Here is a great video presenting the complex order within a cell. Cells are irreducibly complex systems. Cells cannot be gradually built by chance, but the functions of the cell must be designed to simultaneously operate.
“The complex order of parts within the cell make up an amazing machine. The wonder of motor proteins like kinesins walking on cytoskeleton leaves evolutionists conjecturing how these proteins could happen by accident. Imagining the processes of the cell only reveals a complex order equal from within by its genetic code.”
See design for yourself:
The Breath of God 
Just accept that the Bible was written by ignorant people who did not know what cause earthquakes or what stars are or why rain comes from the sky. You life will get a whole lot saner.
“Wait! What was the firmament called? It was heaven, the space between the waters.”
And where are these waters, and how are they kept apart? The waters below the firmament are the seas. The waters above the firmament are kept up there by the solid firmament. God lives *above* the firmament — according to the verses I quoted. “Heaven” just means “the sky” (they are the same word in Biblical Hebrew).
“This is exactly the same old conjectures and twisting of Scriptures.”
There is no conjecture here. If you are referring to the science, well, the latest science has proved conclusively that RNA can evolve from simple molecules, can replicate without cells, and can evolve into DNA. See the work of Gerald Joyce:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
http://www.scripps.edu/research/faculty.php?rec_id=1160
As for the reading of the Bible, you call my reading “interpretation”. No, it is straightforward, LITERAL reading of the text. The text says literally that the sky is solid, and literally has windows and doors, and literally that it is possible for 1/3rd of the stars to fall to Earth, and literally that the Earth is a *circle*, not a ball, and it says literally that if you rise to a high enough point, you can see the entire world.
YOU are the one who is twisting the Bible around to make it fit your (quasi-) modern idea of what the world is like, or treating it as non-literal “poetry”. That means you are not the Bible literalist that you think you are. If you are not a Bible literalist, then why do you insist that *some* parts of the Bible, though incredible, are literally true (e.g., the talking snake, the 6,000-year-old Earth, etc.)?
Solid firmament is not conjecture, it is the exact meaning of the word. If you don’t know what “firmament” means, that’s not my fault.
“You are as ignorant of science as you are of the Bible. ” — You are describing yourself.
This is exactly the same old conjectures and twisting of Scriptures. Your interpretations are apparently biased. Your dishonesty and lying testify that you are a son of hell.
It is easy reading to note the references in the Scriptures to the levels of heaven: earth’s atmosphere, the universe, and the spiritual heaven. It is easy to also read “as” and “like” in poetic scripture. Even the common reference to the stars falling to a change of government power passes you mind. Your solid firmament conjecture is another lie clearly seen in “Then God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’ Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.” Wait! What was the firmament called? It was heaven, the space between the waters.
You are as ignorant of science as you are of the Bible. You need evidence. This video is one a many for me.
“WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THAT IT IS COVERED BY A DOME?”
Where does it not? Consistently, many times, it says that the Earth is flat and the sky is a solid dome. It says the Earth is a “circle on the face of the deep” (Prov 8:26-27; note, not a ball in the void — ancient Hebrew had a word for ball, and the writers could have used that word if they had thought the earth was a ball). God “sits above the circle of the Earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers”, and “stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isa 40:22; if the Earth were a sphere, that verse would not make sense). It says that from a sufficiently high point on or above the Earth, the whole world “to the ends of the Earth” can be seen (Dan 4:10-11, Mat 4:8), which is only possible if the Earth is essentially flat, and it says the Earth is fixed on pillars.
I presume you have come across the sky being described as a “firmament” or a “vault” in the Bible (e.g., Gen.1:6-8, 1:14-15, 1:17, 1:20, Ps.19:1, 150:1, Ezek.1:22-26, 10:1, Dan.12:3). If you are unfamiliar with the meanings of those words, I suggest you look them up in a dictionary. Even if you didn’t know the meaning of “firmament”, you could guess it from (a) the form of the word = “firm” + “ment” (“firma” + “mentum” in Latin), and (b) the fact that the firmament separates the waters above it from the waters below — the sort of thing that only a solid surface could do. If you bother to check the Hebrew, you will find that the word is “raqia”, which means a beaten surface, like that of a metal bowl. Job 37:18 describes the sky as strong like a cast-metal mirror (“molten mirror” in KJV), and Psalms (104:2) and Isaiah (40:22) describe the heavens as “stretched out like a curtain”. According to Jewish scholars the surface of the sky is low enough for birds to reach. In Genesis, people build a tower to reach heaven, and in Daniel, the prophet sees a tree that reaches heaven. The waters above the firmament fall down as rain or snow when the windows and doors of heaven are opened, according to Gen. 7:11, Isa. 24:18, Mal. 3:10, Psa 78:23, Rev 11:6 and 2 Chr 6:26. Heaven also needs to open in order for angels, Jesus, and doves from God pass through (Mat 3:16-17, Acts 7:56, John 1:51). There is no hint in the text that these openings are metaphorical.
If you believe the Bible is literally true, do you believe this stuff?
Incidentally, the Book of Enoch, which is today treated as non-canonical but was considered scriptural in Biblical times, and indeed quoted as scripture in Jude 1:14-15, explains that the Sun and Moon also enter and exit through certain of these windows.
The Bible also says the stars lights attached to the dome of the heavens (Gen 1:14-17), and are much fewer and smaller than science says they are — in Rev 12:4, it reports 1/3rd of the stars of heaven falling to Earth. Jesus also speaks of stars falling from heaven (Mark 13:24-25). Since you believe whatever Jesus believes, perhaps you need to start believing that the stars are small objects that realistically can fall to Earth.
Another thing the Bible tells us is that the Earth is immovable (except when God decrees an earthquake), and supported on pillars — this, too, is referred to many times in the Bible (see Psa 93:1, 1 Sam 2:8, Isa 24:18).
You write like someone who reads the Bible often. How can you have missed the numerous references?
Is this stuff literally true, or not? If it is not literally true, why do you think other bits of apparently incredible stuff in the Bible, especialy Genesis, are literally true?
“You know I didn’t say science was conjecture, but your theories of macro-evolution are conjecture.”
Macro-evolution is not conjecture. It is the most solid science in biology. If you don’t believe in macro evolution, you may as well throw away every biology textbook you possess, especially anything that details the classification of species, and every medicine you possess, especially modern antibiotics and antivirals, and ignore everything you ever hear from a scientist about genetics, because practically all of it is based on the truth of macroevolution.
When you spoke of conjecture earlier, you seemed to be talking about abiogenesis, not “macroevolution”, and about the Hadean era in particular. Specific models of how abiogenesis came about (e.g., the RNA world, the TNA world, the iron-sulfur world, the lipid world) are conjectural, but the conditions of the early Earth when the crust was forming and newly-formed (often known as the Hadean era), and the fact that these conditions were well-suited to the spontaneous creation of organic matter from inorganic is not conjecture; it is solid science, much more solid than your incorrect interpretation of the “law of biogenesis”.
“Your age for the earth has doubled every 20 years. You know that right?”
It hasn’t. It was around 4-5 billion years old in the books I read as a kid, some 40 years ago. The age of the *universe* has increased significantly since the Big Bang theory was first mooted around 70-80 years ago, but that’s the great thing about science — when new evidence comes in (e.g., because of new instruments or new experiments), the textbooks change. Religion doesn’t seem to have that humility or flexibility.
“You know that there is no accurate dating method that is accurate more than 6000 years.”
Nonsense. Radiocarbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 years (not 6,000). Other forms of radiometric dating have accuracy for much longer periods, e.g., potassium-argon is reliable for billions of years. The principle is the same as carbon dating, but the time scale is much greater (because the half-life of potassium-40 is 1.25 billion years, as opposed to only about 5,700 years for carbon-14). If you accept carbon dating, you should accept potassium-argon dating.
“It is not about trusting science, but your heartless immoral scientists.”
Which heartless, immoral scientists are these? Among all professions, the typical scientist is, if anything, a little more moral than the average person in other occupations.
If you reject the age of the Earth and the methods of determining the age of rocks, you are rejecting theories that are accepted by 100% of geologists. If you reject the Big Bang theory, you’re rejecting a theory that is accepted by 100% of physicists. If you reject evolution by natural selection, you are rejecting theories subscribed to by 100% of biologists. You will not find one scientist in a thousand who rejects any of those theories. There is no evil minority of scientists who are promoting these ideas out of some crazy desire to promote “genocide, adultery, polygamy, pedophilia, lying, theft, and coveting”. You are basically implying that the *whole* of modern science is one great big conspiracy, and hundreds of thousands of people are involved in it. That’s a very big conspiracy theory you’re believing, there.
Anyway, as a literal Bible believer, why would you be opposed to genocide, paedophilia, or polygamy? None of those things is condemned in the Bible. Nor is slavery. In fact, when the Israelites commit genocide against the Midianites under the instructions of God via Moses, the soldiers follow Moses’ orders and kill all the men and boys, and all the women, and take the young girls as sex slaves. This is neither condemned nor punished by God.
“Did morals come before the conscience or the conscience before morals?”
I imagine they must have evolved together, alongside punishment and reward.
“You should explain and give an instance when a dog or monkey feels sorrow for doing something morally wrong.”
I think a lot of dog owners can describe instances of apparently guilty behaviour on the part of dogs. Perhaps such is a matter of interpretation, but we definitely do see in dogs an apparent eagerness to obey authority, and to encourage conformity within a pack. In monkeys, a sense of fairness has been demonstrated. If treats are shared out among a troop, it annoys them if one gets much more or much less than the rest, and they are willing to take steps to rectify this (e.g., giving up part of their share). Apes (such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utan) show even more sophisticated moral notions, and display voluntary kindness.
“Do you feel guilty for something you did in secret that won’t hurt anyone like lying?”
I wouldn’t feel guilty about a truly harmless lie. Replying “fine” to “how are you?” when I’m not induces no twinge of conscience in me whatsoever.
WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THAT IT IS COVERED BY A DOME?
You know I didn’t say science was conjecture, but your theories of macro-evolution are conjecture. I’m not going to take too much time to explain these things to you. You only believe what you want to.
Your age for the earth has doubled every 20 years. You know that right? You know that there is no accurate dating method that is accurate more than 6000 years. You know that the apparent date of the earth would have nothing to do with its creation. Most of the “greatest findings” of skeptic scientists have been hoaxes. You know this, don’t you? It is not about trusting science, but your heartless immoral scientists. I really can’t trust a word out of the mouth of people promoting immoral behavior because according to them, we are animals. You people don’t have problem with justifying murder unto genocide, adultery, polygamy, pedophilia, lying, theft, and coveting.
Why do you now not believe in the scientific law of Biogenesis? Are you are saying that you have observable proof that disproves the Law of Biogenesis or do you believe this all by blind faith? When did this law become not a law? How does that happen? I guess when groups of skeptic scientists get together and they vote on it, right? Why don’t you disregard other scientific laws too like gravity? God established observation by means that the scientific method operates.
How come you keep asserting that the Bible says the earth is flat and so on? You don’t have any proof. You just make assertions.
You said, “If God created the world the way the Bible says he did, then all of science is nonsense. All of it. No exception. Not one line in any science book can be trusted — except, maybe, the author’s name, and the acknowledgements. If God created the world the way the Bible says he did, the Earth is flat, supported on pillars, and the sky is a solid dome with a layer of water above it.” That’s one of stupidest things I’ve ever read. Do you want me to erase it? You have no Biblical references to any of your assertions, and the Bible is not a hard book to cite.
You also believe that you have an evolved conscience. When did man evolve a conscience? Did morals come before the conscience or the conscience before morals? You can’t stand on a principle of your conscience since the principles of other consciences are just as valid. Do you believe that your conscience can determine right and from wrong? Do you believe that there are right and wrong in moral conduct? Do you believe that dogs and monkeys feel guilt for moral wrongs? You should explain and give an instance when a dog or monkey feels sorrow for doing something morally wrong.
Do you only feel guilty for things that you do that hurt other based on society or do you have your own conscience, a personal conscience? Do you only live right for show and for society to suit your purposes? Do you feel guilty for something you did in secret that won’t hurt anyone like lying?
When talking about the shape of the earth, we were talking about what some Christians [skeptics too] used to believe. Keep it in the context.
By the way, do you still deny that the sky is a solid dome, like the Bible says? If not, are you sure you are a true Christian?
You are applying double standards to science. When you see a finding in science that points in a direction you like, you emphatically call it a “Law” (“Law of biogenesis”), and overgeneralize it. When you see a finding in science that you don’t like, you dismissively call it “conjecture”, and try to nullify it.
Here’s the deal: the scientific evidence says that the world is a huge ball of rock, including a mostly molten mantle, and the surface is kept warm partly from the sun and partly from nuclear reactions very deep within. The scientific evidence says this ball of rock is about 4.54 billion years old (with a margin for error of 1%, so it is between 4.495 or 4.585 billion years old). It says this ball of rock formed, with all the other planets, from a cloud of dust, in accordance with the laws of gravity. It says the dust itself came from one or more dead stars which existed for many billions of years before going nova. It says the Sun was made from the same dust, by the same basic process, a little while before the planets. It says when the Earth-ball was first formed, according to those laws, it was extremely hot, and at first had no crust or atmosphere, but built up a crust and an atmosphere as it cooled, and it says the original atmosphere did not contain oxygen in significant amounts, but contained high amounts of other gases, due to volcanism. It says that cellular life appeared on Earth about 700 million years to one billion years after the planet was formed. It says that complex cells with organelles appeared around one and a half billion years after that, and multicellular life a couple of hundred million years later, and expanded rapidly after a further billion years, to eventually produce the complex ecologies that we now see. This story is backed, literally, by mountains of evidence, since it is recorded in the very rocks from which the continents are formed.
Now, you can ignore all those findings of science, but if you do, you have no basis for saying that any other finding of science is a “law”. To say 90% of science is false, or “all conjecture”, but one little bit of science that happens (much more weakly than you seem to think) to support your point of view is a “law”, is just playing games.
You say “If God created, then this does not go against science, but creates it and acts upon it.” No. If God created the world the way the Bible says he did, then all of science is nonsense. All of it. No exception. Not one line in any science book can be trusted — except, maybe, the author’s name, and the acknowledgements. If God created the world the way the Bible says he did, the Earth is flat, supported on pillars, and the sky is a solid dome with a layer of water above it.
You need to admit that, if the Bible is entirely true, then the scientific method is meaningless, and can never reveal any “laws”, and, therefore, you should ignore all science equally.
Admittedly, this implies that you should not trust any modern technology, such as antibiotics, aircraft, or computers, but hey, you make your bed, and you lie in it.
You raise another topic in your post: “Which bares the question, if you have a conscience, where did it come from?” The answer is that morality evolved. The rule of survival of the fittest ensures that all social animals with any intelligence have at least some rudiments of morality, the most important rule of which is reciprocation. Social animals function more effectively as teams, and so survive better, if they have a moral instinct. These moral instincts are only rudimentary in such animals as dogs, but are more sophisticated in apes, and very sophisticated in human beings. That’s why all communities, regardless of whether they have a religion or what religion they have, subscribe to many of the same basic ethical ideas. There are books about this stuff that explain it all in detail — for instance, “The Evolution of Morality” by Richard Joyce, and “Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals”
by Frans B M de Waal, and “The Origins of Virtue” by Matt Ridley. Of course, you are compelled to ignore this, because it is science, and nothing that science says can be trusted if the Bible is true.
“Lastly, the shape of the earth does not attack the very foundation of the Christian faith. Evolution does attack the authority of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, the origin of sin, man being made in God’s image [resulting in the prejudices of evolution], and so on.”
The shape of the Earth attacks the foundation of the Christian faith, because it implies that the creation story is not true (the Bible says the Earth is flat), and thus implies that the Bible is untrustworthy.