Too stupid for science try religion

Try religion? I studied religion and theology. I also studied the natural and life sciences. I am not seeing much of a challenge from you at all. How come?

Have you ever heard of synthetic proteins?

I have done labs in which I had to make amino acids by degenerating proteins. Normally you come up with two kinds of amino-acids in a lab. Certain biomolecules exist as mirror images of themselves, and are grouped into being left and right molecules. In nature the left ones make proteins.

So if I were to isolate the D-isomers and find a way to make them bind I'd probably be able to make synthetic proteins.

Have you ever heard of the mapping of the humane genome ?

What does the mapping of the human genome have to do with DNA molecules being used to prove true the TOE? You have posed 2 separate questions. Why not go ahead and explain to the fora what is it you're trying to prove. Only then can I respond to you.

WHILE on earth, Jesus was a human, although a perfect one because it was God who transferred the life-force of Jesus to the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1:18-25) But that is not how he began. He himself declared that he had "descended from heaven." (John 3:13) So it was only natural that he would later say to his followers: "What if you should see the Son of man [Jesus] ascend to where he was before?"—John 6:62, NJB.

What does having ascended from heaven have to do with He being God? Its either He is God or He is not. Your New World Translation says He is a god. So according to you there are two gods. Let us take for granted that the Father is the "only true God" where does that leave Jesus in His pre-existent form, before he became human? Does it make Him an inferior god? And this is where your problem lies. The prophet Isaiah said that the Lord will not share His glory with another - read "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, " Isaiah 42:8

Now let us read Revelation 5:11,12 "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."

Read in John 17:5 as Jesus prays in the garden using the following words, "5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Note the words in bold. In other words while Jesus was praying in the garden His mind reflected on his pre-existence, and the glory He shared with His Father because they both shared the same attributes. Paul says Jesus is the express image of His Father. Paul also in the letter to the Hebrews wrote as follows, Heb. 1:6 "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."

A creature being worshiped? God breaking His own rule? So even when Jesus was on earth as a human the angels worshiped Him. I could go on with more scriptures, but that will suffice it for now.

Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.

Prove that true with scriptural passages, and I will rest my case.

Having been created by God, Jesus is in a secondary position in time, power, and knowledge

Thats only an opinion.


Beginning of Creation, Ndipe?

Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was "the first-born of all creation." (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was "the beginning of God's creation." (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). "Beginning" [Greek, ar·khe'] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginner' of God's creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe' more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of "beginning." Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God's invisible creations.

So how do you explain John 1 that explicitly says that " all things wee made by Him" the Word? What would Paul have gained by introducing the point of Jesus having been created by His Father? Anyone who reads and understands that chapter in Colossians will readily see that Paul was addressing Jesus's pre-eminence among all creation. Let me explain:

Paul ties in the word first-born in the mix. Was Jesus born first among creation? When does the word "born" becomes created? You cannot associate Jesus being first-born among all creation with Jesus being created among all creation. Paul isn't stressing the creation of Jesus, but rather that He is first-born among all creation. That point needs to rest in your cranium.

Secondly why does Paul refer to Jesus as ", the firstborn from the dead, "? Notice Paul uses the very same expression about the resurrection of Jesus. So what does the expression "first-born actually means? It means the pre-emminent one. It means the one who carries the most importance.

Now Jesus in both cases was neither the first to be born, or the first to be resurrected literally, but His birth, and resurrection take priority. They would be considered the most important events among the scheme of things. That is why at both occasions angels and men worshiped.

This expression first-born was taken out of the OT. Every first-born male had the birth of right. It was thought then that any first-born male child could have become the Messiah. That was the hope. Hence the importance of the phrase as used by Paul to make a point about Jesus' being seen as the priority. All focus should be on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context in which Paul addressed the Christians at Colosse.

It is believed that Paul wrote these letters from prison to defend Christ against the heretic teachings that started to infiltrate the brethren. part of that defense was to highlight the pre-emminence of Jesus Christ.

So in essence none of the apostles had any reason for teaching that Jesus was a creature, much less one that would cast a spell on God to give Him so much privilege.

The pope is a very smart politician. He will do anything to get the support of all religions so that they will see him ultimately as the supreme ruler in things heavenly, earthly, and you know where,

By Bobbyaf originally

Yet we know that amino acids could not have been made without DNA, as well as RNA. With the level of structure that exists within the DNA molecule, one wonders if in the very first primitive cell according to the TOE, that chance alone could have assembled such order and symmetry.

The very structure of a protein molecule itself, in its simplest of forms is so damn complex that one really wonders about primitive elements coming together by chance to form them. Protein folding alone is enough to baffle today's scientists, which in itself involves an array of other cellular mechanisms that cannot operate by chance. It is becoming more and more obvious that cells seem to be programmed.

The question is what or who programmed them.

Let me correct the above statement in bold. I meant protein instead of amino acids. Amino acids are not made by DNA or RNA molecules, but are found naturally in the foods we eat, and are used in protein synthesis.

So the DNA evidence which has backed up the theory of evolution is false ?

What part of the theory was backed up by it? Be more specific please.

Talk about  jaw dropping  ignorance ! DNA is made of amino acids.

Now you are making me laugh!    Are you sure you don't desire to delete that remark?

This is the basic structure of a DNA molecule:

[img]http://hopes.stanford.edu/basics/dna/f_b02nucleotd.jpg[/img]

As you can see it comprises of the basic three parts, the phosphate group; the deoxyribose sugar, and the nitrogenous base.  Show us the amino acid if you care to. You will find none.

That is why l called amino acids the building blocks of life.  Now wonder why my engineering prof always said if science is too hard for you try religion

Amino acids are indeed the building blocks of life, but every single one of them is put together side by side on a platform with the assistance of the DNA and RNA molecules. The DNA molecule first has to unwind into individual  strands, then one of those strands which becomes the mRNA, has to be furnished with corresponding groups of bases that will code with the tRNA that will deposit the various amino acids to match each mRNA code.

Without going into much detail the amino acids that eventually are joined together will form a particular protein that has a particular work to do.

You see it doesn't matter what type of cells you're dealing with. Every cell receives information from previous cells of its kind to continue life and its processes. So the so-called primitive cell that somehow was formed by the molecules which happened to just come together by natural forces, had to have operated in a similar fashion. It had to have had all the necessary parts in place for it to have become multi-cellular in the process of further protein building, and further membrane restructuring.

do u kwow how IGNORANT science is?

No! No! Noetic. Remember science put simply, is a body of derived and acceptable knowledge. Something is either a fact or it is not, but to derive at such, a series of investigations have to be done in order to verify such.

However the data put forth by the advocates of the TOE are mere assumptive in nature. They themselves have been saying that science has proven this or that, when in actuality its just plain theory, and one that will never be proven correct.

why not answer the thread topic? how did life begin?

I am not sure they have an answer. They know they can no longer rely on the TOE which is becoming a laughing stock among its former advocates. If you read some of the original articles put together by the original converts of the TOE, and even those who taught it, you will realize the clauses that were placed in the articles or books themselves.

You begin to understand the kind of deception that these people are capable of producing. The more they dig into the truths of science, the more they discover that the TOE is the biggest lie that was ever made up, and this lie was covered up using so-called science.

For us to understand how life began we have to understand how amino acids the building blocks of life as we know it were formed.

Yet we know that amino acids could not have been made without DNA, as well as RNA. With the level of structure that exists within the DNA molecule, one wonders if in the very first primitive cell according to the TOE, that chance alone could have assembled such order and symmetry.

The very structure of a protein molecule itself, in its simplest of forms is so damn complex that one really wonders about primitive elements coming together by chance to form them. Protein folding alone is enough to baffle today's scientists, which in itself involves an array of other cellular mechanisms that cannot operate by chance. It is becoming more and more obvious that cells seem to be programmed.

The question is what or who programmed them.

And believing some magician spoke the world into existence then displayed some Ben enwonwu skill and moulded man from clay the blew some heavy breeze like superman and gave him life. . .WTF?
If that isn't embarrassing then i don't know what.

What is your idea then? If you do not have an idea as to how life began then why argue against another's perception.

Well, what is the new theory then? There has to be an explanation.

Anyway I hear you loud and clear. Have to get some shut eye now. Lata,

Ever occurred to you why you can't answer those questions? When you get the chance take a look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics as advocated and accepted by modern scientists, and try and fit that into the theory of evolution, which basically teaches that life is on the upward path. Life progresses towards being better equipped to adopt to its surroundings.

Yet we are seeing the very opposite. Al we see is death and chaos.

Do you believe in evolution ? Do you believe in the big band theory ?

You really have a heart to ask that of me. By the way that big bang theory has been an embarrassment to the same scientists who believed in it. Or haven't you been aware that it is no longer held as a scientific point of view.

Even if Moses didn't say so logics alone would have forced me to reject the TOE. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I see life the exact way the creation story portrays it. It hasn't changed.

So because you can't explain the complexity of life you have to attribute to god ? Typical god of the gaps argument.

Thats a different story. When I peer into a microscope I can. Each time I reread my biochem text, or keep myself abreast as to the latest research, I am able to understand the intricacies of the basic unit of life called the cell. And you know what I walk away still believing that the creation story sounds much more plausible than the TOE.

I walk away saying to myself that someone with a superior intelligence had to have made life with its orderly and structured systems.

Honestly it requires more faith to grasp the TOE than it does to grasp the creation story.

I mean there had to be mature life forms, at least a pair that propagated. Lets examine the schools of thought and really see what is logical and what is not.

One school says that life started with a single cell under certain conditions. Another school says that an intelligent and very powerful being created life.

The theory of evolution advocates that certain molecules just happened to fit together under certain conditions and somehow a cell was formed. This cell over time somehow developed the method to become multi-cellular which was its way of adapting to its environment. So the key word here is gradual development without any outside control. in other words life came about naturally on its own through natural forces.

Lest I forget the required elements that brought the cell together actually came from a universal explosion, or big bang.

The other argument is that an intelligent Being created fully grown or mature life forms that were equipped to make other life forms.

Which one of those arguments require stronger faith to believe in? What are the chances that life could have come forth from an explosion?

And even their own teaching on Thermodynamics counter the very argument of the TOE, because the 2nd law states that matter moves from a state of order to disorder within a closed system, although it matters not if its closed or open. Things degenerate. Just as the very bible teaches. Sin is causing this part of the universe to age including humans. Living matter as well as non-living matter are rusting and degenerating.

Can the TOE account for the degeneration of matter? Can it account for the degeneration of morals and social values? What has become of the gradual development among life forms? can the TOE account for the increased spate of diseases that is wreaking havoc on human life?

What next evolutionists?

If moral codes came via men's customs and traditions then how is it mankind's values are getting worse? Why are social values worsening rather than improving? I will tell you why.

People tend to stifle their God-given consciences for the sake of doing wrong. There is no more wrong or right in society anymore, because everything has become situational. In other words each person in their own right determines what is right from wrong. In that way they have no God to account to.

The theory of evolution with its diabolic positions have failed miserably. It started out advocating that life experienced gradual positive developments, and would continue doing so over time. Yet what we have come to see and expect based on the bible's prediction, is that humans are making a mockery of social values when they turn their backs on religion and God.

The human mind is the most complex entity in the universe next to God's, and believe you me, only someone with a bigger mind than ours could have created it. The power of the mind could not have come about by itself and especially by chance as advocated by the pseudo science called evolution.

Then again absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence. Christians may not be able to prove how God created, or to provide empirical evidence of creative acts, but the life forms themselves, and the order in which life operates, even at the cellular level makes one wonders.

What can be asserted without evidence can also  be dismissed without evidence

Does the same apply to the Koran as well? I am sure you accept the word of the Koran by faith. Should we dismiss what your understanding of the origins of life is based on the Koran?

@ KAG

Um, I don't think you've thought it all the way through. Short of probably a few bacteria, no living thing on Earth can survive the type of cold caused by the lack of a sun for minutes, let alone twenty four hours. So, no, it doesn't have to be a literal twenty four hours, nor does anything have to be mature as they'd be dead in minutes anyway.

Exactly, and that is why I said that the initial light energy that God activated from the first day served to keep life forms before the sun was created on the 4th day.

By the way, no, it isn't cold that is an absence of heat, it's heat that is an absence of coldness.

No its the other way around. Heat energy is that phenomenon that moves back and forth in matter. Our perception of hot and cold is really a measure of the exchange of energy between objects. So in essence its always the absence of heat energy that creates cold conditions.

Since the Christians do not wish to discuss the Trinity in any shape or form, then let them be "with their Donkey book loading on its back syndrome". I am out!

Have you been reading my posts? Obviously not.

@bobby,  jesus was afraid of dying. See luke 22:42 so stop lying

Who says Jesus wasn't human Abuzola? Of course He was afraid, but not so much about dying, but about the burden of sin that He'd have to bear for the whole generations, from the past, present and future. And that is why He prayed to His father that if it were possible remove the bitter cup, but then again He went on to pray that His Father's will be done.

No one including me can try to downplay what Jesus might have anticipated. Remember He was tempted because He was human, and that is what makes the whole thing very interesting and appealing.

You see because Jesus passed the test we too can pass whatever tests we face in life if we learn to lean on Jesus' strength and grace.

@bobbyaf
dont let him put you in the defensive,its their means tested ways of diverting attention from their fraudulent hustler of a guru maharaji look alike

Its never a problem teaching those who know not the truth. I have been called to be a witness to all peoples from all walks of life.

Remember we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of darkness.

@boby, are you saying that jesus is not god ?

But I said before that He is, and now you ask me that question? Weren't you reading my posts?

You see lie. Is God changing from time to time to be changing laws

Some laws were meant to be temporary. God's universal law is eternal. This law predates sin, but had to be transcribed in such a fashion to fit our setting.

Must you people lie ? Ha nawa o. Jesus a godhead was ignored by another godhead in time of need mathew 27:46,  christianity is a cult for who cares to know the truth

Yes its difficult to understand, but in time you'll come to see the truth.

If you develop a better understanding and appreciation for the true nature of sin, and the plan of salvation that God introduced, then you will understand why not even Jesus' Father could tolerate looking at sin, even while His own Son bore it on the Roman cross.

Jesus felt the emptiness, as part of the suffering, that only one can feel when God's presence is removed. You may choose to dwell on the suffering but we Christians know He has risen from the dead and is coming back again for all those who love Him, and live for Him.

You just make sure you're ready to meet the king.

I hate lies,  what is the law you are afraid to be broken huh ? Why don't you people follow the law of the old testament which you considered as grace instead of spewing lies to defend your god

It depends on the law in question. Not all OT laws are still applicable. Besides, not all Christians agree on what constitutes the laws of God. There are several codes that deal with different issues.

The law of which I speak are God's eternal laws that were always with God, even before creation. It governs human behaviour, and morals.

It was this moral code that Satan first broke, and who led our first parents to break as well.

Did the bible not say that jesus warned people not to call each others fools but when around calling people fools? Did the bible not say that jesus told people to have strong faith in god but when his time came to show his own faith in his god when he was about to be killed he cried and accused his god of forsaking him even though the bible says that was his mission on earth. . . ? Is that not hypocrisy . . .

As usual you pick up what you cannot understand. As was explained over and over again Jesus is God and knows each heart. He warns against calling others fools since we do not know their hearts unless of course they give us reasons to call them that.

Crying doesn't make one a coward, and certainly not Jesus who faced the Roman guards in the garden of Gethsemane. He could have ran away as His disciples did, but He stood His ground, because it was His time. Often times He said His hour had not yet come, and that is because He came not just to die, but to teach the way of truth, and to set an example to those who bore witness.

He cried on the cross because His Father turned away from Him on the cross, and only so because at that moment in time Jesus "became sin for us". At that moment in time Jesus bore the sins of the past, present, and future.

Hence the Father could not look at Him, and withdrew His presence from Him for more than the reasons stated above. You see Jesus had to bear it all on His own. He had to suffer up until the very last moment all by Himself.

That only goes to show how much God the Father really hates sin. He couldn't even look at His Son.

So why is it that Muslims are free to be Muslims in Christian countries and the reverse isn't tolerated in Muslim countries?

Its obvious that the text under quote has been misunderstood by you, because deep down you know what Jesus was trying to say.

Incidentally the word hate is a strong word in that verse, but when one is faced with a decision betteen Jesus and family, one has to choose Jesus. In essence that will cause hatred in any family.

I am sure Muslims who have accepted Jesus have been treated with hate.