Bisping: If you believe Jesus walked on water, you can believe I'm going to KO Rockhold

[CDF47]

Even if its all true, does the creater really intervene? Or could some of it just be either bs people made up, fables that are just attributed to god, or just a misinterpretation of what less informed people were seeing in the physical world, and their attempt to explain it?

Im not saying some things in tbe bible cant be supported by science. But it doesnt mean everything in there is legit. Some could be parables, some could be people who believed what they wrote. Some could be flat out fabrications passed off as the truth.

Men still wrote the bible. Some people believe in biblical inerrancy. But there are too many different translations, versions, some with other books added or left out, etc. Hell, there isnt even a consensus in christianity about what is what, how it works, how we should behave, etc.

There is a lot we dont know. Im fine with people believing whatever they want. But some people take it too far. Belief and even assumptions arent a substitite for knowledge.

This is a great post. In my opinion, based on my reading and research, I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. There is evidence to support this. One source which makes really good arguments on this point is at; http://www.godandscience.org/. Personally, I do not believe in every statement or interpretation on this website but there are many really good points made.

There are many parables and symbolic writings in the Bible which can make it difficult at times to interpret and there are many bad commentaries/translations/interpretations out there so it is not always easy. Those parables and symbolic stories in the Bible are in there deliberately and have meaning but somewhere around 90 percent of the Bible speaks of historic type events (not as a poem, parable, or symbol). I believe good interpretations can be found but it takes time and effort.

The Bible was written by 40 authors over a 1500 year span and when studied and understood, it is if it was written by one mind.

 

[LORDTENSAIMMA]

Bisping gets 40 virgins

 

[CDF47]

You should debate this with AronRa.

He needs a Sherdog account first.

 

[giancaakos54]

Science proves that the universe and living systems were designed and created.

DNA proves the design of living systems. The fine-tuning of the universe proves the design of the universe.

DNA is an extremely highly specified and complex code which provides the instructions for a nano-manufacturing plant to build proteins for living cells. Proteins have a wide range of function in the cell; such as, building components of the cell to harvesting energy.

There are complex molecular machines, like the bacteria flagellum, that are irreducibly complex, meaning if one part is removed or damaged in the system then the system is either degraded or fails to function.

These machines in the cells of living systems are built part by part in a nano-manufacturing plant using the code inside the DNA molecule. There are codes instructing the machine to start assembling parts in specific orders and instructing when to stop the assembly. There are spell checker type enzymes searching and correcting errors in the code, there is copying and transporting of the code. DNA has nested coding. DNA has a files within folders hierarchical structure. A senior software engineer with Microsoft once said DNA follows design strategies similar to those used by their software programmers but one far more advanced than they have been able to devise.

The specific genetic instructions to build a protein in even the simplest one celled organism would fill hundreds of pages of printed text.

Watch the 3 minute and 34 second video below on how DNA works if you are interested (there is an excellent and easy to understand computer generated model showing how DNA works in this short video):


Another longer video is below:


Regarding the fine tuning of the entire universe, there are approximately 20 constants of the universe which are fine-tuned; such that, if these mathematical figures were off by the most smallest fraction of a percent, life as we know it would not exist. The most finely tuned figure is the cosmological constant (energy density of the vacuum of space) which is fine tuned to an order of magnitude of 1:10^120. If that figure was off by that small a value, there would be no life. To give you an idea of the size of that number, there are approximately 10^80 elementary particles in the known universe and there have been 10^16 seconds since the creation of the universe in the Big Bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago. By the way, back to DNA, the probability of building a short functional protein from amino acids is 1 X 10^164. Just amazing!

You used the word proves incorrectly

 

[Scamrock]

He needs a Sherdog account first.

I doubt he is going to join an mma forum to debate evolution. But If you are as interested in the ropic as you seem to be, and as certain about it as you seem to be, it might be worth it to seek him out. But you better know your shit.

 

[CDF47]

So either things are designed for a purpose or everything is completely randomized? That's one the dumbest thing I've heard and there's always morons around that think they understand the limits of the universe based on pure ignorance.

You also completely undercut yourself because you're saying that the intelligence that designed this is unimaginable, which means that you wouldn't be smart enough to understand the design if there was one. We are all far, far too ignorant and simple minded to be able to answer these kinds of questions definitively so HAWTRIDDUM is entirely correct; anyone that claims to know the answer is someone to dismiss completely right away.

It's always the ignorant that are so sure of themselves while the intelligent are full of doubt.

What I said was true. Either the universe and living systems are random or designed. It is one or the other. The specified complexity, which I said was to an unimaginable extent, clearly shows proof of design.

Science reaches a limit at that point and research into theology then becomes necessary.

Try to argue the points. Your post is just an attempt to throw sand in the eyes and attempt to insult me since you do not have much else to say or debate. Many people see right through this tactic since it is so commonly used these days, especially on this forum. Argue the scientific and theological facts and don't misquote me since others can go back and see what I actually wrote. The insults are child's play.

 

[NikLuk]

The point is life was designed and created, as was the universe which is clear.

Theology is the only place to turn at this point. There is one source which matches with science, history, archaeology, and also predicts thousands of years of this world's history with astounding precision and that source is the Bible. Thousands of predictions are accurately made. Even lesser known predictions, like the relationship between Cleopatra and Caesar, are in the Bible, hundreds of years prior to their birth.

You mention Laplace was an atheist but you forgot to mention that Newton, Einstein, and many many other of the world's top scientists believed in a Creator.

No, it is not clear. Stop lying.

You mean like the claim of a 6000 yr old earth? There are trees older than that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko).

I don't know what makes you believe that Einstein was by any means religious but I don't really care who believes in any gods. There is just no hard evidence to support its core claims and that is the end of it.

You never did answer what makes your religion any more plausable than any other creation myth.

 

[CDF47]

You used the word proves incorrectly

DNA and the fine-tuning of the universe "Proves" living systems and the universe were designed. I think I got it this time...LOL

 

[CDF47]

I doubt he is going to join an mma forum to debate evolution. But If you are as interested in the ropic as you seem to be, and as certain about it as you seem to be, it might be worth it to seek him out. But you better know your shit.

Sounds good. I'll look him up.

 

[CDF47]

No, it is not clear. Stop lying.

You mean like the claim of a 6000 yr old earth? There are trees older than that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko).

I don't know what makes you believe that Einstein was by any means religious but I don't really care who believes in any gods. There is just no hard evidence to support its core claims and that is the end of it.

You never did answer what makes your religion any more plausable than any other creation myth.

View attachment 104193

The 6,000 year old earth (Young Earth Creationism (YEC)) myth is total nonsense. I believe that 6,000 year old earth myth was deliberately contrived to create a straw-man argument against Christianity. I believe it was created to make it appear as if Christianity was based on a weak scientific argument as science was starting to clearly show strong evidence of creation at that time (mid-1900s). That myth was created by, who I believe is a false prophetess, Ellen White, in the 19th century.

I believe in Old Earth Creationism (OEC). I believe the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old as science shows. I believe the Bible supports this as well.

I did respond to your claim. The Bible is scientifically backed, unlike all other religions, and also predicts thousands of years of this worlds history. See previous posts.

 

[Dionysos]

Check the facts. Life is either random or designed. Those are the only two options. DNA shows that life is obviously clearly designed, absolutely no doubt about it. Study DNA, how it works, and you will clearly see that it is not random but obviously designed. Same is true for the universe which is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent.

You're posting videos made by religious creationists, not peer reviewed scientific studies made by the actual scientists. The other 99.9% of the scientific community who think that what you just posted isn't even worthy a response other than laughter, similar to the response to arguments made by the Flat Earth Society.

Doesn't that basic fact make you question your world view a little?

 

[CDF47]

You keep saying its clear. Why is there not a consensus among experts in the field?

No serious scientist or engineer who truly understands how DNA works would ever say it happened by random chance. Even the most hardened atheist scientist (Richard Dawkins), when confronted with questions regarding the information bearing properties of DNA, at the end of the video below, had to concede, that maybe we were seeded here by aliens.

See the video below on this topic:

.

 

[CDF47]

You're posting videos made by religious creationists, not peer reviewed scientific studies made by the actual scientists. The other 99.9% of the scientific community who think that what you just posted isn't even worthy a response other than laughter, similar to the response to arguments made by the Flat Earth Society.

Doesn't that basic fact make you question your world view a little?

The scientists in the videos I posted are very credible. Dr. Meyer has a PhD from Cambridge University. In fact, the scientist Kenyon, who is prominent in the videos, came up with a popular evolutionary theory called Biochemical Predestination Theory. After breakthroughs were made in DNA, he had to throw his own theory out the window in favor for design. These are excellent scientists who cannot be discredited. I know there are other scientists out there that believe in a 6000 year old earth, and other nonsense like that, but the scientists in these videos are excellent.

 

[ProfessorGanja]

Just over two weeks ago, Michael Bisping said if you believe Jesus walked on water, you can believe he (Bisping) is going to knockout Rockhold.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/5/1...michael-bisping-jesus-christ-luke-rockhold-ko

He did!

I still dont believe Jesus could walk on water though lol

 

[Yari]

Jesus LOVES knockouts.

 

[Dionysos]

The scientists in the videos I posted are very credible. Dr. Meyer has a PhD from Cambridge University. In fact, the scientist Kenyon, who is prominent in the videos, came up with a popular evolutionary theory called Biochemical Predestination Theory. After breakthroughs were made in DNA, he had to throw his own theory out the window in favor for design. These are excellent scientists who cannot be discredited. I know there are other scientists out there that believe in a 6000 year old earth, and other nonsense like that, but the scientists in these videos are excellent.

Your honest opinion now. Don't you find it slightly odd that the ONLY people who promote creationism are religious? What does that tell you?

And when you watch those videos, would you think there could be any kind of religious agenda behind making them?

 

[CDF47]

Your honest opinion now. Don't you find it slightly odd that the ONLY people who promote creationism are religious? What does that tell you?

And when you watch those videos, would you think there could be any kind of religious agenda behind making them?

This is the same age old attack on these scientists. Focus on arguing the facts rather than attempting to discredit these credible scientists. Don't side track here because these scientists are highly credible so it will not work. Everything I post is my honest opinion by the way.

The study of DNA and the universe is scientific. The fact that it points clearly toward design and creation is the point I am making and many of these scientists are making. Natural selection cannot explain origins, only design can.

 

[giancaakos54]

DNA and the fine-tuning of the universe "Proves" living systems and the universe were designed. I think I got it this time...LOL

No, you're still wrong. A better statement would be: "because of some evidence I have pieced together on my own, I BELIEVE the universe and living systems were designed."

Prove requires prevailing acceptance in the scientific community, for which your assertion does not have.

 

[CDF47]

No, you're still wrong. A better statement would be: "because of some evidence I have pieces together on my own, I BELIEVE the universe and living systems were designed."

Prove requires prevailing acceptance in the scientific community, for which your assertion does not have.

No way, Not in this case. There is way too much politics and other nonsense going on regarding this subject to wait for a scientific consensus.

The information bearing properties of DNA and the processes and systems involved in creation of amino acids and living cells is specified, complex, and irreducibly complex to an unimaginable level. DNA clearly proves the design of living systems. The universe, which is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent, similarly proves the design of the universe.

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

Check the facts. Life is either random or designed. Those are the only two options. DNA shows that life is obviously clearly designed, absolutely no doubt about it. Study DNA, how it works, and you will clearly see that it is not random but obviously designed. Same is true for the universe which is fine-tuned to an unimaginable extent.

So basically you decided to use a Michael bisping thread on sherdog to try and flex your Google muscles on how life was created?

No thanks. I'm going to move on with my day instead of giving this anymore attention.