Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11177 comments on the The Star Press story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10657 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
The Bible teaches us that God made all animals in a mature state So if this is correct then the chicken came first. Back to the old argument I'm afraid. Lol.
Not for me. The bible isn't authoritative without faith.
KJV

United States

#10658 Jan 8, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>He keeps trying to use probability as an argument but doesn't actually understand probability enough to state his case.

So, like a broken record, he keeps making these stupid pronouncements that everybody else is wrong. He can't actually take it further to explain his math, he has none.

(Can I still say broken record with some assurance that readers even know what this implies? The reference seems so dated.)
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event, the amount of time available is long enough to overcome this problem. This fallacy is because they (and most of us, really) just haven’t gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems.
The difficult thing is to conceive the size of some of the figures obtained. James F. Coppedge in the bookEvolution: Possible or Impossible? has given some fascinating examples, one of which is here presented. Consider first this statement from the evolutionist George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in the Scientific American (1954):
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.
Now using Coppedge’s figures, let’s take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean? Let’s look at Coppedge’s example; assume we have an amoeba—and let’s assume that this little creature is given the task of carrying matter, one atom at a time from one edge of the universe to the other (though to be about thirty billion light years in diameter). Let’s further assume that this amoeba moves at the incredible slow pace of one Angstrom until (about the diameter of a hydrogen atom) every fifteen billion years (this is the assumed age of the universe assigned by many evolutionists). How much matter could this amoeba carry in this time calculated to arrange just one usable gene by chance? The answer is that he would be able to carry 2 x 10^21 complete universes!
This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time.
Coppedge’s book makes fascinating reading in other respects and is one of the few works that really comes to grips with this matter of molecular biology and probability mathematics.
Evolutionists would have us believe that modern molecular biology lends its support to their world view, but the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...
KJV

United States

#10659 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Age doesn't matter. It's not fully established yet, end of story.
Well ok it must be true if KK says so.

It won't be established either.
String theory is dying pretty fast.
KJV

United States

#10660 Jan 8, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>No argument, the chicken egg came first.
Then it's a good thing Adam wasn't into
Omelets for breakfast yet!

Just think, there would be no KFC today if Adam had eaten those eggs on his first morning.
KJV

United States

#10661 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>How many times must you have this explained to you, the bible is the assertion, and it contains a lot of assertions. Assertions are not evidence.
There is evidence in the words of the Bible. Reject all you want. I don't care.
There is evidence all over the world that the Bible is correct and truly the word of God. You won't find what you don't look for.
KJV

United States

#10662 Jan 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>If things happened in nature "by chance" they don't.

For example, if you jumped as high as you possibly could, which planet would you "randomly" come down on?
So what you're saying is that nature designed life on earth?
KJV

United States

#10663 Jan 8, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Not for me. The bible isn't authoritative without faith.
Goes with out saying.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10664 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
First off there is not enough data in that passage to determine if the accuracy that you're requiring was in fact needed
It was if the bowl was to be round. If not, the ratio of the diameter to the circumference could approach two.
KJV wrote:
Remember in using just whole numbers Pi = 3
Pi was never discussed in the bible. If you want to use whole numbers only, try 31 and 10. It's closer.
KJV wrote:
The diameter of the basin would be the inside diameter, measured from side to side. But the circumference would be measured by placing a cord around the outside, then measuring the length of the cord.
Says who, besides Christians?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10665 Jan 8, 2013
I don't buy your sh!t fast food. I cook, or I dine.

Kan't Fry Chicken can go f**k itself.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it's a good thing Adam wasn't into
Omelets for breakfast yet!
Just think, there would be no KFC today if Adam had eaten those eggs on his first morning.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10666 Jan 8, 2013
So called because they're dead stupid. Keep scrolling.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
They are called the Dead Sea scrolls.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10667 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.
Just for giggles, let's pretend it was all chance and not actual chemistry.

DNA itself can be any actual length, the length of modern life forms is just what worked best, and they're all not the same length. So basing the chances on any specific length is fallacious to begin with. Okay, but let's go with the 300 one, the chances of it occurring on a gambler's table would be about 4^300 odds for it. But only on the first try, each subsequent try would decrease that chance exponentially, a good way to illustrate that is each try reduces the 300 by one.

Okay, so say that 30 million such reactions occur in a pool of liquid with the proper chemicals every hour. 30 million ... that's probably low balling it. After 300 the chances are reduced to 4:1, that's 400% chance. Tada, you just provided evidence that it not only can happen, but must happen, by chance alone.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10668 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that nature designed life on earth?
Close enough.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10669 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
There is evidence in the words of the Bible. Reject all you want. I don't care.
There is evidence all over the world that the Bible is correct and truly the word of God. You won't find what you don't look for.
Nope, those are still assertions not evidence. A rock is evidence, saying what the rock is composed of is an assertion. You have nothing but assertions, and no evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#10670 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.
Hoyle's fallacy.
KJV

United States

#10671 Jan 8, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I don't buy your sh!t fast food. I cook, or I dine.

Kan't Fry Chicken can go f**k itself.
Septic you're slipping up again.
Your socks has a hole in it.
KJV

United States

#10672 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Just for giggles, let's pretend it was all chance and not actual chemistry.

DNA itself can be any actual length, the length of modern life forms is just what worked best, and they're all not the same length. So basing the chances on any specific length is fallacious to begin with. Okay, but let's go with the 300 one, the chances of it occurring on a gambler's table would be about 4^300 odds for it. But only on the first try, each subsequent try would decrease that chance exponentially, a good way to illustrate that is each try reduces the 300 by one.

Okay, so say that 30 million such reactions occur in a pool of liquid with the proper chemicals every hour. 30 million ... that's probably low balling it. After 300 the chances are reduced to 4:1, that's 400% chance. Tada, you just provided evidence that it not only can happen, but must happen, by chance alone.
You seem to forget a very important item. Once a failed attempt is tried nature does not cross it off the list, every go around starts at zero all over again. After 300 chances your odds hasn't changed one bit.
KJV

United States

#10673 Jan 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Close enough.
So you believe in intelligent design?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10674 Jan 8, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe in intelligent design?
Only if you regard "nature" as intelligent and natural processes as "design".

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10675 Jan 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
How do we deal with Christian fraud?
We don't have to deal with it since it doesn't exist.

We read the Bible, and when “religion” doesn't match up to what the Bible teaches, we recognize it as religious heresy, not Christianity, and we reject it.

Thank you for demonstrating this to us in your post 10590, where you refer to “religious fraud”, which isn't Christianity.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10676 Jan 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I liked this paragraph:
"Prosperity Gospel–Sometimes referred to as the “Health and Wealth Gospel”, it is a theology which proclaims that one’s faith or speech, combined with generous donations to Christian ministries will increase one’s material wealth. Other less complimentary slang names for it include the “name-it-and-claim-it” or “blab-it-and-grab-it” gospel."
Blab-it-and-grab-it".
ROFL!
The “prosperity gospel” does not line up with Christianity, nor the Bible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min Chimney1 48,484
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 6
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Into The Night 23,491
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web