Let’s have another go at why the Bible is just a worthless book.
According to the god (damned) book, our whole universe was poofed into existence about 6000 years ago.
So, being curious folk, what do we see when we look at creation? Do we see a world with “new car smell”? Maybe a couple owners? No.
The world is not a static thing. It’s constantly being worn down, tossed around by upheaval, re-cut, re-used and worn down again, and has been for millions of years.
Mountains are not stuck. Mt. Everest grows about 1/2 inch every year! That isn’t a lot by a human lifetime… But for mountain nerds like me I’ve had to learn that while it was 29,028 ft when I was young, it is now officially 29,029 ft. And it will be 29,030 ft before I retire.
Rivers are not stuck. The bends in rivers develop as water bounces off an obstacle and cut an ever increasing loop. Over time, these loops can become so extreme that the river cuts them off, leaving former river loop ponds.
Continents are not stuck. Allowing for variances of topography, the Atlantic Ocean grows by 5-10 cm every year. When Jesus was supposedly walking around Jerusalem, my continent (North American) was a couple of (American) football field lengths closer than it is now.
And it’s not just that everything is moving, it is also being worn down. As water travels downward on a constant attempt to find level, it is slowly but constantly changing the landscape. Water that takes hundreds of years to cut a 7 inch bowl in a rock have chopped hundreds of feet off of major cliff formations.
What does this mean? It means that everywhere we look, we find examples of things that have been building up, and being worn down for a very long time. Young earth creationists would have you believe that rivers, mountains, continents, cuts, ravines, gullies, channels, hills, knolls, and valleys were created 6000 years ago. But a valley is a worn down hillside. A mountain is a clashing continental plate. To create these features, this bible god would have to create something with pre-worn out features.
The stupid burns. But let’s roll with it.
Imagine this. There is a car company that makes cars with the bearings partially worn out. They pour in old, dirty oil. They make wiring harnesses, but first lay them out and run them over dozens of times on a desert flat before installing them. All tires destined for the left front are ground down on the inside tread. Body paneling is finished, then shot at with a shotgun and left in a pile of junk for 3 years before final installation. Let’s call this company Glory to Our Deity (GOD).
Ken Ham or similar dipshit would have you believe that this is a superbly constructed vehicle. The squeaking of the wheel lets you know you’re moving, and the smoke gives you a visual reminder. There is no stated manufacturers guarantee, but the slick car salesman said if anything happens, we get a brand new BMW for free. (Not included in the paperwork, but have faith!)
The erratic electrical issues test our loyalty to the brand. (GOD cars! If they don’t work, you don’t believe in us enough!) If we keep buying GOD cars, they buy us a house. I mean, somebody said that once.
They pull to the left because, um, sometimes bad things happen on the right, and, so, the car could save you if you forgot to steer under that specific circumstance…..
The rust was designed to be on the vehicle because…
Okay, lets face it. I can’t make up a lie as to why a brand new vehicle has rust on it. It takes a preacher to lie that much. An old vehicle is just that. And no amount of excuses changes that fact.
Yes, the world is old and beat up. The world of 6000 years ago had the equivalent of rust, worn out bearings, degraded wiring, and worn tires. We know this because the bible TELLS US. Mountains, valleys, seas, cliffs and river valleys are all in the old testament, and all examples of worn out, beat up, smashed, ground down, and fallen parts.
Maybe, just maybe, god is a complete douche and sold us a lemon. God sold us a lemon, or the bible is wrong. Your choice, Christians.
The Spartan Atheist
The Spartan Atheist 
When I was a kid I found a rock with a seashell fossil in it, in a creekbed. So that shell was originally embedded in sand, that sand was under pressure long enough to solidify into a solid rock, that rock formation was uplifted enough to weather out and break off that chunk, which was then exposed to water erosion long enough to round off the broken edges and expose the fossil, and then it washed down to the relatively flat creek area where I found it. When people tried to tell me the earth was only 6,000 years old, I said Hah! One look at that fossil told me they were full of it! Even back when I was religious I knew the young-earth stuff was crap. (That fossil is sitting on my mantel now.)
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thanks, Ubi! This post started as an observation of a waterfall that my girlfriend and I visited recently. Although a full discussion and pictures of the waterfall didn’t make the final cut, it did make a cameo in this article.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One just needs to know just a little bit about rock formation to know that young earth is crap
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If” there was a god and this is his doing, it’s all outta love and mercy to teach lessons no one can comprehend.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is always amazing to me that completely ridiculous, messed up, and backwards is considered “mysterious.” It’s not mysterious, your god is an idiot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The key to solving the mysteries in unbelief. Faith is a backwards endeavor that kills rational thought.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Let’s pretend that the earth is a multi-billion year old rock. But we don’t think plant life is that old. How old? Well, that doesn’t really matter. Let’s go to the first one. There has to be a first one, right? So, for illustration, let’s say the first one was a blade of grass. Did it start from a seed? Where did it come from. Oh, maybe from another planet via asteroid, or comet. That takes us to another first one. I probably haven’t thought this through, but, I can’t help but wonder. The simple things seem to me to make the billions of years unworkable. And, how do we know how the world looked at the beginning?
LikeLike
I guess the short answer is, we don’t know what the world looked like at the beginning. I mean, we know some basic stuff, but there’s a lot that we kinda have to piece together. And this kinda sorta leads to your question about the “first one”.
I’m not sure how you feel about evolution, but please just follow me on this for a second. The first “one”, would more likely have been a pool of chemistry that grew in complexity due to the reactions of whatever early earth environment it was in. Now, scientists don’t know exactly what the right answer was, but they have been able to replicate possible earth conditions in the lab, and that chemistry produced self-reproducing proteins. This is an observed, repeatable experiment.
So if our pool of self-replicating proteins continues to do so, and there is variation in the reproduction, then we have all we need for evolution. Proteins that latch on to other types of proteins in a manner that keeps them viable longer reproduce more. Cells form. Cells specialize. Speciation occurs. Over time, specialized cells with different traits are able to better aid each other via symbiotic relationships, Eventually, these two or few types of cells become so completely dependent on each other that they literally will not survive without the other type of cells. Multi-cellular organisms are now emerging. Pools of multi-cellular organisms spill into other pools and spread. In some pools, the cells find it useful to attach themselves to an object and remain stationary. These organisms’ offspring that have characteristics better suited to this kind of existence live longer and reproduce more. So the pool’s population of attaching organisms, over time, shifts toward these features. Simple plants.
And etcetera. This model doesn’t just make millions of years workable, it actually requires millions of years, or there wouldn’t be enough time for those organisms to turn into grass, trees, corn, seaweed, and all the other plants.
So yeah, if we were ever able to conclusively demonstrate that the world is only thousands of years old, evolution would be a wrecked prospect. But all observations, all measurements, and indications are that it is very, very old.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So, really, the basis for all you said about evolution is because you believe the earth is really really old, and, that, if it wasn’t that old all these things that you “believe” (without proof, or maybe real evidence) would fall apart.
LikeLike
Not at all. The world is old, and we can know it is old, via dozens of lines of independent evidence. Full stop.
Along comes the evolution idea. It requires an old earth. Luckily, that idea is already established for completely independent reasons that have nothing to do with evolution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Randy I am trying to comprehend how the lack of knowledge of the origins of plant life implies the earth is young
For the most part, what you wrote didn’t show how a young earth is tenable. You asked good questions, but what I don’t get is how you arrived at this conclusion, since you didn’t provide explanations for why these questions show a young earth
Lets assume plant life began 6000 years ago, this does not in any way show that the earth is also a couple of thousand years old
LikeLike
I’m not dogmatic on young earth, though I tend that way. But the point I was trying to make is that there has to be a first plant, reproducible, and able to get nourishment. So complex. I can’t fathom a gradual random process.
LikeLike
No offense, but your almost non-knowledge of science isn’t very convincing.
LikeLike
No offense taken. I’m still working for a living…don’t have time at the keyboard as some do.
LikeLike
I’m still trying to figure out if that was a put-down or a compliment.
LikeLike
Eh, take it as a compliment. You are intelligent, even if you or I can’t know everything. So, use your intelligence to learn about evolution. It’s facinating stuff.
LikeLike
So basically what you are saying is that plant life is too complex to come from natural processes, so god must be the answer
So is god more complex than plant life?
If god is more complex, then you haven’t answered anything, you have just pushed the question one step further just like if I had said life on earth came from outer space, but this is by the way. If god is more complex, then how is god in existence, because you would just be saying that plant life is so complex and even more complex being had to have created it, you still need to account for the existence of these “hypothetical more complex being”
If god is not more complex than plant life, then you wouldn’t be saying anything as the original premise is that plant life is complex and so can not come from random natural processes. If god is not as complex as plant life, you would be basically saying that plant life can arise from simpler processes
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t explain eternal to you. It is hard enough for me to grasp. But I believe, in the beginning, he was already there. Sounds eternal.
LikeLike
Yeah if we were created then the creator didn’t know jack shit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No kidding. Thanks, God, for making my breathing tube dual function as my liquid and food intake tube. Only some people die from this engineering oversight…
LikeLiked by 2 people
And yet, we can actually put words together in our evolved minds, and think that we know, even though we are short-sighted and blind.
LikeLike
Good point, Randy. Our eyesight is also ridiculously complex, because it has had to overcome enormous shortcomings in our eyes.
All our eye “wiring” runs in front of the light receptors, and all the wires bundle together and go through at a point, which means there is no room for receptors at this point. Our eye has a design flaw that leaves a blind spot. Therefore, our brain has had to generate “software” to eliminate the blind spot.
This is the epitome of stupid design. This and other problems are why we are so greatful to live in a world of science, where our human shortcomings can be tested for accuracy. Because of science, we don’t burn witches at the stake, for example.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Man, I am not nearly smart enough to see flaws in his incredible machine we call our body. The ways it nourishes, let’s me know when I need water, restores with sleep, restores with laughter….
LikeLike
Lots of amazing things about our bodies. But also lots of flaws. If we aren’t getting oxygen, we panic. Good, right? Only our body doesn’t actually sense a shortage of oxygen, it senses a concentration of CO2. As a result, if we aren’t getting oxygen because of some other gas, our bodies don’t recognize the threat and we pass out and die with no physical sign of panic. This killed my great uncle.
We also are unable to see infrared light. So countless people over the years died of skin cancer because we have an invisible enemy.
We have a vestigial feature that used to kill lots of other people until the last snip (about 100 years) of human history- appendicitis. This useless feature had a purpose once upon a time, but now is nothing more than a ticking time bomb.
Our spinal column is a horrible design. Back problems plague our species. If our body could be designed from scratch, I personally could propose at least 2 or 3 different, better designs.
But as evolved creatures, we can only take what was already available and modify it.
And then there are problems of reproduction….. Wow, billions of deaths from that screw up alone.
Yes, our bodies are fantastic machines. But they’re also full of flaws. Flaws that would get any engineer fired for incompetency. Our failure rate is just so ridiculously high, no company would stand by such a poor product.
I truly appreciate what I have. But I also wear sunscreen and sunglasses, because I have to protect myself from what we lack.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you could blame the Creator…but wait…there is no God…so evolution is doing the best it can? Or…you could say that we have broken the original intent for the uses of our bodies…broke the warranty, so to speak. The fault lies with us, not with the Maker.
LikeLike
So, you are proposing that 6000 years ago, someone committed a crime, and as a result, we all have to suffer the punishment?
LikeLike
No I am saying that we all committed the crime.
LikeLike
No, the bible is terribly specific. Because of Eve’s crime, all women for the rest of history have had to face potentially lethal child birth. All women and all children for the history of mankind are playing a game of Russian roulette because of one specific crime commited specifically by Eve.
Or are you saying that we should all inherit the crimes of our ancestors?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But, I am perfect proof that if Eve hadn’t done the crime, the next human would have. And the next. And the next.
Funny thing, though. Eve was promised a deliverer from the “crime” she committed. A chance to step back into the grace of God. Me, too.
LikeLike
I’m not sure which is more ridiculous.
That you shrug off the idea of punishing people for crimes committed by ancestors…
Or that you pretended there is an upside loophole, and failed to note that we are still being punished despite the loophole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did I shrug? I don’t remember a shrug. I think I said that we all committed the same crime. We all deserve punishment. But, we can be forgiven for the crime. We can be set free from the punishment. The judge made a loophole. I’m not being punished anymore.
LikeLike
No, we don’t all commit the same crime. Eve committed the crime, and convinced Adam to do so as well. Nobody else in the history of mankind committed the same crime. Yet everyone in the history of mankind is being punished by that crime.
Yes, you are still being punished. Just because you mumble happy things about Jesus doesn’t change the fact that all the women in your life face life-threatening reproduction. They or their children could die during childbirth specifically because God cursed all of us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You say we didn’t commit the same crime. What was the crime? Was it turning from the One True God to follow a counterfeit? Every one of us does that. My will be done….
LikeLike
A crime, dear Randy, MUST be a specific action, at a specific time and place.
“Did bad stuff” is not a crime. “At or about 2PM on Wednesday, day 12 of earths existence, at the forbidden tree, did partake from the fruit of said tree” is a crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You shall have no other gods before me. Stated in Exodus, implied in the beginning was a law that everyone of us broke. Every one. When the one who makes the rules is the judge, well, “he don’t need no stinking lawyer,” to argue against him. And, since he makes the rules, and he is the judge, then he gets to determine the sentence. And who receives the penalty. I let someone else take my penalty. The judge said that was the best thing I could do…kinda like pleading guilty and throwing myself at the mercy of the court.
LikeLike
Randy, maybe you haven’t read the bible, but Eve didn’t have the 10 commandments. That law didn’t come around for another 2000 years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know, but she had the Creator. He spoke directly to Adam.
LikeLike
And did God tell Adam “I am the lord your god, you shall have no other gods before me”?
LikeLike
No he just said, don’t eat from that tree. All the others are okay. Just not that one.
LikeLike
Okay, so we have a specific crime, at a specific time, by specific people.
Were you there, were you one of those two people, and did you commit that crime?
LikeLike
Are you trying to convince me that God is not real or that God is unjust?
LikeLike
That is a fair question.
This article was intended to highlight the failure of the bible.
Then I have multiple people commenting on a couple different articles… And I’ve gotten off topic.
This article highlights one of the ways the bible is wrong. There are hundreds. Additionally, the character of god is a total dick. That he is unjust is clearly written in black and white.
For many people, realizing that bible god is a total dick opens their eyes to the bullshit lies and excuses about the “loving god” spread by the pulpit and apologists. Then, upon further review, they realize just how wrong the whole book is.
The bible is demonstrably wrong, as is Christianity.
But does this mean there is no God? Not necessarily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Until you talk to someone who the power and love of God has changed. In the old Testament there are references to a time when God will replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh. That happened to me. And I am not alone. Funny how important it is to you to try to tear down someone who has experienced the fruits of the spiritual life on a daily basis for 40 years ( mentioned in Galatians 5). What have you got to offer besides hopelessness and abject selfishness? Just asking.
LikeLike
Reality. Every other religion in the world has adherents that claim their god touched their hearts.
So basically, either millions of people from thousands of religions- you included- are all mistaken, or all are mistaken except one. And as I noted before, you obviously haven’t spent any time at all worrying about what the truth is. Once you get an answer you like, you stop. You demonstrated that at least 6 times since we have started talking.
I care about the truth. I’m an adult, I can handle it. No Santa Claus? Okay. No Jesus? Okay. No God? Okay. I don’t have to have a blankie to feel better, I just want the truth, and I’ll deal with it responsibly.
And just because I don’t believe in Santa Claus doesn’t mean my life is devoid of meaning. I have lots and lots of things I love, cherish, enjoy, am passionate about, and can give to others.
YOU have god to hang your hope and forgiveness and patience. Hey, that’s fine and all, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to. That’s just silly. If someone doesn’t like, say, football, I don’t assume they sit around the house Sunday and Monday evenings and cry. They do other things.
I’m not destroying hope, I’m destroying false hope in an imaginary reason, and replacing it for real hope in the real world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, but miners the only one whose God became a man, died, and came back to life, then said he would always be with me, and kept his promise. And now, like an idiot, because he stayed with me I get to talk to you about him. Go figure.
LikeLike
Actually, there are at least a half-dozen gods that became man, died, and came back to life. Hundreds of years before Jesus, even.
LikeLike
Can you give me evidence that supports what you just said
You have any real address other than an imaginary one that I can check to know that your god is in this planet. Or a photo with your god will suffice
Can you care to tell me your how you are so certain that Dionysus wasn’t brought back to life, or Hercules didn’t ascend to Olympus after his death or the stories behind Osiris and Krishna. Believers of such tales both past and present would have made a claim similar to yours. But from what you just said you think the rest are mistaken, so I guess you have evidence that the proponents of these other figures don’t
I am quite certain that you don’t accept this claim
But you do accept the one illustrated in the gospel, why is that the case. I would prefer an answer that is not a version of I believe, therefore I’m right
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, you cannot see him unless he reveals Himself to you. Is that so hard to grasp? An all powerful invisible being who made the heavens and earth is not powerful enough to make himself visible only to the ones that want to find Him?
LikeLike
So he likes playing hide and seek? Billions of people across the world that are destined to hell, and god thinks it’s what? funny to play hide and seek?
LikeLiked by 1 person
How different is this from the mist in roman mythology and the illusions in greek mythology
Where the gods can hide themselves from the eyes of mortals and are only seen if they want to be, other times they create illusions for mortals to see
What is the difference between “no god” and “a god that is perfectly hidden”
What is the difference between “me not having an alien living in my house” and “an alien that is only seen by those who the alien wants to see him or her or it, and I happen to be the only one”. This is what is called a hallucination
What is the difference between “Apollo doesn’t ride the sun chariot” and “Apollo rides the sun chariot but is only seen by those he choses to reveal himself to otherwise you won’t see any sun chariot”
This is sounding in my head as a case of the Emperor’s new groove.
What is the difference between “not having a unicorn” and “having an invisible non-tangible unicorn”.
What you are saying sound’s more like a conspiracy theory.
I can’t live my life based on rumors about god, many religions both past, present and maybe future all have painted different pictures of god sometimes incompatible pictures, where if I follow the ways of one I am not following the ways of some other picture of god. Until there is evidence I can’t make such a commitment
In Orphism, the creator of the universe is a being called KHRONOS ( who is literally time and eternity ). Why did I cite this one of many “creator” tales, if they were Orphic apologist in the present time, they could potentially have a better argument for their “god” than what you are saying here
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand. I can’t help it. I wasn’t particularly interested in God, until I was. Then I found him. I don’t expect you to accept this. But, it didn’t just happen to me. I’ve heard thousands of similar testimonies…each different situations but similar meetings. And then… The Bible backs it up. Go figure. Plus, this connection didn’t fade with time or with examination. It actually grew stronger. You are not the first guys who tell me these things.
LikeLike
Lol! The Bible only backs up modern Christianity if you read it with squinted eye, from a distance, and a preacher reads it to you from faulty memory. Bible god is so horrible that all you have to do is replace the word “god” with “Allah” or “Hitler” and people wholeheartedly agree the character is a monster.
Then, (yes, these experiments have been done), after condemning the speaker of the words thinking it was Hitler or Allah, the Christian is told it’s actually the word of god per the bible. Then the excuse factory just starts going crazy.
“Oh, well GOD can say that because CONTEXT!” (Spoiler, they dont know the context)
“Oh, god can say that because he KNEW something.” (What, we will never know.)
Its disgusting watching good people make excuses for the vile character in the bible.
Randy, you are better than that. Call a spade a spade, for crying out loud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now, I have no idea what your “divine experience” was, but most testimonies I have heard both as a christian and now an atheist revolved around “god” saving the individual or someone the person giving the testimony know from some sort of disease, natural disaster or some form of unfortunate situation or “god” improved something in their life whether business, health, relationship, profession etc
But the thing is I myself have heard the exact same thing in other religions particularly Islam and Hindu. As a growing child I had muslim neighbors and muslim friends in school, I have also heard believers of hinduism claim such to be the work of Krishna, Vishu, Shashti etc
I know someone who said that he knew Allah existed when he was rescued form drowning ( I have also heard similar for other religion )
One thing I noticed was that all these testimonies/miracles are attributed to the god(s) we are most familar with, regardless of how serious our devotion to them are
So most of the testimonies account don’t prove anything
You can read the sad story of Orit a muslim woman who has “survived by the grace of Allah”
https://theethiopiaprojects.org/2017/02/17/orits-journey-of-horror-and-hope/
Saying the bible backs it up is nothing as I can show how the quran could back many miracles up
If we were to consider a young girl in ancient greek who was saved from some form of natural disaster. She would have most likely given praises to Artemis. Because what they thought was the nature of Artemis would back “this testimony”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots of amazing things about our bodies. But also lots of flaws. If we aren’t getting oxygen, we panic. Good, right? Only our body doesn’t actually sense a shortage of oxygen, it senses a concentration of CO2. As a result, if we aren’t getting oxygen because of some other gas, our bodies don’t recognize the threat and we pass out and die with no physical sign of panic. This killed my great uncle.
We also are unable to see infrared light. So countless people over the years died of skin cancer because we have an invisible enemy.
We have a vestigial feature that used to kill lots of other people until the last snip (about 100 years) of human history- appendicitis. This useless feature had a purpose once upon a time, but now is nothing more than a ticking time bomb.
Our spinal column is a horrible design. Back problems plague our species. If our body could be designed from scratch, I personally could propose at least 2 or 3 different, better designs.
But as evolved creatures, we can only take what was already available and modify it.
And then there are problems of reproduction….. Wow, billions of deaths from that screw up alone.
Yes, our bodies are fantastic machines. But they’re also full of flaws. Flaws that would get any engineer fired for incompetency. Our failure rate is just so ridiculously high, no company would stand by such a poor product.
I truly appreciate what I have. But I also wear sunscreen and sunglasses, and test the CO alarms in my house, because I have to protect myself from what we lack.
LikeLike
But isn’t it amazing the ways that we are designed to even overcome difficulties, and to rise above them. We could all be superheroes, invulnerable, and we would have no desire to maintain a relationship with the one who made us. Some of us decided we were better than our creator anyway. Not me. I know my limitations. I can’t even trick you into thinking I have a working knowledge of how “science” works. But…I am learning how my God works…a little bit at a time…and I like how that is going. He is way more interesting than I am.
LikeLike
Oh, which reminds me of something else. Let’s pretend the creation went according to God’s plan. Adam and eve obeyed.
Think of how ridiculous this world would be. If nobody dies, then by now we wouldn’t even be standing on the planet. We would be standing on a mile-high pile of people.
Since we can’t die, that means that we can’t starve to death or die from disease. But animals can. So we would all be alive but there would be no plants or animals left at all in the world.
Jesus didn’t set up a kingdom of Jews on earth like the Jews expected, and we are told it’s because he is setting up a kingdom in heaven. But if nobody dies, then… Nobody goes to heaven. And if Adam and Eve don’t sin, then the entire Jesus story is useless. So why did Jesus have to exist from the beginning of time to save us, if we didn’t have the fall?
I guess what I’m saying is, by the bible’s own account, if Eve wasn’t tempted, the entire plot is just stupid and useless. So god would have required original sin. (This explains why he put the hand grenade in the nursery.) And since god required original sin to kick off his plan, he is punishing us for not only doing what he knew we would do, but for doing what he needed to happen!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, since the beginning there has been a voice calling out “Did God really say…?” “You can’t believe that…” “You won’t really die…”” You will be as powerful as Him…” Sounds like someone else I know.
LikeLike
You didn’t address my comment at all. You ignored it in it’s entirety. If Eve hadn’t been tempted, the entire thing falls apart. It is absolutely necessary for the rest of the story. Therefore, god either was ignorant or an asshole. Those are the only choices. What say you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He made them, giving them the choice to choose him or not. He was the Maker, so to not choose him would be kind of foolish. But, we, by nature are fools, aren’t we? On another subject, do you ever just wonder how the ear that hears came to be? The actual process? I grew up seeing all the “science” documentaries that explained these evolutionary processes with very believable animation. And I believed. It wasn’t until I was “captured” by God that I even began to question what I had learned. When you read a journal or scientific explanation that backs up what you believe, do you ever question if you could duplicate that experiment?
You said something about that I should really study evolution and how fantastic it is. You should try reading the Bible with the spirit of the Living God inside you.
LikeLike
You still didn’t answer the question. The world and the entire concept of heaven doesn’t work if Eve isn’t tempted.
Yes, the ear is completely explainable. Yes, I was a fully believing Christian, and I’ve actually read the whole bible. Like a book. Cover to cover. That’s why I know how ridiculous and horrible it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Were you ever “born again” as Jesus says in John 3 that you must be in order to see? You are right that everything rests on the fact that Eve would succumb to the temptation of the enemy. And yet, God still makes a way for us to come back.
LikeLike
So was god ignorant, or just an asshole?
LikeLike
You have no idea what God is like. I asked you why you considered yourself a Christian. What were the conditions that made you a follower of Jesus?
LikeLike
I’ll answer that after we resolve this question.
God’s plan was logically and physically impossible if Eve wasn’t tempted. Did god not know that, or did he know it and didnt care?
LikeLike
God knew that, God cared, and even though human kind took its own way, (not free, by the way, but in bandage to an enemy of the Most High) God still provided a payment for the rebellious ones.
LikeLike
Your answer makes absolutely no sense. God cared… but still punished every living human with pain and suffering and death. That’s not at all what I would consider caring. Is this how you treat your family?
LikeLike
I and thespartanatheist were once christians, if you read his about page you would know that. And I and he read the bible ( though I can only speak for myself but if you from this post and his other post you would know that he to have read it )
When you read a journal or scientific explanation that backs up what you believe, do you ever question if you could duplicate that experiment?
If you have read about some part of the history of science and the scientific process, you would know that science deals with evidence. When Charles Darwin first published his “On the origin of species”, they were strong objections from the scientific community or even Copernicus or Galileo because they wasn’t enough evidence. Science isn’t as dogmatic as religion, in science if the evidence doesn’t support the theory, the theory is wrong and is discarded
But in religion, if the evidence doesn’t support the dogma, the evidence is wrong
Sure I by myself can’t reproduce all the experiments, but depending on what the amount of evidence they scientific community has gotten, that is what will support whatever is found in the scientific journal
You don’t need to believe any single thing I said
Dr. Francis Collins is a physician and geneticist known for spearheading the Human Genome Project and for his landmark discoveries of disease genes. Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation in November 2007 and served as its president until August 16, 2009, when he resigned to become director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Francis Collins is a christian who based on his credentials was in a perfect position to “expose evolution to be a fraud” but he didn’t, though he believes in a theistic evolution
… We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years …We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
You can read more at his site https://biologos.org/about-us/our-mission/
Or N.T. Wright. Though he doesn’t have a science degree but he affirms evolution just like Dr. Francis Collins. He isn’t someone like me that you described that reads scientific journals to support my believe in evolution .https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/nt-wright-if-creation-is-through-christ-evolution-is-what-you-would-expect
Or Deborah Haarsma who served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Still a christian who could have used her position in physics to support a young earth but didn’t do that. She is a old earther and accepts evolution
Or Praveen Sethupathy, Dennis Venema who is professor of biology. These are all christians who are in a position to “debunk evolution” but they rather affirm it
You should try reading the Bible with the spirit of the Living God inside you.
Randy you should read the Vedas with the spirit of the almighty Krishna or the Theogony ask Athena for understanding
It wasn’t until I was “captured” by God that I even began to question what I had learned.
How were you “captured” by god and what evidence pointed you in the direction of chrisitianity
But Randy You have not answered many of my questions or those of thespartanatheist
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you consider yourself an atheist? I would be interested in the same question I asked Spartan about whether he had been “born again” as Jesus had said was necessary.
LikeLike
Now like many things in christianity there is disagreement among different denominations on what being “born again” mean
I don’t know which meaning you ascribed to it
But based on the christian denomination and some other christian denominations ( though not all ) I was a member of, yes I was “born again”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Randy can you elaborate
The whole concept of evolution doing its best is nonsensical. Imperfection is expected in a natural process and not in the product of a perfect being
Can you tell me how the development of cancer in a neonate or the presence of an appendix, the presence of the blind spot in the eye, is as a result of breaking the original intent for the uses of our bodies
How is the ionizing effect of radiation on the human body the fault of human beings or the fact that food could potentially ended the air ways due to the anatomical structure of the human body a fault of human beings
LikeLiked by 1 person
The evolution doing the best it can was sarcasm. Sorry, I should have said. I thought it was more obvious. Breaking the original intent was breaking the original relationship with the Maker. Everything falls apart when that happens.
LikeLike
Like I said I don’t see how the flawed anatomical structures and biological processes present in humans is any fault of the human
The ionizing effect of radiation on humans is in no way the fault of human beings
LikeLike
Again, God’s purpose was not to make an all powerful human being who didn’t need anybody. In our weaknesses we find strength.
LikeLike
Randy, let’s assume that the Adam and Eve story were to be true and the earth is a couple of thousand years old
They would be evidence in human genes
The current diversity in the human population couldn’t have come from a two people bottleneck in such a short time. Mutation, natural selection and other natural processes that we have observed to be the cause of differences in human genes wouldn’t have been able to cause the level of diversity we have observed in such a short time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, to each their own.. I guess the only way to find out is when we die.. Then we shall see if the bible is right or wrong.. Good-luck sir! For someone who doesnt believe in a God, you know the bible a little too well lol..
LikeLike
I have to, Lina. Christians are constantly trying to ram their religion into the public sphere.
As for if we’re right or wrong, I’d like you to consider Janism. If you are wrong about Janism, you are going to hell when you die.
Janists are truly non-violent and peaceful. Janes are not allowed to kill animals, plants, or bugs. They eat food that does not hurt the host, like fruit, dairy, and nuts.
If god truly is love, and doesn’t want us to kill creation, then you are potentially following a murderous religion that would make god weep.
Are you interested in becoming Janist now?
LikeLike
Like I said, to each their own. There are SO MANY religions and beliefs floating around in life. I dont knock down anyone else’s. BUT, I also dont like seeing others knocking down mine. You dont believe in ANY God, which is good for you. I have nothing against that, I was taught that it everyones right to choose freely what they choose to believe in. I never force my religion on anyone, but I dont like to see others put down what I believe in as well. I dont know your story, and I am sure that aside from our differences, youre probably a fun, easy going person. I have nothing to lose in believing in the bible or Jesus. I mean, I have my own relationship with Jesus to know its real, for ME. But I would rather believe, die, find out it was all true with nothing to lose than to not believe, die and find out the hard way that it was all true. You know? I will admit, there are some Christians that will ruin it for the rest of us because they dont really realize that theyre forcing our beliefs into others faces. But we just love to share about our Gods goodness. It doesn’t hurt anyone nor does it hinder someone either. We just share in hopes that it would help the next person. If that person isnt you, then buddy, just ignore it. You sound like you’ve already made a decision in your head to not believe and I applaud you for at least choosing something. Although I will disagree with your opinions, you’re very free to express them.
LikeLike
Thanks, Lina. I don’t know it if you realized it when you typed it, because you seem like a nice person, but “I guess you will find out when you die” is a threat. It is a threat of hell. It is a threat akin to a mob man walking into a store and saying “it’d be a shame if something were to happen to your store….” It is a thinly veiled threat.
You probably didn’t realize it because people in the Christian community use that threat so flippantly all the time that it kinda holds no meaning.
If you don’t wish for me to challenge your beliefs, I respect that as long as you don’t challenge mine.
While I respect people, I do not respect their belief in this silly, antiquated god. Christianity is the leading force for making our poor education system even worse, by refusing to teach good science and smuggling in demonstrably ridiculous and superstitious ideas. This is why I blog. If Christians were just Christians at home, I wouldn’t care. But they wish to make our future generations less educated, less able to keep up with technology, less able to earn decent wages, and less able to improve their health. This is dumb, and I vehemently oppose it.
TSA
LikeLiked by 2 people
OMG I am so sorry. I really wasn’t thinking, sitting in this hot sun smh. I reacted without thinking my words carefully. I honestly just said the first thought that came to mind, well because its really the only way we will find out if what we believe in is true or not.
I think thou that I could have said it in a nicer way 🤦🏻♀️😅.
I actually believe in Science. You will be surprised, there are Science Professors that are Christians who thrive and LOVE science. Youd be surprised how the the bible and science actually make sense together. I forgot what I watched but it explained it more in depth.
Anyways, even though you dont believe in it. God bless & have a great day! & regardless of whether you know it or not, Jesus loves you 😉
LikeLike
I appreciate your apology and accept it.
I know that many Christians believe in science and accept evolution and all that stuff. Also, that is not an endorsement of Christianity. There are Muslim scientists, Jewish scientists, Janist scientists, Hindu scientist, etc. Hell, scientists can believe in the tooth fairy if they really want.
But in science, it’s about what you can demonstrate. Not only is there no evidence for god, there is no good way to make the bible fit our current understanding of the world through science.
But if they can believe without evidence, it doesn’t really matter.
Thanks again for visiting my blog, and have a great day!
TSA
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haha nice one. Here’s some additional things to ask creationists:
– If the entire earth (including Mount freaking Everest) was covered in water, where did all this water go?
– How can it be that the light from stars spend millions of years traveling to us (so we can see the stars with our eyes), yet the earth is only 6000 years old?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately, it’s easy to come up with answers when you just make shit up without evidence…
LikeLiked by 2 people
lol fair point, and that’s exactly what they have done with my questions. You always hope though, that some people being asked questions like that will actually give it serious thought, as opposed to just sticking their head up their asses. I guess I’m referring to people who believed in Creationism because it’s all they have ever been told.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Covert, I wonder if the speed of light was always as slow as it is now? Do you know. Maybe it is slowing down, too. Don’t know, but it is possible. We weren’t there to measure it, even 6000 years ago. And that’s not that long. But no one even knows what it was like then.
LikeLike
You would have to provide evidence for the drastic difference in the speed of light, until then your comment holds no merit.
If the speed of light was decreasing in velocity, IT WOULD BE OBSERVED, we have not had any such observation, if evidence that proves what you said is found sometime in the future I would change my mind
Lets be hypothetical
If the speed of light were to have been faster to make the earth 6000 years old. The speed of light would have to be far greater than 100 times it’s current value ( though lets assume the speed of light is 100 times it’s current value )
Lets say the speed of light was 100 times it’s current value, what would be the consequence
Short answer they universe that we know won’t exist
Long answer
The speed of light is a squared constant in e=mc2, so multiplying it by 100 means atomic reactions — nuclear bombs and plants, and solar fusion — will be approximately 10,000 times more powerful
1) Make it impossible for a star’s gravity to hold it together against its fusion core unless it’s super-massive.
2) Or make it so stars expand more (greater internal pressure from fusion vs the constriction force of gravity).
Either of which would probably make our form of life impossible. Certainly our solar system wouldn’t exists in its current form.
Basically our solar system would not exist, even if it did the sun would have literally eaten the earth ( that is if earth would even exist ). So me and you wouldn’t be here having this discussion
What else would happen
1) Visible light (~1000 nanometres) would be as dangerously ionizing as X-ray radiation is on earth (~10 nanometres). UV light would be like gamma rays
2) Magnetic fields would be much weaker, by a factor of 10000. Basically, forget about the magnetic field of earth.
3) The atoms that we know wouldn’t exist and the molecules that they form wouldn’t be the same. All chemistry will be different as chemical stability depends critically on the binding forces between constituent atoms. So basically, forget about having water or any organic molecule or air. Oops just realize LIFE AS WE KNOW IT WOULD NOT EXIST. The trees, animals, humans, and non living structures we have since recorded history ( let’s ignore all the fossils we have discovered ) would not exist
4) The observable universe would be far larger than what it currently is
To cut the whole story short, the speed of light couldn’t have been as large as the magnitude required for a 6000 year old earth. If it was THE EARTH WOULDN’T EVEN BE HERE
LikeLiked by 1 person
But, of course, that’s assuming that there was no Creator, right, one who makes the laws? Do you guys not have jobs? It’s hard to answer all these questions and keep working. I never said that the speed of light was different, just that we don’t know the changes that may have occurred in order for life to be able to come into existence. Possibilities are limited for you in a random unintelligent evolution over millions of years. For me, with an all powerful eternal being, well, anything is possible. Sorry, I know this won’t satisfy your hunger for truth.
LikeLike
Yes, possibilities are limited. They existence of life in the universe is limited to certain regions with a narrow range of physical properties. Based on what you said, the existence of life in a limited region of the universe is exactly what is expected in a random unintelligent evolution over millions of years
And also in earth, human life can only survive in a limited range of environmental condition, these limits like you said are exactly what you expect in in a random unintelligent evolution over millions of years
Afterall evolution is about an organism becoming better suited to its ecological niche which implies that it becomes less suited in other ecological niches. This limitation of possibilities is what you expect in a random unintelligent evolution over millions of years
The answer to this at least for me is that I obviously live in a different time zone than you. Where I live it is currently after 9 in the night, so that why I can respond like this
That’s the assumption, they have been no evidence that they us a creator, what we currently know about the natural world is what you expect if the universe came from natural processesWhat’s the difference between there being no creator for the universe and a universe where the creator is perfectly hidden that what we have is the same as a universe without a creator
I will still ask for evidence
LikeLiked by 2 people
OK that is a random question to wonder, and possibly a pointless avenue to explore. There is no observed evidence that the speed of light has changed over time. I mean, light can slow down somewhat when passing through material such as air or glass. But as far as we have observed, we have not seen light travel FASTER than c (approx 10^6 m/s), even though in certain experiments it has appeared that way. If the speed of light does change over time, I doubt it would have changed much in 6000 years anyhow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spartan atheist, I don’t understand why you thought it was a threat what Lina said. If she had tried to warn you about a bridge collapse on a road you were traveling on, would you have considered that a threat. What if she were wrong, but really believed she was right? Would you have thought that was a threat?
LikeLike
Because the better analogy is the bridge is up, but if I don’t believe she has a unicorn in her garage, the bridge just might not be up when I get there….
It’s not a collapsed bridge, it’s a conditional bridge. And the condition is believe in something without evidence. Failure to believe will result in harm.
That is a threat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not really a threat…more like “I believe…” She wasn’t sending you to he’ll, just stated that she believed you would end up there. Warning, not a threat. Whether she is right or wrong, her motives are because she cares, not because she wishes it for you.
LikeLike
That’s how you take it, because that’s what you believe. Telling someone that doesn’t believe… or else… No matter the context, is a threat.
LikeLike
If you didn’t believe the bridge was out, would that make it a threat?
LikeLike
Again, the important bit isn’t that the bridge is out, it’s that it COULD be out if you don’t listen. This is not a warning of danger, it’s a behavioral control threat.
LikeLike
No, because she has nothing to do with whether you go to hell or not, she only cares that you are aware of the possibility.
LikeLike
So she isn’t directly threatening me, she is only conveying the threat for someone else that is threatening me, right?
LikeLike
No. Wrong again. Choose life with God or choose life without God. Your choice. He gives you what you choose.
LikeLike
Again, you’re changing the story. Hell and a bridge out is lethal and painful and terrible. The other is not being invited to lunch with someone. You can’t have it lethally dire in one breath, and just lonely in the other. I’m not sure you even have a clear idea of what is going to happen. It seems like you’re awfully sketchy on the details…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t actually seen the place myself, but the one I believe talked about it. A lot. Weeping and gnashing of teeth. Sounds like a lot of folks wished they had chosen differently.
LikeLike
So rumors? Thats all you’ve got? You want me to live my life in a certain way and threaten me based on rumors?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jonathan, about the statement about “someone who the power and love of God has changed” Sometimes evidence (which is kinda what this whole post was originally about) comes from the statements of eyewitnesses.
LikeLike
You guys have been diligent in responding to my questions, but I see that neither side has any intention of moving to the other. I would like to make a couple of comments regarding some of the last statements made that I haven’t had time to follow up with.
The church today is a far cry from the one in Acts (not exact words, but meaning is true). You are right about that…every generation seems to see a devolution of in the body of believers as to the relevancy of The Word of God. In Acts 2, something happened to cause these trembling, fearful followers of Jesus to come forward, step out into the street, and boldly speak the TRUTH that had been given them.
There will always be the ones that your side will hold up who have stopped believing the veracity of God’s Word and accepted the suppositions of those who deny God (or hate Him). Because they call themselves Christians doesn’t mean they have eternal life. Didn’t you guys once call yourselves Christians? “To come to Him, one must believe that He exists, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”
I believe this.
After 40 years of learning from Him, I know that your eyes are blind to the truth, and you are willing to follow the teaching that gives you an alternative “truth”, and that your deep desire is to undermine God in any way you can in order to try to cleanse the world of this Christianity.
Sorry. When you have tasted the goodness of The Father, and lived in His Care in spite of a wicked and perverse generation, there is no pull to come to the dark side.
LikeLike
True I don’t see either side changing their stance
But for us to say something is true it has to be proven
Because I believe something doesn’t make it true, many people have believed in many things since we had recorded history but simply because they believed didn’t mean they are right. Until evidence for god is shown, i can’t call it “truth”
I am willing to follow the teaching that is best supported by the evidence
And evolution, old earth, big bang etc are what the current evidence best supports
If there is evidence for god, young earth etc I would agree with those teaching but there is no such evidence
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I get it. I forgot that faith is one of the main prerequisites for following Jesus. ” Without faith it is impossible to please God.” I guess that settles it. I have been totally wasting your time. Although, faith that is rewarded is pretty cool.
LikeLike
Randy, just out of curiosity, can you think of anything- anything at all- that someone can not believe in on faith?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure I understand the question. Maybe I need more coffee. Reword it please.
LikeLike
In a world of crazy ideas, some are true and lots are completely false. Does faith rule out any of the false ideas at all?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you asking if it takes faith to believe in anything, or if there is anything that we can believe in without faith? I would ask you, do you think you exercise faith in any of your beliefs, even regarding science?
LikeLike
What spartan is asking based on the discussion in this thread is
Is there any idea or statement or concepts that can’t be said to be true if all we use to judge if something is true is based on “I believe or faith”
Faith
1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
The “faith” more like trust in my own opinion ( though you can call it faith ) is kind of like the first definition of “faith” not exactly ( because most if not all the things I have trust in, the trust isn’t absolute ) it but close
Do I “trust” that this message am writing would leave my phone and appear on this website. Yes, this trust didn’t come as a result of a book said so or someone said so but because I have evidence that it has been happening
( Now this “trust” isn’t absolute because I have had instances of network outage or other technical. Nevertheless I have evidence that led to my “faith” in my phone being able to send this comment )
Do I have “faith” in the existence of my phone or computer or the internet?. Yes I do. I have evidence for their existence. And so this “faith” ( definition 1) is not the kind of blind “faith” ( definition 2 ) in the existence of god
Do I have “faith” in the “theory” of gravity or the “theory” that the earth 🌍 is round. Yes This “faith” is as a result of evidence not because an ancient book said so
Do I have “faith” that a particular friend of mine will be there for me in tough times and won’t reveal my secrets. Yes. This is as a result of the evidence I have gathered through out the years
( Now like I said earlier my “trust” isn’t absolute as new evidence can arise that could point to the contrary)
Do I have “faith” in science. Yes. This unlike the blind “faith” of religion is as a result of the evidence
scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life
Science has created an environment were rational arguments is able to flourish, we’re good and bad ideas can be tasted against the world and we’re individuals can work together to surpass their individual limitations
It is because of the current evidence that I trust the cancer diagnosis from a radiologist more than that of an Ouija board
In simple words I have “faith” in science not because any book said so but because science has earned its “badge”
LikeLike
A most excellent, well thought out reply. I guess Spartan is correct in saying that anything could be counted as true if someone said they just have faith.
But, we all know that that doesn’t make it true.
Truth is only truth if it is true.
Right?
I have been living this “faith” for forty years now.
When I was young, 26, and new at this wonderful new life, though I had always believed in God, I suddenly found the beginnings of some new results to this “relationship” aspect that I had never realized before.
I don’t want to belabor these things, especially if you are not interested.
But…what I have found… through experience and observation of lives with this shared “relationship ” is the difference between the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit found in the Bible in Galatians 5.
I have close family members that “used to be Christians”, who actually helped me in the early days of discovering the joys of “trusting” and “having faith” in God.
He is so real to me, and to many of my close, born again friends, and the results we have found in this life of trust are so much alike, that, I guess, that would fit into some of the classifications you listed above as “evidence”.
But, it won’t be evidence for you, according to this same Bible, because the Spirit life doesn’t operate in the same way as the physical life.
Not my rules.
I wish I could just say one right thing that would allow you to taste some of the joys and pleasures that this life brings.
But…it is not up to me…I can only shine the tiny bit of light I have been given.
The results are out of my pay grade.
LikeLike
Thanks, Randy. I am truly happy for you, and glad you have something that makes you feel pleasure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, the denial shields are up for many people! I was always puzzled why religious believers cling so hard to religion, and never seem to honestly search for the most accurate one, between choosing denominations, or even a different faith! I came to realize however, that most don’t seek factual knowledge in believing, only social networks and the ability to blindly pass on belief like genes! “Memes” in Dawkins’ words 🙂 As a person who tried to seek out the most factual knowledge to shape my worldviews, that mindset is still somewhat alien to me.
https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suspect people that remain in a local community their whole life would tend to challenge their religion less.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One thing you are assuming is that there is only one possible view that Christians can have about the Genesis account: Literal. As well that assumes there aren’t explanations given therein in that view. This assumption is wrong.
You said, “Maybe, just maybe, god is a complete douche and sold us a lemon. God sold us a lemon, or the bible is wrong.”
False dichotomy as there is at least a third option: God created the world as good and perfect but sin and death entered the world. Just as a few drops of arsenic will taint a pure glass of water, sin and death marred the world. The world as we see it today isn’t what it was when God created it.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment theist.
I understand many Christians don’t take the book literally. This is their prerogative. Just let’s not pretend the bible doesn’t say these things.
The bible does say the world was created with defects. It had cracks and worn parts, and this was before man was created.
So the bible is wrong. Period. How much of it you choose to believe is literal is up to you.
LikeLike
Spartan, I say darvin is wrong and your senses are wrong. Because this rascal lived for atmost 50-60 years only and he is speaking for millions and millions of years, this is Sheer nonsense further, this geological table which speaks about 100 million and 300 millions of years of evolution is pure speculation given by carles Lyle in 1830 such a table exist only in his mind only. how you people believe in such a geological table which is not scientifically declared to be true?. During that time there is no such thing like carbon dating, potassium organ dating etc.
Further your senses ar defective you are looking this world by wearing a black glass and therefore whatever you see appears black and you are blaming others for your defective vision. Bible says “Everything will bring forth only of its kind”. Dog produces a dog, no dog produces a non dog or no humans produces non humans. This darvin rascal is saying that some how a first living cell came in to existance from inorganic matter by chance and somehow nature selects, copies blaw blaw super bluff. Nobody has seen such a random mutation even now. Even now monkeys exist, even now ameba exist. What qualification you have to speak on bible? You want to avoid religion to enjoy your life like cats and dogs for that your supporting your dead darvin theory of mythology.
LikeLike
Arun, when police investigate a crime, do they have to be there during the actual crime, or can they determine there was a crime by looking at the evidence?
LikeLike
I’ve only been vaguely following this “conversation,” but Arun made a comment that certainly fits his point of view —
this is Sheer nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
yep, same here. He does seem to be trolling, doesn’t he.
LikeLiked by 2 people
spartan, you cannot explain how mutations happen. people who are viewing this blog are intelligent than you. this word mutation itself is a fantacy word. you are toatlly ignorant of workings of nature as you cannot able to explain the laws of thermo dynamics. inspite of admitting your ignorance of the working of natures. still you cheat people. you are hypocrite.
judi you are expert only in criticising and making fun of others but you lack any scientific stuff. childish brains. .
LikeLike
Arun, are you kidding me? You started commenting by saying there were 8 elements, and divided them by some stupid measure that isn’t worth repeating. And now you’re too stupid to do a google search. I’ll help you:
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation
LikeLike
this is not an appropriate answer friend.
LikeLike
LOL! Arun, it’s not appropriate for you because I can’t put it on a bumper sticker. I’m sorry you work so hard to resist knowing anything about science, but it doesn’t make you right. Ignorance is clearly your hallmark, and I’m not talking to you anymore today. You have demonstrated multiple times you just don’t care about learning, only in maintaining your ignorant fallacious religion.
LikeLike
i read the link but you cannot understand one major point here. i am not asking about the effects and symptoms of mutation. i am asking you how DNA sequencing takes place in other words what causes permanent alteration in the genes?. sequencing means just like you take scrabble game. there are different pieces of picture in random, childrens put those pieces in its right places to form a full picture. similarly what causes protein sequencing to form a nucleotoid?. this is the foundational question answer to this question.
LikeLike
Arun, chemistry does it.
LikeLike
sorry you are wrong, no chemistry can build even one protein. gene consists of information. in the above analogy of jig saw puzzle it is only the intelligent child puts all the pieces in correct sequence to form a full picture. therefore inorder to build one protein chain of amino acids should be arranged in its perfect sequence. such a sequence or intelligent arrangement is not coming by chance or by random chemistry.
it is only the intelligent chemist combines the chemical in right propotions to produce right end product. it is not that all the acids salts, and alkaline accidently automatically mix together. even a child can understand this. so your random selection, mutation is just a myth and is not scientific.
LikeLike
spartan for your reference i am giving this scientific evidence how random chemistry can’t make it.
Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’
sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates
RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See
Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem
LikeLike
therefore spartan this darvin theory is a dangerous religion. it teaches how to win competition by hook or crook or by deception. how to eliminate the weak just like hitler did, how to be envious of others, how to enjoy life without restriction or discrimination and how to expertly insult and find faults in others.
where as our religion teaches how to be generous, humble, tolerant, showing compassion and helping the weak, forgiving, non violent exept where violence is absolutely necessary for protecting the people at large, restricted sex life, sense control and to lead a pure and happy life.
so if you are sain person you will consider these points and act accordingly.
LikeLike
kindly go to https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/biblical-perspective
LikeLike