Why do you need Jesus? He saves you from what?

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

Here is a reply to reply # 47.
Only those people confuse, who give more authority to the sayings of disciples, than the saying of Jesus (own words and actions). Jesus was a teacher of all disciples, so we should consider more authority of saying of Jesus than any other disciple.

Bible said a lot of other persons are "sons of God". So, Jesus was one of them. If you call Jesus God, due to having no father. But Adam has no mother, no father. Then Adam is double God.

Bible says these greatest miracles.
I. ELISHA: Raised a child from death. 2 KINGS 4.20/35
2. PETER: Restored life to a dead woman. ACTS 9.37/41

So, you may believe these two people were equal to Jesus as God.

I could not get any prophecy in the bible which says that "Jesus will die on the cross for ransom our sins".

 

[Yahweh kid]

Bible said a lot of other persons are "sons of God".

But not the only begotten Son of God. So

If you call Jesus God, due to having no father. But Adam has no mother, no father. Then Adam is double God.

That's a good one .... I believe I quoted Hebrews 1:8

Bible says these greatest miracles.
I. ELISHA: Raised a child from death. 2 KINGS 4.20/35
2. PETER: Restored life to a dead woman. ACTS 9.37/41
So, you may believe these two people were equal to Jesus as God.

Nowhere does the Bible talk about prophets being God.

I could not get any prophecy in the bible which says that "Jesus will die on the cross for ransom our sins".

We know that Jesus hands and feet were pierced...Psalm 22:16 reads, “Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.”

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
You can also read about Jesus's crucifixion here.. John 19

If you are looking for the exact words used in a prophecy I will not be able to help you.

 

[Cino]

So you do not even need artificial intelligence to create in software engineering? Plz give some examples....tx

AI in its current state, for all its impressive features, is basically pattern matching, just done really fast. "ABcD and BcDE have an overlap, yay" that kind of thing. But I digress, and my opinion would not be popular with most proponents of AI research, so take it with as much salt as you like.

Software engineering is still done by human beings, not AI, and the amount of stupid design and reinvention of wobbly wheels is unbelievable if one has not seen it. It's a miracle anything works at all. And yet, we have this massive shambling creation. And it works, in a way. From lots of weird, ill-fitting, unreliable parts arises the Internet.

Here's an essay by an AI researcher of the first generation, describing it much better than I could. It is a highly technical rant about an operating system called Unix, but the principles described apply to all software in use today, in my opinion.

https://dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html

 

[Cino]

We know that Jesus hands and feet were pierced...Psalm 22:16 reads, “Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.”

This passage has a fascinating history of translation issues, going back to antiquity. Are you aware of this?

The Hebrew text reads "like a lion, they are at my hands and feet". But it's hard to tell which reading was intended by the original author, because of the ambiguity of the consonant-only text.

Just wanted to throw that in there, I'm of course totally fine with people reading it either way to support their beliefs.

 

[Yahweh kid]

This passage has a fascinating history of translation issues, going back to antiquity. Are you aware of this?

The Hebrew text reads "like a lion, they are at my hands and feet". But it's hard to tell which reading was intended by the original author, because of the ambiguity of the consonant-only text.

Just wanted to throw that in there, I'm of course totally fine with people reading it either way to support their beliefs.

I am aware of that, but like a lion makes no sense imo. like a lion......at my hands and feet.....does a lion go to a person's hands and feet?

 

[Cino]

I am aware of that, but like a lion makes no sense imo. like a lion......at my hands and feet.....does a lion go to a person's hands and feet?

FWIW, here's an ancient Assyrian bas relief of a lion hunt:

Like I said, I have no skin in this game, but I am a bit of a language nerd, so this is fascinating to me. That such a massive impact on culture and history, might have originated from a scribal or translation muck-up.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

I am struggling to understand how life can originate from nonliving matter, that is why I believe life was created by an intelligent being. Where did life began? Do you know Amir?

Struggle no more, science to the rescue . . .

"organic molecules (in this case amino acids) could be created from inorganic materials by natural environmental conditions such as acidic solution, heat and electrical discharge (lightning), without the mediation of enzymes."
https://www.americanscientist.org/a...ic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.

"Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions."
https://www.britannica.com/science/...matter,more highly improbable chemical events.

"In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours." -Richard Dawkins

 

[Yahweh kid]

Is inorganic to organic a hypothesis or a theory? Has it actually been proven?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Is inorganic to organic a hypothesis or a theory? Has it actually been proven?

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

There is a plethora of evidence that supports evolution. There is very little if any evidence that supports Creationism.

 

[Yahweh kid]

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

There is a plethora of evidence that supports evolution. There is very little if any evidence that supports Creationism.

The fact that man cannot produce life does not mean life was not created. I am sure you have heard that a person can have a creative mind, have you heard of a person who has an evolved mind?
Creation is everywhere.... I can accept that after the Creation evolution(change) started to give us all the variety we see in nature.
The fact of the matter is we create everyday, if we had to wait for evolution to take the place of creation we will probably still be some 500 billion years old progressive chemicals hoping for an electrical discharge that comes from somewhere.....

 

[Yahweh kid]

Maybe my mind has not evolved.....

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

The fact that man cannot produce life does not mean life was not created. I am sure you have heard that a person can have a creative mind, have you heard of a person who has an evolved mind?
Creation is everywhere.... I can accept that after the Creation evolution(change) started to give us all the variety we see in nature.
The fact of the matter is we create everyday, if we had to wait for evolution to take the place of creation we will probably still be some 500 billion years old progressive chemicals hoping for an electrical discharge that comes from somewhere.....

What? Man does create life, ya know babies?
Are you talking about 'creation' itself or Creationism (which is something else)?
Creating a work of art (e.g. painting) is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about Creationism and Evolution.

 

[Cino]

Is inorganic to organic a hypothesis or a theory? Has it actually been proven?

They are just words we have created. Organic chemistry involves carbon atoms. But the chemistry works even without us having an opinion about it.

 

[RJM]

I don’t see how it changes much — God created Man from dust? Abiogenesis just proposes a mechanism. I like Nick Lane’s hypothesis of shallow alkaline marine vents, as opposed to deep sea black smokers, for the origin process

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Vital-Question

 

[RJM]

Struggle no more, science to the rescue . . .

"organic molecules (in this case amino acids) could be created from inorganic materials by natural environmental conditions such as acidic solution, heat and electrical discharge (lightning), without the mediation of enzymes."
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life#:~:text=The Origin of Origins&text=They showed that organic molecules,without the mediation of enzymes.

"Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions."
https://www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life#:~:text=Life is coeternal with matter,more highly improbable chemical events.

"In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours." -Richard Dawkins

However there is a huge divide between the origin of organic molecules, and the astronomical odds those molecules combining in exactly the right sequence to become ‘alive’?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

However there is a huge divide between the origin of organic molecules, and the astronomical odds those molecules combining in exactly the right sequence to become ‘alive’?

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” A million hypothetical monkeys, each typing out one phrase a second on a keyboard, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

 

[RJM]

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving “desirable” (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable” (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” A million hypothetical monkeys, each typing out one phrase a second on a keyboard, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

Life really genuinely goes against all the odds — one incredible, astronomical coincidence stacked upon another time and time again. The only thing that can be said is: “It happened because here it is.” Life and consciousness are not an obvious or logical process for the universe. . Science grasps for explanations. But the theories are not conclusive. We really know and understand so little, IMO.

 

[RJM]

Obviously out of a big enough sample of random letters it becomes possible to highlight the complete works of Shakespeare, or anything else from a big enough series. I’m not sure that says anything useful? Who chooses what to highlight? Why should life highlight itself out of all the possibilities? ‘That’s what happened,’ is the best that can be said? We don’t have another universe to compare

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Life really genuinely goes against all the odds — one incredible, astronomical coincidence stacked upon another time and time again. The only thing that can be said is: “It happened because here it is.” Life and consciousness are not an obvious or logical process for the universe. . Science grasps for explanations. But the theories are not conclusive. We really know and understand so little, IMO.

This may be true, however the evidence for evolution, IMO. greatly outweighs the evidence for creationism.

 

[RJM]

This may be true, however the evidence for evolution, IMO. greatly outweighs the evidence for creationism.

I have no problem reconciling evolution or abiogenesis with intelligent design.