who believe."

Christians believe on the basis of reason, personal revelation, experience, inner conviction, reading Scripture, etc etc. You can't really put these things under the microscope of scientific scrutiny. As I have said a few times, Christianity is a faith, not a science. It is a bit like you asking for the scientific proof that Mozart wrote good music. To some, he was a musical genius but to others, his stuff is horrible.

Then, you have no good reason for believing ANY of it. That's just another way of saying, "made up," my friend.

[abaris]

In this case does it mean that AJW isn't a Christian at all?  He was faking it the whole time?

That's why I stopped replying to his posts. Only two possibilities remained after all his denial. Either extremely dense and dishonest at the same time, since he quoted us out of context. Or a fake. Both possibilities didn't interest me sufficiently to keep this on.

[pocaracas]

You're trying to compare two completely different things.
The education system that relies on science has tons of evidence behind it.
From Newtonian physics, to chemistry, to quantum mechanics, to biology, to engineering, etc, etc. They all paint a coherent picture. One that requires no god. One where no god is apparent.
Why should a god be inserted where none has shown to be?



enjoy:
https://scholar.google.pt/scholar?q=self+assembly+amino-acids&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7q5Pe8-_LAhWL2xoKHWj1BjkQgQMIGjAA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22421/

Maybe you prefer a simple video? (haha.. can't get to the end... need to register... too bad)
http://study.com/academy/lesson/how-amin...otein.html

I read several of the articles but don't see how amino acid peptides self assemble into usable proteins that we see in the human body. These require complex systems to organize and self check the AA sequences in order to be usable. It is speculation to assume that these self assembling AAs observed in labs are responsible for life as we know it.

: sigh :
Weren't we dealing with abiogenesis?
Human bodies did not show up immediately after self-replicating biological molecules stepped into the picture. Why would you expect those original AAs to produce the exact proteins we have nowadays?

And yes, it will always be speculation. Even if we manage, in the lab, to go from simple molecules CO2, O2, H2, H2O, etc, to AAs, to proteins, to a self replicating entity... we will have demonstrated that the process is possible, but not that this lab-based mechanism is the one that actually happened.
So people like you will always have some wiggle room. Have fun.

[robvalue]

Well, as a Poe, he could still be a Christian but a much more reasonable one. The point is he is playing a character rather than saying what he really believes.

The alternative at this point is very scary.

[AJW333]

I read several of the articles but don't see how amino acid peptides self assemble into usable proteins that we see in the human body. These require complex systems to organize and self check the AA sequences in order to be usable. It is speculation to assume that these self assembling AAs observed in labs are responsible for life as we know it.

: sigh :
Weren't we dealing with abiogenesis?
Human bodies did not show up immediately after self-replicating biological molecules stepped into the picture. Why would you expect those original AAs to produce the exact proteins we have nowadays?

And yes, it will always be speculation. Even if we manage, in the lab, to go from simple molecules CO2, O2, H2, H2O, etc, to AAs, to proteins, to a self replicating entity... we will have demonstrated that the process is possible, but not that this lab-based mechanism is the one that actually happened.
So people like you will always have some wiggle room. Have fun.

Thanks for that. I shall.

[AJW333]

OK, I've been thinking about this "design" business. I can think of three distinct ways an intelligence could be involved in the "creation" of humans.

I will demonstrate each one by an analogy.

1) Initial setup: I fashion a series of connected pipes, and then I released a load of marbles into them. I step back, and take no further part.

2) Influence within continuity: As above, except I am allow to gently tilt the pipes so as to guide the movement of the marbles.

3) Influence without continuity: As above, except I'm also allowed to reach in to take marbles out, put them somewhere else in another pipe, remove them altogether or introduce new marbles.

Which of these three most closely represents what you guys think about the "design" aspect of life? You may well all have different answers.

I'll repeat this question as I didn't get any answers yet.

Is there a "none of the above" option?

[AJW333]

Recapping the question

"Christians believe that God is very active in this world and in the lives of those who believe."

Christians believe on the basis of reason, personal revelation, experience, inner conviction, reading Scripture, etc etc. You can't really put these things under the microscope of scientific scrutiny. As I have said a few times, Christianity is a faith, not a science. It is a bit like you asking for the scientific proof that Mozart wrote good music. To some, he was a musical genius but to others, his stuff is horrible.

Then, you have no good reason for believing ANY of it.  That's just another way of saying, "made up," my friend.

Why does everything have to scientifically provable? Let's face it, abiogenesis has never been proven. It has never been observed, never reproduced and not even understood theoretically, yet you believe it. The reason you believe it is because it makes sense to you - just as a creator makes sense to me. Let's be honest, "faith" is a significant part of the abiogenesis/evolution worldview.

In terms of this "faith" that you have, your God would be science. But there is much that your God can't explain, so why is that OK to you but my God has to be proven with absolute certainty? You appear to take the position that my God must bow to yours, but it is really the other way round. Science is simply the study of how God put things together.