The orgin of life and sexuality: Comparing the Bible with Science

[DOC]

Hello Hello Hello

Before you go on and on about that sex suff, could you please please please prove this so-called god for your first.

That would be real nice.

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof. At least Christianity has a historical person and other historical evidence (as I pointed out in this thread) backing it up.

[Lothian]

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof. At least Christianity has a historical person and other historical evidence (as I pointed out in this thread) backing it up.You are not comparing like with like. What evidence does Christianity have from a human springing into existence out of nothing at all then another being formed out of the first ones rib? Or does God have life? If so How was he made?

[Mojo]

Or does God have life? If so How was he made?


By an infinite number of turtles.

[DOC]

You are not comparing like with like. What evidence does Christianity have from a human springing into existence out of nothing at all then another being formed out of the first ones rib?...

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.

[Lothian]

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.No, You have been told many times that the bible account has no scientific support earlier in this very thread. Do you have amnesia or are you deliberately spamming lies?

[paximperium]

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.
No but thanks for more flauting your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution

[zooterkin]

No but thanks for more flauting your ignorance.



You've got to admire his versatility. He's so accomplished at ignorance that he can play it like a flute.

[joobz]

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.
not even wrong...

[amb]

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.

The RNA molecule somehow came together, to become a DNA molecule which then evolution took over to make more and more complex molecules until a cell was finally able to replicate itself.
This happened around 4 billion years ago. That is the time it took for homo sapiens to finally become what he is today. That in a nutshell is how life evolved. This is no theory, the only thing still to be understood is how the molecules came together to assemble this first DNA, but that it did is proof because we are here. Only a very naive person would still believe the crap about Adam and Steve........ooops..........Eve.

Religion is the only industry not required to prove it's product. :rolleyes:

[Paulhoff]

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof. At least Christianity has a historical person and other historical evidence (as I pointed out in this thread) backing it up.
Do you know what a scientific theory means, most likely NOT.

Life is all around you, so, there is your proof.

Christianity has what evidence, a book, and besides this book they have what............

Paul

:) :) :)

Some magical being that always was, started it all, man that is so deep. I could write a book on that.................. NOT

[DOC]

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.

No, You have been told many times that the bible account has no scientific support earlier in this very thread. Do you have amnesia or are you deliberately spamming lies?

Refresh my memory, if the first female ever to exist of any species did not come out of the side of another living creature where did it come from.

[DOC]

According to science didn't the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature.

No but thanks for more flauting your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution

Non Sequitur, where does your article say anthing about where the first female came from?
And please give a reasoned answer without a lot of Doc you're this and Doc you're that. Leave me out of your answer.

[paximperium]

Non Sequitur, where does your article say anthing about where the first female came from?
It gives a basic primer as to a concept you seem ignorant about.

And please give a reasoned answer without a lot of Doc you're this and Doc you're that. Leave me out of your answer.I thought that would be enough since you were apparently "educated" on evolution since you enjoy making claims on it all the time?

Males and females co-evolved. They evolved together, at the same time, so your nonsense about "the first female that ever existed come out of the side of another living creature" claim is based on your ignorance.

Why have you not corrected yourself or withdrawn your false statement?

[paximperium]

Refresh my memory, if the first female ever to exist of any species did not come out of the side of another living creature where did it come from.
From itself.

[DOC]

The RNA molecule somehow came together, to become a DNA molecule which then evolution took over to make more and more complex molecules until a cell was finally able to replicate itself.
This happened around 4 billion years ago. That is the time it took for homo sapiens to finally become what he is today. That in a nutshell is how life evolved. This is no theory,...

It can't be repeated in a lab. It's all theory until man creates a living cell- which has never been done.

[paximperium]

It can't be repeated in a lab. It's all theory until man creates a living cell- which has never been done.
Yet.

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.


Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

[Hokulele]

And all this has what exactly to do with the evidence for the New Testament?

DOC, shouldn't you be posting about homosexuality in Religion and the Abiogenesis/Evolution bit in Science?

[DOC]

Yet.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

No living cell (the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living), has ever been created by man.

[Hokulele]

No living cell has ever been created by man.


Science forum, thataway.

<---------

[DOC]

And all this has what exactly to do with the evidence for the New Testament?

DOC, shouldn't you be posting about homosexuality in Religion and the Abiogenesis/Evolution bit in Science?

Why didn't you have a post like this when people went on and on about things like tea and beer or whatever it was when I was gone for a few weeks. You'll never be credible until you do.

[Hokulele]

Why didn't you have a post like this when people went on and on about things like tea and beer or whatever it was when I was gone for a few weeks. You'll never be credible until you do.


Because they weren't the one making the claim that the New Testament writers told the truth.

If you do not actually have any evidence, as opposed to the opinion piece cited in the OP, why not just let the thread die and post your questions about abiogenesis and evolution over in a sub-forum that is a bit more, well, sciency?

[wollery]

The reasons for those desires are unknown but there are some theories such as early childhood experiences and how a child was raised.Then how come animals also exhibit these behaviours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[zooterkin]

Refresh my memory, if the first female ever to exist of any species did not come out of the side of another living creature where did it come from.

I'm at a loss to understand what you're referring to, unless it's asexual reproduction of a single celled organism. Could you explain?

Whether it's that, or something else, do you have any evidence that the creature that the female 'came out the side of' was male?

[amb]

The female came out of the side of a man. It says so in Genesis, so it must be true. :D

[paximperium]

No living cell (the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living), has ever been created by man.
Yet.
Simple Artificial Cell Created From Scratch To Study Cell Complexity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515171023.htm

[amb]

Very interesting article. Thanks paximperium.:)

[paximperium]

Very interesting article. Thanks paximperium.:)
I have friends working on it. They've gotten very simple artificial cells to reproduce some of their nucleus components. They just haven't gotten it to undergo Mitosis...yet.

This is the reason why I find DOC's claims based solely on his ignorance exceedingly funny.

[sphenisc]

From itself.

:confused: Are you suggesting some kind of temporal paradox?

[Paulhoff]

This is the reason why I find DOC's claims based solely on his ignorance exceedingly funny.
Yes, and they do know how a bee can fly now, and that we do use way more then 10% of our brains................ well some do. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

[Marcus]

The female came out of the side of a man. It says so in Genesis, so it must be true. :D
It must be. That is, after all, how we know that the stars are lights in the firmament put there for our convience, created of course after the earth.

[paximperium]

:confused: Are you suggesting some kind of temporal paradox?
What do you think males and females are? They are basically variants of a single species that co-evolved and are co-dependent on each other. Male and female cells co-evolved together from a common progenitor line. Male and female genitalia co-evolved from a common ancestor.

So females and males evolved from themselves(their ancestors) isn't an inaccurate a statement if colored by a dash of hyperbole and flippancy.

[cbish]

Refresh my memory, if the first female ever to exist of any species did not come out of the side of another living creature where did it come from.You could start by refreshing yourself with some high school Biology. Start with the Kingdom Fungi and see how they reproduce.

[Elizabeth I]

Non Sequitur, where does your article say anthing about where the first female came from?

That is not a non sequitur. It may be an unresponsive answer, but it is not a non sequitur.

Non sequitur comes from the Latin meaning, "It does not follow," and when used to describe a logical fallacy, is applied to a chain of reasoning that results in a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

If I said, "You appear to be ignorant of the most basic logical principles, therefore you are from Madagascar," that would be a non-sequitur.

[paximperium]

That is not a non sequitur. It may be an unresponsive answer, but it is not a non sequitur.

Non sequitur comes from the Latin meaning, "It does not follow," and when used to describe a logical fallacy, is applied to a chain of reasoning that results in a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

If I said, "You appear to be ignorant of the most basic logical principles, therefore you are from Madagascar," that would be a non-sequitur.
Or, "You atheists and scientists are ignorant about the formation of life THEREFORE god is real AND that god is Jesus!!! Hallelujah praise Jebus!!!"

[zooterkin]

That is not a non sequitur. It may be an unresponsive answer, but it is not a non sequitur.

Non sequitur comes from the Latin meaning, "It does not follow," and when used to describe a logical fallacy, is applied to a chain of reasoning that results in a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

If I said, "You appear to be ignorant of the most basic logical principles, therefore you are from Madagascar," that would be a non-sequitur.

DOC's from Madagascar? Cool...

[Z]

We've apparently created sperm cells now, though...

[Elizabeth I]

DOC's from Madagascar? Cool...

Yeah, who knew?

[paximperium]

We've apparently created sperm cells now, though...
I've been doing that for years...oh, the stem cell story? Nevermind...

[realpaladin]

I like having sex. No matter where my life originated from.

Or was it the orgin of life and the origin of sex?

Well, whatever it was for the second part, cheers to you two (I think, two...)!

[kmortis]

DOC,
How is Madagascar these days?

[amb]

What's the Disciple Of Christ doing in Madagascar? Trying to convert the natives?

[Taffer]

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof. At least Christianity has a historical person and other historical evidence (as I pointed out in this thread) backing it up.

You have no evidence that God created life. Abiogenesis has evidence that life was created from abiotic chemicals. Neither of these things have proof, as proof only exists in mathematics and philosophy, not in science.

No living cell (the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living), has ever been created by man.

No earth has every been created by man. Does this mean the notion that God created it is false?

[Cainkane1]

God has magic breath. He gets himself a pile of dust and he blows on it and voila you got yourself a man. He puts the man to sleep and he takes a rib out of him and sculpts a lady from it and then they get married and have kids.

This makes much more sense than the science of abiogenesis which holds that life came about as the result of the mixing of organic compounds which became simple self replicating molecules which evolved into life as we know it.

[Paulhoff]

Funny, no matter the so-called god they believe in, it is their's that is the right one and their's that started life.

Paul

:) :) :)

[RecoveringYuppy]

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof.
Life comes from non-living chemicals nonillions (yes, that's a number) of times a day. Many species of autotrophic life are capable of subsisting on nothing but non-living chemicals and they constantly are turning that non-living broth in to living material. And they each have their own chemical formula, involving no magic, for doing it.

We don't know how it happened the first time in the absence of life, but non-living chemicals being converted to living is simply an observed fact that happens contantly all over planet Earth.

[Kogloron]

No living cell (the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living), has ever been created by man.

This thread was revived and i really thought this would be point to rub in DOC's face. If no other point of his can be swayed from his delusion, then what about taking a statement he made a year ago and making it completely wrong without any chance of explanation (at least from a logical sense)

"BLASPHEMY" -Synthetic life explained in a nutshell

[kmortis]

RTFT...:p
What's the Disciple Of Christ doing in Madagascar? Trying to convert the natives?

That is not a non sequitur. It may be an unresponsive answer, but it is not a non sequitur.

Non sequitur comes from the Latin meaning, "It does not follow," and when used to describe a logical fallacy, is applied to a chain of reasoning that results in a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

If I said, "You appear to be ignorant of the most basic logical principles, therefore you are from Madagascar," that would be a non-sequitur.

[Paulhoff]

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof. At least Christianity has a historical person and other historical evidence (as I pointed out in this thread) backing it up.
That would be, no it doesn't. Prove there is a so-called god please, not what people think there is.

First, do you have any idea that a Scientific Theory is, it only explains what is. As in, there is gravity and there is a Scientific Theory on it. That Theory can change as we learn more, unlike you black book that is never been updated, just look at how it talks about how the universe stated.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Cainkane1]

One could ask the same of atheists about proof of life coming from non-living chemicals. All we have now is theory -- no proof. At least Christianity has a historical person and other historical evidence (as I pointed out in this thread) backing it up.
Well the bible says humans came from non living dust. It must have been magic pixie dust. Ol Yahway puffs away and you got yourself a man. I wonder how he made snails?

[amb]

You realize of course that this may be the only thing the Genesis story got right. We are made of star dust. But it's purely coincidental with the fact.