Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - Page 30

Question

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 1 · 2007-05-07T00:08:58+00:00

christina>you 820 Posting Sage

16 Years Ago

What is Angels and Demons about, exactly?

'Stein 150 Lapsed Skeptic Team Colleague · Answer 2 · 2007-05-07T00:40:57+00:00

'Stein 150 Lapsed Skeptic

16 Years Ago

It's the first book in the Da Vinci Code series.

Serunson 413 Posting Maven · Answer 3 · 2007-05-07T01:49:39+00:00

I personally think the Da Vinci code is a complete load of rubbish.

Infarction 503 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 4 · 2007-05-07T01:52:04+00:00

I personally think the Da Vinci code is a complete load of rubbish.

Lots of things are a load of rubbish, but that doesn't mean they can't be thought provoking or philosophical.

Serunson 413 Posting Maven · Answer 5 · 2007-05-07T01:54:40+00:00

Serunson 413 Posting Maven

16 Years Ago

Very True

Serunson 413 Posting Maven · Answer 6 · 2007-05-07T01:55:13+00:00

But tracing a blood line is a bit far fetched though......

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 7 · 2007-05-07T09:18:41+00:00

It's the first book in the Da Vinci Code series.

Ahh, I see.
I've studied the Da Vinci Code a while back. I can't believe some people consider it to be true.

'Stein 150 Lapsed Skeptic Team Colleague · Answer 8 · 2007-05-07T09:53:47+00:00

Ahh, I see.
I've studied the Da Vinci Code a while back. I can't believe some people consider it to be true.

Haha ya, can't agree more with ya. It's a good, fun read, but it's just crazy that people take it seriously.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 9 · 2007-05-07T09:55:41+00:00

Haha ya, can't agree more with ya. It's a good, fun read, but it's just crazy that people take it seriously.

Yeah, well we live in a crazy world. ;)
I'm sure there are millions of people that think I'm absurd for believing in the Bible though. (As I have noticed here in this thread).

Infarction 503 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 10 · 2007-05-07T10:43:54+00:00

Yeah, well we live in a crazy world. ;)
I'm sure there are millions of people that think I'm absurd for believing in the Bible though. (As I have noticed here in this thread).

At least people can claim that the Bible is possibly true. They can't do that for a fictional piece such as the Da Vinci Code :P

WaltP 2,905 Posting Sage w/ dash of thyme Team Colleague · Answer 11 · 2007-05-07T11:41:14+00:00

Very well thought out. A theory is a fact. As much as the fact that I have five fingers or something.

I hope you now understand what is wrong with your statement...

I don't really want to get into a heated argument about this because I doubt either of us will change our minds and that isn't what I'm going for anyway. There's no reason people can't disagree on the issue and still be friends. So don't take anything I say as an attack.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind -- except where they are actually wrong (theory=fact). Creation vs Evolution -- it's a no brainer to me. And if you believe otherwise, I'm interested in valid arguments why. I still may not agree or I may find holes in an argument, and if you can fill that hole, great. If not, you need to get a better understanding of your belief if you with to argue your point. IOW, by pointing out problems I'm challenging you to look deeper and solve those problems to strengthen your argument.

I personally think the Da Vinci code is a complete load of rubbish.

It's a fricking novel. Duh! :icon_rolleyes: So is Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for that matter.

I'm sure there are millions of people that think I'm absurd for believing in the Bible though. (As I have noticed here in this thread).

Nope. Not at all. As I said above to sk8, if you can plug the holes someone finds in your argument, you have a much better understanding of your belief, and a better argument.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 12 · 2007-05-07T18:02:08+00:00

Nope. Not at all. As I said above to sk8, if you can plug the holes someone finds in your argument, you have a much better understanding of your belief, and a better argument.

This is very true. Good advice!

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 13 · 2007-05-07T18:02:53+00:00

At least people can claim that the Bible is possibly true. They can't do that for a fictional piece such as the Da Vinci Code :P

:) Yes, you are also right.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 14 · 2007-05-08T02:17:49+00:00

I've thought about it and the Da Vinci code is really just an interpretation of an interpretation of what may have happened at one time. But even though I don't believe the ideas of the Da Vinci Code at all, why would it be against religion? I don't think it would be wrong if Jesus had a wife. As for the Gospels that Constantine may have prevented from entering into the bible, a true believer would say that God would not allow His word to be blocked from the world. Constantine wouldn't have that power (It was Constantine if I recall, maybe it a different Roman name). But having a wife and a child cannot be sinful, so I don't see why it would be so bad if Jesus had such a thing. Even though I still don't believe the stories. What I think is really interesting though, is Dan Brown's other, not as controversial book, Angels and Demons.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 15 · 2007-05-08T03:46:11+00:00

But even though I don't believe the ideas of the Da Vinci Code at all, why would it be against religion? I don't think it would be wrong if Jesus had a wife. ....But having a wife and a child cannot be sinful, so I don't see why it would be so bad if Jesus had such a thing.

Actually it would be against the Bible. If Jesus had a wife, it would contradict all the prophesies proclaimed about Him. Isaiah had wrote that the Messiah would have no appearance that we should want Him. And even if Jesus had a wife, how would that look? The son of God is married to an earthly woman? Even though it is not necessarily a sin, Jesus' primary purpose was to seek and save the lost.

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 16 · 2007-05-08T04:10:14+00:00

Personally I don't think the son og God married to an earthly woman would look any worse than an earthly virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit. I guess if what you said about Isaiah is true, then the idea does contradict christianity. Again even though I don't believe it I heard something about his tomb. I don't know how true it is because someone just told me at school so take it for what it's worth. I was told that in Jesus' recently discovered tomb the bones of what was believed to be Mary Magdalene were found based on Greek writing. I really don't know how true that is, but I want to see what everyone thinks about it. Or change parts of that story that aren't true or need filling in the holes.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 17 · 2007-05-08T04:14:58+00:00

Personally I don't think the son og God married to an earthly woman would look any worse than an earthly virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit. I guess if what you said about Isaiah is true, then the idea does contradict christianity. Again even though I don't believe it I heard something about his tomb. I don't know how true it is because someone just told me at school so take it for what it's worth. I was told that in Jesus' recently discovered tomb the bones of what was believed to be Mary Magdalene were found based on Greek writing. I really don't know how true that is, but I want to see what everyone thinks about it. Or change parts of that story that aren't true or need filling in the holes.

No one has found Jesus' tomb. That is just very unlikely and people have been claiming it for centuries. But there hasn't been any evidence supporting that because it is just very improbable. He was buried in a borrowed tomb, and in Christianity, rose 3 days later. The thing you have to look at is the fact that many mothers began naming their baby boys Jesus. It became very popular after His death. So although the name may say 'Jesus,' it is not Jesus Christ.

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 18 · 2007-05-08T04:16:46+00:00

I think jesus having a wife would have been cool. The child could have been half man half holy, a new prophet

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 19 · 2007-05-08T04:21:26+00:00

I think jesus having a wife would have been cool. The child could have been half man half holy, a new prophet

It would have created controversy. Everyone knew that Jesus' sole purpose was to sacrifice His life for the sins of the world. It wouldn't have been right if He had a wife.

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 20 · 2007-05-08T04:23:47+00:00

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster

16 Years Ago

maybe.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 21 · 2007-05-08T04:28:17+00:00

christina>you 820 Posting Sage

16 Years Ago

Well, that's according to Christianity.

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 22 · 2007-05-08T04:29:29+00:00

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster

16 Years Ago

;) lets not open that can of worms again please...

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 23 · 2007-05-08T04:29:57+00:00

christina>you 820 Posting Sage

16 Years Ago

?

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 24 · 2007-05-08T04:32:30+00:00

i mean lets not get back into the whole debate about what the bible means

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 25 · 2007-05-08T04:33:49+00:00

Yeah, I knew what you meant, I just didn't understand why.

Well that is what this thread has been about.
=p

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster · Answer 26 · 2007-05-08T04:35:26+00:00

jbennet 1,618 Most Valuable Poster

16 Years Ago

:) whatever

MidiMagic 579 Nearly a Senior Poster · Answer 27 · 2007-05-08T07:24:03+00:00

I discovered a proof that evolution is false.

In order to build a cell, you have to have the blueprint (DNA), and the constructor (ribosome).

My questions:

- If the ribosome somehow evolved independently of the DNA, how did the instructions for making a ribosome get on the DNA?

- If the instructions for making ribosomes started out on the DNA, what was used to read the DNA to make the first ribosome?

sk8ndestroy14 294 Posting Virtuoso · Answer 28 · 2007-05-08T07:31:49+00:00

Ribosomes don't read DNA. That's a weak argument and isn't proof. If there were proof that big it would end this whole controversy.

christina>you 820 Posting Sage Featured Poster · Answer 29 · 2007-05-08T08:19:40+00:00

I don't think any controversy is going to end. Especially this one...

'Stein 150 Lapsed Skeptic Team Colleague · Answer 30 · 2007-05-08T08:37:30+00:00

I discovered a proof that evolution is false.
In order to build a cell, you have to have the blueprint (DNA), and the constructor (ribosome).
My questions:
- If the ribosome somehow evolved independently of the DNA, how did the instructions for making a ribosome get on the DNA?
- If the instructions for making ribosomes started out on the DNA, what was used to read the DNA to make the first ribosome?

There are several flaws with this argument, as pointed out above.

Cells do not NEED a DNA blueprint, nor ribosomes as 'constructors.' Current theory now puts RNA as the first molecule to evolve, as it works as both an information storage, and also as an enzyme.