[_ Old Earth _] One of my arguments

[EricTheBaptist]

Explain origins of life, and the origin of genetic information.

 

[Barbarian]

Information is an intrinsic property of the universe. Everywhere we look we see information increasing, decreasing, and changing.

Although the origin of life has nothing at all to do with evolution (evolutionary theory assumes living things and describes how populations of the change), there is considerable evidence for the origin of life, starting with amino acids and RNAs.

The first hint was the fact that amino acids and short proteins have been observed to have formed without living things. The second big hint was that some RNAs are self-catalyzing.

Lots more to learn; it's a very technical field.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Information is an intrinsic property of the universe. Everywhere we look we see information increasing, decreasing, and changing.

Although the origin of life has nothing at all to do with evolution (evolutionary theory assumes living things and describes how populations of the change), there is considerable evidence for the origin of life, starting with amino acids and RNAs.

The first hint was the fact that amino acids and short proteins have been observed to have formed without living things. The second big hint was that some RNAs are self-catalyzing.

Lots more to learn; it's a very technical field.

The reason why I refuse Evolution, and why it shouldn't be taught is that it doesn't explain the origins of life. All this other "evidence" means nothing unless you can explain the backbone of it all.

 

[jasoncran]

The reason why I refuse Evolution, and why it shouldn't be taught is that it doesn't explain the origins of life. All this other "evidence" means nothing unless you can explain the backbone of it all.

barb, heres a challenge from secular scientists who know you are wrong and what the answer.

The Gene Emergence Project is one of the programs of The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)3 science and education foundation with corporate headquarters near NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center just off the Washington, D. C. Beltway in Greenbelt, MD. 113 Hedgewood Drive, 20770-1610 Fax 301-441-8135
The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation should not be confused with "creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature. The Foundation's main thrust is to encourage interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects by theoretical biophysicists and origin-of-life researchers specifically into the origin of genetic information/instructions/message/recipe in living organisms. By what mechanism did initial genetic code arise in nature? The primary interest of The Gene Emergence Project is to investigate the derivation of functional monomeric sequencing at the rigid covalent-bond level. This must occur prior to any selection for phenotypic fitness.
Fitting with the project's highly interdisciplinary nature, its advisors include biochemists, molecular biologists, biophysicists, information theorists, artificial life and intelligence experts, exo/astrobiologists, mathemeticians, and origin-of-life researchers in many related fields. Please feel free to e-mail or write us opinions, advice, and critiques, particularly of the tentative rules themselves. We are developing as broad and as deep a root system within the scientific community as possible.
The Foundation believes that advisors' personal metaphysical persuasions are none of our business. Science is about "How?" Questions addressing "How?" are about mechanism. As a science foundation, we are interested in models of mechanism consistent with naturally-occuring biochemical phenomena and sound information theory. We welcome as advisors competent scientists from widely respected universities and laboratories around the world whose interest and experience extends to origin-of-life queries.
We believe the judging is at least as critical a question as the audited financials underwriting of the Prize. The decision of whether to award the Origin-of-Life Prize ® must rest not with the Foundation, but with the most internationally respected origin-of-life researchers themselves in accordance with the published rules and requirements. Scientists' votes on any given submission will be independently audited the same as the Foundation's financial position.
The Foundation welcomes tax-deductible donations to be used for the promotion of scientific inquiry into the origin of genetic prescriptive information (instruction).
The Board of Directors consists largely of administrators/fundraisers rather than life-origin bench scientists. Judging of the Prize is to be done by the scientific community itself, not by the Foundation. No one at the Foundation has a vote on any submission.
Board of Directors of The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. include
Morris W. Hedge, Chairman; Mathematician/Computer Scientist, recently retired from the Department of Defense, Fort Meade, MD
Reginald C. Orem, Vice Chairman, Retired Educator, College Park, MD
Paul L. Abel, Secretary; Owner, "We Train Computers," Columbia, MD
George Stephens, Ph.D., Teller of Elections, retired Maryland University professor, Adelphi Md.
Dr. David L. Abel, Treasurer; Theoretical Biology; ProtoBioCybernetics and BioSemiotics; Life-origin research specifically into the emergence of initial genes; Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Greenbelt, MD
Chris Esh, Ph.D. Caldwell, Idaho Sue E. Meeks, CEO, Integrated Financial Analysts, LTD., Potomac, Va.

from here


http://www.us.net/life/rul_abou.htm

and

The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).

Progress in life-origin research has been greatly impeded by a few key nagging problems. Biochemical constraints render many appealing theoretical models non productive. These biochemical constraints have received the most attention in scientific literature. Self-replication has been another subject of considerable research, although successes in this area have usually come from very artificial rather than natural-selection models. But perhaps the most daunting of all life-origin problems is elucidating a natural mechanism for "self-organization." Self-ordering is often confused with bona fide organization. A crucial paper providing valuable background information in this area is found at the following link:
Self-organization vs.Self-ordering in life-origin models .

Complexity, "the edge of chaos," hypercycles, Markov processes, fractals, complex adaptive systems, genetic algorithms, and directed evolution have all attracted great interest. A valuable summary of progress in these areas is summarized in another key review paper:
The capabilities of chaos and complexity .

It is important to differentiate between constraints and controls:
Constraints vs. Controls .

Gene emergence relates specifically to sequence complexity, material symbol systems, decision nodes, logic gates and configurable switch-settings. The following papers provide important background information for all of these issues:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
More than metaphor: Genomes are objective sign systems
The biosemiosis of prescriptive information
Chance and Necessity do not explain the origin of life .

Is your model scientifically plausible? To test this, the scientific method requires that you calculate a Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM, Xi), and that you apply the Universal Plausbililty Principle to your model. The probabilities incorporated into your UPM must be calculated correctly, factoring the probabilities of: 1) getting only homochiral monomers, 2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids), 3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of 80 or more), 4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize, 5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space, 6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc. All of these factors together still do not measure the probability of their organization into an integrated holistic scheme. But if the UPM for your model is less than 1, your model is definitively falsified by the Universal Plausibility Principle applicable to all hypotheses, models, theories and scenarios in all fields of science.
The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) and Principle (UPP) .

Winning The Origin of Life Prize would entail falsifying two null hypotheses:
The Cybernetic Cut - Progressing from description to prescription in systems theory .

The GS Principle or The Genetic Selection Principle .

Brief summaries of these two null hypotheses can be found as Scirus SciTopic Pages:
The_Cybernetic_ Cut
The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle .

Brief summaries of The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency can be found as a Scirus SciTopic Page:
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency .

Also of interest are two other short summaries:
Prescriptive_Information_(PI)
Constraints vs. Controls .

The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists' immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments.
Formal application by submitters is required to win. Submitters must expressly consent to abide by all terms and conditions of the Prize before judging of their paper(s) can begin. The ability of the Foundation to underwrite these payments and to administer the Project is monitored by the well-known accounting firm of Young, Brophy & Duncan, PC, Certified Public Accountants

care to write in the means which abiogenesis happened?

 

[Sinthesis]

Christianity doesn't explain the origin of life when you accept God as being alive. God does not have an origin, thus life does not have an origin.:shocked!

 

[Barbarian]

The reason why I refuse Evolution, and why it shouldn't be taught is that it doesn't explain the origins of life.

So you think chemistry shouldn't be taught, because it doesn't explain the origin of atoms? How so?

All this other "evidence" means nothing unless you can explain the backbone of it all.

Evolutionary theory assumes life originated somehow. Darwin, for example thought God created the first living things. Sounds like a pretty safe assumption to me. You disagree?

 

[Barbarian]

barb, heres a challenge from secular scientists who know you are wrong and what the answer.

I'm a bit skeptical that they are actually scientists, since they seem to be unaware that abiotic amino acids have exhibited chirality, and in fact seem to be arguing the opposite. (Murchison meteorite).

Who in abiogenesis research would not know that key fact? For that matter, who would assume that the particular mix of amino acids living things on Earth use, would be the only possible mix? We know that is false.

So something's fishy here.

Edit: Took another look. Math and computer science, "educator", computer trainer, financial analyst, and one biologist. They seem a bit light on experience to be telling us about abiogenesis. The fact that they don't know some key facts in the discipline is very telling.

 

[jasoncran]

So you think chemistry shouldn't be taught, because it doesn't explain the origin of atoms? How so?



Evolutionary theory assumes life originated somehow. Darwin, for example thought God created the first living things. Sounds like a pretty safe assumption to me. You disagree?

quote that statement where he did and reconcile with this.

The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind- such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

from here http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html

cant have it both ways.,

saying god did it through natural means must mean that there can be no miracles!

well the earth formed by natural means and chance and then suddenly a miracle occurs as god intervened then back to natural means.

either he used laws or he didnt,

which is it.

empiracally or logically satisify the origins question not dodge it

otherwise your position is nothing but an assertion its listed why all current theories are just that on that site.

 

[jasoncran]

I'm a bit skeptical that they are actually scientists, since they seem to be unaware that abiotic amino acids have exhibited chirality, and in fact seem to be arguing the opposite. (Murchison meteorite).

Who in abiogenesis research would not know that key fact? For that matter, who would assume that the particular mix of amino acids living things on Earth use, would be the only possible mix? We know that is false.

So something's fishy here.

Edit: Took another look. Math and computer science, "educator", computer trainer, financial analyst, and one biologist. They seem a bit light on experience to be telling us about abiogenesis. The fact that they don't know some key facts in the discipline is very telling.

so what is your degree? teach

if that is the case then we shouldnt be listening to you.
i know for a fact that one doesnt need to biologist to teach GRADE school science


https://www4.recruitingcenter.net/C...rofile&Job_Id=10089&esid=az&source=Indeed.com

if that doesnt include biology, shoot you just disqualified DARWIN AS HE HAD no biology degree !

but thats ok laymen can make observations so long as its not outside evolutionary thinking

so they cant ask?

hmm they seem to do reasearch , so its as like THE ATHIESTS WITH YOU!

so if i ask simple how do i get to heaven you cant answer me. you should point to the priests.

2

that aint christianity, bub. nor is it wise to do in science.

my sons science teaching arent in one subject but general , so i guess the science teachers who teach him cant teach evolution if they arent qualified in it?

he is only 11.

 

[Barbarian]

so what is your degree?

My undergraduate degree is in bacteriology, but I've got three courses in botany, including plant physiology and plant pathology. I've got undergrad course credit in biochemistry, genetics, zoology, comparative anatomy, animal physiology, parasitology, histology, and evolution. I've also got a graduate degree in systems with a concentration in animal populations. I got enough ergonomics in grad school to be voted in as a full member of the Human Factors Society.

teach

Never took any education courses, but I do teach now, after a long career as an ergonomist.

if that is the case then we shouldnt be listening to you.

I have to tell you, most of what I know of biology, I learned after I got out of graduate school. If you want to keep up, you have to be always learning.

I know for a fact that one doesnt need to biologist to teach GRADE school science

I review textbooks, sometimes, and I've yet to see a state curriculum that teaches abiogenesis or evolution in elementary school.

if that doesnt include biology, shoot you just disqualified DARWIN AS HE HAD no biology degree !

He did study under the best in the world, and if you read his book, you will be astonished by his ability to marshall facts. It's no longer possible to be expert in many things; too much to know these days.

so they cant ask?

They should at least know what they're talking about. And they don't, as you can see. I can show you the evidence for it, if you like.

hmm they seem to do reasearch

Not very well, if they don't know something that basic.

so if i ask simple how do i get to heaven you cant answer me.

Jesus tells you very plainly in Matthew 25: 31-46.

my sons science teaching arent in one subject but general , so i guess the science teachers who teach him cant teach evolution if they arent qualified in it?

One should know what one is talking about, if one intends to teach it.

 

[Barbarian]

cant have it both ways.,

saying god did it through natural means must mean that there can be no miracles!

Why do you think nature is not a miracle. It is one of His greatest miracles. As St. Augustine wrote, it's odd that people are amazed by walking on water, and cannot see the miraculous things in everyday life.

 

[jasoncran]

My undergraduate degree is in bacteriology, but I've got three courses in botany, including plant physiology and plant pathology. I've got undergrad course credit in biochemistry, genetics, zoology, comparative anatomy, animal physiology, parasitology, histology, and evolution. I've also got a graduate degree in systems with a concentration in animal populations. I got enough ergonomics in grad school to be voted in as a full member of the Human Factors Society.



Never took any education courses, but I do teach now, after a long career as an ergonomist.



I have to tell you, most of what I know of biology, I learned after I got out of graduate school. If you want to keep up, you have to be always learning.



I review textbooks, sometimes, and I've yet to see a state curriculum that teaches abiogenesis or evolution in elementary school.



He did study under the best in the world, and if you read his book, you will be astonished by his ability to marshall facts. It's no longer possible to be expert in many things; too much to know these days.



They should at least know what they're talking about. And they don't, as you can see. I can show you the evidence for it, if you like.



Not very well, if they don't know something that basic.



Jesus tells you very plainly in Matthew 25: 31-46.



One should know what one is talking about, if one intends to teach it.

of course but per STATE LAW YEARS AGO.
I HAD a and english master teaching me pre math IN COLLEGE.

LEGAL, AND ALSO in grade school they dont teach one subject in science

that doesnt mean anything barb, they link you to accredited reasearch.

uh really, i was taugh that,lets see if i can dig one up for you and once again science has to answer the question

we cant go from heres chemical evolution of planets to life on earth.

and say well we dont know and we aint a looking. so that is that sights premise

here per the home page which you didnt appear to read.

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).
Progress in life-origin research has been greatly impeded by a few key nagging problems. Biochemical constraints render many appealing theoretical models non productive. These biochemical constraints have received the most attention in scientific literature. Self-replication has been another subject of considerable research, although successes in this area have usually come from very artificial rather than natural-selection models. But perhaps the most daunting of all life-origin problems is elucidating a natural mechanism for "self-organization." Self-ordering is often confused with bona fide organization. A crucial paper providing valuable background information in this area is found at the following link:
Self-organization vs.Self-ordering in life-origin models .

Complexity, "the edge of chaos," hypercycles, Markov processes, fractals, complex adaptive systems, genetic algorithms, and directed evolution have all attracted great interest. A valuable summary of progress in these areas is summarized in another key review paper:
The capabilities of chaos and complexity .

It is important to differentiate between constraints and controls:
Constraints vs. Controls .

Gene emergence relates specifically to sequence complexity, material symbol systems, decision nodes, logic gates and configurable switch-settings. The following papers provide important background information for all of these issues:
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
More than metaphor: Genomes are objective sign systems
The biosemiosis of prescriptive information
Chance and Necessity do not explain the origin of life .

Is your model scientifically plausible? To test this, the scientific method requires that you calculate a Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM, Xi), and that you apply the Universal Plausbililty Principle to your model. The probabilities incorporated into your UPM must be calculated correctly, factoring the probabilities of: 1) getting only homochiral monomers, 2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids), 3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of 80 or more), 4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize, 5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space, 6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc. All of these factors together still do not measure the probability of their organization into an integrated holistic scheme. But if the UPM for your model is less than 1, your model is definitively falsified by the Universal Plausibility Principle applicable to all hypotheses, models, theories and scenarios in all fields of science.
The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) and Principle (UPP) .

Winning The Origin of Life Prize would entail falsifying two null hypotheses:
The Cybernetic Cut - Progressing from description to prescription in systems theory .

The GS Principle or The Genetic Selection Principle .

Brief summaries of these two null hypotheses can be found as Scirus SciTopic Pages:
The_Cybernetic_ Cut
The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle .

Brief summaries of The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency can be found as a Scirus SciTopic Page:
The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency .

Also of interest are two other short summaries:
Prescriptive_Information_(PI)
Constraints vs. Controls .

The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists' immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments.
Formal application by submitters is required to win. Submitters must expressly consent to abide by all terms and conditions of the Prize before judging of their paper(s) can begin. The ability of the Foundation to underwrite these payments and to administer the Project is monitored by the well-known accounting firm of Young, Brophy & Duncan, PC, Certified Public Accountants.

found it!

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPaleo2.html#origin

university of colorado.


they dont teach it as fact but its mentioned. it does have to be answered. cant just say well somehow here it is science.

 

[jasoncran]

Why do you think nature is not a miracle. It is one of His greatest miracles. As St. Augustine wrote, it's odd that people are amazed by walking on water, and cannot see the miraculous things in everyday life.

saying the supernatural did it simply isnt science barb.

you know that and i know that, its called faith.

you cant prove how life came to be via any empirical science method they all fail,'

dna is information and information doesnt arrise by natural means. something had to organise it,

if you say that it was a miracle then miracles are everday? natural selection is a miracle

if so let me ask it ns

OH NS PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR MY SINS AND DONT CAST MY SOUL INTO HELL

ns has no purpose and or rhyme or reason,. it doesnt care if you live or die.

thus cant be from god while he allows it but it simply cant type nor create intellgence.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

So you think chemistry shouldn't be taught, because it doesn't explain the origin of atoms? How so?

But then again, no one denies that Chemistry is true. (Well, anyone who does may as well deny that anything exists.) And where atoms came from isn't even a big deal, when your talking about where life came from.

 

[jasoncran]

this link then goes without any evidence to say that it did happen

that it did happen that way , of course that is open to ones interpration

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPaleo2.html#origin

[SIZE=+1]The interactions of these molecules would have increased as their concentrations increased. Reactions would have led to the building of larger, more complex molecules. A pre-cellular life would have began with the formation of [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]nucleic acids[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]. Chemicals made by these nucleic acids would have remained in proximity to the nucleic acids. Eventually the pre-cells would have been enclosed in a lipid-protein membrane, which would have resulted in the first cells.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Biochemically, living systems are separated from other chemical systems by three things. [/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=+1]The capacity for replication from one generation to another. Most organisms today use DNA as the hereditary material, although recent evidence ([/SIZE][SIZE=+1]ribozymes[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]) suggests that RNA may have been the first nucleic acid system to have formed. Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert refers to this as the RNA world. [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=+1]The presence of enzymes and other complex molecules essential to the processes needed by living systems. Miller's experiment showed how these could possibly form. [/SIZE]
3. [SIZE=+1]A membrane that separates the internal chemicals from the external chemical environment. This also delimits the cell from not-cell areas. The work of Sidney W. Fox has produced [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]proteinoid[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] spheres, which while not cells, suggest a possible route from chemical to cellular life.[/SIZE]

no barb, he may have studied but did he get a degree

that is like me after years of listening to you teach me on biology then apply for a position of science.

he never was formally educated. thats my point.

 

[Barbarian]

saying the supernatural did it simply isnt science barb.

you know that and i know that, its called faith.

It's O.K. to be unscientific for things beyond the reach of science. I'm often unscientific myself.

you cant prove how life came to be via any empirical science method they all fail,'

Of course, science never "proves" anything. We know more about the way life came to be on Earth than we did a few years ago. In a few years, we'll know more.

But of course, it doesn't mean anything to evolutionary theory. If God just poofed the first living things into existence, that would be O.K. with evolutionary theory.

dna is information and information doesnt arrise by natural means.

That happens constantly. It's what our universe does.

if you say that it was a miracle then miracles are everday?

Nature is a miracle.

OH NS PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR MY SINS AND DONT CAST MY SOUL INTO HELL
ns has no purpose and or rhyme or reason,. it doesnt care if you live or die.

Neither does gravity. I don't see the point.

thus cant be from god while he allows it but it simply cant type nor create intellgence.

The evidence shows that it did. Why can't He make a world that produces intelligence? God is a lot more intelligent and capable than you think.

 

[jasoncran]

:toofunny wow,

barb. science never proves anything?

so we dont have the scientific method ?

hmm so doctors dont practice medicine?

hmm doc im sick

i have a cough
i have a fever

the doc takes a measurement of my temp and looks at me and then says you have the flu.

that is the seven step method.

he proved to me that i had to the flu and when im cured of it by his recommdentation that is the truth.

sorry barb.

i reject your position as i was born with the predispostition to sin with men.

god planned that?

 

[Barbarian]

barb. science never proves anything?

Right. Science is inductive, going from observations to inferences about the way things work. Logical certainty is beyond science.

so we dont have the scientific method ?

Sure we do. It's just not "proof."

hmm so doctors dont practice medicine?

Medicine is largely an art, although it depends heavily on science. But doctors also make inferences, based on symptoms and history.

hmm doc im sick

i have a cough
i have a fever

the doc takes a measurement of my temp and looks at me and then says you have the flu.

Yep. Inference. He could be wrong, but if he's careful enough and skillful enough, his diagnosis is dependable enough that you can accept it as true.

sorry barb.

Yep.

i reject your position as i was born with the predispostition to sin with men.

The evidence suggests it happens by birth or shortly afterward. I know of very few people, straight or homosexual, who tell me that they decided what their preference would be. Actually, one. And she was bisexual.

god planned that?

God is omnipotent. He has no need to plan. But:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Not sin, just bad things.

2 Corinthians 12:7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

 

[jasoncran]

Right. Science is inductive, going from observations to inferences about the way things work. Logical certainty is beyond science.



Sure we do. It's just not "proof."



Medicine is largely an art, although it depends heavily on science. But doctors also make inferences, based on symptoms and history.



Yep. Inference. He could be wrong, but if he's careful enough and skillful enough, his diagnosis is dependable enough that you can accept it as true.



Yep.



The evidence suggests it happens by birth or shortly afterward. I know of very few people, straight or homosexual, who tell me that they decided what their preference would be. Actually, one. And she was bisexual.



God is omnipotent. He has no need to plan. But:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Not sin, just bad things.

2 Corinthians 12:7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

murder was good barb? and i disagree barb, otherwise we couldnt be certian that this computer works and why does it even say this in that bio book

experiments have not proven life originated in this way

proven barb? come on. that means its eliminated.

and your proven a point of mine, suffering is allowed for his glory but.


let me put it this way if theres no proofs in science then we cant say that we know anything.truth doesnt work that way. we can eliminate false and truth otherwise hang it up!

otherwise i can say well my car gets 20 mpg and you disagree and test it and cant find if out if im wrong.

this doesnt mean we get the answer the first time just that in theory when the evidence comes forward we can recheck the facts and correct ourselves!

that science

and heres the biggest hurdle barb.

adam lied and murdered and stole before god told him that was wrong?

and also another things WHY ARENT A CALVINIST? DID GOD MADE MAN TO SIN or not that is the question.

if murder was the way ere put a soul in him then whom did seth mate with? or cain?

or also another problem for you is if another species begins to talk and and speak what then?

the problem with the god and suffering is why doesnt he stop it according to the atheist and you say he meant to be!

he meant me to be that way and then tells me not to do that which is natural?

its like saying to my son heres some candy. and hand him it and then scold him for taking it. GOD ISNT CRUEL and what you say is wrong on isiah. he defines evil not makes it
isiah 45

Verse 7. I form the light, and create darkness
It was the great principle of the Magian religion, which prevailed in Persia in the time of Cyrus, and in which probably he was educated, that there are two supreme, co-eternal, and independent causes always acting in opposition one to the other; one the author of all good, the other of all evil. The good being they called LIGHT; the evil being, DARKNESS. That when LIGHT had the ascendant, then good and happiness prevailed among men; when DARKNESS had the superiority, then evil and misery abounded. An opinion that contradicts the clearest evidence of our reason, which plainly leads us to the acknowledgment of one only Supreme Being, infinitely good as well as powerful. With reference to this absurd opinion, held by the person to whom this prophecy is addressed, God, by his prophet, in the most significant terms, asserts his omnipotence and absolute supremacy:-
"I am JEHOVAH, and none else; Forming light, and creating darkness, Making peace, and creating evil: I JEHOVAH am the author of all these things."
Declaring that those powers whom the Persians held to be the original authors of good and evil to mankind, representing them by light and darkness, as their proper emblems, are no other than creatures of God, the instruments which he employs in his government of the world, ordained or permitted by him in order to execute his wise and just decrees; and that there is no power, either of good or evil, independent of the one supreme God, infinite in power and in goodness.
There were, however, some among the Persians whose sentiments were more moderate as to this matter; who held the evil principle to be in some measure subordinate to the good; and that the former would at length be wholly subdued by the latter. See Hyde, De Relig. Vet. Pers. cap. xxii.
That this opinion prevailed among the Persians as early as the time of Cyrus we may, I think, infer not only from this passage of Isaiah, which has a manifest reference to it, but likewise from a passage in Xenophon's Cyropaedia, where the same doctrine is applied to the human mind. Araspes, a noble young Persian, had fallen in love with the fair captive Panthea, committed to his charge by Cyrus. After all his boasting that he was superior to the assaults of that passion, he yielded so far to it as even to threaten violence if she would not comply with his desires. Awed by the reproof of Cyrus, fearing his displeasure, and having by cool reflection recovered his reason; in his discourse with him on this subject he says: "O Cyrus, I have certainly two souls; and this piece of philosophy I have learned from that wicked sophist, Love. For if I had but one soul, it would not be at the same time good and evil, it would not at the same time approve of honourable and base actions; and at once desire to do, and refuse to do, the very same things. But it is plain that I am animated by two souls, and when the good soul prevails, I do what is virtuous; and when the evil one prevails, I attempt what is vicious. But now the good soul prevails, having gotten you for her assistant, and has clearly gained the superiority." Lib. vi. p. 424.
I make peace, and create evil
Evil is here evidently put for war and its attendant miseries. I will procure peace for the Israelites, and destroy Babylon by war. I form light, and create darkness. Now, as darkness is only the privation of light, so the evil of war is the privation of peace.

from studylight.org

http://studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=045

that has a different connonation barb. he allows it but that doesnt mean he planned it. if adam didnt sin would he have died

for the wages is death.

if death came in the world by adam and life by christ when then does paul say death is the last enemy?

hmm

 

[Barbarian]

murder was good barb?

Sin is the one thing we can say we are wholly responsible for. But that doesn't change the fact that God creates evil.

and i disagree barb, otherwise we couldnt be certian that this computer works and why does it even say this in that bio book

There are quantum effects in solid state physics that we don't understand very well.

experiments have not proven life originated in this way
proven barb? come on. that means its eliminated.

No. What we don't yet know is not evidence for anything.

let me put it this way if theres no proofs in science then we cant say that we know anything.

Epistemology is a difficult discipline. Do a little reading. Can you prove the sun will appear in the east tomorrow? No, you can't. But you have enough evidence to be very sure that it will.

truth doesnt work that way. we can eliminate false and truth otherwise hang it up!

If only. Everything in science is an inference on evidence.

otherwise i can say well my car gets 20 mpg and you disagree and test it and cant find if out if im wrong.

You may have noticed, reading scientific research, that the results are most often reported in confidence levels, usually to the 95th percentile.

and heres the biggest hurdle barb.

adam lied and murdered and stole before god told him that was wrong?

Men are created by God, knowing natural law. Even those who never heard of God are accountable for that.

and also another things WHY ARENT A CALVINIST? DID GOD MADE MAN TO SIN or not that is the question.

If God is truly omnipotent, then He would know Adam was going to sin. If He is not truly omnipotent, then His promises to us are merely somewhat more likely than the promises we tell each other.

or also another problem for you is if another species begins to talk and and speak what then?

I don't see that it matters. Apes can use sign language. It doesn't mean they have immortal souls.

the problem with the god and suffering is why doesnt he stop it according to the atheist and you say he meant to be!

God either could stop suffering, and will not, or He would and cannot. God is not fair as we count fairness.

he meant me to be that way and then tells me not to do that which is natural?

its like saying to my son heres some candy. and hand him it and then scold him for taking it.

Picture an all-knowing God, telling Adam "hey, enjoy everything in the garden, but you must never eat anything from that tree over there. No, not that one, that one. If you do, something terrible will happen.

Do you really think God didn't know what would happen next?

GOD ISNT CRUEL and what you say is wrong on isiah. he defines evil not makes it

God says he makes evil. Understand, by "evil", it means things that happen that are bad from our point of view.

And as God makes clear in Genesis, the "death" is a spiritual one, not a physical one. Otherwise, Adam would have died physically that day.