Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255442 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
You people do relise that that was the reason for my misspelling....
Just admit you religios ppl COULD be wrong and I happily admit there COULD be a god. We can then have faith in our own beliefs and concentrate on the nutters who will kill in the name of...
Nice to see nurvana skip the issues he cant answer completly and resort to name calling. You fail...
Out of all these posts I have yet to see someone prove my point wrong. Reading and knowing the Bible is good but people need to evaluate what it says.
Yes, I believe God did create all things. But think about this: What is good and what is bad? These are words that describe what we percieve.
For example: A man owned nothing but a beautiful white stallion. One day, the stallion ran away, leaving his friends saying "Oh what terrible fortune". The man simply said "maybe, maybe not". The next day, the stallion returned with 5 beautiful white mares. His friends exclaimed "What great fortune!" and again the man said "maybe, maybe not". The next day, his only son attempted to tame a mare but fell and broke both legs. His friends while paying the man a visit said "what miserable fortune" The man again replied with tears in his eyes "Maybe, maybe not". A month later, The king came to the man's village to conscript all young men into the army to fight a big battle. The cripple was spared as he could hardly walk. Not one of the soldiers live through the battle, and the man simply smiled at fate.
What I'm trying to say is that good and bad are perceptions like darkness silence and cold. They don't exactly exist but we percieve them that way.
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
But thats just ONE of the many contradictions of the bible and of christianity. How can I take a set of beliefs seriously when they are contradictory and can be used as an excuse for anything.
Also... most christians and in fact, religious ppl, will not admit they could be wrong. So that further compels me to rip apart the god delusion.
It is sad that is so. Me as a muslim, am ordered by the Quran to THINK. Muslims are ordered to research, and doubt, only to be reassured. Everywhere around us are signs of His creation. Look at the cell for example, one slight malfunction in the DNA leads to the cell to die, or worse, turn to cancer. Signs of these mutations are only bad: Down's syndrome, cystric fibrosis and even less fatal ones like colour blindness (which is still a terrible condition, imagine not seeing any colours). All these are from the 'mutations' that are supposed to bring about evolution. Until I see ONE just one useful mutation, I might have to rethink, but it has not been proven that there has ever been a 'good' mutation. Big Bang theory is actually PROOF of creation in a way. The fact that there was a Big Bang means that there was a begining and the fact that it managed to create LIFE means that it must have been coordinated. Think about this, the probability of an average protien molecule (the building blocks of life for you kids :P) made up of 500 amino acids (building blocks of protiens) arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left handed and being connected with only peptide bonds (not going to bother explain here) is 10 to the power of -950. Thats one over 1 with 950 zeros. ie NO CHANCE. Literarly.
Sorry if I sort of went too far there but I was asking myself what people could say as 'roof' for no God existing
If you think so, have you studied religous texts? Have you read the Gospels, Torah, Vedas, Quran etc? I would strongly reccomend you do so, if only to gain a more deep understanding of each religion. But before you do so, clear your head from the followers of the religion. As most of the stuff that is publicised is the small minority (especailly true for Islam... I know all about it :S)
Well anyway, Godd luck in your search for truth!
Until I see ONE just one useful mutation,
Sickle-cell disease is caused by a recessive allele, which causes the substitution of a single amino acid in the hemoglobin protein. If you have both alleles (homozygous recessive), then you get all of the bad symptoms of the disease and you probably die at a very young age. If, however, you only get an allele from one parent, then most of the symptoms don't manifest. Heterozygous sicke-cell people tend to live a pretty healthy life, but with one side effect: having just one allele makes one much MORE likely to survive malaria (the parasite has a hard time surviving in the mutated blood cell). Thus, in tropical africa there is a much higher than normal rate of people who are heterozygous for the sickle-cell allele.
Thats the best example I know off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a lot better ones out there.
What I'm trying to say is that good and bad are perceptions like darkness silence and cold. They don't exactly exist but we percieve them that way.
Thoses are pretty poor examples for comparison. I would say a better comparison would be good and bad is like beauty and ugly.
Signs of these mutations are only bad:
Wrong not all mutations are bad most have no effect. Some are beneficial resulting in the species being able to survive better (The mutation resulting in things like N1H1 were beneficial to the N1H1 survival). Some are harmful like the ones you pointed out.
I might have to rethink, but it has not been proven that there has ever been a 'good' mutation.
You really need to research past religious websites.
The fact that there was a Big Bang means that there was a begining and the fact that it managed to create LIFE means that it must have been coordinated.
I'm not as knowledgeable of the Big Bang as I am with evolution but even I know the Big Bang didn't create life. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the the formation of life not the Big Bang theory. We really don't know how the singularity got there to form the Big Bang but to say it was God is only a God of the gaps argument (we don't know how X happened so God did it). Sorry not good enough of an answer.
Think about this, the probability of an average protien molecule (the building blocks of life for you kids :P) made up of 500 amino acids (building blocks of protiens) arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left handed and being connected with only peptide bonds (not going to bother explain here) is 10 to the power of -950. Thats one over 1 with 950 zeros. ie NO CHANCE. Literarly.
Your argument still fails. protein molecules can form quite easily. We have even created RNA strands using conditions believed to have existed on Earth at the time and using even less then what it is believed the Earth had to work with. It turned out to be rather easy to do. Once you have RNA it's a pretty short hop to having DNA.
This is why I'm agnostic. I think that the idea of a creator is logical
I've yet to see any logic here. Care to fill me in?
If you think so, have you studied religous texts? Have you read the Gospels, Torah, Vedas, Quran etc? I would strongly reccomend you do so, if only to gain a more deep understanding of each religion. But before you do so, clear your head from the followers of the religion. As most of the stuff that is publicised is the small minority (especailly true for Islam... I know all about it :S)
Well anyway, Godd luck in your search for truth!
That is actually good advise.
Argh... This is what happens when you let science nerds onto the site... headache...
So I'll skip all the science and make some commentary on one of the many points brought up here.
If you think so, have you studied religous texts? Have you read the Gospels, Torah, Vedas, Quran etc? I would strongly reccomend you do so, if only to gain a more deep understanding of each religion. But before you do so, clear your head from the followers of the religion. As most of the stuff that is publicised is the small minority (especailly true for Islam... I know all about it :S)
Well anyway, Godd luck in your search for truth!
As much as I respect all the religious texts out there, I see one fatal flaw in them. As much good as they may preach, they only work if people actually follow the commandments, which can sometimes be hard to do, what with all our God given free will.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Torah. It makes for a pretty good read. Yet how can I respect religion when a simple commandment, let's say "Though shall not kill", is completely disobeyed as guns are turned upon fellow humans in a Jihad?
@Mage Gray Wolf:
The 'experiment' you stated I am assuming is "The RNA World". That life did not start with a protien (as that would be impossible in primitive environments) but RNA molecules that coded the protiens. There are some issues here however:
1. When it is impossible (by impossible I mean so ridiculously improbable that it is almost impossible) to explain the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a proper sequence?
2. Suppose the RNA strands did miraculously form by chance, how could this RNA simply made up of a nucleotide chain have 'decided' to self replicate and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self replicating?
3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself simplyh throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint;in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA.
Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, therefore, to another unreasonable supposition-that ribosomes, too, should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution-and atheism-explained that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:
"The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed?It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."
How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions.
That out of the way...
@ Aknerd: True, in tropical climates having a heterozygote advantage would appear benificial, but in the long run it is not. It cannot be used for evolution as the advantaged person is also a carrier. If he/she bred with someone not with the same condition, the gene would quickly die out. If both had the same condition, thier children would get the disease (1 in 4 chance). Sickle cell anaemia is potentially fatal, more probable in tropical climates due to poor health care etc. Therefore, it is not exactly a valid argument.
Again at MageGrayWolf, although viruses tend to 'mustate' and become a different strain of virus, they are in fact programmed to do that. Dunno if that answers it, please explain or post a reference...
Oh and by the way, not to be a jerk or anything but 'advise' is a verb. I am sure you ment advice :P Happened to me quite a few times thought I might point it out :P
1. When it is impossible (by impossible I mean so ridiculously improbable that it is almost impossible) to explain the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a proper sequence?
The problem with this argument is that it attributes improbability to the divine. Bear with this analogy if you would be so kind:
Walking home today, I saw cars with number plates 's509 ncu', 'm2t6 twe', 't8e7 kjs' combine to form a traffic jam. What a miraculous coincidence, that of all the cars in London at that particular moment, taking the A40, it was these cars with these number plates which I saw combine to form a jam. Does that mean a divine hand was at work, dictating these particular cars ended up on that route, which I happened to be taking, at that exact time? Certainly not, however the odds of me seeing those cars that day, at that time, and on that road would be immensely slim. Still, it happened.
2. Suppose the RNA strands did miraculously form by chance, how could this RNA simply made up of a nucleotide chain have 'decided' to self replicate and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self replicating?
There are two core components to evolution:
Random mutation. This is how all traits, good and bad appear.
Nonrandom selection. This is how the 'good' traits survive, and the 'bad' die off.
(Note I put quotation marks around good and bad, as they only refer to short term, immediate benefits. A mutation which has a short term benefit will be favoured even if it carries long term negative repurcussions).
In answer to your original question though, as to what mechanism made this type of evolution possible, consider the multitude of different possible combinations, (also remember that RNA organisms aren't necessarily viruses). Essentially, what happnes on this primordial level, is that there was no 'moving forward', so much as 'filling out'. A niche presented itself. A parasitism of living cells, and the niche never closed. Viruses make a whole lot of sense to me in this regard, as even though RNA organisms aren't necessarily viruses, it is very easy for them to mutate into them.
This might be a given if you understand evolutionary mechanisms, but it's still interesting to me.
The link should explain your third point, as I don't much feel like paraphrasing something that is best read to be understood.
as i said earlier, god isn't real and can't be real. if he was real why did he make so many wars and diseases that effectivley wipe out so many people and hurt many more. if he is holy and perfect they weren't mistakes
Thanks Firefly.
1. When it is impossible (by impossible I mean so ridiculously improbable that it is almost impossible) to explain the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA
Any wanted to just correct an error I made in my post it wasn't RNA they created in the lab it was a ribonucleotide the building blocks of RNA. This goes against your first point of it being nearly impossible.
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=5277
2. Suppose the RNA strands did miraculously form by chance, how could this RNA simply made up of a nucleotide chain have 'decided' to self replicate and with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self replicating?
There are two problems here that if this is what your basing your argument on pretty much topples everything.
It's not entirely by chance. These things forming is as miraculous as two magnets sticking together at apposing ends.
As for RNA 'deciding' to replicate this is like saying when ammonia and bleach get mixed together the fumes 'decided' to be toxic.
Anyway back tot he OP. Now going back to page 9 I had asked
If the Devil was perfect then how did he manage to screw up?
Now if we are saying God created us being perfect then this same question applies to us. The argument is we are no longer perfect due to Adam and Eve's first sin but if we were prefect before that then Eve would not have made such an imperfect choice.
as i said earlier, god isn't real and can't be real.
There is a slim chance a god of some kind is real, however unlikely. But to answer this question we must first ask which god are we talking about.
Natural selection means survival of the fittest, not that a dog'll turn into a dragon
Thread is locked!