There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

a reply to: cooperton
I didn't say you did, I said some people say that.

I did see a light being early on, which, to my christian mind, was the creator or at least one of their messengers. Over time I realized that I was basing that idea on the religious indoctrination carried out during my childhood.

So what I'm left with is, there is more than just the material world but I don't have any certainty of a creator or what their reasons or MO might be.

I have no reason or inclination to just trust a story because someone thousands of years ago said it is the word of god, regardless of what particular god they are talking about.

a reply to: cooperton

We where made by the Gods.. All our sacred books tell us this..)

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
...
I have no reason or inclination to just trust a story because someone thousands of years ago said it is the word of god, regardless of what particular god they are talking about.

Obviously not, that would be rather gullible. Likewise, neither is that the reason for many who believe that the Bible is God's word, to believe that it is (and consequently trust what the Bible is telling them to be true). They have other reasons for believing that claim (from the Bible). Entire books are dedicated to explaining those reasons (i.e. the evidence). This chapter contains a summary (see the section headings for a really succinct summary):

CHAPTER TWO: The Bible​—A Book From God (What Does the Bible Really Teach?)

Here's a whole book dedicated to the subject:

The Bible—God's Word or Man's?

With chapters such as:

Chapter 4: How Believable Is the “Old Testament”?
Chapter 5: The “New Testament”—History or Myth?
Chapter 7: Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
Chapter 8: Science: Has It Proved the Bible Wrong?
Chapter 9: Prophecies That Came True

One important line of evidence concerns the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, which this documentary gets a bit more into:

originally posted by: whereislogic
They have other reasons for believing that claim (from the Bible).

I don't doubt that, when I was in my early teens I had a lot of reasons for doing that too.

All I'm saying is that that isn't where I am today.

Maybe I am wrong, but honestly, I have read it cover to cover three times. I looked at your link that claims "HARMONIOUS AND ACCURATE". Sorry I can't read the book of Job and think that, or the story of Noah or the tower of babel.

In Job satan just walks into heaven and instead of being thrown out by bouncers God, with a capital G, just chats with him and makes a bet with satan, allowing satan to eff poor old Job over. That isn't a sign of arch enemies, it almost seems like a couple of friends daring each other.

Noah couldn't fit all the animals and what they needed in a boat and there isn't enough water to flood the earth anyway and there is no way in hell that people building a tower with mud and straw were going to build anything close to the heights of modern skyscrapers, let alone the height at which planes and the international space station are at.

Those are not being stricken down for encroaching on heaven so, obviously, something has been lost in translation or maybe it was never true. Just fiction from the minds of mankind because we have that ability.

ETA: The tallest pyramid that has been discovered is less than 500 ft high it is less than 20% of the highest building in existence, and that building is only about 10% the height of everest.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
What prejudice to the religious side do I have?

I doubt I would be able to convince you if I go into more detail about that, or that it would do you any good. So instead, I'll leave this little tidbit (which may be a beneficial reminder for all here, especially the bolded part):

The book Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination says: “Perhaps the most important conclusions to emerge from prejudice research are these: (1) no one capable of human thought and speech is immune from harboring prejudice, (2) it often takes deliberate effort and awareness to reduce prejudice, and (3) with sufficient motivation, it can be done.”

Edit (OK, a bit more about the subject):

In the form of inordinate self-esteem or haughtiness, pride can make a person more susceptible to prejudice. For example, pride can cause a person to be prone to feelings of superiority or disdain toward the less educated or those they perceive as less educated or less intelligent. It may also make him inclined to believe propaganda that elevates his 'group' (as in those with the same views, on the same side of a discussion).

What does the Bible say? “[Do] nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind [consider] that the others are superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Ask yourself: ‘Do I take secret delight in flattering comments about my own 'group' or in disparaging remarks about others?

Prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined opinions. A common occurance on this subforum. Prejudice is like a virus. It harms its victims, and people can be unaware that they are infected.

Some judge people negatively based on their belief in God or the Bible, or merely for being religious. Yet, they still feel that they are not prejudiced.

Could you be infected with prejudice? Most of us can recognize prejudice in others. But it may be difficult to see prejudice in ourselves. The truth is that all of us are prejudiced to some degree. When people think about a group negatively and then meet someone from that group, says sociology professor David Williams, “they will treat that person differently and honestly not know that they did it.”

For example, in the Balkan country where a man named Jovica lives, there is a minority group. “I thought that no one in that group could be a good person,” he admits. “But I did not think that I was prejudiced. ‘After all,’ I told myself, ‘this is simply a fact.’”

We may be using a similar type of reasoning when thinking about a particular group, even using or falling victim to generalizations.

...

Making Generalizations

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people. ...

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

originally posted by: daskakik
...

Maybe I am wrong, but honestly, I have read it cover to cover three times. ...

And yet your arguments against it are very reminiscent of the pattern of distortion (spin) and argumentation one can expect from something like TheAtheistExperience (a youtube channel and show), or Christopher Hitchens (also people that like to say that as they make the same arguments). It doesn't really describe what it actually says very well, with the same biased distortion and reading something else into it.

The way you described the events surrounding Job, is quite a common distortion. They even do it in the entertainment media. But it's quite far removed from what is actually described in the Bible, so I doubt it's really based on your reading of it, it's more likely you heard it elsewhere described like that, it tickled your ears as per 2 Tim 4:3,4 (just what you wanted to hear), so you're running with it. But first distorting the text in order to paint a critique of God's character, is a lame* tactic and doesn't make for good strong arguments. (*: unconvincingly feeble and "weak and not deserving to be believed", last definition for lame is from the Cambridge Dictionary)

The point that "there isn't enough water to flood the earth" is also a common standard argument you could expect from something like TheAtheistExperience show. It has been responded to so many times, that it raises the question why you still don't know (or recognize) any of the evidence that demonstrates that this was not the case (as valid). I recently quoted from an article about the flood in a thread about that subject from FlyersFan, that contained a section with the heading "SOURCE OF THE WATERS" and "WHERE DID THE WATER GO?" It's an article from 1968, demonstrating once more what a tired old chestnut this one is (and that a response with evidence to the contrary is unlikely to change your mind, your belief that this is and was the case).

It is believed that the tower of Babel was at least 300 feet (91 m) in height and that it was a ziggurat or terraced pyramid used for religious worship. Modern sources currently define skyscrapers as being at least 100 meters or 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) in height, though there is no universally accepted definition. Regarding the building materials, at Genesis 11:3, new materials are mentioned, kiln-baked bricks with bitumen* serving as mortar. (*: In the U.S., this is commonly referred to as asphalt. Do you really want to demeaningly describe this as "mud and straw" to support your reasoning? Does that kind of spin, or distortion, make your reasoning stronger or weaker?)

In your reasoning you also seem to be missing the real reason why God confounded their language in response to this building project. It's not like you seem to interpret it. The exact height really wan't the issue, it was about the reason they were building it and how they viewed the project (and what they said about it). God made a successful assault on false religion by confounding the language of the builders of the tower of Babel.

Basis for Believing the Bible (1952)

...

Scorn has been heaped upon the story of the tower of Babel. (Gen. 11:1-9) Yet in Mesopotamia archaeologists have discovered the remains of a number of temple towers, and one of these is believed by many Bible scholars to have been the tower of Babel. Under the picture of a restoration of this site we read: “A restoration of Babylon and the Tower of Babel. The tower . . . was begun in the third millennium B.C. but not completed until Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.”* [The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible, page 25.] George Smith, staff member of the British Museum, in his book Chaldean Account of Genesis, translates the writing found on an ancient fragment which tells of the destruction of one of the Babylonian temple towers, as follows: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.” On this Joseph Free observes: “This account may be a later reflection of what actually occurred when God came down at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel and scattered the people abroad, confounding their language.”—Archaeology and Bible History, page 46.

...

The pattern that emerges is that in order to find flaws with the Bible's accounts, you first read a distorted view into the text (usually one already prepared by others who are very fond of claiming they've read the Bible cover to cover, but neglect to mention or consider with what type of biased mental glasses they were reading, looking for holes to poke at and something more easily distorted to make an argument against it). That may work for you personally, but it doesn't make for a very strong case against the Bible's historical accuracy and reliability.

originally posted by: whereislogic
And yet your arguments against it are very reminiscent of the pattern of distortion (spin) and argumentation one can expect from something like TheAtheistExperience (a youtube channel and show), or Christopher Hitchens (also people that like to say that as they make the same arguments). It doesn't really describe what it actually says very well, with the same biased distortion and reading something else into it.

I came to those conclusions on my own in my teens long before youtube. Didn't even have a computer back then.

The way you described the events surrounding Job, is quite a common distortion.

No, satan walks into heaven and chit-chats with god, I have read it myself. And when god points out Job's faith satan says it is because you have given him everything and god lets satan have a go at him.

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”

Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it."

He wasn't writhing in pain because evil cannot be in the presence of the lord nor did god say be gone, they had a chat.

The point that "there isn't enough water to flood the earth"...

Sure, the waters outside the firmament, two things nobody has ever seen.

It is believed that the tower of Babel was at least 300 feet (91 m) in height ...

The way you paint it was still a crappy move by the loving god you try to claim they were. Mankind united, what a horrible idea.

Also, my point is that man still has reached higher than that tower so what was the point? Objectively they needed a story to explain diversity and came up with one about a 300 ft tower being something that concerned the all mighty. You have to be very naive to believe a story like that.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Some judge people negatively based on their belief in God or the Bible, or merely for being religious. Yet, they still feel that they are not prejudiced.

I think the Bible holds a lot of wisdom, I also defend religion while not being very religious. I respect many religious people and I think typically they hold a higher moral ground than others. What we see as negative in religion is people manipulating and distorting it based on human desires, power, and greed while the fundamentals are still good. You might be surprised to read some of my old posts defending religion.

I debate only two points here.

1. The spark of life can be intelligent design, but then that sets up the Chicken or Egg scenario of what came first in the creator creating life or the creation of the creator, so it gets really messy for me quickly. If life comes about with no intelligent design then it happens within the framework of our universe, and this is why I say God is not necessarily needed for life in our universe, but it is still an open chapter as both sides are unfalsifiable.

2. The evolution of life and if not then what was it? We need to remember that evolution can happen with or without God, so it doesn't answer the beginning of life question or try to. If I was going to look for bias it would be in this area with religious people as they just cannot even think that evolution could be the tool that God uses to manage life. I'm open to other suggestions, but the religious side never actually expresses what it might be other than those that insist the universe is 6000 years old and everything in it including us was all zapped into existence. If it looks 14 billion years old that is just how God made it to look...etc.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... If I was going to look for bias it would be in this area with religious people as they just cannot even think that evolution could be the tool that God uses to manage life.

Are you familiar with the wikipage called "Acceptance of evolution by religious groups"? They have a graph there entitled:

Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007)
Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth

At the top are Buddhists and Hindus at 81 and 80% respectively. Remember the video about the pagan religious roots of evolutionary philosophies? You possibly didn't watch it, but evolutionary religious philosophies originally came from Babylon, and from there spread in all directions. Early on, they were particularly popular in the Eastern religions (Persia, India and beyond) and amongst pantheists (it was the Hindu Brahmin that came up with the notion of a "tree of life" to describe the evolutionary relationship between all living things and to depict their versions of what evolved into what). They gained considerable popularity after they were picked up by the famous Greek pagan philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, and other less famous individuals) and Gaia/Mother Earth/Mother Nature worshippers, who basically argued that 'nature did it', treating nature as a god.

And as discussed before, the behaviour and position of the evolutionists in modern times "is more characteristic of religious dogmatism."

...

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

... Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11. [whereislogic: i.e, chance]

Time to stop treating only one side of this debate as "the religious side". And categorizing evolutionary philosophies as science. You don't want to end up distorting, misinterpreting, or even ignoring these facts that conflict with that view/picture (as painted by this system of things, including the entertainment media).

Prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined opinions.

The article before was: If Not a Fact, What Is It? (2nd page)

originally posted by: whereislogic

Time to stop treating only one side of this debate as "the religious side". And categorizing evolutionary philosophies as science. You don't want to end up distorting, misinterpreting, or even ignoring these facts that conflict with that view/picture (as painted by this system of things, including the entertainment media).
Prejudice causes people to distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined

They are kind of the religious side, do you have a better name to call people who believe in intelligent design?

Then the debate is very short as one side suggests God drives all aspects of life and the other side suggests life can happen without the hand of a God, and is just a natural order event in our universe.

I guess we are done...

BTW I see the whole "distorting, misinterpreting, or even ignoring facts" kind of more on the other side. The question is are you here today because God decided you to be here and directs all or are you just another life form in a sea of unlimited life forms?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

They are kind of the religious side, do you have a better name to call people who believe in intelligent design?

My point wasn't really about your choice in terminology, but how you view the debate about evolution vs creation as science vs religion, categorizing belief in evolutionary philosophies as science (or scientific) and belief in creation as religion (or being religious). The reality is the other way around. Now belief in creation may lead to religion, or be closely associated with it (or obviously more common amongst those affiliated with organized monotheistic religions), but the conclusion that life was the product of engineering/creation is a scientific conclusion based on scientific evidence (the facts and inductive reasoning). Whereas the belief that, to use wikipedia's phrasing, "evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth", is a belief that is rooted in pagan religious philosophy and a consequence of, as well as accompanied by (or promoted by means of), behaviour that is "more characteristic of religious dogmatism", “seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” (Dr. J. R. Durant) So that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” (Physicist H. S. Lipson).

Of course, I don't agree with the term "scientific" in that last quote. You would have to add "pseudo" in front of that for me to agree.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...but the conclusion that life was the product of engineering/creation is a scientific conclusion based on scientific evidence (the facts and inductive reasoning).

There are no scientific conclusions at all to support what you've said here. Nothing. All the evidence points to a natural progression of simple life to complex, not to all complex life appearing at once and in their kingdoms to species we see today. There is no evidence AT ALL for creation.

Just because you use 'terms' that also apply to constructed designs, absolutely does not mean that they are.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik

No, it is the same. You have proven nothing.

I would love to know what would constitute proof of Design to you? If cellular machines don't demonstrate it, I don't think anything could.

Taking that point further, the scientists 'created' a new self-replicating life form from existing DNA so can we compare that to God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve, a self-replicating new life form? Both can be looked at as intelligent design. All we have to do now is 'create' self-replicating life forms from non-living(?) dust, whatever dust may be or contain.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Taking that point further, the scientists 'created' a new self-replicating life form from existing DNA so can we compare that to God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve, a self-replicating new life form? Both can be looked at as intelligent design. All we have to do now is 'create' self-replicating life forms from non-living(?) dust, whatever dust may be or contain.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me that children of the Creator can also learn to create on a scale that is quite impressive, close to the Creator's abilities. Yet so far most of our ability to replicate life comes from copying and pasting already known pieces together.

One day computers and AI may be thought of as silicon based lifeforms lol

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

Taking that point further, the scientists 'created' a new self-replicating life form from existing DNA so can we compare that to God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve, a self-replicating new life form? Both can be looked at as intelligent design. All we have to do now is 'create' self-replicating life forms from non-living(?) dust, whatever dust may be or contain.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me that children of the Creator can also learn to create on a scale that is quite impressive, close to the Creator's abilities. Yet so far most of our ability to replicate life comes from copying and pasting already known pieces together.

One day computers and AI may be thought of as silicon based lifeforms lol

I wonder if we should send out a probe and collect stardust or cosmic dust and see what we can do with that?

originally posted by: quintessentone

I wonder if we should send out a probe and collect stardust or cosmic dust and see what we can do with that?

I forget if it was on this thread or another, but apparently they found organic lifeforms on asteroids. To sum up the discussion, it is likely this was just due to contamination, especially since any meteorite that lands on earth surely went through multiple avenues of contamination.

For panspermia to be plausible we would need physics to be different on different planets. Perhaps one where organic polymers grow spontaneously rather than decay spontaneously like they do here. Yet with all these added necessities, it begins to be apparent that there was intelligent involvement in the origins of life. This is actually really exciting because it means this same intelligence that created us would likely have an enduring meaning for us silly little mortals even after death.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone

I wonder if we should send out a probe and collect stardust or cosmic dust and see what we can do with that?

I forget if it was on this thread or another, but apparently they found organic lifeforms on asteroids. To sum up the discussion, it is likely this was just due to contamination, especially since any meteorite that lands on earth surely went through multiple avenues of contamination.

For panspermia to be plausible we would need physics to be different on different planets. Perhaps one where organic polymers grow spontaneously rather than decay spontaneously like they do here. Yet with all these added necessities, it begins to be apparent that there was intelligent involvement in the origins of life. This is actually really exciting because it means this same intelligence that created us would likely have an enduring meaning for us silly little mortals even after death.

It may be that the physics need not be different just that we need to acknowledge that the physics we know may not be the complete picture of creation. It may be once we learn of all processes that cause creation of life then perhaps we can acknowledge that all is natural process without a God's hand? Then again, what created everything including those processes? The answer is blowing in the wind.

originally posted by: quintessentone

It may be that the physics need not be different just that we need to acknowledge that the physics we know may not be the complete picture of creation. It may be once we learn of all processes that cause creation of life then perhaps we can acknowledge that all is natural process without a God's hand?

Until a mechanism can be shown that this is possible we can't really call it science, it is just faith. But sadly it is taught as dogmatic truth in school. To me it is very apparent that these micromolecular structures were designed. Motors don't come to be by random chance.

Then again, what created everything including those processes? The answer is blowing in the wind.

Yeah laws themselves strongly imply intelligence. Especially laws which have upheld the entirety of all matter for the past known history without changing. This allows us conscious organisms to have a material interface for the beginning of our souls into existence. This is a purposeful contrivance. We're walking upright organic supercomputers with emotions, healing, and replication capabilities. This ought to inspire awe in any objective assessment of reality.

originally posted by: quintessentone
I wonder if we should send out a probe and collect stardust or cosmic dust and see what we can do with that?

First Look at Ryugu Asteroid Sample Reveals it is Organic-Rich

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

There are no scientific conclusions at all to support what you've said here. Nothing. All the evidence points to a natural progression of simple life to complex, not to all complex life appearing at once and in their kingdoms to species we see today. There is no evidence AT ALL for creation.

You should also know by now that I'm not a supporter of young earth creationism, that's the one that has all "life appearing at once" (well, in a couple of 24-hour days). So no need to bring up that view in response to my comment as if that's what I believe or am claiming when I happen to say something about creation/engineering.