Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#407
Poet1960 wrote: The other thing is, do you know for sure that those amino acids even existed billions of years ago? Or do you just assume that they did because life does exist, and you have no other way of explaining it?
Or maybe he assumes that because they even found it on a frozen dirty snowball orbiting the sun
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#408
The atmospheric conditions proposed by Oparin, Haldane and Urey were radically different from what exists today. Because oxygen destroys the chemical building blocks of life, they speculated that the early earth had an oxygen-free atmosphere. However, in the last few decades, evidence has surfaced that has convinced most atmospheric scientists that the early atmosphere contained abundant oxygen.

In the 1970’s Apollo 16 astronauts discovered that water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen gas in the upper atmosphere when it is bombarded by ultraviolet radiation. This process, called photo dissociation, is an efficient process which would have resulted in the production of large quantities of oxygen in a relatively short time. Studies by the astronauts revealed that this process is probably a major source of oxygen in our current atmosphere.

The assumption of an oxygen-free atmosphere has also been rejected on theoretical grounds. The ozone layer around planet earth consists of a thin but critical blanket of oxygen gas in the upper atmosphere. This layer of oxygen gas blocks deadly levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without oxygen in the early atmosphere, there could have been no ozone layer over the early earth. Without an ozone layer, all life on the surface of planet earth would face certain death from exposure to intense ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, the chemical building blocks of proteins, RNA and DNA, would be quickly annihilated because ultraviolet radiation destroys their chemical bonds. It doesn’t matter if these newly formed building blocks are in the atmosphere, on dry ground, or under water.

So evolutionists have a major dilemma. The chemical building blocks of life would be destroyed if oxygen was present, and they would be destroyed if it wasn’t! This "catch 22" has been noted by evolutionist and molecular biologist Michael Denton: "What we have then is a sort of ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t we have none either." Even if the building blocks of life could survive the effects of intense ultraviolet radiation and form life spontaneously, the survival of any subsequent life forms would be impossible in the presence of such heavy ultraviolet light. Ozone must be present to protect any surface life from the deadly effects of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Finally, the assumption that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere is not borne out by the geologic evidence. Geologists have discovered evidence of abundant oxygen content in the oldest known rocks on earth. Again, Michael Denton: "Ominously, for believers in the traditional organic soup scenario, there is no clear geochemical evidence to exclude the possibility that oxygen was present in the Earth’s atmosphere soon after the formation of its crust."

All of this evidence supports the fact that there was abundant oxygen on the early earth. However, with or without oxygen, evolution is in a no-win situation. Spontaneous generation could not have occurred either with oxygen—or without it!


The overwhelming evidence is clear…spontaneous generation is an impossibility. It is a scientifically corrupt theory that, among other things, violates the Law of Biogenesis, which says that that life never arises except from life. Life simply cannot come from non-life. Since spontaneous generation is impossible, so then the foundation that evolution rests on has been shattered. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, however, there are those who continue to believe in evolution, and are therefore forced to accept and defend some form of spontaneous generation. The reason for this dogmatic adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald: "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!" According to Wald, it’s not about discovering the truth through the finding of fact, it’s not a matter of evidence, not a matter of science…it’s a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."

Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#409
What was not clear about nucleotides (from which RNA and DNA is made of) NOT being amino-acids (stuff the proteins are made of)?

Short RNA sequences assemble themselves. They just stick together; it's chemistry, it's like dissolving a salt in water - it just does that, no divine intervention necessary. By chance, some self-assembled RNA sequences are having enzymatic properties - which depends on the sequence of nucleotides only.

Some of those RNA sequences can accelerate assembling RNA. Since there are a ton of other RNA fragments and nucleotides in the primordial soup, they start working, blindly assembling stuff, and making it longer than self-assembly allows. Some of it - again, randomly, just because 20-30 nucleotides were put in the right order - just happens to have a sequence of the self-replicating RNA. And it starts from there - replicate, introduce errors, discard stuff that's not working (I mean, if it doesn't work, it won't replicate - a direct evolution), and by some trial and error get a stable, well-working self-replicating RNA. Then, by some chance replication didn't stop, but took a nearby RNA chain and used it as a template after self-replicating (happens all the time with primitive enzymes, they actually don't have a stop signal, it evolved later and with a lot of troubles), creating a longer RNA. And then even longer. And then the other end of RNA, through trial and error, became another ribozyme - e.g one helping to split larger molecules. Or one working with DNA, or amino-acids, or whatever. Again - simple, short sequences. Rinse, repeat, grow. Then it passed to DNA and proteins, because ribozymes are limited in complexity - that is, they have none :ghost:

Nucleotides and whatnot existed on Earth. They appear naturally from simple chemicals under UV light, and in comets under cosmic radiation. We don't have a lot of them appearing now because life is everywhere, and it instantly eats them :ghost:
Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#410
Poet1960 wrote:Big, steaming pile of copy-paste
Can't you vocalise your own thoughts? That's just dishonest. I can copy-paste a wall of text, too. Here, have a sample:
Spoiler:      SHOW
1. Introduction
The molecular composition of early terrestrial atmospheres is extremely important for understanding climatic conditions and prebiotic chemistry, especially at the time life was born on Earth and perhaps on Mars. For example, a CH4-rich atmosphere on early terrestrial planets has been invoked as a solution for the faint young Sun problem (Sagan and Mullen, 1972, Kiehl and Dickinson, 1987, Pavlov et al., 2000 and Haqq-Misra et al., 2008). Thus, the possibility of the abiotic formation of CH4-containing atmospheres on early terrestrial planets has been investigated rather extensively (Kress and McKay, 2004, Kasting, 2005, Hashimoto et al., 2007 and Schaefer and Fegley, 2010). However, the presence of such an atmosphere during the prebiotic stage is still highly controversial.

The estimation of the molecular composition of early terrestrial planetary atmospheres requires knowledge on both the source of volatiles and outgassing processes. The bulk elemental abundance of the volatile sources largely determines the overall redox states of early terrestrial atmospheres. Thus, the elemental abundance of a planetary atmosphere varies greatly depending on its volatile sources. Previous studies have discussed mainly the oxidation state of early atmospheres based on that of possible volatile sources (e.g., Hashimoto et al., 2007, Schaefer and Fegley, 2010 and Hirschmann, 2012).

In contrast, the influence of the thermodynamic paths of outgassing processes on the molecular composition of the degassing vapor has not been investigated extensively. However, cooling paths of the vapor should affect the thermodynamic stability of the molecular composition, especially in impact degassing. In fact, the above studies based on chemical equilibrium calculations indicate that the molecular composition of the vapor with a given elemental abundance could vary greatly depending on temperature and/or pressure (Hashimoto et al., 2007 and Schaefer and Fegley, 2010). For instance, the CH4/CO ratio of chondritic vapor may vary greatly as a function of pressure and temperature. Because pressure and temperature in expanding impact-degassed plume would change with time, its molecular composition would vary as a function of time. Furthermore, its terminal molecular composition also change depending on their cooling rate. In order to address these issues, one must consider the dynamic aspect of impact degassing process, such as adiabatic expansion and radiative cooling. However, such dynamic aspects of chondritic vapor has not been investigated extensively. These species have different chemical properties, and thus, the climates and nonequilibrium-reaction processes would also be different, strongly depending on molecular compositions, even if the bulk oxidation states of the atmosphere are the same (e.g., Zahnle, 1986 and McKay and Borucki, 1997).

Based on theoretical predictions, the source of volatiles for terrestrial planets could have varied with time evolution. During the main accretion phase, terrestrial planetary atmospheres are thought to have been generated by the capture of the solar nebula (e.g., Hayashi et al., 1979) and volatiles degassed from the magma ocean (e.g., Abe and Matsui, 1985). Such hybrid atmospheres from solar nebula/accreting materials would have been very reducing, rich in H2 and CO (Hashimoto et al., 2007). However, both theoretical and geochemical studies indicate that such very reducing primordial atmospheres may have been efficiently lost by a giant impact during the terminal phase of planetary accretion (Genda and Abe, 2005, Stewart and Mukhopadhyay, 2013 and Tucker and Mukhopadhyay, 2014). If this is the case, degassing by subsequent volcanic activity is thought to be the dominant source for the terrestrial atmosphere. However, the isotopic composition of volatiles in the terrestrial mantle cannot explain the characteristics of the present Earth’s atmosphere as we discuss in the following section. Therefore, other sources would be required as a part of the present atmosphere, such as the late accretion of volatiles with meteoritic impact after magma ocean solidification (e.g., Chyba, 1990 and Albarède, 2009).

In this study, we focus on impact degassing of volatiles from chondritic materials based on a consideration of the cooling path of impact-generated vapor plumes, and we discuss the implications of the results for the molecular composition of early atmospheres on terrestrial planets during the post-accretion phase. In Section 2, we discuss the importance of the late-impact delivery of volatiles for terrestrial planetary atmospheres, in Sections 3 and 4 we describe our models, in Section 5 we show the calculation results, in Section 6 we discuss the implications of our results for the earliest atmosphere of terrestrial planets, and in Section 7 we summarize our study.

2. Impact delivery of volatiles after magma ocean solidification
An efficient atmospheric loss during the giant impact stage and geochemical constraints on isotopic composition of noble gases supports that the impact degassing from late-accreting materials after magma ocean solidification have greatly contributed to the formation of the early terrestrial atmosphere than previously thought, as we discuss in the following.

In comparison with the solar abundance, noble gases in the volatile inventory of terrestrial planets are much more depleted than H, C, and N (e.g., Halliday, 2013). If all terrestrial volatiles were of solar nebula origin, the currently observed noble gas abundance in the present terrestrial atmosphere would require selective loss in noble gases to the space. This is because incorporation of noble gases into core is highly unlikely. However, such a simple view is not possible as the origin of the present terrestrial atmosphere as discussed in previous studies (e.g., Zahnle et al., 2010 and references therein). For example, Ne and N, which have similar atomic mass, are equally abundant in the solar composition. Thus, the Ne/N ratio of the terrestrial atmosphere would be close to unity if the origin of terrestrial volatiles is mainly the solar nebula because the mass fractionation by atmospheric escape between Ne and N would be limited. However, Ne is depleted relative to N on terrestrial planets by more than several orders of magnitude. Consequently, it is now widely believed that the solar nebula captured by the gravity of a protoplanet cannot be the only source for the terrestrial atmosphere and that other sources, such as degassing from meteoritic materials, must have made a major contribution (e.g., Brown, 1949). In fact, the abundance pattern of volatiles on terrestrial planets are approximately chondritic (e.g., Marty, 2012 and Halliday, 2013).

If major atmospheric erosion occurred during the accretion phase, the degassing of volatiles after the formation of planets would have largely controlled the composition of post-accretion terrestrial atmospheres. A recent theoretical study shows that giant impacts during the late accretion phase may have efficiently blown off pre-existing atmospheres if protoplanets were covered with oceans (Genda and Abe, 2005). Calculations on the thermal evolution of magma oceans overlaid with a steam atmosphere show that the timescales of water condensation for Mars (i.e., 0.1 Myr) and Earth (i.e., 1.5 Myr) may have been shorter than a typical interval between giant impacts (i.e., 5 Myr), whereas the timescale of water condensation for Venus (i.e., 10 Myr) may not have been shorter than the average interval (Lebrun et al., 2013). Consequently, most of the pre-existing atmospheres may have been lost during the stage of giant impacts for at least Mars and Earth. Nevertheless, it is also noted that most of primordial oceans are estimated to survive atmosphere-stripping giant impacts (Genda and Abe, 2005). Such selective loss of an atmosphere compared to an ocean is actually consistent with the geological observations that the H/N and H2O/Xe ratios of terrestrial planets are higher than any types of primitive materials (Halliday, 2013; Tucker and Mukhopadhyay, 2014; Dauphas and Morbidelli, 2014). If the efficiency of atmospheric loss during the main-accretion phase was very high, the contribution of late-impact delivery of volatiles to the terrestrial atmosphere is most likely significant.

The high abundances of highly siderophile elements (HSEs) in silicate mantles of many terrestrial planets (i.e., Vesta, the Moon, Mars, Earth) suggest that late accretion of chondritic materials, the so-called late veneer, on terrestrial planets after core formation may have been a common phenomenon in the inner Solar System (Dale et al., 2012 and Day et al., 2012). Thus, terrestrial planetary atmospheres during the post-accretion stage would have been mainly generated by outgassing from magmas and late-impact delivery of volatiles. Furthermore, the isotopic composition of nitrogen on the Earth surface is similar to carbonaceous chondrites, but that of mantles are lighter and more solar-like (e.g., Marty, 2012 and Cartigny and Marty, 2013). Such isotopic compositions of terrestrial nitrogen may reflect the overprint of the late veneer. Although these isotopic heterogeneity can also be achieved by the mass fractionation of gas molecules in primordial atmospheres, such as hydrodynamic escape, such processes cannot explain the abundance patterns of noble gases (Marty, 2012 and Cartigny and Marty, 2013). Moreover, the heavier isotopic compositions of Kr derived from the Earth’s mantle relative to those observed in the present atmosphere suggest that noble gases in the present terrestrial atmosphere is not residual of mantle degassing (Holland et al., 2009). These geochemical constraints on the terrestrial atmosphere, suggest that the late addition of volatiles by meteoritic impacts after magma ocean solidification may have greatly contributed to the formation of the atmosphere on a terrestrial planet after its formation than previously thought.

2.1. The chemical difference in degassed volatiles between differentiated magmas and primitive meteorites
The bulk oxidation states of differentiated magmas and late-accreting materials are likely to be different, suggesting that outgassing compositions of volatiles would also have been different. Subsequent to metal–silicate segregation, the near-surface portion in a magma ocean with a deep core-mantle boundary is likely to be relatively oxidized (Hirschmann, 2012). For Earth, Ce anomalies in Hadean zircons indicate that the oxidation state of magma was already close to the FMQ buffer at least 4.35 billion years ago (Trail et al., 2011). Because magma equilibrated with the FMQ buffer yields CO2-rich and CO–CH4-poor gases (e.g., Zolotov and Shock, 2000), early terrestrial atmospheres dominated by the degassing of volatiles from magma would have been oxidizing.

In contrast, because even the most oxidizing chondrites are more reducing than magmas with oxygen fugacity close to the FMQ buffer, early atmospheres dominated by impact degassing from chondrites would have been more reducing than atmosphere degassed from post core-segregation silicate magma, at least for Earth (Hashimoto et al., 2007 and Schaefer and Fegley, 2010). Thermodynamic equilibrium calculations suggest that the vapor of chondritic materials may have been rich in H2, CO and/or CH4 (Hashimoto et al., 2007, Schaefer and Fegley, 2007 and Schaefer and Fegley, 2010).

Given such chemical differences between differentiated magmas and accreting materials, the assessment of impact degassing from late-accreting chondrites is a key for the occurrence of a CH4-rich atmosphere on early terrestrial planets.

3. Cooling dynamics of impact-induced vapor
Because the direction of chemical reactions depends largely on both the pressure and temperature of the system, the next question on impact degassing components focuses on the thermodynamic conditions of the impact-induced vapor during cooling. Previous studies have discussed equilibrium compositions as a function of temperature under a constant pressure (Kress and McKay, 2004, Hashimoto et al., 2007 and Schaefer and Fegley, 2010). This approach would be appropriate if chemical reactions in impact-induced vapor are controlled by radiative cooling, which decreases temperature while pressure is kept approximately constant. During cooling, however, pressure in impact-induced vapor dynamically changes due to expansion. If chemical reactions in impact-induced vapor are kinetically prohibited due to rapid cooling and subsequently quenched during expansion, the approach taken by previous studies may not be appropriate; another approach would be necessary to accurately calculate the molecular composition of impact-generated atmospheres.

3.1. The key factors for cooling dynamics of impact-induced vapor
During the shock compression phase of hypervelocity meteoritic impacts, high pressure–temperature (P–T) conditions are generated by shock waves via the conversion of impact kinetic energy to internal energy. Subsequently, when rarefaction waves from rear free surfaces arrive, the shock-compressed target and projectile materials start to expand as impact plumes. This decompression process can be approximated as adiabatic because the timescale for pressure heterogeneities within an impact plume to equilibrate is typically much shorter than that for temperature heterogeneities (e.g., Sugita and Schultz, 2002). Consequently, the entropy gain during the shock-compression phase would strongly regulate the P–T pathway of the decompression phase. In other words, the impact condition (e.g., impact velocity and the shock impedance of surface material) would control the molecular compositions of the impact-induced vapor. Then, the molecular composition of the impact-derived atmospheres on different planets may have been different because the impact-induced entropy gain would be substantially different even for the same composition of impactors.

(taken from here)
How do you like it? I can put several thousands of those, because I have access to scientific journals which you lack.
Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#411
Poet1960 wrote: In the 1970’s Apollo 16 astronauts discovered that water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen gas in the upper atmosphere when it is bombarded by ultraviolet radiation. This process, called photo dissociation, is an efficient process which would have resulted in the production of large quantities of oxygen in a relatively short time. Studies by the astronauts revealed that this process is probably a major source of oxygen in our current atmosphere.
Where did all the (extremely explosive) hydrogen gas go then? The atmosphere is 20 % oxygen, so there must be a ton of it, but it seems to have vanished.
Poet1960 wrote: Furthermore, the chemical building blocks of proteins, RNA and DNA, would be quickly annihilated because ultraviolet radiation destroys their chemical bonds. It doesn’t matter if these newly formed building blocks are in the atmosphere, on dry ground, or under water.
Liquid water absorbs UV, so that's blatantly false. A few meters deep in the sea and you're fine.

And that was the entire fundament of that article, so g'night o7
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#413
Poet1960 wrote: Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.
What would you expect? If something seems impossible do you expect them to instead accept something else that seems impossible?

Faced with an unanswered question using a disproved theory does not lead to creation as an alternative, it leads to an unanswered question.

No respectable scientist just says "whelp, this doesn't work, must have been god". That's ridiculous. If something doesn't make sense, you're missing something. If your theories don't work, you need new theories. You keep digging until you find something that does.

Jumping to creationism instead is never an answer, just an avoidance of questions.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#414
Yep, that's the cool thing about science. There is always room for revised theory to support new evidence.

God created the universe and scientists are trying to figure out how it all works.

I only have issue when people make science a religion. Or worse, are antithesis.

We all have beliefs about the world in which we live. Religion defines ethics, science does not.
Image
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#415
Mordakai wrote:
Poet1960 wrote: Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.
What would you expect? If something seems impossible do you expect them to instead accept something else that seems impossible?

Faced with an unanswered question using a disproved theory does not lead to creation as an alternative, it leads to an unanswered question.

No respectable scientist just says "whelp, this doesn't work, must have been god". That's ridiculous. If something doesn't make sense, you're missing something. If your theories don't work, you need new theories. You keep digging until you find something that does.

Jumping to creationism instead is never an answer, just an avoidance of questions.
One thing I always found somewhat ironic is that religious fundamentalism generally has no issue with science that doesn't contradict their religious beliefs. It's generally only the science that does.

They will bring up the same old disproven arguments repeatedly as seemingly ignore the logical counter points. Then try to fill the smallest holes in generally accepted theories with "so god did it all with magic".

It's because religion is not about logic. It about good feels and generally internalized stuff.

I generally have more respect for religious folks who admit that region is generally not a logical thing but they wish to stick with it anyway. This way religion and science can be properly separated.
My Signature
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#416
Mordakai wrote:
Poet1960 wrote: Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.
What would you expect? If something seems impossible do you expect them to instead accept something else that seems impossible?

Faced with an unanswered question using a disproved theory does not lead to creation as an alternative, it leads to an unanswered question.

No respectable scientist just says "whelp, this doesn't work, must have been god". That's ridiculous. If something doesn't make sense, you're missing something. If your theories don't work, you need new theories. You keep digging until you find something that does.

Jumping to creationism instead is never an answer, just an avoidance of questions.


:lol: I just LOVE your objectivity here. You are basically saying, "I will accept ANY theory that does not involve God." Yup, science at it's best. Oh and btw, you just proved my earlier quote. "Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."

I expect you to at least, look at the evidence objectively and go with what explains the most. Evolution does not do this, creationism does, and there is evidence to back that up. But like all evidence, it requires some interpretation. Your personal world view will generally determine your beliefs. If you want a world that has no god, then all the evidence in the world will not suffice because you do not want one to exist.
The thing is, by your statement here, it gives insight to your world view. You seem to completely reject, even the possibility that there could be a creator god.
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#417
Zanteogo wrote:
Mordakai wrote:
Poet1960 wrote: Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.
What would you expect? If something seems impossible do you expect them to instead accept something else that seems impossible?

Faced with an unanswered question using a disproved theory does not lead to creation as an alternative, it leads to an unanswered question.

No respectable scientist just says "whelp, this doesn't work, must have been god". That's ridiculous. If something doesn't make sense, you're missing something. If your theories don't work, you need new theories. You keep digging until you find something that does.

Jumping to creationism instead is never an answer, just an avoidance of questions.
One thing I always found somewhat ironic is that religious fundamentalism generally has no issue with science that doesn't contradict their religious beliefs. It's generally only the science that does.

They will bring up the same old disproven arguments repeatedly as seemingly ignore the logical counter points. Then try to fill the smallest holes in generally accepted theories with "so god did it all with magic".

It's because religion is not about logic. It about good feels and generally internalized stuff.

I generally have more respect for religious folks who admit that region is generally not a logical thing but they wish to stick with it anyway. This way religion and science can be properly separated.

Religion and science do not need to be separated. They work together just fine. Your assumption here, is that you think science is always right and religion is sketchy. While I agree most religions probably are, the one in the bible has tons of evidence and history to back it up. How many other religions have predicted events with 100% accuracy?

I don't advocate just any religion, I advocate a PARTICULAR one. So making general statements about religion may be true, but not necessarily true for the specific one I believe in. Does that mean mine is right and all others are wrong. Well, yes and no. If the God I believe in actually exists, then yes, mine is right. If He does not exist, then all bets are off.

Oh, and btw, I guess anything you can't understand automatically falls into the category of, "magic." Which of course I have never said, but for some reason people like you use it a lot.
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#418
Poet1960 wrote: the one in the bible has tons of evidence and history to back it up...(and has) predicted events with 100% accuracy?
Wait, what? I can see you thinking it has evidence backing it up, but when has any religion predicted something with 100% accuracy?
Image
Image
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#419
Isa 45:9  Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 
Isa 45:10  Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? 
Isa 45:11  Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. 
Isa 45:12  I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. 
Isa 45:13  I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts. 
The Lord, the Only Savior
Isa 45:14  Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God. 
Isa 45:15  Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. 
Isa 45:16  They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. 
Isa 45:17  But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. 
Isa 45:18  For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. 
Isa 45:19  I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. 
Isa 45:20  Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 
Isa 45:21  Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 
Isa 45:22  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 
Isa 45:23  I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 
Isa 45:24  Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 
Isa 45:25  In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. 
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: The Religion Thread

#420
Pay attention to some of the science in these words and remember that it was written THOUSANDS of years ago.


Job 38:1  Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 
Job 38:2  Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 
Job 38:3  Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 
Job 38:4  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 
Job 38:5  Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 
Job 38:6  Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 
Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 
Job 38:8  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 
Job 38:9  When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 
Job 38:10  And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, 
Job 38:11  And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? 
Job 38:12  Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; 
Job 38:13  That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? 
Job 38:14  It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. 
Job 38:15  And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. 
Job 38:16  Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? 
Job 38:17  Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? 
Job 38:18  Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. 
Job 38:19  Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 
Job 38:20  That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? 
Job 38:21  Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? 
Job 38:22  Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 
Job 38:23  Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? 
Job 38:24  By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? 
Job 38:25  Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; 
Job 38:26  To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; 
Job 38:27  To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? 
Job 38:28  Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? 
Job 38:29  Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? 
Job 38:30  The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. 
Job 38:31  Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? 
Job 38:32  Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 
Job 38:33  Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? 
Job 38:34  Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee? 
Job 38:35  Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are? 
Job 38:36  Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? 
Job 38:37  Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven, 
Job 38:38  When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together? 
Job 38:39  Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions, 
Job 38:40  When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait? 
Job 38:41  Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat. 
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests

cron