Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Tao_Equus]

I just heard recently about some group trying to create an alien life form, ie something that could exist in other environments than our own (methane based, etc) Their theory that if they prove they can create an 'alien' ameoba, then they determine that life exists on other planets..based on if the accident can happen here...therefor...QED... gotta love theory.

The question though, has any lab been able to duplicate the accident, ie create an ameoba or some one celled organisim from the inorganic material we've got hanging around...much less alien life.

Not that I want them to try, I think their errors with GMO's should be enough to quit them trying to play God...

namaste,

wil

I think the majority of scientists working in biogenesis view a single celled organism as pretty advanced. We are building ever smarter computers though and it may not be long before we manage to create a free thinking silicone based based machine. Will we call that life?

 

[bob x]

They thought the beginning of life on this planet started out "simple" but later to be proven totally wrong.

It is now known that life on this planet consisted entirely of single-celled organisms for three billion years. The prediction that the earlier period would contain only simpler forms of life proved entirely correct.

There is no solid proof for this bear to whale story, not even in the fossil record.

We now have a large number of fossils showing transitional forms between land-based carnivores and whales. The prediction that such fossils would be found proved entirely correct.

From meteorites?!.yeah, another theory with no solid evidence.

No, amino acids from meteorites is an observation: that is what has actually been seen.

Did Darwin gave any reference to where we can acquire more knowledge about "natural".

You could try looking around you.

 

[Quahom1]

I think the majority of scientists working in biogenesis view a single celled organism as pretty advanced. We are building ever smarter computers though and it may not be long before we manage to create a free thinking silicone based based machine. Will we call that life?

Conventional wisdom states that Life:

Must show growth
Must have metabolism
Must show motion
Must be able to reproduce
Must show homeostasis

There are exceptions to the rule, such as infertile animals and people, stars and fire, and perhaps viruses.

I suppose if we design and create "nanites" that can show all these criteria, then we may have to rethink our concept of life...in time.

v/r

Q

 

[E99]

Hi Tao Equus

Thankyou for your replies. The Gaia thread is interesting, and go's a long way to illustrating your beliefs, but here you still attempt to pummel away at the creationists, and a lot of your prior threads on this discussion have tried to denigrate them. Your knowledge on the subject is ample, but the answers that you give are based on the distorted 'headlines' that the evolutionists shower us with. Stripping away the headlines you will find that most of them are sad insipid old stories.

I find that the way evolution, especially so chemical abiogenesis evolution is put across, is like the advertising to that of say, a picture on the packaging of a budget priced fruit pie, A carton picturing oodles of juicy fruit pieces oozing from raspberry sauce ......Reality strikes home, when you've finished baking it, you have to tear the pie apart to find the two pieces of apple lumps floating in a sticky flavourless sauce........

Hyped up and deceptive advertising ...little substance... Evolution

As an example:........... Newspapers around the world once proclaimed: 'German chemists have produced living cells from a combination of amino acids'......When you look at the actual story, what do you find ?..... All that was produced were a few building blocks joined in pairs (dipeptides) and a minuscule amount joined in threes (tripeptides). A few paired building blocks are a million miles away from life even one enzyme, let alone a living cell. There were many other complications within their find that were whitewashed over.

However,.......evolution in the form of extensive adaptation within the species is evidential.

Spontaneous abiogenesis is a joke.


YOUR QUOTE:
Abiogenesis has many unaswered questions. That does not mean the answers will not be found. The first 'life' to self-replicate was very probably not at the much higher level of evolution to which you elude, single celled organisms, but at the much simpler level of organic peptides or an RNA polymerase.




Abiogenesis has unanswered questions because it is unanswerable. Flogging a dead horse is more to the truth. They can thrash away at trying to make probable the impossible if they want to, they're wasting their time. For now, the best that they can do is fool us by oversimplifying the process and speculate on feeble evidence. And we haven't even touched on the very specific conditions required for life to form in the first place. Atmospheric, chemical reactions, temperature etc.


RNA and Peptides abiogenesis ? .........

Many evolutionists realise that spontaneous cellular abiogensis is beyond reason due to its complexity, so they look at bypassing this process by ascertaining that simpler chemical forms self replicated and ultimately created more complexity.


This is known as the RNA world..... There are scant reasons to make a theory out of this, because RNA has catalytic functions, a catalyst that joins derivatives of the nucleotides, the building blocks of the nucleic acids. It has been observed that RNA molecules can act as their own enzymes, (In the simplest meaning of acting as an enzyme) by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA.

But there are endless problems to this theory being the answer to animating life..
The RNA world theory is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules. However, cells are energy producing units. And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where orderly sequenced RNA came from in the first place, apart from many other chemical anomalies.

RNA molecules are highly complex, made up of hundreds of sub units arranged in a precise sequence. From here all the other complex and specific functioning parts of the cell have got to form.This is literally impossible, as the cell is incredibly complex and functions only because each working part works in unison as a whole. You haven't got the mysterious natural selection to act as the mechanism to produce new existing parts because this is inanimate 'chemical evolution' and not biological reproduction that relies on gaining new information via genes by the process of sexual reproduction. RNA or peptides are too isolated to replicate from generation to generation without a reliable mechanism to pass on genetic information. In all known lifeforms, that mechanism depends on the double-stranded molecule DNA .... Catch 22....You need DNA to make proteins, but you need proteins to make DNA....Chicken or the egg ?


As for self replicating peptides.....This was originally based on reports that a short peptide derived from part of a yeast enzyme can catalyse its own formation. This was found by experimentation under controlled conditions. Evolutionists are investigating protein-first rather than nucleic-acid-first theories of the origin of life. But proteins do not have anything analogous to the base-pairing in nucleic acids. (DNA) The problems faced are complicated to say the least, but to simplify it, it involves impossiblies such as spontaneous combining in water solutions, sequenced (non racemic) left handed amino acids do not form spontaneously (left handed aminos only, are required for life) The rest is of course speculation.

Please convince me that creationism is absurd. Explain how peptides and/or RNA formed in detail and then went on to form the living cell.


YOUR QUOTE:
The reason the fossil record only goes back to prokaryotic single celled organisms is precisely because its the cell wall that gets fossilised, all earlier life forms had no cell wall and were thus not preserved. And to say that these prokaryotic cells were extremely complex can also be misleading. They had nothing like the complexity seen in a modern single celled organism. So in short non-celular life was very likely thriving for some time before evolving very simple prokaryotic cells.


Precursors to the prokaryote cells could not form. The prokaryote cells are extremely complex, just because the later eukaryote cells are more complex doesn't mean that prokaryote cells were not. They both contain the incredibly complex DNA. They have the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in "food" and expelling "waste," a means for interpreting the amazingly complex genetic code and replicating it, etc., etc A cell must be able to perform many chemical reactions in the right order, place and degree, which requires a number of specific catalysts (enzymes). It must also be able to reproduce the information needed to produce these enzymes.

The earliest cells were exceptionally complex.

Another complication is the 2 billion years from prokaryote cells to evolve into eukaryote cells......2 billion years ! And little change, yet we have around only 5 million years for the most complex unit in the universe to evolve... the human brain !!
Another dilemma regarding the prokaryote cells is that they have two different branches. Two forms, different, yet related: Archaebacteria and Eubacteria branching together at around 3.8 billion years ago. This gives very little time for their common ancestor and any so called pre-cellular life to develop, as they would have had to develop in the extreme seething heat and scalding magma of early earth.



YOUR QUOTE:
What utter nonsense. The Platypus has no bird chromozones at all but a mixture of mammalian and reptile. Its duck shaped bill is nothing like the hard kerratin of a birds bill but is a soft fleshy nerve filled organ. It's ancestors did have teeth but its own evolutionary journey has seen the need for them dissapear and so adult animals only have vestigal horny pads. This is not de-evolution and the use of the term denotes you have a very poor understanding of what evolution is. The platypus has skeletal features found only in therapsids, the extinct group of reptiles from which many believe mammals evolved. The platypus far from confounding the evolutionist can be held up as an example of an intermediate transitional creature from reptilian to mammalian states.


I was surprised at first. This information was taken from a non creationist site. It is true what I say....Maybe I should have been more specific. The Duck billed platypus has 10 sex chromosomes, they relate to both mammals and to birds. Please check this out on the animal planet website. I understand evolution as I was a strict evolutionist / atheist for years...then I saw the light !


To be exact, the animal said to have evolved into the whale was the Andrewsarchus

YOUR QUOTE:
I am sorry but again you try to shout me down using erronous information. There is genral consensus amongst palaeobiologists that Andrewsarchus appears far too late to have been the common ancestor of whales.
Infact Basilosaurus, an early whale was flourishing at the same time as Andrewsarchus.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your sources originate in crypto zoology, a fantasy land of strange creatures with little scientific credability.


If you want me to correct you if you are wrong....Sorry then, I'll correct you, cos you are wrong.

I haven't given erronous info. (Have the evolutionists changed their opinion again ?)....I can't keep up with them..... Andrewsarchus is of the mesonychids family of long legged hoofed animals way back in the distant past of so called whale evolution, this family are said to be the originators of the modern whale... If they've shifted the dating of the Andrewsarchus, they must have a reason for this. (They've shifted the Eukaryote cells back by 1.2 Billion years, so whats a million years or two) .....Whatever the norm is at present, The Mesonychids land mammals,(of which Andrewsarchus is classified) are the supposed originators of the modern whale.


Basilosaurus was a marine animal and is considered one of a number of transitionals (The transitionals are dubious to say the least) from mammal to marine mammal such as the whale but NOT the land mammal originator of whales. It apparently lived millions of years after the mesonychids. This animal was fully aquatic. However, Basilosaurus had a serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that it was not an ancestor of the whale.


Other problems regarding whale evolution (amongst many that I cited before) relate to the many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. On a transitional land to sea mammal this would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking.

 

[E99]

Tao Equus

YOUR QUOTE:
Again here you make a lot of noise but say nothing. A type of common meteorite called a carbonaceous chondrite contains all 8 of the left handed amino acids life requires and uses for protien production. The meteorites do not have to be zapped or played with in any way. Infact using spectral analysis we can see the vast interstellar clouds of dust in which stars are formed are rich in amino acids.

Meteorites were found to have organic (carbon-containing) molecules and related compounds in tiny amounts. Any assumption about resulting life is defined by how its interpreted.

You make it sound like amino acids are lego bricks (Simplification again). 8 amino acids on a meteor means nothing. You can find all 20 essential amino acids on earth, and do all sorts of experimentations with them in an attempt to form life, but you won't succeed.

If all ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. even under prebiotic conditions, biological molecules tend to break apart into the ‘building blocks’,Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. Cytosine is one of these, this decomposes under solar UV radiation and it is a vital component for the origin of life, but it could not remain stable on earth let alone interstellar space. It is an infinitely far more complicated a process to produce life from amino acids than simply having them available.

YOUR QUOTE:

Figures being stated by n4h1z that are a common statistcal nonsense pumped out by the creationist lobby, figures assumed on a single chemical reaction at a time taking place in sequential pattern. The truth is that many billions of reactions were taking place simultaneously in our primordial seas

Abiogenesis is, as I stated at the begining of this post, still full of uncertainties and science still has many answers to find. But using statistical games to support your assertions of 'impossibility' does nothing more than discredit the whole foundation of your argument. When an evolutionary scientist looks at the question of abiogenesis there are still too many uncertainties to draw definitive conclusions. But if and when they do you can be sure that any statistical data will not be a set of random numbers plucked out of the air and multiplied together. Hoyles concept of statistical calculation was fundamentaly flawed, yours is too but multiplied by the same number as there are aircraft hangers in the world.

The calculations are correct. Mathematically they are analogous to probability factors involving individual units that are claimed to spontaneously form life. Proteins for instance.

Taken from a creationist site and put very simply:

3 different units (proteins) combining in the correct sequence is 1 chance in 125,000. At a rate of one attempt per second, the average time taken to make 125,000 attempts is 34.72 hours.

8 different units in the correct sequence is 1 chance in 39,062 billion. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, so the average time taken in years to make 39,062 billion attempts at the rate of one attempt per second would be 1,238,663.7 years.

50 in the correct sequence would take 7.2 x 10 raised to the power of 63 years (Zillions upon zillions)

603 units in the correct sequence is 9.552 x 10 raised to the power of 1016

The chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists is approaching the latter figure, a figure well beyond all of the atoms in the universe, and zillions of universes.

Average cells have 2000 proteins to sequence in a specific order, so the problamatic figure is beyond reasoning that it is possible. As for the formation of the infinately more complex DNA itself by chance, the probability figure is astronomical, almost infinite and the chances of DNA spontaneously forming in the lifetime of the universe are impossible.

It is so clear that creation is the only means that cells came about by.

YOUR QUOTE:

If you want to start making lists of people making scientific assertions in favour of creationism that have credible qualifications let me know, you can send them to me on a postcard.

No, I'll send you the cats kipper bones, the dogs bone, a file and some loctite glue. With a bit of remodelling and a years burial, you can then claim that you've got evidence of whale evolution. The credible qualified evolutionist scientists will probably believe you. (They did with the Piltdown man scam.....lol)

40% of US scientists believe in God (in various ways.) The greatest reason for believing this, is because of the absurdity of spontaneous impossiblities of life forming from non life.

You have got it in for the creationist.

YOUR QUOTE:

Yes I do. To be frank I find being asked to believe in creationism insulting. To me its about as logical as fitting square tyres on my car.

The way evolution fits square tyres on cars is by saying that they would fit on the car by themselves. Juggle a vast amount of car components, enough parts to fill the universe for 15 billion years , and in essence they expect a car fully assembled and tuned at the end of it all. Even the simplest self-reproducing cell, which has 482 genes, has a vastly higher information content than a car.

The earliest cell is by far more complex than a car yet they say that this self assembled ! ............Totally illogical.

Whilst on the subject of cars, cells and motors, please look up details about the bacterium flagellum and see how the bacteria propel themselves along, they use a biological rotary motor the size of a virus that rotates at 1000 times per second and show me how such a complex unit found in a relatively simple and primitive life form evolved.

To ignore creation and to have a belief in atheistic evolution is actually the most banal way to insult God the creator. To do so we are belittling his omnipotent superb creations, lowering them to the realms of mere chance. Also taking cosmological evolution into the scenario, this ultimately says that existance came about by nothing.

In my religion we believe that Satan is the progenitor of theories that contest the creator and bring his creations down to the level of nothingness....spontaneous creation, in that, if they came about by nothing then what is God required for. The history theme of the scriptures make it quite clear that Satan is the one that contests Jehovah God (or whatever name you want to put to him) at every turn, to the point of insulting him by attempting to take him out of the picture.

YOUR QUOTE:

And I will continue to look at the fossil shark tooth in front of me and know that there were sharks 100 million years before the story of genesis was ever concieved.

Are you sure that they would be 100 million years old ? How would you be assured that the dating is correct and accurate ?

 

[bob x]

The chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists is approaching the latter figure

Proposed by whom?
A "minimum cell" does not need to contain any proteins at all. Semipermeable membranous structures form in a variety of non-biological chemical contexts. These are not selective about what comes in or goes out (unlike the membranes in biological cells) but would be a starting point. Such bubbles split whenever they get large, so there would be no co-ordination with the replication of any nucleic acids, but there is no requirement that cell fission and nucleic acid copying were co-ordinated from the beginning.
Your calculations also assume that every single one of the 400 (or however many) proteins has to be exactly thus and so, with no possible variations anywhere in any of the sequences. Of course, there is always a wide variety of possible variations which would do just as well, and this factor needs to be divided out of all your 10-to-the-huge numbers: but your source does not even attempt to compute what that denominator would be; it similarly turns into 10-to-the-huge.

 

[bob x]

The credible qualified evolutionist scientists will probably believe you. (They did with the Piltdown man scam.....lol)

False. Evolutionist saw the Piltdown man as a bizarre oddity from the beginning, because it did not fit with any of the other evidence. They were hesitant to make accusations of fraud, however, until there was solid evidence of the fraud.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Any assumption about resulting life is defined by how its interpreted.

Exactly !! Some people, i.e. scientists, arrive at assumptions by logical deduction of the observable facts and if theres sufficient facts they hypothesise a theory for peer review. If it stands up to the rigours of that review then it is accepted as a plausible theory. If in time more data becomes available that contradicts the theory then that theory will fall. Now if you dont see that this system is fundamentaly honest and searching for truthful interpretation maybe you have a flawed concept of truth.

If all ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything.

Well I'm here. I know that much.

3 different units (proteins) combining in the correct sequence is 1 chance in 125,000. At a rate of one attempt per second, the average time taken to make 125,000 attempts is 34.72 hours.

As I pointed out in my last post this one attempt per second thing is absolute utter nonsense. These reactions were taking place similtaneously, ie there were many many millions, if not billions and possibly trillions of reactions per second. NOT ONE. So in the example given above its not one chance every day and a half but somewhere much closer to one chance in 0.000000003472 hrs. And thats a conservative estimate.
Bob X goes on to answer the rest of illogical assumption very clearly and so I will not repeat them.

40% of US scientists believe in God (in various ways.) The greatest reason for believing this, is because of the absurdity of spontaneous impossiblities of life forming from non life.

Only 40% !! Wow that astounds me. What does not astound me is the way you as a Creationist has used this cleverly worded statistic to attach to your argument. Try being honest and forthright and give me the percentage of scientists, not quacks without recognised scientific credentials, in the US that believe Creationism is a scientific fact.
I will give you the name of one greatly admired scientist who was also a devout practicing Christian his whole life. Charles Darwin.

To ignore creation and to have a belief in atheistic evolution is actually the most banal way to insult God the creator. To do so we are belittling his omnipotent superb creations, lowering them to the realms of mere chance. Also taking cosmological evolution into the scenario, this ultimately says that existance came about by nothing.

In my religion we believe that Satan is the progenitor of theories that contest the creator and bring his creations down to the level of nothingness....spontaneous creation, in that, if they came about by nothing then what is God required for. The history theme of the scriptures make it quite clear that Satan is the one that contests Jehovah God (or whatever name you want to put to him) at every turn, to the point of insulting him by attempting to take him out of the picture.

Here I take offence on a personal level. What would you like to do? Call me a witch, an heretic, cast me atop a fire and burn me? There is a fundamental difference between what you believe and I believe. That is I do not presume to speak for God. I dont see the books you call holy as anything more than the work of Mans hand full of anecdotes by people like yourself who presume to speak for God. But I do see God everywhere in everything and acutely so when looking at evolution.
Your use of the concept of Satan is nothing more than a crude weapon concieved of and wielded to subjugate and control through fear for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in a heiracrchical religeous mafia. Such people are as far removed from the God I see as its possible to go. Indeed the people who tend to use this concept of Satan are the closest thing I see to the embodiement of Satanic on the face of this planet. If we are made in Gods image and we should fear him then we should seek spiritual enlightenment from sadists, wife beaters, torturers, psycopaths and their like for surely they are a face of such a God. We should not jail child molesters but saint them !!!
You can say what you like about the God I see. It is vastly beyond us and unconcerned by the mental ramblings of you or I. It does not require me to blindly believe in a few words written so long ago under such dubious circumstances. It does not require me to blind and gag my children and fill them with mortal fear to even think their own thoughts. It does not require me to go to some temple and be a hippocrit looking for absolution from the 'sins' I will repeat in the following week. It does not require me to grovel on the floor uttering absurdities in the fear that some self appointed preacher will think me unpious and bring misery to my family. And it does not require me to ignore facts that are slapping me in the face with common logic. My God is about life and life force and I am a part of God now. My God is above and beyond mans feeble efforts to name It or describe it and infinitely beyond my ability to presume to know Its thoughts. And your words, your weapons of subjugation and fear might wash on your indoctrinated brethern and your poor poor children but it wont wash with me.

Are you sure that they would be 100 million years old ? How would you be assured that the dating is correct and accurate ?

Simple, I trust paleogeoligists to peer review each others work criticaly and honestly. You see like me they are searching for truths, not presuming to know them. And like me they too most likely have their own way of seeing God in what they find.

 

[lunamoth]

You erred again I'm afraid, pertaining to organized religion showing decline in the US. In fact it has risen by 18% in the last ten years, from 60% believing and following a religious tract, to 78%. In addition, a great many scientists and scholars have revised their views on religion, and have joined in one form or another. Actually the number as at about 66%, given the various sciences involved. 75% of our Doctors claim belief in God, and the afterlife. Social sciences tend to be higher than the natural sciences, however the natural scienes are 59-70%, which is pretty high for such learned scholars...

v/r

Q

Hi Q, meant to add that this is the same poll I was thinking of and you are right, it found 59% of biologists believing in God, and higher percentages for other natural sciences.

Bumping to reply to Tao's post.

I can't respond for all scientists, but what is really absurd is this statement by E99: 40% of US scientists believe in God (in various ways.) The greatest reason for believing this, is because of the absurdity of spontaneous impossiblities of life forming from non life.

Since the topic is abiogenesis, I might refer you all to the discussion previously had in the other evolution thread starting around the bottom of page 9.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[n4h1z]

Hi and peace to all...

Quote:
The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution which originated in ancient sumeria and shaped in ancient Greece was a French biologist, Jean Baptiste Lamark.

I'm afraid you have lost me here...are you saying that Mr. Lamark, a French biologist, began the theory of evolution in Sumeria? Sumeria? Circa what, about 2500-3000 BC? The theory of evolution goes back that far? My goodness!

What i meant was Jean Baptiste Lamark was the first person to seriously take up the subject of evolution in the 19th century.
But actually this "evolutionary" idea was first sighted in inscriptions from ancient Sumeria. Of course at that time it is not known as evolution but something else. During that time the "evolution" idea was associated to their pagan religion beliefs. Unawaare of God and worshipping idols, the ancient sumerian answered the origin of life with the "evolution" idea.

During the ancient Greeek era, the idea of "evolution is given shape. The proponent "evolution" philosophers at that time: Thales, Anaximender and Empodecles just to name a few, stated that living things originate from inanimate matter. Thales spent a long time in Egypt where at that time the superstition of living things came from inanimate things like fire, water, mud, air is widely accepted. The Egyptians believed that in this way the frogs which appeared when the waters of the Nile receded were formed. Proposing a similar idea, Thales adopted the idea of "evolution" and take it as argument. This idea is solely based on theory and not on experiment or observation.

​

Anaximander, a student of Thales, developed the theory of evolution, giving rise to to two important modes of Western thought.

1) The​

universe had always existed and will continue to exist into eternity.
2) Living things evolved from each other

The second idea by then had slowly begun to take shape in Thales's time. The first written work to discuss the theory of evolution was the classical poem "On Nature", in which Anaximander wrote that creatures arose from slime that had been evaporated by the sun. He thought that the first animals lived in the sea and had prickly, scaly coverings. As these fish-like creatures evolved, they moved onto land, shed their scaly coverings, and became humans.
(http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/earlymod.htm )
​

Books on philosophy describe how Anaximander shaped the foundation of the theory of evolution:
We find that Anaximander of Miletus (611 B.C.-546 B.C.) advanced the traditional evolutionary idea, already quite common in his day, that life first evolved from a type of pre-biotic soup, helped along a bit by the rays of the sun. He believed that the first animals developed from sea slime which had been evaporated by the sun rays. He also believed thatmen were descended from fish. ( http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm )

​

​

In short, the claim that living things evolved from each other as a result of coincidences, was the product of pagan philosophy. So u can see 123...the idea of "evolution" goes way back to circa 2500-3000 BC and neither Lamark nor Darwin is the first one to thought about it.​

 

[n4h1z]

Science cannot prove or disprove God. Neither can philosophy. And if we are truthful to ourselves, neither can religion. Religion points in the direction of God...

Don't you think you might have judge religion and science from a very narrow perspective. If religion can't proove God's

existence, then why did God create all this "Religion" thing. I agree when you say religion point to the direction of God,

but for me and i'am sure many others, religion shows clear evidence the existence of God. Science is one of God's "media" to

show that He exists. It is impossible for science to disapprove the existence of God. A mechanical watch, running on kinetic

energy, with all its mechanical wheels, gears and what not is a sign that there is a person who has the expertise to create

and design the mechanical watch and completes it to perfection. If we look through from an evolutionist view, it is "thought

to be" possible that pieces of metal,thrown altogether going through billions of chemical reaction throughout a very very

very long period of time will produce a perfectly functioning mechanical watch. So my question to you ,what is a mechanical

watch compared to a living organism for example a cat. Maybe cat is much too complex to be compared to..ok consider an

amoeba. An amoeba can move around and catches its meal with pseudopods, a digestive system and also sensing system.An amoeba

can sense its' prey without an eye-like organ. Needless to say its' energy generator, the reproductive system / method and

the most important the data bank in its' DNA. Using your rational thinking skill, logic reasoning and wisdom , please tell me

Which is more complex in in every aspect, a mechanical watch or an amoeba. You can keep the answer to yourself and give it a

deep thought.

...and provides us with a path to seek upon to discover for ourselves. Then we judge the matter for ourselves, using the
personal experiences we have in our lives.

Are you saying that we should judge religion according to our own intrepertation, not God's. I'am afraid that this might lead

you to a man-made religion, worshipping a man-made god. Without taking into account what God Himself wants us to perceive

exactly all the 5 W's an 1 H about Him...surely one is to be misguided by his own personal "judgement" and "experience"

Science does not address matters of spirit. It cannot. The scientific method cannot explain things it cannot hold or dissect.
Religion reaches out in an effort to try to explain those things we cannot hold in our hands. Religion tries to teach us
about things like spirit, love, laughter and hope.

I agree with the first few statements.For the last few i would like to add. My religion for me is more than just beliefs,
hope, love etc. It is also "Ad-Deen" which means a way of life. It covers everything from A-Z. No attempt to promote my
religion here but just to share.

In other words, single celled creatures are actually pretty concrete evidence of adaptation, a fundamental cornerstone of
evolution. This from a God fearing person, me.

There is a great difference between evolution and adaptation. Evolution emphasis more on physical changes from one form to

another through a long period of time. Observing this theory, there must a countless number of transitional form.e.g. a

reptile evolving into a bird; the fossil record should have thousands of fossils of creatures half reptile, half bird with

half developed wing. Not to mention scale to feathers. But surprisingly there's none. All there is in the fossil record is a

perfect flying creatures with no semi-developed body part.
Looking from the evolutionist view, evolution involves changes in the DNA structure.
On the other hand, adaptaion does not involve Changes in the DNA structure of the organism. No new information could be added

to the DNA. The evolutionist came up with the term "mutation" to explain the changes in the DNA information. Mutation is a

result of external factors intervening the DNA information. Mutation only damages the information in the DNA. So far there

has been no usefull mutation observed either in nature or laboratory. Mutation will only result in harm to the living

organism. Mutation doesn't add new information to the DNA so by logic thinking it is impossible for a creature to develop new

organs by mutation. Can a reptile develop wings throgh mutation? Can an an eyeless creature develop eyes through mutation?

Nah, I don't buy it. Tornadoes don't work that way. Junkyards usually don't have airplane parts...I mean, there is just too

muchj illogic in this statement to even consider it as meaning anything. And certainly not meaning anything worthwhile to

guage a way for humans to explain God's creation. Unless of course, you somehow feel your faith is threatened?

I assure you, I am no threat to your beliefs. And I will not allow you to threaten mine. So...there you have it.

I suggest that u might want to compare the concept of the tornado &junkyard metaphore with theory of evolution rather than
just seeing the general picture. There is much resemblance in it...and by the way i'am here no to threat anyone's beleief and
be threaten. I'am all here to share in peace...



I hope that could clear a few things for the moment. The way i see it Science and religion goes side by side. Remember what

Albert said "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind"

 

[E99]

Hi Bob

YOUR QUOTE:
Your calculations also assume that every single one of the 400 (or however many) proteins has to be exactly thus and so, with no possible variations anywhere in any of the sequences. Of course, there is always a wide variety of possible variations which would do just as well, and this factor needs to be divided out of all your 10-to-the-huge numbers: but your source does not even attempt to compute what that denominator would be; it similarly turns into 10-to-the-huge.


It has to be precise, or granted, near precision. Changing even one amino acid in a protein can considerably alter its function . A known example: Sickle cell anaemia mutation in humans, causes various diseases such as liver failure. Due to a replacement of an amino acid called glutamate, with another amino acid called valine, it causes a huge change in the workings of haemoglobin. The unfortunate consequences is death of thousands per annum. There can also be a loss of total function in some cases due to protein mutations..... Required precision to a high degree of cellular sub units means that '10 to the huge' probability is appropriate.




The chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists is approaching the latter figure (spontaneous life...low probability)


Your QUOTE:
Proposed by whom?


This is based on the simplest life form recognised by most scientists.
The simplest decoded free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 482 genes coding for all the vital proteins. These proteins are composed of about 400 amino ' left handed' acids each on average, in precise sequences. Functioning only with pre-information and self replicating products. Even with this amount of sub units it can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. Minimal sub unit 'life forms' even viruses cannot exist on there own without attaching to more complex life forms.. Hypothetical protocells would face the same problem.


YOUR QUOTE:
A "minimum cell" does not need to contain any proteins at all. Semipermeable membranous structures form in a variety of non-biological chemical contexts. These are not selective about what comes in or goes out (unlike the membranes in biological cells) but would be a starting point. Such bubbles split whenever they get large, so there would be no co-ordination with the replication of any nucleic acids, but there is no requirement that cell fission and nucleic acid copying were co-ordinated from the beginning.




If cells are to self replicate, survive and progress, they need proteins made up from the 20 sub unit amino acids, and a mass of other functioning biochemicals. There is a bare minimum requirement.


A minimum number of parts for machines are required for them to function properly, and generally, if one part below this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function. The same with an organ or an organism.
At this level it must be both extremely complex and dependent on many other parts of the system. Life depends on an intricate arrangement of three types of molecules: DNA which stores blueprints. RNA which transports a copy of the DNA information to the protein assembly; and proteins. DNA is of no use without both RNA and proteins. The complexity is high.... DNA of a single e-coli bacterium contains about 10,000,000,000,000 bits of information.

The parts, or simple forms could not 'evolve' separately and could not even exist independently for very long, they would break down in the opposing environment without protection. A cell can come only from a functioning cell and cannot be built up bit by bit. It requires instant assembly of major organelles to exist. They need all of their millions of necessary parts to survive, similarly, most animals must have lungs, and other vital organs working in unison to live. All of the million parts of a cell are required to produce intricate biochemical functions necessary for its survival.



I'm not certain what 'bubble' theory you are mentioning here, there are several, and each one is 'old hat speculation' and a dead end. They have no resemblance to chemical evolution. True cellular life and its self replication is about complex coded organisation and information content and not simple models and processes.


If your paragraph about splitting bubbles and membranes are relating to Fox's microspheres, this is a straightforward physicochemical phenomenon, similar to a soap bubble forming two bubbles. Physicochemical forces may cause it to split into two. No reproduction, no replication of any kind, however, takes place. Material in the first 'bubble' would be randomly distributed between the two 'bubbles'. This concept of the ‘protocell,’ as is a misnomer, because a cell by definition must have extensive metabolic complexity or it will not survive. It’s not just a protoplasm balloon with fluid and a few biochemicals floating around, but it’s built to control itself and to self propagate, and for that there must be a minimum complexity.


In this 'microsphere' experimentation Fox heated up some pure dry amino acids which caused them to link together into small chains, then dropped them in some water and some little round things formed. Analysis of this material shows that it consists of polymers, or chains, of amino acids, although of shorter lengths than are usually found in proteins. In nature you would not get separated pure essential amino acids together, only in a laboratory. There are also many other flaws in likening these protocells to pre-cursors of complex cells which are too extensive to go into.
He placed certain enzymes within them, and these so called ‘protocells’ carried out certain automatic reactions. The resuting products were released out through this membrane into the surrounding medium, and because of simple physico-chemical factors things flowed in and out. This only superficially mimicked a cell by staged production. You could blow up a cellophane balloon and put in the enzyme and get the same reaction. It is an entirely man designed simplified system, nothing at all in comparison to a cell. This is what the poster Gluadys on the other evolution thread was stating was cellular life ,one that can be derived from the MEM amino solution.....Heat amino acids for longer and you get a mucky brown solution. It is grossly misleading to call it life. There is also other deceptive information about abiogenesis on that particular discussion.



YOUR QUOTE:
False. Evolutionist saw the Piltdown man as a bizarre oddity from the beginning, because it did not fit with any of the other evidence. They were hesitant to make accusations of fraud, however, until there was solid evidence of the fraud.


The issue is not the hoax as such; the ignomony of Piltdown is that such an amateurish, bumbling and obvious fraud, showing filemarks on the teeth, went undetected for over 40 years.... 1912 hoax to 1953, the time of the exposure of the fraud. Many were indoctrinated into evolution due to textbooks and encyclopedias featuring Piltdown mans recognition as the missing link.

Scientists, including those writing doctoral theses, had access to the bones, which were researched extensively. No one saw the hoax at the time. Even highly qualified scientists had simply seen what they were looking for and ignored the obvious mismatched fossil jigsaw.

 

[bob x]

n4h1z:

A mechanical watch, running on kinetic energy, with all its mechanical wheels, gears and what not is a sign that there is a person who has the expertise to create and design the mechanical watch and completes it to perfection. If we look through from an evolutionist view, it is "thought to be" possible that pieces of metal,thrown altogether going through billions of chemical reaction throughout a very very very long period of time will produce a perfectly functioning mechanical watch.

Watches do not make more watches. This is an essential difference, which spoils the analogy completely.

Observing this theory, there must a countless number of transitional form.e.g. a reptile evolving into a bird; the fossil record should have thousands of fossils of creatures half reptile, half bird with half developed wing. Not to mention scale to feathers. But surprisingly there's none. All there is in the fossil record is a perfect flying creatures with no semi-developed body part.

Completely false. There is a large number of transitional forms, with various body-coverings which are difficult to draw a line among, which are "scales" and which are "feathers"; in some of the feathered forms, there is nothing winglike about the arms and no possibility that these creatures could fly (here the feathers are only for warmth), while others could be capable of gliding, but not of sustained flight. It is arbitrary where to draw the line and say, up to here they are "reptiles", beyond this they are "birds". Creationism, of course, did not predict that any creatures like this would ever be found: why would God create them all just to let them go extinct? So that scientists would see a transitional series?

Mutation only damages the information in the DNA. So far there has been no usefull mutation observed either in nature or laboratory.

Utterly false. The acquisition by bacteria of new abilities, by mutation, is a common observation. It is true that more mutations are harmful than helpful, but the majority of mutations are neutral.

E99:

It has to be precise, or granted, near precision.

Utterly false. Almost every protein in any living thing will come in a wide variety of different versions from one individual to the next.

Changing even one amino acid in a protein can considerably alter its function . A known example: Sickle cell anaemia mutation in humans, causes various diseases such as liver failure. Due to a replacement of an amino acid called glutamate, with another amino acid called valine, it causes a huge change in the workings of haemoglobin.

My emphasis added. There are many hundreds of hemoglobin variants among humans; the sickle-cell is the only one in common circulation which has such a great alteration of function.

This is based on the simplest life form recognised by most scientists.

The simplest now existing. That is not at all the same thing as the simplest that could ever have been, back when none of the forms now existing were around to compete. Nobody, I repeat nobody, is proposing that something like a mycoplasmate would have been the first proto-cell.

These proteins are composed of about 400 amino ' left handed' acids each on average, in precise sequences.

Utterly false. None of the proteins need to have a precise sequence; all of them come in multiple variants.

If cells are to self replicate, survive and progress, they need proteins made up from the 20 sub unit amino acids, and a mass of other functioning biochemicals. There is a bare minimum requirement.

No they don't. For the membrane to split, no proteins at all are required. For RNA to be copied, zinc ions are required, but no proteins. DNA does need a protein to pry open the two strands, but early life does not need to have used DNA at all. What the proteins do is to increase the efficiency (making sure that the nucleic-acid copying is accurate, and that it is co-ordinated with the cell division): an inefficient life-form could never make it in the present day, when the existing life-forms would quickly eat it; but when there was no competition, the "bare minimum requirement" is much less than you are asserting.

DNA of a single e-coli bacterium contains about 10,000,000,000,000 bits of information.

You have WAY too many zeroes there: H. sapiens is ~6,000,000,000 and I don't know how much smaller the E. coli genome is.

If your paragraph about splitting bubbles and membranes are relating to Fox's microspheres, this is a straightforward physicochemical phenomenon, similar to a soap bubble forming two bubbles.

I principally had in mind some stuff I made myself, when I was 14 years old and playing with a Gilbert chemistry set. You are right, it is a quite straightforward phenomenon, nothing magical or against-high-odds about it.

No reproduction, no replication of any kind, however, takes place.

Copying of nucleic acids is an entirely separate matter. That has also been investigated by researchers interested in how many amino acids would be needed for the minimum possible "replicase" enzyme that would induce such copying: for RNA, as I said, the answer turned out to be "zero"; zinc ions will do, even without a replicase to hold the ions in place (but copying in such a solution is slow, with frequent errors); "hydrated lead" Pb(OH)2++ ions will also do, if less well than zinc.

This concept of the ‘protocell,’ as is a misnomer, because a cell by definition must have extensive metabolic complexity or it will not survive.

Survive what? It will continue to exist, unless there are living things out there to eat it.

the ignomony of Piltdown is that such an amateurish, bumbling and obvious fraud, showing filemarks on the teeth, went undetected for over 40 years....

Piltdown was considered dubious from the very beginning: I had (unfortunately no longer have) a book from 20 years before the "exposure" of Piltdown (by Roy Chapman Andrews, famous for finding the first dinosaur eggs) which already pointed out that Piltdown did not fit in with all the other evidence.
What took 40 years was inventing a dating method that would prove the fraud. When the method was invented, the researcher did not say "oh, let's try it out on some bone or another... any bone will do...." No, he zeroed in on Piltdown because Piltdown had always been notoriously dubious.

 

[E99]

Hi Tao equus

Late reply.....

Your quote:
As I pointed out in my last post this one attempt per second thing is absolute utter nonsense. These reactions were taking place similtaneously, ie there were many many millions, if not billions and possibly trillions of reactions per second. NOT ONE. So in the example given above its not one chance every day and a half but somewhere much closer to one chance in 0.000000003472 hrs. And thats a conservative estimate.
Bob X goes on to answer the rest of illogical assumption very clearly and so I will not repeat them.


I put up the probabilities of three units as a comparison to that of eight, as even a numerical step up of only five, the improbability increases considerably, and subsequently infinitely greater for three digit numbers of units. However, it is true that there were possibly trillions of reactions within the unproven assertation that there was a pre-biotic sea, puddle or ocean ( instead of the original Darwinian idea of 'a pond'.) The probabilities that I gave were only a starting point to illustrate the probabilities of one reaction per second.... From here we have to analyse the probabilities of billions of reactions in line with the probability of this one reaction per second.

The probabilities of millions of reactions per second can be looked into....

Assumed reactions in a primeval soup.........

One site that calculates mathematically complex systems, calculate the random formation of a very simple RNA protocell by optimizing all conditions involved to a highly favourable degree.

The probability starts with formation of more complex forms by the means of colliding amino acids. Please note, colliding molecules doesn't guarantee that a reaction will take place. However, they assume by analysing that there was around 10 raised to the power of 65 reactions, timed ( generously excessive) within a span of 1.11 billion years of earths earliest formation, which it would not have been, as within the first half of the billion years, earth was a furnace...


This speculative basic protocell was calculated to have assembled in a sea with a collective biomass equivalent to all of the amino acids known on earth, based on the biomass of all of the existing life forms on planet earth today, and in optimal favourable circumstances....In a sea consisting of only the 20 essential amino acids required for life in an L-isomer form only. (Realistically there would have been more....over 100 amino acids in D-isomer form also) If they put the D- form into the probability, it lowers the chances considerably...Once the D- form reacts with the L- form they ' lock out'.... that is no more complex combinations can form. To be able to continue, the mathematicians have to by-pass many other chemical barriers involved in restricting amino acid combinations within the primeval sea.

They are trying to calculate an emergence of a most basic RNA based protocell possible, one that is able to theoretically function, with the various bare minimum of amino acids to form the barest of proteins, bases and codons required to survive on a knife edge, forgoing the error protection in the genetic code etc. They recognise that this cell is hypothetical, fantasy, (the protocell would not self replicate progressively, its sub units are miles below that of simplest known cell. )....but this scenario was devised for the sake of analysing the probabilties of the most basic life-form assembly.


Sparing you the extensive calculations, the probability of randomly assembling the required extremely basic RNA protocell comes out at 10 raised to the power of 79, despite all of the over estimated chemical reactions and amino acid quantities. As a comparison, the number of atoms in the universe is assumed to be 10 raised to 80. They assume that under ultimate favourable hypothetical conditions it was probable, but continuation of its existance and the chemical evolution progression of this basic RNA protocell is not recognised as possible, given the unrealistic conditions they used to force its emergence.



Your quote:
Your use of the concept of Satan is nothing more than a crude weapon concieved of and wielded to subjugate and control through fear for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in a heiracrchical religeous mafia. Such people are as far removed from the God I see as its possible to go. Indeed the people who tend to use this concept of Satan are the closest thing I see to the embodiement of Satanic on the face of this planet.



Your idea about Satans usage in religion is once again pure conjecture. It is a generalization to say that all religions use Satan as a means to instill fear, assuming I do too. We do not say this, and are one of the few religions that realise that hell is not a place of torment, taken by means of correct transliteration of the original Greek and Hebrew words and concepts used. We are trying to be realistic. The written description about Satan clearly says that he is a real spiritual non material being, capable of disturbing the peace of the world, not one that merely waits to toy with us after we supposedly transfer to a mystical life after death fiery purgatory scenario.



Your quote:
If we are made in Gods image and we should fear him then we should seek spiritual enlightenment from sadists, wife beaters, torturers, psycopaths and their like for surely they are a face of such a God. We should not jail child molesters but saint them !!!


That is another debate. God is not the cruel God that man misinterprets him to be. Careful study of the his word in his scriptures can go a long way to dispel that concept e.g. Biblical slavery is not similar to 19th century slavery etc. There is more love in God than hate, this can be seen in his perfect specific designs made for us, (anthropic principle) amongst many other things.



Your quote:
I dont see the books you call holy as anything more than the work of Mans hand full of anecdotes by people like yourself who presume to speak for God. But I do see God everywhere in everything and acutely so when looking at evolution.
You can say what you like about the God I see. It is vastly beyond us and unconcerned by the mental ramblings of you or I. It does not require me to blindly believe in a few words written so long ago under such dubious circumstances.



What is the alternative ? You need to look indepth at non biblical secular history and chronology and see that the standard secular 'written words of long ago', that you must base your faith in, are in fact by far more inaccurate than the scriptural history chronology.

As a pointer look up details about a historian priest named Manetho and his Egyptian chronology, and see how most of our ancient history and its chronology are based on wildly out of order Egyptian kings lists, inscriptions and sothic (astronomical) dating.
Historians rely on these fragmentary stone inscriptions and documents. The works of Manetho ( 3rd century B.C ), gave order to the fragmentary lists and other inscriptions, by arranging the lists into 30 dynasties. These are preserved only in the writings of later historians such as first century Josephus. The later historians only had fragmentary documents to go on. The history of various ancient historical characters and events are not always direct accounts and they are handed down rewritten, even several times by previous historians, distorted, bias accounts such as in battles, a loss was barely recorded, but exaggerated recordings by the victors. Around most of Manethos rewritten 30 dynasties, archaeologists and historians try to fit in everything. Its not solid...Dubious to say the least. Yet the scriptural documents and chronology are belittled, whereby secular documents and chronology is no better, but assumed to be concrete.


Your quote:
It does not require me to blind and gag my children and fill them with mortal fear to even think their own thoughts. It does not require me to go to some temple and be a hippocrit looking for absolution from the 'sins' I will repeat in the following week. It does not require me to grovel on the floor uttering absurdities in the fear that some self appointed preacher will think me unpious and bring misery to my family. And it does not require me to ignore facts that are slapping me in the face with common logic. My God is about life and life force and I am a part of God now. My God is above and beyond mans feeble efforts to name It or describe it and infinitely beyond my ability to presume to know Its thoughts. And your words, your weapons of subjugation and fear might wash on your indoctrinated brethern and your poor poor children but it wont wash with me.


Indoctrination ? What poor children of mine ? I lost them, nearly three years ago, and when they were with me, I did not instill fear into them. The bible is a book, it is either open or closed, no forcing, or gagging, just teaching, and a free will to accept or reject.


Sorry, but, God is not scotch mist, or some mysterious cold ethereal force. God has a personality. God is love, and by means of his love he cares for us like a father for his children. He is concerned about us, but the world is going the way where they are not truly concerned about him, so he has made an appointed time to intervene, whilst he watches us, and sees how much faith and love that we have in him, by remaining unseen, but his signature is everywhere. He has a name, and his written word is a medium by a way to get to know him. He asks us to. That is why he had an inspired written book set up for us. He doesn't want us to avoid him. He reveals just enough for us to get to know him. He has a purpose, and will eventually become fully interactive with us again.

Whatever we both see him as, and you seem to imply that creationists are dumb, it was wrong for me to react sternly against your criticisms.
If you have been offended... I apologise.
Transferring to the abiogenesis discussion.


Shalohm

 

[Tao_Equus]

To E99,


Appology not required now that I understand you to be far more tolerant of others views than I had at first taken it. And I am extremely sorry about your children.

Kind Regards

TE

 

[n4h1z]

Peace to all...

Sorry, but, God is not scotch mist, or some mysterious cold ethereal force. God has a personality. God is love, and by means of his love he cares for us like a father for his children. He is concerned about us, but the world is going the way where they are not truly concerned about him, so he has made an appointed time to intervene, whilst he watches us, and sees how much faith and love that we have in him, by remaining unseen, but his signature is everywhere. He has a name, and his written word is a medium by a way to get to know him. He asks us to. That is why he had an inspired written book set up for us. He doesn't want us to avoid him. He reveals just enough for us to get to know him. He has a purpose, and will eventually become fully interactive with us again.

Indeed...very well said. And i would like to add that all the revelations by God is a good news for the believers and who have faith in the day of resurrection and these revelations too serve as a warning for those who deny it. And one important point to ponder is that God really wants us to get to know Him as what He truly is, not as what we want ourselves to think He is... not just that, He also wants us to perceive His works / signature as how He has made it so, ....which we can acquire through research and study in science with the guidance of His religion and also via His religion harmonize with science. Which is exactly how Alberst Einsten put it "Science w/o religion is lame, religion w/o science is blind"

 

[Tao_Equus]

Peace to all...



Indeed...very well said. And i would like to add that all the revelations by God is a good news for the believers and who have faith in the day of resurrection and these revelations too serve as a warning for those who deny it. And one important point to ponder is that God really wants us to get to know Him as what He truly is, not as what we want ourselves to think He is... not just that, He also wants us to perceive His works / signature as how He has made it so, ....which we can acquire through research and study in science with the guidance of His religion and also via His religion harmonize with science. Which is exactly how Alberst Einsten put it "Science w/o religion is lame, religion w/o science is blind"

When I see the word of God and not Mans words masqueradeing as Gods you can be assured I will be the first to listen.

 

[n4h1z]

Peace to Tao...

When I see the word of God and not Mans words masqueradeing as Gods you can be assured I will be the first to listen.

Then you should consider looking for it...coz it really does exist...pure, authentic and uncorrupted. Whatever you thoughts are right now, I'll pray that that you will walk on the righteous path....Amin

 

[Tao_Equus]

Peace to Tao...



Then you should consider looking for it...coz it really does exist...pure, authentic and uncorrupted. Whatever you thoughts are right now, I'll pray that that you will walk on the righteous path....Amin

With respect I have had a pretty good look at most mainstream faiths and rejected them because to my mind they are all a good way removed from the God I feel in my heart and see around me every moment. Perhaps your faith lets you have a dialogue with God but it is meaningless to me. Words like pure, authentic and uncorrupted may be your interpretation of what you read but they do not fit with the facts as I know them. I do not have a dialogue with God but I feel and see its presence in me and everything whenever I care to look. As for walking a rightcheous path I live a life full of love and never knowingly cause harm to anybody or any creature and I promote these same things in my children and in my words. As your faith believes in a judgement day I would ask you in my case to leave it to that higher authority you profess so much faith in to judge me. As you do not know me nor understand me you are clearly not qualified to do so.

With respect

TE

 

[n4h1z]

Peace to Tao...

With respect I have had a pretty good look at most mainstream faiths and rejected them because to my mind they are all a good way removed from the God I feel in my heart and see around me every moment.

Maybe that only applies to you and a few others who has the same perception as you do... But not to more than 3.415 Billion people of mainstream faiths...and i believe these group of people are not Dumb to blindly follow teachings which will deviate them from God. Personally, are you denying the ability of some 3.415 Billion people to grasp and see the rational of mainstream faiths? Whatever it is, its' your right to think and i have no right to stop you, but i have the right to know why...so i won't argue any further about it unless i need to.

Perhaps your faith lets you have a dialogue with God but it is meaningless to me. Words like pure, authentic and uncorrupted may be your interpretation of what you read but they do not fit with the facts as I know them. I do not have a dialogue with God but I feel and see its presence in me and everything whenever I care to look.

Yes, you are absolutely correct...i have dialogue with my God, but I get His replies indirectly. He replied to me through the blessings that i get,the food that i eat, the peaceful country that i live in, the love that i received from others etc.I ask Him for prosperity, He gave me hardship to endure. I ask Him to let others to love me, He sent me hateful people to dealt with. I ask for His guidance, He showed me a long path with obstacles to walk through. I get nothing that i ask for, yet i get all that I want. My God is neither deaf nor dumb. He answered my request none other than with His unlimited wisdom.And the words like pure, authentic and uncorrupted that i've used is not my own interpretation, but it was my God Himself who said it. And if it doesn't fit you, fine...i have nothing to loose.

As for walking a rightcheous path I live a life full of love and never knowingly cause harm to anybody or any creature and I promote these same things in my children and in my words. As your faith believes in a judgement day I would ask you in my case to leave it to that higher authority you profess so much faith in to judge me. As you do not know me nor understand me you are clearly not qualified to do so.

You are truly correct, I have no right to judge you as i don't know you well.I also have no right to say heaven or hell to anybody of other faiths. But my God does, and He is the best Judge there is. I believe He will respond to ones' good deeds or sins eventhough the size of mere speck.I think this might lead to interesting topic for a new thread..."Day of Judgement, yes or no"... or is there already one?

Peace...