How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[alang1216]

I am a being that knows and creates and can use his own experiences as a creator as a proxy. That's who I am. No judgement required on my part. Only observations and reason are needed.

And water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F. Crystals and water are examples of matter doing what matter does. But it's the totality of what matter does which tells us that life and intelligence are built into the fabric of the laws of nature. That they are not accidents but rather potential realized. Since day 1 matter and energy have complexified according to the laws of nature and will continue to do so. That's how you know what the universe is; by what it has produced.

You are judging other 'creators' by using yourself as a yardstick.

What has the universe produced? Burning spheres of hydrogen? Spinning balls of rock, ice, and gas? On earth the universe has produced many more plants than animals, many more bacteria and beetles than any other species, more non-intelligent animals than intelligent ones. So what do we know about the universe?

 

[alang1216]

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

For the idea of evolution/common descent, 'Origin of the Species' is arguably the most important (Non-Fiction) book ever written.

You may be right but I wonder how many biology students today read 'Origin of the Species' to learn about evolution?

Dude an 8 year old understands Darwins delusions

Why are the people most obsessed with Darwin, the same people who don't believe in evolution. Are they the same people who wonder so loudly why atheists talk so much about God and the Bible?

 

[alang1216]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

Maybe, we'll likely never know for sure what happened. Before there was life there may well have been molecules that were capable of taking atoms in their environment and adding them to the end of their own chain. As the chains grew they'd occasionally break with the sub-pieces starting the process anew. Growth and reproduction. Natural selection would then kick in and enhance the process. Call it a miracle or call it evolution.

One of the strangest arguments against God or intelligent design, two separate belief systems, behind DNA is how the system of DNA could've formed randomly. The evos believe that it is the result of self-organization via evolution. If that's true, then they should be able to provide more examples for it as it happens today. Another complex system is the eye. Evos cannot duplicate either of it given the basic components. They can't do it even if the parts were model pieces and were asked to put it together. However, when presented with the argument that it is based on a designer with intelligence behind it, then they will deny it. Yet, this is exactly the type of argument that SETI uses and when it helps their cause, they will allow it and even call the search for it as scientific. It really is hypocrisy at its worst. Us in creation science have to put up with it all the time.

What happens with these complex systems are that they are like recording devices. We can put recordings of intelligence into these systems if we know how they work. It's like recording music on tape via analog method or on disk via a digital method. These microorganisms could just be another recording format as their cells are arranged in a systematic way. Yet, evos will never admit due to their atheist beliefs that this was due to an intelligence behind it. We have to have intelligence to figure out how it works and to see how they were formed since they are microscopic. Yet, it had to have happened by self-arrangement or some other BS explanation.

Anyone who thinks the human eye represents intelligent design has never studied it. It is deeply flawed and would look very different if it was built from the ground up and not just assembled from existing pieces by evolution.

 

[esalla]

I think what you're missing is that most people, myself included, think of Darwin as a man who made a scientific contribution many years ago. It is you who have elevated Darwin to a demigod where every word he spoke or wrote, every thought he had is of cosmic importance. To you he is the Devil made flesh, to me he is merely an historical footnote.

For the idea of evolution/common descent, 'Origin of the Species' is arguably the most important (Non-Fiction) book ever written.

You may be right but I wonder how many biology students today read 'Origin of the Species' to learn about evolution?

Dude an 8 year old understands Darwins delusions

Why are the people most obsessed with Darwin, the same people who don't believe in evolution. Are they the same people who wonder so loudly why atheists talk so much about God and the Bible?

Evolution is irrelevant because nothing can not evolve, and life is not nothing like Darwin believed

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe wishing makes things real. I see no evidence of purpose.

I see you as wishing there is no purpose to it all. Because you certainly don't have any evidence for your beliefs. In a logical universe every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

Again your logic is flawed. I don't wish there is no purpose to it all, but unlike you I'm willing to accept that it may not, at least so far as I can see. I wouldn't say we live in a logical universe, I say it is a universe governed by simple laws of nature. Mass attracts mass so if we drop a ball on earth it falls to the surface. Is that reason and purpose?

 

[esalla]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

Maybe, we'll likely never know for sure what happened. Before there was life there may well have been molecules that were capable of taking atoms in their environment and adding them to the end of their own chain. As the chains grew they'd occasionally break with the sub-pieces starting the process anew. Growth and reproduction. Natural selection would then kick in and enhance the process. Call it a miracle or call it evolution.

One of the strangest arguments against God or intelligent design, two separate belief systems, behind DNA is how the system of DNA could've formed randomly. The evos believe that it is the result of self-organization via evolution. If that's true, then they should be able to provide more examples for it as it happens today. Another complex system is the eye. Evos cannot duplicate either of it given the basic components. They can't do it even if the parts were model pieces and were asked to put it together. However, when presented with the argument that it is based on a designer with intelligence behind it, then they will deny it. Yet, this is exactly the type of argument that SETI uses and when it helps their cause, they will allow it and even call the search for it as scientific. It really is hypocrisy at its worst. Us in creation science have to put up with it all the time.

What happens with these complex systems are that they are like recording devices. We can put recordings of intelligence into these systems if we know how they work. It's like recording music on tape via analog method or on disk via a digital method. These microorganisms could just be another recording format as their cells are arranged in a systematic way. Yet, evos will never admit due to their atheist beliefs that this was due to an intelligence behind it. We have to have intelligence to figure out how it works and to see how they were formed since they are microscopic. Yet, it had to have happened by self-arrangement or some other BS explanation.

Anyone who thinks the human eye represents intelligent design has never studied it. It is deeply flawed and would look very different if it was built from the ground up and not just assembled from existing pieces by evolution.

Nothing ever designed by humanity will last as long as the human eye..................................

 

[alang1216]

Evolution is irrelevant because nothing can not evolve, and life is not nothing like Darwin believed

Evolution is irrelevant - I disagree
nothing can not evolve - I agree
life is not nothing like Darwin believed - I may agree but too many negatives to be clear

 

[Rambunctious]

On the battlefield you never hear Jesus help me....but you do hear God help me...Jesus was Gods representative....his messenger.....accepting Jesus brings us closer to God.....but Jesus is not God.....

 

[alang1216]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

Maybe, we'll likely never know for sure what happened. Before there was life there may well have been molecules that were capable of taking atoms in their environment and adding them to the end of their own chain. As the chains grew they'd occasionally break with the sub-pieces starting the process anew. Growth and reproduction. Natural selection would then kick in and enhance the process. Call it a miracle or call it evolution.

One of the strangest arguments against God or intelligent design, two separate belief systems, behind DNA is how the system of DNA could've formed randomly. The evos believe that it is the result of self-organization via evolution. If that's true, then they should be able to provide more examples for it as it happens today. Another complex system is the eye. Evos cannot duplicate either of it given the basic components. They can't do it even if the parts were model pieces and were asked to put it together. However, when presented with the argument that it is based on a designer with intelligence behind it, then they will deny it. Yet, this is exactly the type of argument that SETI uses and when it helps their cause, they will allow it and even call the search for it as scientific. It really is hypocrisy at its worst. Us in creation science have to put up with it all the time.

What happens with these complex systems are that they are like recording devices. We can put recordings of intelligence into these systems if we know how they work. It's like recording music on tape via analog method or on disk via a digital method. These microorganisms could just be another recording format as their cells are arranged in a systematic way. Yet, evos will never admit due to their atheist beliefs that this was due to an intelligence behind it. We have to have intelligence to figure out how it works and to see how they were formed since they are microscopic. Yet, it had to have happened by self-arrangement or some other BS explanation.

Anyone who thinks the human eye represents intelligent design has never studied it. It is deeply flawed and would look very different if it was built from the ground up and not just assembled from existing pieces by evolution.

Nothing ever designed by humanity will last as long as the human eye..................................

We'll never know for certain but I'd put my money on Voyager 2.

 

[ding]

I am a being that knows and creates and can use his own experiences as a creator as a proxy. That's who I am. No judgement required on my part. Only observations and reason are needed.

And water freezes at 32F and boils at 212F. Crystals and water are examples of matter doing what matter does. But it's the totality of what matter does which tells us that life and intelligence are built into the fabric of the laws of nature. That they are not accidents but rather potential realized. Since day 1 matter and energy have complexified according to the laws of nature and will continue to do so. That's how you know what the universe is; by what it has produced.

You are judging other 'creators' by using yourself as a yardstick.

What has the universe produced? Burning spheres of hydrogen? Spinning balls of rock, ice, and gas? On earth the universe has produced many more plants than animals, many more bacteria and beetles than any other species, more non-intelligent animals than intelligent ones. So what do we know about the universe?

Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.

That's what you have been doing. Now do you understand?

The universe has created consciousness. You can't know what something is going to be until it reaches it.

 

[Picaro]

Oh noes, the thread turned into another 'evolution' cult parade.

Hey, maybe someone here can win the $10 million dollar prize for proving cellular evolution.

Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution


"January 13, 2020


(CHICAGO, Illinois) – An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.


This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD | HeroX.


The new international competition is intended to speed breakthroughs around the still unknown process of cell communication that organizers predict can turn off cancer, allow robots to think for themselves and even create new plant life to combat climate change.


The Evolution 2.0 Prize is designed by Chicago engineer-turned-marketer-turned-business consultant Perry Marshall and his A-list team of partners. They include top genetic experts from Harvard and Oxford, plus a diverse group of investors from private banking, healthcare and biotechnology, software, real estate, publishing and more.


“A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any human technology. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.”


Scientific advisors/judges include:

• Denis Noble (Oxford and Royal Society biologist; first in the world to model the human heart on computer): “The biggest questions in science today are about how life got going and the origin of the genetic code. How do living things ‘know’ how to evolve? What do cells know that we don’t? Is the genetic code the result of chance as some claim for 100 years – or is science pointing us to currently unknown processes? The answers will be as profound as Einstein’s E=mc2.”

• George Church (Harvard geneticist; on TIME 100’s Most Influential): “Origin of life is the hardest question in science. It’s mind-boggling you can have such complex structures that make copies of themselves. But it’s very hard to do that with machines we’ve built. We are engineers but we’re rather poor ones compared to the pseudo engineering that is biological evolution.”

Marshall formed his newest company, Natural Code, to develop and apply core principles of nature giving rise to information, consciousness and intelligence. The full $10 million will only be awarded to a patentable coding system that self-evolves. The competition closely relates to the recent discovery awarded the 2019 Nobel in Medicine, which found a “switch” by which cells re-write their own DNA as oxygen levels change. Precisely how cells attained such intentionality – and how they continue to react to new situations and modify their own code – still eludes researchers.


The Evolution 2.0 Prize builds on the movement of supersized science incentives such as the X Prizes, Breakthrough Awards and recent Earth Shot announced by Prince William. More information is here."



Gee, we've been told over and over and over by the 'Sciencey Peeplez' it's already a proven fact .... they've been lying.

 

[ding]

I don't believe wishing makes things real. I see no evidence of purpose.

I see you as wishing there is no purpose to it all. Because you certainly don't have any evidence for your beliefs. In a logical universe every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

Again your logic is flawed. I don't wish there is no purpose to it all, but unlike you I'm willing to accept that it may not, at least so far as I can see. I wouldn't say we live in a logical universe, I say it is a universe governed by simple laws of nature. Mass attracts mass so if we drop a ball on earth it falls to the surface. Is that reason and purpose?

Laws are logical. They exist for reasons. One of which is to establish order from chaos.

The reason a ball falls is because space and time is warped. The purpose of space and time being warped is to allow the creation of stellar structures so that life can eventually arise. Of course I am skipping a few steps.

So it seems that it is your logic that is flawed.

 

[esalla]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

Maybe, we'll likely never know for sure what happened. Before there was life there may well have been molecules that were capable of taking atoms in their environment and adding them to the end of their own chain. As the chains grew they'd occasionally break with the sub-pieces starting the process anew. Growth and reproduction. Natural selection would then kick in and enhance the process. Call it a miracle or call it evolution.

One of the strangest arguments against God or intelligent design, two separate belief systems, behind DNA is how the system of DNA could've formed randomly. The evos believe that it is the result of self-organization via evolution. If that's true, then they should be able to provide more examples for it as it happens today. Another complex system is the eye. Evos cannot duplicate either of it given the basic components. They can't do it even if the parts were model pieces and were asked to put it together. However, when presented with the argument that it is based on a designer with intelligence behind it, then they will deny it. Yet, this is exactly the type of argument that SETI uses and when it helps their cause, they will allow it and even call the search for it as scientific. It really is hypocrisy at its worst. Us in creation science have to put up with it all the time.

What happens with these complex systems are that they are like recording devices. We can put recordings of intelligence into these systems if we know how they work. It's like recording music on tape via analog method or on disk via a digital method. These microorganisms could just be another recording format as their cells are arranged in a systematic way. Yet, evos will never admit due to their atheist beliefs that this was due to an intelligence behind it. We have to have intelligence to figure out how it works and to see how they were formed since they are microscopic. Yet, it had to have happened by self-arrangement or some other BS explanation.

Anyone who thinks the human eye represents intelligent design has never studied it. It is deeply flawed and would look very different if it was built from the ground up and not just assembled from existing pieces by evolution.

Nothing ever designed by humanity will last as long as the human eye..................................

We'll never know for certain but I'd put my money on Voyager 2.

The human eye is already many millions of years old and there are 15 billion of them going strong

 

[alang1216]

He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.

Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).

No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.

Really? Which of his actions?

That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.

No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.

It's not a surprise that an atheist would read the Bible and not understand it. It's also not a surprise that an atheist would think that God could be found from reading the Bible. Nor is it a surprise that an atheist would conclude that God doesn't exist from reading the Bible. God isn't a book. God is a relationship to be entered into. You aren't going to get that from a book.

If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.

If he was devout his belief would have been based upon a relationship with the Creator of existence not with a relationship with words in a book. So clearly he was not devout. Apparently he is like every other atheist in that he is unable to reconcile how bad things can happen to good people.

Plus he probably didn't get that pony he prayed for either.

It's worse than that. I never prayed for it but I still got that pony.

 

[alang1216]

He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.

Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).

He found he could sell books if he bashed Da Evul Xians.

Maybe but this is still a Christian country and I doubt very many Christians are running out to buy his books. Unfortunately.

 

[alang1216]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

Maybe, we'll likely never know for sure what happened. Before there was life there may well have been molecules that were capable of taking atoms in their environment and adding them to the end of their own chain. As the chains grew they'd occasionally break with the sub-pieces starting the process anew. Growth and reproduction. Natural selection would then kick in and enhance the process. Call it a miracle or call it evolution.

One of the strangest arguments against God or intelligent design, two separate belief systems, behind DNA is how the system of DNA could've formed randomly. The evos believe that it is the result of self-organization via evolution. If that's true, then they should be able to provide more examples for it as it happens today. Another complex system is the eye. Evos cannot duplicate either of it given the basic components. They can't do it even if the parts were model pieces and were asked to put it together. However, when presented with the argument that it is based on a designer with intelligence behind it, then they will deny it. Yet, this is exactly the type of argument that SETI uses and when it helps their cause, they will allow it and even call the search for it as scientific. It really is hypocrisy at its worst. Us in creation science have to put up with it all the time.

What happens with these complex systems are that they are like recording devices. We can put recordings of intelligence into these systems if we know how they work. It's like recording music on tape via analog method or on disk via a digital method. These microorganisms could just be another recording format as their cells are arranged in a systematic way. Yet, evos will never admit due to their atheist beliefs that this was due to an intelligence behind it. We have to have intelligence to figure out how it works and to see how they were formed since they are microscopic. Yet, it had to have happened by self-arrangement or some other BS explanation.

Anyone who thinks the human eye represents intelligent design has never studied it. It is deeply flawed and would look very different if it was built from the ground up and not just assembled from existing pieces by evolution.

Nothing ever designed by humanity will last as long as the human eye..................................

We'll never know for certain but I'd put my money on Voyager 2.

The human eye is already many millions of years old and there are 15 billion of them going strong

Even after shutting off, Voyager 1 and 2 will continue to drift out in interstellar space; they will both pass by other stars in about 40,000 years, according to NASA. Voyager 1 will come within 1.6 light-years of AC+79 3888, a star in the constellation Camelopardalis. Voyager 2 will fly by within 1.7 light-years of Ross 248; in 296,000 years, it will also come within 4.3 light-years from Sirius, which is the brightest star in Earth's sky.

Voyager 1 and 2 may never get captured by a star and zip around the universe, little changed, literally forever.

 

[alang1216]

Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.

Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?

 

[alang1216]

Laws are logical. They exist for reasons. One of which is to establish order from chaos.

I think you have it backwards, you've reversed cause and effect. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws, it is not the cause. Laws exist and because they do they create order from chaos.

 

[alang1216]

I readily admit to being an admirer of Ehrman. I've read a number of his books and listened to more than a few podcasts and videos. I just stumbled on an entire website devoted to debunking what Ehrman has written. I look forward to viewing some of the videos there.

 

[Picaro]

He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.

Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).

No. I didn’t make it up. I deduced it from his actions.

Really? Which of his actions?

That he was drawn to study textual criticisms. It’s not a surprise he made a career out of it.

No, it's no surprise he made a career out of it. It's also no surprise you'd jump to the conclusion that no one would read and try to understand the history and context of the Bible unless they didn't believe in it.

It's not a surprise that an atheist would read the Bible and not understand it. It's also not a surprise that an atheist would think that God could be found from reading the Bible. Nor is it a surprise that an atheist would conclude that God doesn't exist from reading the Bible. God isn't a book. God is a relationship to be entered into. You aren't going to get that from a book.

If you're talking about me, you may (or may not) be right. If you're talking about Ehrman you're completely wrong, and you don't seem to care that you are. Ehrman was a devout Christian when he began his studies and remained a believer for many years after that.

My opinion is that only an atheist could read the Bible and understand it since he brings nothing to it and injects nothing into it.

If he was devout his belief would have been based upon a relationship with the Creator of existence not with a relationship with words in a book. So clearly he was not devout. Apparently he is like every other atheist in that he is unable to reconcile how bad things can happen to good people.

Plus he probably didn't get that pony he prayed for either.

It's worse than that. I never prayed for it but I still got that pony.

Yes. That;s why the other kids or so mad, I guess. We keep trying to get them to draw pictures of the ones they wanted, but they refuse to post them.