Feed on Posts or Comments 24 November 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 29 Jun 2011 12:26 am

Science does NOT require faith – contrary to what many Christians and Muslims believe

“This video challenges the claim that a belief in science requires equal faith to the belief in a god”:

187 Responses to “Science does NOT require faith – contrary to what many Christians and Muslims believe”

  1. on 29 Jun 2011 at 5:21 pm 1.DPK said …

    Great posting. Unfortunately it will be completely lost on those that most need to hear it.
    Watch and learn……………..

  2. on 29 Jun 2011 at 6:17 pm 2.Swede said …

    Well, sit back and watch the clones shake their heads yes and refuse to think about what the video is attempting to state.

    Which areas of science is the recognizable narrator referring to? Historical? Present? Future? What?

    He doesn’t admit he is referring to Macroevolution. Why? Well his claims of observable, measurable and testable are not met by Maroevolution. It fails the test of science. Berlinski states it well. This video is only for those who are critical thinkers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM&feature=related

  3. on 29 Jun 2011 at 7:03 pm 3.DPK said …

    See?
    hahaha

  4. on 29 Jun 2011 at 9:24 pm 4.Ben said …

    Swede

    I like Berlinski. The guy just states the facts and keeps his personal view and corresponding biases out of the equation.

    Thanks for the link.

  5. on 30 Jun 2011 at 1:32 am 5.Observer said …

    Berlinski? You are not serious. He is a fraud. He came up a couple months ago and there were links from several actual mathematicians, as in they publish papers in peer-reviewed mathematics journals published by the likes of the AMS, SIAM, Springer, etc. who detailed Berlinski’s lack of accomplishments and the nonsense he writes about. I think Berlinski published a non-rigorous book on calculus or some such thing. That is his claim to fame. He is also buddies with Ben Stein.

    All Berlinski does is point out incompleteness of whatever decides to get involved with. Of course, that is the nature of science, at least the areas with active research. What would there be to research if everything was known? Berlinski never comes up with anything to answer questions.

    You should track down Hitchens dismantling Berlinski in debate. It is on YouTube somewhere.

  6. on 30 Jun 2011 at 2:28 am 6.Ben said …

    I saw the debate. What was truly hilarious was watching atheists and agnostics battle it out over who is right. Sure, they only “lack” belief.

    Even more entertaining was watching atheists post claims Berlinski was using religion of all things. What a clueless bunch.

    Please post the minute I need to view where Hitchens “dismantles” Berlinski. It would be a first for Hitchens’

    Does he still hate his own brother? Is he still drinking and smoking to excess? I believe he is still just a chain-smoking drunken journalist so what are his credentials for this debate?

  7. on 30 Jun 2011 at 11:29 am 7.Scott said …

    “Science does NOT require faith – contrary to what many Christians and Muslims believe”

    Actually I have never heard any Christian or Muslim make such a statement. This is the typical spin humanist/atheist like to use to spin the debate.

    As Ben alluded to above the claim is the belief all species originated from the primordial soup creature requires more faith than belief God.

    When science develops drought resistant corn, cancer drugs or the internal combustion engine we see the proof of science’s labor and theories.

  8. on 30 Jun 2011 at 11:31 am 8.Scott said …

    “All Berlinski does is point out incompleteness of whatever decides to get involved with.”

    So you don’t agree with Richard Dawkins and others that macro-evolution is indeed Fact?

  9. on 30 Jun 2011 at 12:31 pm 9.Observer said …

    #8 I do not agree that anything is “Fact” in the sense that capitalizing predicates typically implies a silly supernatural influence. As for macro-evolution, and as I have pointed out on this website several times there is a complete fossil record for whales. Somehow that never gets through to the science deniers.

    By what befuddled reasoning do you draw an inference, based on the buffoonery and charlatanism of Berlinski, that I disagree with Dawkins, or any other competent scientist that there is not macro-evolution?

    What would be more interesting is for you to explain how anyone with intelligence enough to string together a sentence can believe in “God” or the other tripe regarding supernatural creation.

  10. on 30 Jun 2011 at 2:56 pm 10.DPK said …

    ““Science does NOT require faith – contrary to what many Christians and Muslims believe”

    Actually I have never heard any Christian or Muslim make such a statement. This is the typical spin humanist/atheist like to use to spin the debate.

    As Ben alluded to above the claim is the belief all species originated from the primordial soup creature requires more faith than belief God.”

    I have heard christians, muslims, and other theists make this assertion many, many times. In fact, YOU just made it in your third paragraph.

    We just recently went through a whole round here where the theists tried to insist that atheism was in fact, a religion. They also concluded that black was a color, silence was a sound, and not collecting stamps was a hobby. And their reasoning was because the Raeleans are atheistic with respect to the god of the bible, and some obscure website offers to “ordain” people as atheist ministers so they can officiate marriage ceremonies in a secular manner.

    “When science develops drought resistant corn, cancer drugs or the internal combustion engine we see the proof of science’s labor and theories.”

    Ok, I’m not getting your point here? Yeah, several centuries of progress can be attributed squarely to scientific methodology. What can religions claim? Witch burnings and exorcisms? Holy wars? The Dark Ages? What medical or technological advances has religion brought us? This should be good.

    And Berlinski? He’s simply a contrarion. I also find it hilarious that the theists look at him as their shining light of reason when he is an open an acknowledged agnostic. He fits the definition of a grumpy old codger that just like to disagree with everyone without adding anything of worth to the debate… kind of like Horatiio.

  11. on 30 Jun 2011 at 8:40 pm 11.Swede said …

    “Somehow that never gets through to the science deniers.”

    Once again the stubborn don’t get it. Nobody here is denying science. We deny stories of all species descending from some primordial soup.

    Now, who here would like to equate drought resistant corn with primordial soup theories? Would you claim they are equal?

  12. on 30 Jun 2011 at 9:09 pm 12.Observer said …

    #11 “Once again the stubborn don’t get it. Nobody here is denying science. We deny stories of all species descending from some primordial soup.”

    What are you trying to say here? It really doesn’t seem to make much sense. Given the best understanding of what the early earth was like the “primordial soup” situation is the best estimate of the environment. It does not seem implausible to me that given the chemistry was correct for life to begin on Earth that there might have been more than one starting point, but correctly, there is nothing to argue for more than one starting point, particularly given all that has been learned in molecular biology in the past 20 years.

    Why would anyone want to equate drought resistant corn to, I believe you are saying in your quaint low-church way, evolution? I do not know much about drought resistant corn, but I assume it is either genetically engineered, or selectively bred.

    If it is genetically engineered without trans-species gene splicing, then it represents an element out of a feasible set of possible mutations where a gene has been “turned-off” or “on”. If there was gene splicing, then this would be a synthetic version of what might happen with a viral infection where genetic material is carried into an organism. Why did this not happen in nature already? Domesticated grain crops have only been around and outside of the natural environments where they evolved for a few thousand years. So it would be a low-probability event for some dramatic change that would allow them to flourish outside their natural environment.

    If the corn is selectively bred then that is effectively forcing the survival of the fittest mechanism, where the “fitness” is determined by a non-natural force, such as human intervention to create an arbitrary trait unrelated to reproduction in the natural environment.

    So no, I would not equate an engineered organism with a naturally evolved organism anymore than I would equate a Noguchi basalt sculpture with an eroded basalt boulder.

  13. on 30 Jun 2011 at 9:17 pm 13.Observer said …

    #11 Unless you missed the point, the “primordial soup” theory is the best Science can do on this particular subject at this point in time. If you prefer a magic wand from some uber-faerie, go for it. But please have the decency to not further erode our society by trying to teach innocent children this type of corruption.

  14. on 01 Jul 2011 at 3:26 am 14.Ben said …

    “If the corn is selectively bred then that is effectively forcing the survival of the fittest mechanism,”

    But yet it remains corn. Did you have a point? I doubt it even exist but was only an example. If such an entity existed we would have it all over Africa. But you do miss the point often Observer.

    Just provide the steps in a lab of lightning striking soup, creating amino acids that in turn form the proteins to make that first cell. What are the chances? 1×10^3000? Just a guess but probably on the conservative side

    Where is this video of Hitchens “destroying” Berlinksi. Again, would like to see it. Is it possible you just made it up?

  15. on 01 Jul 2011 at 2:33 pm 15.Lou said …

    14.Ben said …

    “Just provide the steps in a lab of lightning striking soup, creating amino acids that in turn form the proteins to make that first cell. What are the chances? 1×10^3000? Just a guess but probably on the conservative side”

    What are the chances that an omnipotent supernatural being created you in his own image? ZERO. The chances that lightning striking the primordial soup created your ancestors are infinitely greater.

  16. on 01 Jul 2011 at 4:13 pm 16.DPK said …

    “Just provide the steps in a lab of lightning striking soup, creating amino acids that in turn form the proteins to make that first cell. What are the chances? 1×10^3000? Just a guess but probably on the conservative side”

    Well, I have to admit that, on the surface, Ben makes a compelling point here. At first glance, it would seem (and I’m certain the number he made up he just pulled out of his butt) that the chance of such an occurrence would seem to be so remote as to be zero. But, please just consider a few factors.
    First, the age and size of the known universe, 14 billion years, billions of galaxies encompassing untold trillions of stars, makes even the most remote possibility almost certain. Indeed, if the universe is, as some have perhaps theorized, infinite, that such an occurrence is not only certain, it is certain to have happened an infinite number of times.
    If our universe is, as others have theorized, a “cyclic” universe, being born and reborn throughout infinite time, then again, such an incidence is not remote, it is an absolute certainty.
    Other physicists seem to feel strongly that the possibility of other universes, perhaps infinite other universes, also exist. Indeed, if string theory is correct, the existence of other dimensions and universes are almost a certainty. The dark shift observed at the edge of our visible universe seems to indicate that our universe is, in fact, experiencing gravitational attraction to “something else”.
    The enormity of size and time certainly gives credence to the idea that, like the puddle marveling at how the hole it which it lives perfectly fits it’s shape, if it hadn’t occurred we wouldn’t be here thinking about it. Tell the lottery winner that the odds of winning the lottery are so small it is impossible to win. He won’t get it.
    There is also the more mundane possibility that the complexity you describe from the “primordial soup” did NOT originate here. It could have originated somewhere else in the galaxy, perhaps somewhere we do not know of yet, where conditions are such that such an occurrence is common, and the raw materials for life were brought here during the great bombardment.
    The bottom line Ben, is this. There are possibly dozens of possible scenarios, and perhaps hundreds more no one has even thought of, that could provide a logical, rational explanation to the mysteries you automatically contribute to god. As the video for this post pointed out, science can say “I don’t know.” “I don’t know.” is NOT the same as “Then it must be magic.”
    That is the same line of thinking that has been proven wrong again and again and again throughout history.
    I can not “provide the steps in a lab of lightning striking soup, creating amino acids that in turn form the proteins to make that first cell.”
    Because I don’t know. But, Ben… neither do you. The fact that you imagine that you do, and that the answer comes from a magical book written by a magical being, only shows your short sightedness.

  17. on 01 Jul 2011 at 4:13 pm 17.Observer said …

    #14 Ben “But yet it remains corn. ” Have you ever enrolled in, and passed a biology class at a level above high school? Seriously. Incidentally, if you are a farmer in Kent, you might use the word “corn” interchangeably for barley, rye, maize, etc. Corn is usually used to describe the New World grain crop maize. Swede was asking about drought resistant corn as in http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/07/us-monsanto-corn-idUSTRE50661V20090107. Perhaps I missed something in that this might have more cultural significance to someone in the Bible Belt.

    What is your point? I am not much of an expert on what is grown in Africa, nor do I really care. IF you are interested in the economic successes of selective breeding, hybridization, genetic engineering, etc. read up on Indian agriculture. You might also look out at the corn field in front of your house.

    Paragraph 3 gets back to Ilya Prigogine which no one wants to learn about. There you can learn about autocatalysis, self-organization, etc. These are all naturally occurring processes that have been discovered in the past few decades. The math to handle this stuff is frightfully difficult, so the progress is slow.

    Ben, have you enrolled in a senior, or preferably graduate level probability course and passed it? Where do you come up with the nonsense of 10^3000? Some charlatan xtian/new-earther garbage?

    Can’t figure out how to use google? Here is Hitch.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232872

    If you can’t handle this, little wonder you can’t learn enough to understand the world around. Interestingly, the folks supporting this are xtians. They also incorrectly say Berlinski is a professor of mathematics. He is not.

  18. on 01 Jul 2011 at 6:17 pm 18.DPK said …

    “Can’t figure out how to use google? Here is Hitch.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232872

    Thanks for the link. Early in the debate there is a quick statement by Berlinski that is very telling. He speaks of the popularity of sales of books by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitch and remarks he “wished he had thought of that.” This guy is simply taking a contrary position to sell books. He offers NOTHING of substance except to decry atheism as “poisoning everything” while at the same time admitting religion also “poisons a lot of things.”
    The guy is a fraud. A secular jew, an agnostic, who feels that the world has been in decline since the beginning of the Renaissance, and that a god is necessary to provide a moral imperative to do right. He offers no compelling evidence that such a being actually exists, but rather argues that we are simply better off believing in one anyway, even though he does not.
    Hilarious to me was his answer to “What are the most compelling points of Pascal’s wager?” Shoulder shrug and silence…. and he refused to answer the simple question, “Given a choice, would you prefer to see an Islamic Europe or a secular one?” Come on, if you are arguing that atheism poisons everything, that should be an easy answer for you. Fraud.
    This guy wants nothing more than to write some fluff to cash in on his academic credentials to sell some books to people who are looking for a hero to battle Dawkins and Harris and other. He’s a shyster.
    I enjoyed seeing Hitchins take him apart on his contention that atheism was the root of the Holocaust. That was worth listening through the mostly verbal fluff of the debate.

  19. on 01 Jul 2011 at 6:41 pm 19.Severin said …

    14 Ben
    You obviously have no clue about both chemistry and math!
    Don’t disgrace yourself by talking bullshits.

    Firstly, it is obvious from Miller’s experiment, even to those who don’t know anything about math and chemistry, that in ONLY ONE SINGLE WEEK:
    “At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds.”
    “Sugars, liquids, were also formed. Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. But the common 20 amino acids were formed, but in various concentrations.”
    So, in the first place, chances to produce organic compounds from simple inorganic blocs were (and are!) 100%.
    Man got them!

    Chances for more complex compounds to mutually react are BIGGER (NOT smaller!), to give still more complex compounds (under proper conditions). Organic acids, sugars, alcoholes, aldehydes, ketones… READILY react with each other!
    NUMBER of different compounds that can result from reaction of relatively simple “first step” compounds, like aminoacids and sugars, is much, much bigger than number of simpler compounds resulted from few simple building blocks, like H2, NH3, H2O…
    From ONLY few simple blocks they got 20 aminocaids, sugars….!!! In ONE WEEK!
    From those bigger blocks, in further reaction, millions combinations were theoretically possible! Under uncontrolled conditions in nature, CERTAINLY much more than millions. Billions!
    Proven in practice in thousands of commercial plants producing organic chemical compounds (including paint binders, plastics…)
    If SO2, HCN and some simple compounds OF P are present, possible combinations are almost endless.
    Only a few years after Miller’s experiment, Oro got adenine in NOLY ONE DAY (night, to be precise).
    Adenine is a nucleic acid!

    So, people GOT complex organic compaounds practically from nothing, in one case after 1 week, in another case after only 1 day.
    If you know that earth is 4.5 billion years old, and say that 1 billion years nothing happpened (although, first billions of “building blocks” already waited for their “chance” long before this first billion years ended!), please have in mind that 3.5 billion years are:
    1.82*10^11 weeks (182,000,000,000 weeks), or,
    1.28*10^12 days (1,277,500,000,000 days)

    Don’t throw your bullshit numbers around! Think before you say something!

  20. on 01 Jul 2011 at 6:57 pm 20.Severin said …

    16 DPK
    “Tell the lottery winner that the odds of winning the lottery are so small it is impossible to win. He won’t get it.”

    No one normal will!
    Because evrything that is possible to happen WILL happen, sooner or later.

    It will not happen SOON if Ben is right with his estimation of 1:1*10^3000, but even in THAT case, it will happen SOMETIMES (if theoretically possible, and we saw it was!), maybe after few billions of big bangs.
    Of course, ben pulled his number from his ass.
    I would like to see his math!

    Their ignorance is their biggest problem.
    I would say, also, their poor intelligence, because 7-8 years old children DO understand it.
    They still think that, if you put Na and Cl together,they will react if it is god’s will, and will not react if it isn’t god’s will!
    I tried them!

  21. on 01 Jul 2011 at 6:57 pm 21.Severin said …

    I mean I tried 7-8 years old children!

  22. on 01 Jul 2011 at 10:48 pm 22.Horatiio said …

    “I am not much of an expert on what is grown in Africa,”

    Don’t sell yourself short Nose Buster. Sure you are an expert. You are an expert in all ares in your little world. LOL

    Look at DPK’s little hypothesis.

    “4 billion years, billions of galaxies encompassing untold trillions of stars, makes even the most remote possibility almost certain.”

    Hmmmm, Let see here. Is this science or just wishful thinking? According to DPK all things are probable and even likely given enough time. Remember this as well. DPK will claim all we nave is natural processes. So lets go with his asinine scenario. That means we will/do have Santa, leprechauns and unicorns (not drought resistant). Remember now, all we need is enough time for it to happen. Does this resemble God “diddit”. Certainly but he makes lite of “Goddit” therefore he ridicules his own hypothesis.

    LOL, DPK you are the fraud just like your buddy Hitch and Dawkins.

    One more before I depart. The law of probability is 10^50. At such odds the chance of the possibility becoming reality is 0. I have seen the estimate of just one cell forming in our prehistoric soup to be 10^40,000. The chance is nil.

  23. on 01 Jul 2011 at 11:25 pm 23.DPK said …

    Horatiio, you pretentious idiot. No wonder you can’t comprehend anything. We are not talking of Santa Claus or elves or magic, which does not exist in the natural world, we were talking about molecules, following natural laws, arranging themselves in a particular order. Yes, if you assume the universe in infinite, and there are a finite number of ways that atoms can arrange themselves, then yes, the pattern must occur, and it must repeat. In fact it must repeat infinite times. That’s the problem with infinite…..
    Now, even if you assume a finite universe and a finite time, meaning before 14.5 billion years ago there was nothing, which seems a silly assumption, 450 billion galaxies (that we know of) each containing hundreds of billions of stars, countless planets, moons, comets, asteroids… physical conditions we perhaps cannot even conceive of… you find THAT so improbable that given all that and billions and billions of years, that the fundamental molecules of life can not possibly arise. YET, you have no problem believing in a magical, judgmental warrior god who intercedes in human affairs, will punish us for eternity for the crime of not believing in him, and manifested himself as a human so he could offer himself as a blood sacrifice to himself as attonement for us behaving exactly the way he created us and knew in advance we would.

    You are a silly, silly man.

  24. on 02 Jul 2011 at 12:08 am 24.Lou said …

    22.Horatiio said …

    “According to DPK all things are probable and even likely given enough time.”

    Untrue. He wrote “the most remote possibility,” not “all things are probable.”

    “Remember this as well. DPK will claim all we nave is natural processes. So lets go with his asinine scenario. That means we will/do have Santa, leprechauns and unicorns (not drought resistant).”

    YOUR asinine scenario, not his. His scenario doesn’t allow for Santa or leprechauns, and you know it. They are not a “remote possibility.” Not only must you tinge your comments with school yard name calling, but they appear to originate from the mind of someone who thinks in that context.

    Where is your evidence that some god created the universe? Prediction – it’s the same evidence that exits for “Santa or leprechauns and unicorns.”

  25. on 02 Jul 2011 at 12:11 am 25.Observer said …

    DPK Well done. Severin- on top of it as usual. Good to see you back.

    I tell you, Prigogine is the man. There is very good research being done on viruses and proteins using his work- some of the more exotic computational biology is following in his footsteps.

    One other point about Berlinski, I had heard that lecture before, but missed this point: He mentioned “analytic continuation” being a mystery. This is something from simple complex analysis, and has been generalized in the past 20 years, and is now a very powerful tool for solving partial differential equations. There is nothing mysterious about it other than open sets on a complex plane. It has been proven, and everything is sorted out. I mean Berlinski is pathetic. I feel kinda sorry for him. And what is with that bad Bronx accent he is trying to cover with the affected upper-crust Brit drawl. I mean the guy is smart, but not brilliant. He was evidently a great student, but he is a horrid researcher, having never produced anything, and he is definitely a not a mathematician.

  26. on 02 Jul 2011 at 4:31 am 26.Severin said …

    23 DPK
    “Horatiio, you pretentious idiot.“
    That was my first thought when I read his post.
    The second was:
    “Horatio, you perverse liar!“
    Because he claims that DPK said something neither DPK nor anyone of atheists ever said:
    „According to DPK all things are probable and even likely given enough time.“

    DPK never said anything like that!
    None of us ever said anything like „all things are probable“, you liar!

    We said: all things that are POSSIBLE to occur (according to laws of physics and chemistry), WILL ocure.
    If something is POSSIBLE to happen according to laws of physics and chemistry, it i not “probable” to happen, it WILL happen.

    That is all we ever said, and we witness it constantly: iron is rusting, water is evaporating, freezing and condensing, apples fall on our heads, billions of SPONTANIOUS physical and chemical processes are going on everywhere in universe, each single second.
    No one of us ever said that „ALL things are probable“!

    Things that opose natural are impossible, and will NOT happen. Ever!
    An apple will never „fall“ from a tree and spontaniously fly to space.
    A man with beard will never make a man from „dirt“ and blow him life through his nostrils.
    Virgin lady will never give birth to a child.
    Snakes will never talk.

    Horatio will never became an honest man.

  27. on 02 Jul 2011 at 4:45 am 27.Severin said …

    “You are a silly, silly man.”

    He is a liar, and it is not silly, it is rotten.

  28. on 02 Jul 2011 at 4:51 am 28.Severin said …

    How typical and how expected from those pathetic people, unable to communicate honestly?

    Lie, then build conclusions on your own lies! from tme to time (much too frequently!), add some “LOL”, in attempt to hide your lie and to show yourself humorous.

    How many times have we seen that on these pages?

  29. on 02 Jul 2011 at 1:43 pm 29.Burebista said …

    Horatio that was good. Destroying the atheist dogma as always.

    I would like to see DPK’s natural laws that produce life from a bowl of Campbells soup and a lightning bolt. How about the law of complexity from simplicity? The law of information from chaos? Just some good starters for DPK.

    Since we obviously have not discovered all natural laws then Unicorns are still much in the picture because all things are possible according to DPK.

    I would argue 10^40,000 makes the first cell an impossibility. I can’t buy into Time diddit and then considering lightning destroys. Seems now we need God in the picture after all.

  30. on 02 Jul 2011 at 4:05 pm 30.DPK said …

    “I would like to see DPK’s natural laws that produce life from a bowl of Campbells soup and a lightning bolt.”
    Seriously, where do you get this stuff. Moratiio makes a stupid and false claim and you congratulate him and make an even stupider one.
    Who said anything about Campbell’s soup??
    Unicorns? Unicorns are magical. Magic is not possible, therefore Unicorns do not fit into the parameter of “even the most remote possibility”, which is what we, or at least I, were discussing.
    I thought Horatiio was silly, you are even sillier. Campbell’s soup? That’s what you think. No wonder you believe in invisible men.
    You and Hor would spend your time better looking for a virgin to sacrifice to the volcano god. Start looking in Mambia.

  31. on 02 Jul 2011 at 6:53 pm 31.Severin said …

    29 Burebista
    “Horatio that was good. Destroying the atheist dogma as always.”

    What?
    Your „hero“ is an unscrupulous liar!
    Are you another one?
    Why am I not surprised?
    Are you too one of those who can not say anything without lying, or without supporting lies of others, to get some „points“ in a debate?
    Yes, you are!
    How miserable! How pitiable!
    Phooey!

    Liars don’t deserve anyone’s attention, and I suggest other atheists to ignore liars and to avoid direct responding to their posts.

    From now on, I don’t debate with liars!

  32. on 02 Jul 2011 at 10:27 pm 32.Swede said …

    “Unicorns are magical. Magic is not possible, therefore Unicorns do not fit into the parameter of “even the most remote possibility””

    Why not? At the very beginning nothing was possible, right? No life existed so all life would have seemed magical. Walking men I’m sure would have seemed magical.

    Why didn’t you answer any of Bur’s questions? Here is a couple more. Where did the laws come from? How did this magical life force get imparted in the first place?

    Seems to me DPK you just want to name-call because you cannot answer any of the questions.

    You didn’t recognize this but I did. The Campbell’s was sarcasm.

  33. on 02 Jul 2011 at 10:37 pm 33.Lou said …

    “30.DPK said …

    “Seriously, where do you get this stuff. [H]oratiio makes a stupid and false claim and you congratulate him and make an even stupider one.”

    You know the old saying – who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

  34. on 02 Jul 2011 at 10:42 pm 34.Lou said …

    32.Swede said …

    “Why not? At the very beginning nothing was possible, right? No life existed so all life would have seemed magical. Walking men I’m sure would have seemed magical.”

    You don’t seem to get it. By definition, magical means of or by a supernatural force. Life arose from natural means. Life is not magical, nor are “walking men.”

  35. on 02 Jul 2011 at 10:48 pm 35.Lou said …

    29.Burebista said …

    “Horatio that was good. Destroying the atheist dogma as always.”

    There is no “atheist dogma.” It is a lie used by liars to deflect the criticism of theism by atheists.

    “I would like to see DPK’s natural laws that produce life from a bowl of Campbells soup and a lightning bolt. How about the law of complexity from simplicity?”

    What do you mean by “how about it?”

    “The law of information from chaos?”

    Is that a question or simply another one of your nonsensical replies?

  36. on 02 Jul 2011 at 10:53 pm 36.Anonymous said …

    I didn’t see any questions from Burebista worthy of an answer, but lets take a look.
    He wants to see a natural law that makes life from Campbell’s soup and lightening.
    No one ever said life comes from Campbell’s soup, so the question is… stupid.
    He wants to see complexity from simplicity.
    A high school physics student knows that in a closed system with energy applied, complexity and order arises all the time. Under gravity, atoms of hydrogen arrange themselves into a working fusion reactor. Again, stupid question not really worthy of a response.
    What else?
    Unicorns?
    Let’s save the explanation and jump right to stupid.
    Unicorns have zero probability of existence because they are mythical. Amino acids, proteins, and organic molecules…. which we were talking about before we got into Campbell’s soup and lightening, are real.
    How come you can realize that unicorns actually have zero possibility of existence, but you think that gods are real.
    Your left brain’s hemispheres are divided rather strangely. You should get it looked at.
    After you’re done, why don’y you ask Bur and Moratiio why they have not answered ANY of my questions from any of the other threads?
    Where did the natural laws come from? I don’t know. Neither do you, so don’t pretend you do.
    How did the “magical life force” get imparted? Nothing magical about it. Are you going to contend that magic is real now?

  37. on 02 Jul 2011 at 10:55 pm 37.DPK said …

    Sorry, 36 anonymous is me. spam filter is acting strangely again.

  38. on 02 Jul 2011 at 11:18 pm 38.Lou said …

    29.Burebista said …

    “I can’t buy into Time diddit…”

    Nobody claims that.

    “…and then considering lightning destroys.”

    You obviously never heard of atmospheric nitrogen fixation.

    “Seems now we need God in the picture after all.”

    No, WE don’t. YOU do.

  39. on 02 Jul 2011 at 11:20 pm 39.Lou said …

    Burbista,

    Do you believe that the force of gravity (and its associated “laws”) is natural or supernatural (magical)?

  40. on 02 Jul 2011 at 11:30 pm 40.DPK said …

    He won’t answer you.
    Watch and learn.
    Moratiio will chime in with a “LOL” and Bur will tell him how insanely clever he is.

  41. on 03 Jul 2011 at 12:20 am 41.Ben said …

    DPK

    Will you be answering any of the questions or just continue to insult others? I can run them down again if you like?

    Swede made some good points as well. Maybe you could answer those too regarding the source of laws?

    Would you not agree at the very beginning all things were possible? Why not unicorns? They were actually written about by Greek writers of natural history and until the 19th century belief was widespread. We did have Pterodactyls which seem quite unlikely.

    Maybe add some thought and effort into the questions rather than avoiding.

  42. on 03 Jul 2011 at 12:24 am 42.Ben said …

    Looked up Lou’s Nitrogen fixation:

    Nitrogen converting to ammonia is simple becoming complex?

    Let me post a lol before Horatio does.

    That’s all you got?

  43. on 03 Jul 2011 at 12:52 am 43.DPK said …

    Ben, I don’t mind explaining things to you, but I can’t read for you. I already answered the questions.
    No, I will not agree at the beginning “all things are possible”. Sodium and Chlorine will never combine to form Oxygen. Gravity will never cause objects to repel. Nature is governed by the weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity. Now, is it possible to have horses with horns? Sure. Can they be only be captured by virgins and turn poisoned water pure? Nope. The fact that they were written about by Greek writers doesn’t make them any more real than Zeus, or Jesus, for that matter. That the best you have?

    I answered the question about the origin of natural laws too. I don’t know. That doesn’t mean you do. If you are going to claim you do know, be prepared to prove it.

    Can’t see any examples of simple becoming complex huh? Look up. Clouds of hydrogen have assembled themselves into stars, galaxies, planets… stars convert hydrogen (simple) into helium, and then to iron, carbon, all the heavier elements (complex).
    Yeah, nitrogen fixation is taking simple to more complex… you think it isn’t?

    “Nitrogen fixation is the natural process, either biological or abiotic, by which nitrogen (N2) in the atmosphere is converted into ammonia (NH3).[1] This process is essential for life because fixed nitrogen is required to biosynthesize the basic building blocks of life, e.g., nucleotides for DNA and RNA and amino acids for proteins. Nitrogen fixation also refers to other biological conversions of nitrogen, such as its conversion to nitrogen dioxide.
    Microorganisms that fix nitrogen are bacteria called diazotrophs. Some higher plants, and some animals (termites), have formed associations (symbioses) with diazotrophs. Nitrogen fixation also occurs as a result of non-biological processes. These include lightning, industrially through the Haber-Bosch Process, and combustion.[2] Biological nitrogen fixation was discovered by the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck.”

  44. on 03 Jul 2011 at 1:07 am 44.Lou said …

    42.Ben said …

    “Nitrogen converting to ammonia is simple becoming complex?”

    As usual, you missed the point. Hint: lightning.

    “Let me post a lol before Horatio does.”

    Why do you want to be first to advertise your stupidity and lack of understanding? I suppose for you being first at something is an achievement.

  45. on 03 Jul 2011 at 1:52 am 45.Ben said …

    I don’t know was all you needed to provide. As a naturalist, that is the only answer you can provide. Science can guess what happened billions of years ago, but that is all it can do. You know observation, testing and repeat are a little difficult for 1 event billions of years ago. You do realize that is paramount for science right?

    Science was not meant to interpret history or the supernatural.

  46. on 03 Jul 2011 at 2:21 am 46.DPK said …

    Well, perhaps instead I should have said, “I cannot know.”
    Remember the 2 cave men standing before the volcano. Neither knows why the volcano is erupting, but one says, “perhaps there are natural processes at work we do not fully understand.” The other says, “No, there are no natural processes that can explain this. You can’t provide any, so that proves their is a magical volcano god. End of story.”
    Well, we both know how that story ends.
    WHEN science finally explains exactly how life is created, what will happen to your “supernatural” argument then. It is closer than you think:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece

    Remember, “I don’t know” doesn’t mean you therefore do. That’s a rather pathetic argument.

  47. on 03 Jul 2011 at 4:23 am 47.Severin said …

    42 Ben
    “Nitrogen converting to ammonia is simple becoming complex?”

    Yes.
    Unless if you said ammonia was less complex than nitrogen.
    2 is more complex than 1.
    What is unclear here?
    LOL!

    See simple chemistry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

    Now you tell us how god created life (or anything else).
    Was that the way described in Bible?

  48. on 03 Jul 2011 at 5:06 am 48.Severin said …

    45 Ben
    “Science can guess what happened billions of years ago, but that is all it can do.“

    Science makes „guesses“ based on well founded assumptions AND present knowledge.
    For example, if we can get ammonia grom hydrogen and nitrogen in a lab, and we precisely know mechanisms of these reactions (which we do!), a good and clever „guess“ is that ammonia can also be synthesized somewhere in nature, under similar conditions, following the same, well known mechanism.
    The assumption becomes CERTAINTY, if yoy know (and we DO know) that a mixture of simple ingredients like N2, H2, O2, C… will ALLWAYS give at least a mixture of higher level (more complex) compounds, like fomaldehyde, ammonia, cyanides…
    It WORKS, and CAN NOT FAIL, because it is based on laws of physics and chemistry.
    If you have such a mixture, and proper conditions, you CAN NOT PREVENT forming of more complex molecules, like aminoacids and nucleic acids!
    Tey WILL form, no „guess“ necessary to anticipate it!

    Science does not make „guesses“, but postulates well founded hypothesis based on previous knowledge.
    It would be a guess, and very bad one, if scientists postulated formation of cyanides without presencce of carbon. But no scientist would do such an idiotic postulate.
    People would lought at him!

    Now, if you KNOW that elements and simple compounds WILL react to form higher compounds (not a „guess“, they WILL react, and you can’t stop them reacting! See Miller-Urey, Oro, at al), plus the fact that still higher compounds, like proteins and their agglomerates (DNA) ARE present here and now, and are OBVIOUSLY formed from simpler compounds, what is wrong in assuming that during many billions of days „Lego“ finally fit together to produce a primitive living cell?
    That is NOT a „guess“, but well founded hypothesis, that still have to be proven in practice, but have EXCELLENT theorethical foundation, that WORKS in practice already.

    Unlike god making man from mud.

  49. on 03 Jul 2011 at 11:00 am 49.Ben said …

    DPK,

    When you resort to fallacies to attempt to win a debate you lose. Nobody here believes in a volcano god. We can study volcanoes here and now.

    I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.

    If you do have evidence to the contrary we open to other reasoned ideas.

  50. on 03 Jul 2011 at 2:22 pm 50.Lou said …

    49.Ben said …

    “When you resort to fallacies to attempt to win a debate you lose. Nobody here believes in a volcano god. We can study volcanoes here and now.”

    Now you are resorting to fallacies. People have believed in specific volcano gods. And you, in effect, believe in a volcano god if you believe that god created everything. Even if you believe that your god created life, why couldn’t he do it by lightning striking the primordial soup?

  51. on 03 Jul 2011 at 2:26 pm 51.Lou said …

    More on Ben’s volcano god:

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Yahweh-The-Volcano-God

  52. on 03 Jul 2011 at 2:47 pm 52.Lou said …

    49.Ben said …

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.”

    That is not logic and deduction. I can use your “logic and deduction” to reason that intelligence is NOT behind “such things.” Until I witness god create life, then it’s only possible that natural processes created it.

  53. on 03 Jul 2011 at 2:49 pm 53.Anonymous said …

    Ben, is your position so week that you have to try and resort to semantic deceit to try and save face.
    No one ever said you believe in a volcano god. If you did, the analogy would be lost on you. The statement was that your position is LIKE the ancient who believed in the volcano god, and your assertions are taken from the same flawed perspective.
    Do you have an honest rebuttal for that, or for any of Severin’s explanations about the function of natural laws as it pertains to chemistry, or are you just going to put your fingers in your ears and pretend you didn’t hear it.
    You make a sad case for your position by resorting to such nonsense.

  54. on 03 Jul 2011 at 2:56 pm 54.DPK said …

    Sorry, one again, 53 is me.

    Lou, thanks for the volcano god link. Never made that connection… yes Yahweh seems to definitely be a re-incarnation of a volcano god.
    I loved this comment on the article from another brilliant observer:

    “Yahweh is the true God. Volcano gods do not die on a cross and come back from the dead.”

    Now THAT is profound, no?

  55. on 03 Jul 2011 at 3:29 pm 55.DPK said …

    I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.

    Then you are deaf dumb and blind. The complexity of the natural world around you shows complexity arising from simplicity. Do you deny this?? I think not, so your statement that you “have yet yo witness” it is a flat out lie.
    What you refuse to do is acknowledge that it could arise without magic involved. That is a very different point.

  56. on 03 Jul 2011 at 5:30 pm 56.DPK said …

    “Ben said…. Science can guess what happened billions of years ago, but that is all it can do. You know observation, testing and repeat are a little difficult for 1 event billions of years ago.”

    Sorry I missed this before. Then, by your reasoning, dinosaurs did not exist? We cannot observe them or test them. All we can do is study the evidence of their existence by what is left behind.

    So Ben, are you believe in dinosaurs?

  57. on 03 Jul 2011 at 8:13 pm 57.Severin said …

    45 Ben
    “Science can guess what happened billions of years ago, but that is all it can do. You know observation, testing and repeat are a little difficult for 1 event billions of years ago. You do realize that is paramount for science right?”

    Not right!
    Paramount of 19th century science was primitive telephone.
    Subatomic particles were unknown.
    Paramount of 18th century science was discovery that lightning is, in fact, electricity.
    First antibiotic (penicilline) was discovered 80 years ago! Sulfonamide was paramount of medicine before that, and people died like flies, for examle tuberculosis was incurable disease.
    What science can do today, was totally unimaginable only 20-30 years ago, not to mention 50 or 100 years ago.
    You obviously missed to notice that!

    What is today paramount, tomorrow becomes a hill.
    Haven’t you noticed enormeous (exponential!) progress of science during last 200 years?
    What was yesterday unimaginable („a little difficult“, as you say), is normal today.

    Of course, you are wrong again in your obsession with „guessing“.
    „Guesses“ that science makes are not real guesses, like guessing is something in your left or in your right hand, or where have you put your car keys. Scientific „guesses“ has nothing to do with „luck“, „chances“, „maybe yes, maybe not“.

    As I already said, scientist make hypothesis and theories, well founded on present knowledge, logic, observations, results of experiments that were already done.
    No scientist will bring a lunatic hypothesis, for example that apple tree can grow from a potato, or that a god can make a human being from mud.

    Please, for your sake, stop disgracing yourself by spreading your ignorance around.

  58. on 03 Jul 2011 at 10:28 pm 58.Ian said …

    “Until I witness god create life, then it’s only possible that natural processes created it.”

    This is an amusing little line. Can we get this young man a time machine? So what he is saying he deems natural processes can do what they have never been able to do previously. Faith?

    Science is past attempting to fit natural processes into the equation of origins. They are now attempting to unlock/discover laws that could account for such a phenomenon. Known natural processes are out of the question.
    Ben makes much more sense than the rest of you combined. The ancient belief in Volcano Gods and chemical bonds do save you from your dread of a deity.

    You refuse to acknowledge a deity is a very real possibility given the evidence of very complex codes and information. Only a fool would point to natural processes as their source.

    I think all of you would be quite surprised how many scientist accept a deity. These lunatics as you call them have no issues with a deity. Searching for how the deity went about the work does not conflict with the research.

  59. on 04 Jul 2011 at 12:02 am 59.DPK said …

    “I think all of you would be quite surprised how many scientist accept a deity. ”

    Here we go again. Not at all. I am aware that there are well known scientists that accept a deity, there are others who do not. But no reputable scientist accepts a deity as part of science. No reputable scientist would present a theory with “then a miracle happened”, or “god steps in”, as a necessary step. So, what’s your point? Religious belief is a social convention most people pay little more than lip service to. Jesus will answer my prayers, but when my kid is sick I take him to a doctor, not a priest. Why is that Ian? Could it be because, like your theists scientists, most people segregate their faith from reality rather well. Is that supposed to be a point?

    “You refuse to acknowledge a deity is a very real possibility given the evidence of very complex codes and information. Only a fool would point to natural processes as their source.”

    Really? I don’t refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a deity, I just see no evidence of one. Since you are convinced, please share it with us. And please be specific as to which of the thousands of available deities you are certain is the correct one? Yahweh, the volcano god? Allah the mighty warrior, Zeus or Apollo? Remember, pick the wrong one and you end up in the fire pit with me and the rest of the infidels.

    Now, I suppose, as I have admitted before, everything depends on your definition of “god”. If you want to call the combination of natural laws which govern the universe “god” have at it. But if you insist on a judgmental warrior god who answers prayers, punishes us for sins and grants eternal life… well, where is your evidence? If your claim is that the fact that unicorns don’t jump out of bowls of soup after a lightening strike is proof of god, well, you’ve got bigger problems than we can help you with here.

  60. on 04 Jul 2011 at 12:51 am 60.Anonymous said …

    #58 “Science is past attempting to fit natural processes into the equation of origins. They are now attempting to unlock/discover laws that could account for such a phenomenon. Known natural processes are out of the question.”

    This is either breathtaking ignorance, or as is typical, just another outright lie. To test this utter bullshit, go to wikipedia. Look up the Association of American Universities; while not inclusive of all good universities, there is no one who will deny all these universities are top-notch. Go to the website of any or all the biology departments, and you find none of them supporting what you are saying. AND none of the faculty, allowing for a couple crack-pots here there like the buffoon embarrassing Lehigh, will say there is anything like a “God” out there.

    Ian, you are either a complete cretin, or one of the more vulgar liars to entertain us on this website.

    Now, back to cocktails on this long holiday weekend!

  61. on 04 Jul 2011 at 12:51 am 61.Anonymous said …

    # 60 would be OBSERVER.

  62. on 04 Jul 2011 at 12:52 am 62.Observer said …

    Maybe another cocktail is not in order?

  63. on 04 Jul 2011 at 1:22 am 63.Biff said …

    “Really? I don’t refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a deity, I just see no evidence of one.”

    Proof is all you need? Then why do you believe in the primordial soup theory? No proof, no evidence and never replicated?

    Love to hear you thoughts?

  64. on 04 Jul 2011 at 2:16 am 64.DPK said …

    I never said I “believed” in the primordial soup theory. You guys are focused on that for some reason. Read my post 16… I said that there are numerous possibilities that could explain the origin of life without a supernatural god and perhaps hundreds more that we can’t imagine.
    Again… you are the one that is claiming to know things that you do not know. Not me.

  65. on 04 Jul 2011 at 5:41 am 65.Severin said …

    63 Biff
    “Proof is all you need? …? No proof, no evidence and never replicated?“

    You could see that all of us atheists debate honestly. We DO answer your questions directly, the best way we can, all the time. We do NOT pretend we know everything, and honestly say if we don’t.
    We don’t believe there is a god, that is all we think and we say. So, if you claim there is god, yes proof is all we need!
    If I claimed I had once billion dollars, and wanted you to trust me, it would be my duty to provide proofs for what I say.
    Proofs are what YOU need, too, arent they?
    So, provide some evidences that god exists, and I am ready and open to consider them.

  66. on 04 Jul 2011 at 5:48 am 66.Severin said …

    63 Biff
    “Then why do you believe in the primordial soup theory? No proof, no evidence and never replicated?“

    Never replicated?
    You should be careful with your claims!

    I do believe in, conditionally said, „primordial soup“ theory, of course. I don’t think an elephant walked out from some liquid, but first cell must have been formed in a liquid containing mostly of water, because no known form of life can sustain without water. Seeds have extremely small quantities of water, and ARE alive, but DORMANT, inactive, untill they suck in some water. No biochemical processes can occur without liquid water.
    WHY do I believe in SOME SORT „primordial soup“?
    Because it is SO logical and SO obvious.
    We KNOW that elements like N, C, O, S, P… WILL (unavoidably!) react, under certain conditions, to form more complex compounds like formaldehyde, cyanides, oxides, hydrogenates….If you make a mixture and support it with some enrgy, IT WILL HAPPEN.
    We also know that those small molecules WILL react further, to form more complex molecules, and we know how.
    We even learned how to produce very complex molecules, using our knowledge and machines, for example different plastics.
    We (human beings) DO produce synthetic proteins already, vitamines, alcaloides, that have VERY complex molecules! Yesterday we could not even dream about it, today we rutinely PRODUCE them!
    We not only “replicate” nature, we produce millions of complex compounds that can not be found in nature (on earth).

    NOT as complex as, for example, DNA, but the progress we did in last few decades is tremendous.
    Now, when we see structure of DNA, what do we, see, in fact?
    WE see that it it is made of smaller „brixes“ we know everything about.
    If we know how to handle those „brixes“ to produce molecules of extreme complexity, WHY do you doubt we will learn how to use them to produce MUCH more complex ones? DNA, for example?!
    And, why do you doubt that, during billions of years, in trillions of trillions of trillions of spontanious synthesis, „brixes“ fit together to give something that could be defined as „alive”.
    There were ingredients and conditions, and tremedously long period of time, and I dont see anything illogical and unexpected in that possibility.
    I would rather say: it would be a miracle if those ingredients did NOT form the first livin cell nucleus.

  67. on 04 Jul 2011 at 6:11 am 67.Severin said …

    “…There were ingredients and conditions,…”

    There was another element most of you always forget:
    natural AFINITY of ingredients to make complex molecules, under certain conditions.
    ANY organic molecule having so called reactive groups (like -NCO, – OH, -NH2, – COOH…) will READILY, and INSTANTLY (and absolutely spontaniously, UNAVOIDABLY) react with another molecule with similar groups.
    If exposed to right temperatures (NOT too high ones, you would be surprised), those reactions CAN NOT BE STOPPED! If (something, say R1)-NCO comes to close touch with something with (something, say R2)-OH, IT WILL REACT!
    Period!
    If metals, or metal salts, or other metal compounds are present, they typically act as catalists! In presence of metals, those reactions occur on lower temperatures, and much faster.
    If you bring an electrical sprkle (lightning), both simple and complex molecules readily (and unavoidably) form RADICALS, which multiplies possibilities of forming of different complex molecules to “n” potention.

    What is so strange in that?
    As I can see, only putting fingers in your ears, and palms before your eyes.

  68. on 04 Jul 2011 at 2:39 pm 68.Lou said …

    58.Ian said …

    “Until I witness god create life, then it’s only possible that natural processes created it.”

    “This is an amusing little line. Can we get this young man a time machine? So what he is saying he deems natural processes can do what they have never been able to do previously. Faith?”

    Are you really that incredibly stupid? My comment was a sarcastic reply made to illustrate the fallacy of -

    49.Ben said …

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.”

  69. on 04 Jul 2011 at 3:00 pm 69.Lou said …

    63.Biff said …

    “Love to hear you thoughts?”

    But you don’t. Therein lies the problem. You are a close-minded simpleton who rejects anything that conflicts with your childish belief in god.

  70. on 04 Jul 2011 at 8:36 pm 70.Severin said …

    58 Ian
    “Only a fool would point to natural processes as their source.”

    And one who believes in a god, who kneads man from mud, then blows life through his nostrils, is – what?

  71. on 04 Jul 2011 at 9:05 pm 71.Rostam said …

    “I said that there are numerous possibilities that could explain the origin of life without a supernatural god and perhaps hundreds more that we can’t imagine.”

    But God is not one, would this be correct? Maybe this in the one you have not imagined?

    He doesn’t believe in the primordial soup theory.

    Would that leave Francis Crick’s alien theory? A well qualified although brash molecular biologist but then you have only pushed the regression back one more step.

  72. on 04 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 72.Rostam said …

    Lou said:

    “My comment was a sarcastic reply made to illustrate the fallacy of -”

    Lou.

    Look up the definition of a fallacy. You obviously have no clue. Your brashness could be accepted if your comments were more intelligence.

  73. on 04 Jul 2011 at 10:40 pm 73.DPK said …

    “But God is not one, would this be correct? Maybe this in the one you have not imagined?”

    I guess god could be one, if there were any evidence at all to support such a theory. But magic unicorns could also be one, as could invisible space monkeys from the 8th dimension. I was kind of limiting myself to possibilities that have a reasonable, natural and rational explanation, as I said. By your reasoning, the volcano god should have equal footing with geothermal mechanics and plate tectonics? With your assertion, any wild ass idea someone cares to make up out of thin air should be considered equally valid?
    That’s about as likely as Bangkok being in India.

  74. on 04 Jul 2011 at 10:41 pm 74.Lou said …

    72.Rostam said …

    “Look up the definition of a fallacy.”

    “A fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption.”

    “Your brashness could be accepted if your comments were more intelligence.”

    But not yours? (More “intelligence?”)

  75. on 04 Jul 2011 at 11:23 pm 75.DPK said …

    I believe Lou’s comment was made in response to Ben’s statement that he has never witnessed order from disorder, or in his words “ooze”.
    Sounds like a fallacy to me.
    One only needs looks at the universe which has organized itself into stars and galaxies from hydrogen clouds under the “direction” of gravity to see that his statement is absolutely fallacious.
    Rostram, do you disagree?
    Iy has been asked before, and no one was brave enough to answer… Is gravity a supernatural force? Is god necessary to hold the universe together? That would perhaps explain why he is so negligent in his other godly duties, like fighting evil and answering prayers of the faithful.
    I am still waiting to hear one of you give an intelligent reply to Severin’s posts. Do you guys consider chemical reactions to be supernatural in nature? Do chemical reactions ONLY occur at god’s pleasure? Can god suspend natural laws?

  76. on 05 Jul 2011 at 12:45 am 76.Rostam said …

    “I believe Lou’s comment was made in response to Ben’s statement that he has never witnessed order from disorder, or in his words “ooze”.
    Sounds like a fallacy to me.”

    OK, then kindly explain Ben’s fallacy and if possible the appropriate fallacy. His words:

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

  77. on 05 Jul 2011 at 2:29 am 77.Lou said …

    76.Rostam said …

    “OK, then kindly explain Ben’s fallacy and if possible the appropriate fallacy. His words:”

    No, not because of “ooze.”

    He wrote ““I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.”

    That is a fallacy – an incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption.

    1. A false notion.
    2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
    3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
    4. The quality of being deceptive.

    1. an incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning
    2. unsound or invalid reasoning
    3. the tendency to mislead
    4. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid

  78. on 05 Jul 2011 at 5:14 am 78.Severin said …

    75 DPK
    ” Is gravity a supernatural force? Is god necessary to hold the universe together?”

    Some time ago I posed a question to theists:
    why god needs human beings? Why did he create them?
    (One of their answers, was: not to be alone. Another was: because he was a god of love and there was no one he could love before he created people; another: we may not question and judge god’s deeds…those were the times when some theists debated honestly; they tried to say SOMEHING).
    If he needed humans (WHY?), then why, the hell he needed moskitos, ants, apes, rhinceros, eagles, algae, baobabs…AND, from five (rhinoceros) to hundreds and thousands of species of each, + millions of species of microorganisms, fungi, viruses…?
    Dinosaurus? God creted them (?!), then exterminated them, or what? And WHY?
    Can we get an intelligent answer from theists to this simple question?
    No, we can not!

    Abiogenesis (not necessaryly on earth) and evolution are the only answers that fit logic and reality.
    Unlike kneedeng man from mud, and blowing into his nostrils, they are, at least, POSSIBLE.

  79. on 05 Jul 2011 at 5:18 am 79.Severin said …

    78
    “75 DPK
    ” Is gravity a supernatural force? Is god necessary to hold the universe together?”

    Excellent question!
    An allmighty god was able to create universe from nothing, then he needeed gravity to keep it together?
    Why didn’t he keep universe together with his divie will? Why gravity?

    Finally: WHY UNIVERSE?
    WHY billions of galaxies and billions of billions of suns?
    What a waste, to satisfy his need to have a company!

  80. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:37 am 80.telson said …

    But what is scientific and what is faith? Paul says straight out in Hebrews that “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebr 11:3), in other words he admitted the impact of faith in understanding matters. He said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing.
    However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied. We cannot prove the foundation of the evolution theory, the big bang and spontaneous generation, in a laboratory: they are based on faith in the minds of people. Attempts to generate the latter in a laboratory have been made, but with no success whatsoever. No scientist has been able to get even near to solving the origin of life, i.e. people believe in it even though practical observations do not support it. The belief in the matter is only inside the people. As a matter of fact, many so-called scientific issues are based on faith like is the spiritual life and faith in the supernatural God. The question is which of the alternatives we deem more realistic – the belief in the haphazard origin or creation – because neither of them cannot be properly proven afterwards.
    In this issue one should use his common sense because in that way it is possible to proceed at least a little. So, when you ask an ordinary plain man how possible he considers that a new universe like the present one with dozens of billions galaxies, hundreds of billions stars, a sun like the present one, the planets, sea and water, the rocks, man, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on could be born from, for example, an ordinary chip of a stone (in the big bang theory it is supposed that everything came into being from a pin-sized space), what would he say? How reasonable would he deem the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in his hand? Is it not likely that his answer would be something to the effect:
    - Don’t be crazy, that’s just an impossible idea! Such cannot be born from a small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?

    http://www.jariiivanainen.net/faithandscience.html

  81. on 05 Jul 2011 at 3:15 pm 81.DPK said …

    “He said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing.”

    Faith is not understanding, it is acceptance of lack of understanding. That is no different than saying that faith allows us to “understand” the existence of the volcano god that shakes the earth.

    Once again, just because science does not have a complete, ready answer for every natural phenomena, that doesn’t therefore mean no other explanation but the supernatural therefore exists. I don’t really understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand. Even if a scientific explanation of a specific thing is completely dis-proven, that still doesn’t mean there are gods and talking snakes and eternal life and all the other silliness. That is the “god of the gaps” argument which historically has been proven wrong again and again and again.
    If your god is so obvious, why can’t you prove his existence?

  82. on 05 Jul 2011 at 3:18 pm 82.Lou said …

    39.Lou said …

    “Burbista,

    Do you believe that the force of gravity (and its associated “laws”) is natural or supernatural (magical)?”

    Did I miss his answer?

  83. on 05 Jul 2011 at 3:41 pm 83.Lou said …

    80.telson said …

    “However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied.”

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It can be denied because because by definition faith means belief that is not based on proof or evidence. Also, evolution is a FACT. It does not matter whether or not you believe in it.

  84. on 05 Jul 2011 at 5:33 pm 84.Lou said …

    81.DPK said …

    “Once again, just because science does not have a complete, ready answer for every natural phenomena, that doesn’t therefore mean no other explanation but the supernatural therefore exists. I don’t really understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand. Even if a scientific explanation of a specific thing is completely dis-proven, that still doesn’t mean there are gods and talking snakes and eternal life and all the other silliness. That is the “god of the gaps” argument which historically has been proven wrong again and again and again.”

    Correct, it’s a fallacy. People who believe in imaginary gods are also most likely unable to think logically.

  85. on 05 Jul 2011 at 6:16 pm 85.DPK said …

    ““Burbista,

    Do you believe that the force of gravity (and its associated “laws”) is natural or supernatural (magical)?”

    Did I miss his answer?”

    No. as predicted, he will not answer you. To do so may risk his faith being brought into question. Can’t have that. Better to just ignore it. Safer.

  86. on 25 Jul 2011 at 12:41 am 86.Brazmin said …

    God is a WICKED SOCIETY of CRIMINALS who have fooled the gullible good members of our world into believing ‘God’ is good so that they can manipulate them to support their EVIL PLAN, God’s PLAN. Do you know what God’s PLAN is? You’ve all heard about God’s PLAN, right? Well, God is actually the Mafia, in disguise, delusioning the masses to collect MONEY to support THEIR SOPHISTICATED, MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY and expand THEIR SECRET CRIMINAL OPERATION UNDERGROUND. Our current ECONOMIC CRISIS was God’s PLAN, the ‘End of Times’, the ‘New World Order’, etc., is the Mafia’s CRIMES of EXTORTION and TREASON, taking down our good government. It is a SECRET, MAJOR OPERATION, going on from UNDERGROUND so that there is no evidence or witnesses of the CRIMES taking place.
    The Book of Revelations in the Bible is the CRIMES DEPICTED SYMBOLICALLY that are happening UNDERGROUND, and are slowly being unveiled to one person above ground. Revelations exposes the truth, that ‘God’ is ‘wicked man’ who have created a HELL underground where prisoners suffer endless, extreme torture for eternal life. The only people who have access to this UNDERGROUND WORLD are MEMBERS of the SOCIETY who have chips implanted in their hands which grants them access.
    Above ground they have technology which is designed to control the minds’ of the masses subliminally, the ‘New World Order’ without people even knowing that they are being controlled. The ‘Mark of the Beast’ is the subliminal technology impacting individuals’ minds universally, and in most languages They have technology that is beyond that of normal society because they have researched the human brain unethically and inhumanely to develop Mind Control Technology.
    Think about all the MONEY that has been donated to the churches, it doesn’t go to the poor, they would be rich if it did, it has gone and still goes to supporting OPERATION HELL where victims suffer because normal society hasn’t yet recognized yet that the Bible is a CRIME of WICKED MAN fooling and controlling GOOD MAN, Armageddon. The Bible brainwashes it’s followers into hallucinating a good God, and to donate their MONEY, giving the illusion that the MONEY is for a good cause, it’s not.
    This society of professional thugs are robbing the MONEY out of the system in many ways from simple deception to violent attacks and extortion. The government, societies, and people need to know this SECRET SOCIETY exists so they can do something about it.

  87. on 25 Jul 2011 at 11:19 pm 87.Al said …

    Just looking and wondering where did science come from.
    Ask yourself that.
    God Bless you all.

  88. on 25 Jul 2011 at 11:35 pm 88.Lou said …

    87.Al said …

    “Just looking and wondering where did science come from.
    Ask yourself that.
    God Bless you all.”

    Ask yourself this – “Why am I so ignorant?”

    Science comes from the mind of man. It is a product of man. Nothing mystical or astounding about it.

  89. on 25 Jul 2011 at 11:46 pm 89.DPK said …

    “Just looking and wondering where did science come from.
    Ask yourself that.
    God Bless you all.”

    You’ve been watching too many TV preachers man. Say something retarded and think you sound profound and deep. What a crock.

    Want a deeper mystery? Where did the god you think created everything come from?
    D

  90. on 26 Jul 2011 at 12:09 am 90.Al said …

    Is there anger?
    where did anger come from?.ask yourself that

  91. on 26 Jul 2011 at 12:10 am 91.nony mouse said …

    Al.87, the other side of the coin, from where comes the idea that closing eyes, clasping hands, and talking to invisible beings is more effective than, you know, actually doing something?

  92. on 26 Jul 2011 at 12:50 am 92.Al said …

    which side of the coin is in god we trust,,other side?..I dont get that,basically, most of I see alot of agitated people here and ones that care to argue, or even one that seems to know me, and a prophet..you dont know whaT I watch, read, eat..nothing about me at all.I’m just a man, and have alot of intellect. If you cant understand that, its on you,,so where did science come from?..man..where did man come from,,keep on being you,,I dont care really what you believe or where you wish to end up when you die.
    I would think out of pure rationability…life just does go on for 80 years on earth knowledge.
    Gob Bless is all I can say for anyone.You have your choice what to believe in and where you’re choosing to go.I choose life!

  93. on 26 Jul 2011 at 12:53 am 93.Al said …

    And all of this because of media,,like wow.

  94. on 26 Jul 2011 at 1:37 am 94.nony mouse said …

    Personally, I’m glad that you are choosing life Al. You see, a lot of people who come to this blog choose to waste their life living in fear.

    These people spend their lives wrapped up in superstition. They become convinced that invisible, undetectable, untestable, spirits are watching their every move. They can become paranoid that if they don’t kowtow to these spirits that they will be condemned to a place of eternal torment. Unlike you, they don’t live this short life, but they spend it trying to appease and please a myriad of conflicting, illogical, brutal, cruel, mean and sadistic non-corporeal monsters in the false hope of eternal life.

    Fortunately, Al, you’re a man of intellect and so you understand that science comes from man, abiogenesis and evolution explain life, physics and cosmology have all but explained the origin of the universe, that supernatural answers are not required to explain reality, and that believing in two thousand year old pre-scientific superstitions doesn’t apply to you. Right?

  95. on 26 Jul 2011 at 1:51 am 95.Atheist Goose said …

    “physics and cosmology have all but explained the origin of the universe,”

    Really? Please elaborate. Maybe “all but” means not at all?

    Unfortunately nony you don’t strike as an intellectual or a man of wisdom but a man full of the lies and dishonest scholarship of others. If you can think for yourself, practice it.

  96. on 26 Jul 2011 at 2:00 am 96.Lou said …

    92.Al said …

    “You have your choice what to believe in and where you’re choosing to go.I choose life!”

    You choose ignorance and superstition.

    Some of us choose intelligence and reason.

    It’s not a matter of “what to believe in.” It’s a matter of learning about and understanding the natural world and how it works. AKA – science.

  97. on 26 Jul 2011 at 2:46 am 97.nony mouse said …

    Of course all-but means not all, you silly goose.

    Who in their right mind would think that we could ever learn all there is to know? Who would want that? You see, it’s quite OK to admit we don’t know everything without needing to insert primitive man’s explain-all of a god. Certainly what we do know is superior in every way to the 774,000 (ish) word vague ramblings of a bunch of goat-herders.

  98. on 26 Jul 2011 at 3:23 am 98.Al said …

    Now I know where man came from,,science..
    God Bless you, “all”,because you’re no different than any other man,,just major differences are in intellect.
    I’m Sorry I let you waste my time.
    but am happy I got into yours.

  99. on 26 Jul 2011 at 10:56 am 99.Atheist Goose said …

    “it’s quite OK to admit we don’t know everything”

    Correct! Then physics and cosmology have NOT all but explained the origin of the universe have they mousey?

    You are dishonest and deceitful. Sadly you are doing the same to yourself.

    What is so incredible is your pompous cry that science explains everything. Please! Lived much?

  100. on 26 Jul 2011 at 10:58 am 100.Atheist Goose said …

    Goat herders? Really? Do you know the 1st thing against which you spend your life hating? Who suppose to take you seriously?

  101. on 26 Jul 2011 at 12:36 pm 101.Observer said …

    #98 Al- If your writing is an indication, intellect is not your strong suit. Do you speak like you write? I am guessing yes.

    #100 Theist Loon- Welcome to the wonderful WWGHA blog. It is always a joy to have another incurious and uneducated xtian on the boards. Assuming you are not a troll, actually it doesn’t matter, your recalcitrance and idiocy will help liberate many minds.

  102. on 26 Jul 2011 at 1:39 pm 102.Lou said …

    98.Al said …

    “Now I know where man came from,,science..”

    Nobody here wrote any such thing. You are either incredibly stupid or a liar.

    “God Bless you, “all”,because you’re no different than any other man,,just major differences are in intellect.”

    Apparently “God” blessed other men more than he blessed you.

    “I’m Sorry I let you waste my time.
    but am happy I got into yours.”

    You wasted your own time.

  103. on 26 Jul 2011 at 2:26 pm 103.DPK said …

    “What is so incredible is your pompous cry that science explains everything. Please! Lived much?”

    He never claimed that science has explained everything, so who is being dishonest and deceitful? He said science has explained much. Do you deny this is so?

    Now, isn’t it curious that you are disparaging the role of science in human progress and understanding… on a computer!

    Shall we take a look at the list of things that science HAS explained and we have ALL benefited from and compare it to the list of what RELIGION has provided us? You wouldn’t like that.
    Remember, if religions had had their way, we would still be offering burnt offerings to the warrior god Yahweh, confident in the knowledge that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. We’d still be drilling holes in people’s heads to let the evil spirits out and burning witches and other heretics.

    I assume the OP meant to enlighten us with the deep concept that perhaps GOD created science. Well, if you attribute all of creation to a god, then I guess you have no other conclusion. Just remember, god also created smallpox, dysentery, AIDS, and cancer. Praise his goodness, huh?

  104. on 26 Jul 2011 at 3:45 pm 104.Severin said …

    95 AG
    ““physics and cosmology have all but explained the origin of the universe,”

    Really? Please elaborate. Maybe “all but” means not at all?”

    Why don’t you elaborate the way god did it?
    Is it the Genesis story?
    God said a word and there was light…?
    God blowed thruogh nostrils of a zombi made of dirt to give him life?

    WAS it that way?
    If not, what way WAS it?

    Please do not forget: if it was NOT that way, Bible becomes a pure irrelevant bullshit, and Christianity is based on that bullshit, being bullshit itself.

  105. on 26 Jul 2011 at 8:32 pm 105.Swede said …

    “He said science has explained much.”

    What does this mean? What does much mean?

    How much do we not know? I would say a whole lot more than much. Science has not discovered one single thing to make God less relevant, can not cure a cold or knows why my buddy died 3 years ago. Science actually understand little.

    Pimping science out as if it is some kind of wizard of a cure all is stupidity.

  106. on 26 Jul 2011 at 9:45 pm 106.Severin said …

    105 Swede
    “Pimping science out as if it is some kind of wizard of a cure all is stupidity.”

    And blowing life through nostrils of mud-made zombi is an intelligent explanation!

    Why don’t you read #103 and think how happy you are you are living today, not 100 or 1000 years ago?

    You are a pathetic ignorant.

  107. on 26 Jul 2011 at 11:53 pm 107.DPK said …

    Swede,
    I have no idea how old you are, but if you are more than 35-40 than the simple fact that you are alive is thanks to science. Science can’t cure a cold, but it can transplant a heart, eliminate polio and smallpox and cure many cancers. It can keep and AIDS patient alive and control diabetes.
    Science can’t explain why your friend died? Did god explain it to you? If not, then what is your point?
    If you think god is more relevant than science, I suggest next time you or your loved ones are sick, you visit a priest instead of a doctor and see what happens. Or bypass the priest and just pray to Jesus when you have a heart attack. It’ll be one less pompous theist around telling us how miserably science has failed us. Ass.
    You have no idea how good your life is because of science, nor how miserable it would be if religion had prevailed over reason. The time when churches ruled the world was called the Dark Ages for good reason. Your arrogance and your ignorance is showing.

  108. on 27 Jul 2011 at 12:22 am 108.Swede said …

    “I suggest next time you or your loved ones are sick, you visit a priest instead of a doctor and see what happens.”

    You not only are a pompous atheist you are a challenged one too. A priest is not God but what more can I expect. Why would I turn my back on a gift from God? Science is a tool from God, not a philosophy of life. You don’t have a corner on God’s gift.
    I feel certain I understand and appreciate science as much if not more than you. When you get as old as me, maybe, just maybe you might grasp the fact.

  109. on 27 Jul 2011 at 12:27 am 109.Swede said …

    “You are a pathetic ignorant’”

    Severin you left me hanging. Wouldn’t you like to fill in the blank? The name game is where you atheist excel. Let me see, maybe you meant to add moron or idiot? You lose.

    Then again, I can make a complete sentence.

  110. on 27 Jul 2011 at 12:35 am 110.DPK said …

    Science is not a gift from god, nor a philosophy of life… it is a process for determining TRUTH and reality, unlike religion, which is a process of claiming to know truth from the pages of a magic book.

    “A priest is not God but what more can I expect.”
    Very little, apparently. So, make your appeal directly to god. See what happens.

    Your god is completely imaginary, a figment of your mind… no different than every other god that has ingratiated itself into human culture throughout history. Perhaps one day, thanks to science, you will live to be old enough to realize it, and put aside your silly superstitions and legends.

  111. on 27 Jul 2011 at 12:40 am 111.DPK said …

    “Then again, I can make a complete sentence.”

    Tragic that the sum total of any rebuttal from Swede seems to be criticizing typographical errors of someone who speaks English as a second language. I think you would make Jesus hang his head in shame.

  112. on 27 Jul 2011 at 1:20 am 112.nony mouse said …

    This “Science can’t answer…” and “how does science explain…” comment seems a common theme, but what is the actual message? What point are people making here?

    Yes, we know science does not have all the answers. However, if someone is trying to highlight gaps in our knowledge, it only stands to reason that they have an alternative, more detailed, more complete set of answers. Anything else would simply be sour grapes and childish name-calling.

    So, theists, what scientific insights does the bible present us? I mean, you are doing more than slinging mud with these questions aren’t you?

    Theists like throwing out challenges, here’s yours – show us the awesome power of the bible. There’s much in the technical press regarding recent results from the Tevatron and the LHC. Please enlighten us, where in the bible is the standard model of particle physics explained, or does the bible describe something more detailed and complete? Next, using the predictive powers of the bible, please tell us what we will find regarding the Higgs Boson? Surely that would be trivial for anyone with a personal relationship with one of the supreme powers of the universe?

    Prove us wrong. Stop calling people names and show us how the bible can provide complete, testable, provable and predictive answers to the questions science can’t yet resolve.

    Theists, do you have answers or is your point to highlight that whilst that science can’t yet answer all it’s been asked, religion provides no actual knowledge whatsoever regarding this universe that we inhabit?

  113. on 27 Jul 2011 at 1:57 am 113.Xenon said …

    “Science is a tool from God, not a philosophy of life. You don’t have a corner on God’s gift.”

    Very well put Swede. One of the reasons I have such a great interest in science is the capacity it has to reveal just how remarkable God is and how He works within His creation.

    Amazing how everything around us keeps pointing to God.

  114. on 27 Jul 2011 at 2:22 am 114.Anonymous said …

    “Amazing how everything around us keeps pointing to God.”

    Such as ?????

    Is this just another deep sounding but meaningless sound bite or are you going to provide any actual facts?

  115. on 27 Jul 2011 at 2:41 am 115.DPK said …

    “Yes, we know science does not have all the answers. However, if someone is trying to highlight gaps in our knowledge, it only stands to reason that they have an alternative, more detailed, more complete set of answers. Anything else would simply be sour grapes and childish name-calling.”

    The alternative is “god did it.” What they don’t seem to appreciate is that THAT is not an explanation… it is simply an excuse for ignorance. We don’t actually have to explain anything, because we can just attribute it to the magic of our Lord.. end of story. I can’t help but wonder if any of these science bashers would be satisfied if their doctor prescribed “praying really hard” as the sole treatment for their illness? Doubt it. I think they’d be searching for another doctor right quick.

  116. on 27 Jul 2011 at 4:46 am 116.Severin said …

    108 Swede
    ” A priest is not God but what more can I expect.”

    You can expect help from your god, as DPK suggested, and you “forgot” to mention.

    But you probably don’t trust your god, but visit doctors when sick.
    That is called hypocrisy.
    Inconsistency, at least.

    You don’t? You only pray and wait god to cure you?

    WHT are you doing when sick?

  117. on 27 Jul 2011 at 10:32 am 117.nony mouse said …

    Swede.105 Science has not discovered one single thing to make God less relevant, can not cure a cold or knows why my buddy died 3 years ago. Science actually understand little.

    Pimping science out as if it is some kind of wizard of a cure all is stupidity.

    Contradicted by: Swede.108 Why would I turn my back on a gift from God? Science is a tool from God, not a philosophy of life.

    So, which is it Swede? Science is a tool from your god yet science understands little and advocating its use is stupidity? By publicly decrying your god’s tools as worthless did you not just commit blasphemy, the most grievous of all sins, punishable by death and eternal torment? Or will you escape punishment as you were just making stuff up as you went along?

    By the way “Science is a tool from god” sounds like a testable claim to me. So, rather than just throwing out these statements, let’s see you prove it.

  118. on 27 Jul 2011 at 7:43 pm 118.Swede said …

    “So, yet science understands little and advocating its use is stupidity?”

    Mouse.

    Sorry I couldn’t find that quote. Could you redirect me to the quote and context? Thanks

    DPK,

    “The alternative is “god did it.” What they don’t seem to appreciate is that THAT is not an explanation”

    Why? Time and Chance pass as explanations for much of the historical science claims. God is much more credible.

    Xenon,

    “One of the reasons I have such a great interest in science is the capacity it has to reveal just how remarkable God is”

    Agree Xenon. DNA is probably the most remarkable discovery of the last 50 years. Just 150 years ago, Darwin and others believed the building blocks of life were quite simple. It had to be if no creator was involved. God blew that assumption right out of the water.

  119. on 27 Jul 2011 at 8:42 pm 119.DPK said …

    “Why? Time and Chance pass as explanations for much of the historical science claims. God is much more credible.”

    Well, first, time exists and we can demonstrate it’s passing. Second, chance has nothing to do with it. That’s a common claim theist’s like to make, that if you are as educated like you say, you know is completely false. Rather deceitful of you to make false claims in order to make yourself look credible.

    So, time and natural law is less credible than an invisible man with magic powers? Maybe in your world. In mine, not so much, but that’s cool. Some people actually like rap music. What ya gonna do?

    So, did god just poof DNA into existence out of nothing, or did he invent a way for simpler compounds to combine to form it? And did he start with DNA, or something simpler that built to DNA? Did he invent DNA itself, or did he create it already inside a living cell? So many questions…
    Enlighten us.

    D

  120. on 27 Jul 2011 at 11:40 pm 120.Anonymous said …

    108.Swede said …

    “You not only are a pompous atheist you are a challenged one too. A priest is not God but what more can I expect.”

    I challenge you to put aside your childish comments and concentrate on reading comprehension. He nest wrote “Or bypass the priest and just pray to Jesus when you have a heart attack.”

    Idiot!

  121. on 27 Jul 2011 at 11:48 pm 121.Observer said …

    118 Swede- After a hiatus of making foolish comments only exceeded by their arrogance, to our delight you return. Please answer 119 DPKs questions.

    DNA is pretty remarkable, but how is that any sort of evidence for an uber-faerie? Particularly the Abrahamic uber-faerie?

  122. on 27 Jul 2011 at 11:51 pm 122.Observer said …

    109 Swede. Where do you get the temerity to criticize Severin? How many languages do you read, write, and speak? I will give you credit for exceeding the very low standard set by your typical theist on these boards.

  123. on 28 Jul 2011 at 1:08 am 123.Horatiio said …

    Swede

    Great job buddy! You got Nose Buster (aka Observer) throwing out his pointless rhetoric. DPK failed (as always) to provide the quote you asked for and none of the motley crew can demonstrate your claims are false.

    Listen, some of these atheist are waiting for a HD Road king to wash up on shore. Yes, they believe with Time, Chance and Natural Selection that a Road king will wash upon shore. What are you gonna do?

    Buy hey, its more likely than a cell with a complete instruction code of DNA washing up on that shore for the very first time! LOL

    Keep up the good work.

  124. on 28 Jul 2011 at 2:15 am 124.Lou said …

    123.Horatiio said …

    “DPK failed (as always) to provide the quote you asked for and none of the motley crew can demonstrate your claims are false.”

    Because it wasn’t a quote, you moron. He paraphrased

    “105.Swede said …

    Pimping science out as if it is some kind of wizard of a cure all is stupidity.”

    “Listen, some of these atheist are waiting for a HD Road king to wash up on shore. Yes, they believe with Time, Chance and Natural Selection that a Road king will wash upon shore. What are you gonna do?”

    Call a spade a spade – you are, as usual, a liar.

  125. on 28 Jul 2011 at 3:03 am 125.Lou said …

    118.Swede said …

    “DNA is probably the most remarkable discovery of the last 50 years.”
    How do you think that discovery came about? The very science that you ridicule discovered DNA.

    “Just 150 years ago, Darwin and others believed the building blocks of life were quite simple.

    The building blocks of life ARE SIMPLE. DNA is the BLUEPRINT, not the BUILDING BLOCKS.

    “It had to be if no creator was involved. God blew that assumption right out of the water.”

    But it doesn’t require anything close to a god to blow your idiotic assumptions out of the water.

  126. on 28 Jul 2011 at 3:20 am 126.DPK said …

    “DPK failed (as always) to provide the quote you asked for and none of the motley crew can demonstrate your claims are false.”

    No one asked me to provide a quote on anything, and I answered the question Swede posed to me. What “claims” exactly has Swede made that we can’t “demonstrate are false”? He hasn’t made any claims other than “god did it.” I could claims unicorns did it and your couldn’t disprove that either. You’re not really very bright, are you? What a stupid statement.

    I wonder if Swede is going to answer my question about the process that god employed to create life? Did he create man from nothing, as is, or did he rather light the match to evolution from simpler forms, as the evidence suggests? What was the first living thing he made? Was it just a strand of dna, rna, something simpler that could replicate itself? Exactly what was the first “life” that god made. You guys claim to know the answers that science doesn’t… tell us. This should be good. I’ll bet we don’t hear a word.

    “they believe with Time, Chance and Natural Selection that a Road king will wash upon shore.”

    WTF??? You need to get back on your medication Hor. You’ve lost your grip on reality. Please provide the quote where anyone claimed this. Are you really that stupid, or are you so desperate to sound superior that you are actually willing to give up any smidgen of integrity you may have had. Is that the ONLY way you can try to make a point? By fabricating a complete and blatant lie? You are a sad excuse for a person.

  127. on 28 Jul 2011 at 4:52 am 127.Severin said …

    126 DPK
    “What was the first living thing he made?”

    It was plants, you ignorant!
    Then, after he made animals (“…each according to its kind”, including dinosaurus, kangaroos…well, I don’t know about Lucy), God took some dirt, and made trillions of man’s cells, with DNA (NOT without DNA!), in perfect order to form all necessary organs.
    Then god bended over his creation, took a lot of air in his lungs, and blowed it through man’s nostrils to give him life.

    PERFECT explanation! SIMPLE explanation!
    Only idiots don’t understand it!

  128. on 28 Jul 2011 at 11:09 am 128.Ben said …

    “The building blocks of life ARE SIMPLE. DNA is the BLUEPRINT, not the BUILDING BLOCKS.”

    At least they are admitting that it is complex. DNA is the blueprint. Antone here ever seen a set of very complex blueprints laying around that required no intelligence.

    Atheists here is you challenge: How did DNA originate using the natural processes you calim “diddit”.

    I bet not a one even attempts to answer this simple question.

  129. on 28 Jul 2011 at 12:48 pm 129.Lou said …

    128.Ben said …

    “At least they are admitting that it is complex. DNA is the blueprint. Antone here ever seen a set of very complex blueprints laying around that required no intelligence.”

    BLUEPRINT is an expression, not a literal definition. But, for someone who accepts the bible literally, I’m sure that’s a difficult concept to understand.

  130. on 28 Jul 2011 at 12:54 pm 130.Lou said …

    126.DPK said …

    “WTF??? You need to get back on your medication Hor.”

    “You are a sad excuse for a person.”

    Not to mention a sad excuse for intelligent design.

  131. on 28 Jul 2011 at 4:06 pm 131.DPK said …

    “Atheists here is you challenge: How did DNA originate using the natural processes you calim “diddit”.”

    Ben, once again… no one is claiming to know precisely how this process occurred. “Don’t fully understand yet” does not then default to “a supernatural god did it by magic”

    YOU are the one claiming knowledge of exactly HOW life originated… “god did it”. So the burden is on YOU to explain the exact process god used. Tell us… did he create a DNA molecule with all the information need to create a human and toss it in the soup and wait 4 billion years for it to develop? Did he create a human in it’s present form out of “nothing” 6 thousand years ago? Did he create organic compounds with the chemical ability to organize itself into more and more complex structures and then let the process unfold? Did he simply create matter and energy with properties and “laws” that would eventually lead to complex, self aware life? Exactly WHERE did god step into the process. Since you cannot accept any other idea other than a creator god, surely you must be able to explain the process he employed that lead you to that as the only conclusion.

    We are all waiting for your explanation.

  132. on 28 Jul 2011 at 4:39 pm 132.DPK said …

    And.. when you are done proving a god’s process in the creation of life, please explain exactly how you make the jump from that to a risen from the dead, eat my body and drink my blood, worship me and receive eternal life or face an eternity of torment… but I love you.. personification? One that also listens to my thoughts, answers my prayers, cares who I have sex with and always seems to need some money?

    I’ll make some popcorn. This should be entertaining.

  133. on 28 Jul 2011 at 5:15 pm 133.Observer said …

    This should elevate things a bit…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/science/28life.html?_r=1&hp

    Hor- Whatever is an HD Road King? A piece of wanker Hogly Toiletteson junk?

  134. on 28 Jul 2011 at 8:54 pm 134.Horatiio said …

    “Atheists here is you challenge: How did DNA originate using the natural processes you calim “diddit”.”

    Ben

    A great job by you as well as with Swede. They do not know how life originated but it MUST be natural processes.

    The only problem here is have we ever observed any natural processed that could design a set of complex codes to program a cell? No but we have seen intelligent beings design complex code. Therefore a complex being is behind DNA. Such a simple deduction.

    Observer,

    LOL, you ‘ol Nose Buster. If you do not know what a HD Road King is then you don’t deserve to know. You guys hanging out in your basements don’t get out much.

  135. on 28 Jul 2011 at 9:51 pm 135.DPK said …

    “The only problem here is have we ever observed any natural processed that could design a set of complex codes to program a cell?”

    The problem with your point however is, have we ever observed any processes that have been credited to supernatural powers that have later turned out to have a natural explanation? Yes, many times. In fact, many. many, many times….

    Have we ever observed any actual evidence that would indicate a supernatural god actually exists? No.

    Have we ever observed any supernatural gods that people have claimed to exist that later turned out to be completely imaginary? Yes, hundreds, perhaps thousands of times.

    Have we ever observed simple things, following natural laws to form far more complex things using nothing but gravity, the weal and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism? Things like clouds of simple hydrogen gas assembling themselves into a working fusion reactor? Clouds of interstellar dust assembling themselves into solar systems and galaxies? Simpler elements like Hydrogen and Helium forming heavier elements in the cores of exploding stars? Carbon and other elements combining to form complex organic compounds? Even proteins and amino acids being formed from simpler organic compounds?
    Yes… we see that all the time.

    Now, it seems you have a problem with the formation of a living cell. But you haven’t yet answered the question of exactly WHERE you contend god steps into the equation as a necessary step that simply CANNOT and will NEVER be explained by a more rational answer. I’m afraid Hor, that you will now need to take your fingers out of your ears and tell us exactly WHERE god fits into the formula. Since you are saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the complexity of life to develop without god’s intervention… tell us exactly what he did. Did he start with a cell, a multi-cell animal, a mammal? Or did he start with DNA, RNA, something even simpler?

    Still waiting for an answer. You are the first one to comment if someone else doesn’t provide a ready answer to a point, but I can’t help but notice that the only points you respond to yourself are ones about motorcycles that you made up yourself in order to try and make yourself look smart. Here’s a clue though… it ain’t working. Sometimes I really, really think you are actually an atheist “ringer” that just writes the dumbest stuff you can think of to make the theists look bad. None of us do quite as much damage to your side of the argument as you do….

    oh yeah………… LOL

  136. on 29 Jul 2011 at 1:28 am 136.Mike said …

    “I’m afraid Hor, that you will now need to take your fingers out of your ears and tell us exactly WHERE god fits into the formula.”

    Why does he need to do this? You provided no formula. You use fallacious reasoning and you failed to provide any credible evidence of information coming from the big bang or any other process..

    Origins is not a formula and neither is God. Very poor post. You get an F.

  137. on 29 Jul 2011 at 2:17 am 137.DPK said …

    I don’t need to “provide a formula”. I’m not the one making a claim.. he is. I have already said I do not know the exact process that resulted in the origin of living things on this planet. He is the one who has claimed he does. He needs to explain how this is believable, or at least, explain how he thinks the process works.
    Your point is no different than saying, “You can’t disprove the volcano god, therefore he is real”.
    THAT is fallacious reasoning. In fact, it is not reasoning at all. Is is the complete lack of reasoning.
    Sorry to be blunt, but let’s call it for what it is…Bullshit.

  138. on 29 Jul 2011 at 2:51 am 138.Swede said …

    Mike is correct. DPK is enthralled with a volcano God. I dunno, seems to be a real issue. DPK, do you fear a volcano God?

    Lets be blunt. I don’t know nor do I expect to know how a God who creates a universe did it. I am only a man. I know my limitations.

    You guys who believe that science is going to answer this question have the burden. See, if science can answer everything then you need to do so. So go for it. If you cannot, then don’t tell the rest of us that God did not create the universe. God created science, he is not limited or explained by it.

  139. on 29 Jul 2011 at 3:19 am 139.DPK said …

    I am enthralled with the volcano god because it is a perfect analogy for your deluded point of view that no one here has ever disproved or challenged. So thank you.

    I also appreciate you finally admitting that you in fact, do NOT know how a supernatural god created anything. But you must have a belief… do you believe it happened as it is described in the bible? Or do you believe it happened in some way that is not in accordance with the bible?

    Since you do not understand the process by which this supposed god supposedly created life on earth… which is what we are talking about… please explain to us why you believe he actually did.
    You like to make claims, but you never seem to give any actual reasons or facts to back your claims.

    The only “claim” I am making is that is seems far more reasonable and likely to me that life originated by natural means, perhaps not fully understood, than that there is supernatural magic involved. I have outlined the specific reason I believe this in post 135.

    Ball’s in your court. Prove god did it, how, and why. If religion can answer everything than you need to do so. Go for it. If you cannot, then don’t tell the rest of us that natural laws do not govern the universe. Man created science, and man created god. One of them has a proven track record for discovering truth and one of them is becoming an embarrassment of backward thinking and superstition.

  140. on 29 Jul 2011 at 5:58 am 140.Severin said …

    138 Swede
    “I am only a man. I know my limitations.”

    …said Galileo, Einstein, Hubble,… ad gave up trying to understand things.

    Fortunately, they did not!

    Imagine if all people reasoned that way!

    This is one more example what religion can do to humans: making them idiots.

  141. on 29 Jul 2011 at 12:29 pm 141.Swede said …

    “Since you do not understand the process by which this supposed god supposedly created life on earth”

    We use the same thought process but mine makes more sense. Let us look at it shall we? Information, design and code require a being who has these abilities. I don’t NEED to understand how he did it at this point to know these qualities must exist in order to propagate them in creation. It is evident.

    It is the same way you apparently don’t NEED to know how natural processes can bring about information, design and code but still insist they did and that proof will come.

  142. on 29 Jul 2011 at 12:31 pm 142.Swede said …

    Severin,

    I’m sorry but it is impossible to have a dialogue with you. I feel for you, none see to engage you but you do not understand the nuances of the English language. Then your insults and put downs make me less inclined to even try.

  143. on 29 Jul 2011 at 12:48 pm 143.Severin said …

    138 Swede
    „See, if science can answer everything then you need to do so. So go for it.“

    Scienece is doing so. It can’t answer everything (yet), but is going for it.
    Science, not god, gave millions of answers on which your very existance depends today.
    World became more safe and more confortable place thanks to science, not thanks to gods.

    You never noticed progress of science? You must be blind, or …

    You better pay attention to the fact that people rutinely synthesize proteins today!
    It is probably matter of years, or decades, when man will produce self – supporting substance, abale to „eat“ and to reproduce, in a word: LIFE.

  144. on 29 Jul 2011 at 2:34 pm 144.Lou said …

    134.Horatiio said …

    “A great job by you as well as with Swede. They do not know how life originated but it MUST be natural processes.”

    In lieu of any other rational, logical explanation, it must be a natural process. You have provided nothing to indicate otherwise.

    “The only problem here is have we ever observed any natural processed that could design a set of complex codes to program a cell?”

    Thank goodness those who investigate and eventual understand natural processes (a.k.a. scientists) don’t think like you do, or we all still be living in the stone age.

    “No but we have seen intelligent beings design complex code. Therefore a complex being is behind DNA. Such a simple deduction.”

    And of course, an incorrect deduction. It’s hard to believe that you can be so incredibly stupid. If anything, you’re evidence that there was no “complex being” that created such a defective being such as yourself.

    “LOL, you ‘ol Nose Buster. If you do not know what a HD Road King is then you don’t deserve to know. You guys hanging out in your basements don’t get out much.”

    Hor, you idiot, he obviously DOES know what it is. Hence, his label “Hogly Toiletteson junk.” You’re either incredibly dense or incredibly desperate for retort.

  145. on 29 Jul 2011 at 2:37 pm 145.Lou said …

    136.Mike said …

    “Origins is not a formula and neither is God.”

    Really? There’s not a “formula” for life? Do you agree that your body is made from elements synthesized inside stars millions of years ago?

    Please reply, and I’ll proceed from there.

  146. on 29 Jul 2011 at 2:43 pm 146.Lou said …

    141.Swede said …

    “We use the same thought process but mine makes more sense.”

    No, it doesn’t. Not to us or to scientists who are infinitely smarter than you.

    “Let us look at it shall we? Information, design and code require a being who has these abilities.”

    No, it doesn’t. You arguing from a false assumption. You are confusing those things with intent. Nature conveys “information, design, and code” without the intervention by any supernatural being. Even you admit that, you simply don’t have any evidence that some god is behind it.

  147. on 29 Jul 2011 at 3:28 pm 147.Lou said …

    138.Swede said …

    “Lets be blunt.”

    Yes, let’s do.

    “I don’t know nor do I expect to know how a God who creates a universe did it. I am only a man. I know my limitations.”

    Then you know that you don’t understand anything about evolutionary biology or anything remotely related to it. Therefore, you aren’t qualified to claim that those scientists are incorrect and wrong to proclaim that “Information, design and code require a being who has these abilities.” You are “only a man” with obvious limitations. Limitations so strong that result in your irrational, illogical thought process that produce an imaginary being who made the universe. Unfortunately, people like you don’t think much differently than did our ancient ancestors who threw rocks at the moon when frightened by it.

  148. on 29 Jul 2011 at 3:34 pm 148.DPK said …

    “Information, design and code require a being who has these abilities. ”
    This is a claim without any evidence to back it up. I have proposed many examples of where complexity, design and “information” occur through natural processes without a “being who has these abilities”. So show me how this statement should be believable other than they fact that you don’t WANT to believe otherwise.
    Secondly, if information, design and code require an intelligent being… where did the intelligent being originate? By your own assertion something as simple as a single cell cannot possibly exists without a creator… but you have no problem accepting an infinitely more complex creator that either created itself, or somehow came into existence without any external design. Your very argument is a self contradiction.

    “I don’t NEED to understand how he did it at this point to know these qualities must exist”

    Ok… finally we arrive at the crux of our difference. All the biblical talking snakes, rising from the dead, and other hocus pocus aside.. here is the difference.
    You cannot wrap your mind around the idea of life occurring without a creator. You admit you have no idea how or where the creator stepped into the process, and you do not care to know. It doesn’t matter to you. If science showed a complete process step by step from the big bang to a human inventing calculus, you would still claim god started the big bang with everything programed into the “formula” to reach the ultimate conclusion (whatever that will be).
    Fine.
    Now, you like to mock me and chide my “obsession” with the volcano god. But lets compare the 2 scenarios.
    You and I stand before the mystery of creation. I say, “I think there is most certainly a completely rational and natural explanation for how this came to be. We should endeavor to try and understand it.
    You say, “I already know how it came to be. There is nothing that can possibly explain the complexity we see except a supernatural god being w did it. I don’t know how he did it, and I don’t care. I will never know, I’m just a man. You are silly to think there is any other possible explanation.

    Now compare and contrast:

    You and I as primitives stand before the erupting volcano. I say, “I think there is most certainly a natural explanation for why the earth is spewing fire and molten rock.”
    You say, “LOL, how dim can you be? Nothing can possibly explain how one day the ground is calm and peaceful, and the next day it shakes with anger and spews fire and molten rock high into the sky. You cannot demonstrate anything that has the power to shake the entire world… and not even the sun god has enough power to melt a rock! The only possible answer is there is a god in the volcano and he is angry at us. I do not know how he does such things, and I don’t care.

    That position, is called willful ignorance. That is the difference between you and I.

  149. on 29 Jul 2011 at 3:44 pm 149.Lou said …

    146.Lou said …

    “Nature conveys “information, design, and code” without the intervention by any supernatural being. Even you admit that, you simply don’t have any evidence that some god is behind it.”

    Please allow me to clarify that statement to “Nature conveys “information, design, and code” without the intervention by any supernatural being. Even you admit that natures conveys information, design, and code. You simply don’t have any evidence that some god is behind it.”

  150. on 29 Jul 2011 at 3:49 pm 150.DPK said …

    142.Swede said …
    “Severin,
    I’m sorry but it is impossible to have a dialogue with you. I feel for you, none see to engage you but you do not understand the nuances of the English language.”

    Curious I don’t have any problem understanding Severin. Sounds like a cop out excuse to avoid having to respond to hie points… epic fail.

    “none see to engage you but you do not understand the nuances of the English language” what the hell does that mean? I think maybe you need to brush up on your english.

  151. on 29 Jul 2011 at 4:53 pm 151.Lou said …

    142.Swede said …

    “I feel for you, none see to engage you but you do not understand the nuances of the English language.”

    WTF?

    FUNNY – I guess I don’t understand them either, and English is my first language.

  152. on 29 Jul 2011 at 4:59 pm 152.Atheist Goose said …

    “Information, design and code require a being who has these abilities. ”
    This is a claim without any evidence to back it up.”

    Think so?

    ERP)
    SQL
    The Guggenheimer
    Combustion engine
    I7 Processor

    I could go on but no need. All designed, all complex and all produced by intelligence. That is not opinion, it is fact. Why would we expect something different from the rubble of a big bang? Please give us one reason, one example to believe? The list provided does not even compare to DNA and the cellular systems.

    Now please, show us your examples of systems this complex that reproduced from the chaos of the big bang.

  153. on 29 Jul 2011 at 5:15 pm 153.MrQ said …

    Theist Loon, #152

    Why would we expect something different from the rubble of a big bang? Please give us one reason, one example to believe?

    Look up…way up and check out the link in post #133. Chemicals in test tubes. And they’re just getting started.

    Wonder what you and the Swede consider good credible science? Evolution? Geology? Let me guess, you both agree with the idea of “micro-”evolution but have BIG problems with the present day Theory of Evolution. Let me ask: If your god did create DNA (and all life on our planet began 3 to 4 billion years ago), then how did we get from there (simple lifeforms) to here (more complex organisms)? Lots of “micro-”evolution, no doubt.

  154. on 29 Jul 2011 at 5:37 pm 154.DPK said …

    Now please, show us your examples of systems this complex that reproduced from the chaos of the big bang.

    Stars, galaxies, planetary systems, chemical co-valent bonds, organic compounds, quasars, nebula, proteins, amino acids.

    Now answer the question:

    If the existence of a molecule of dna cannot have occurred without the action of an intelligent designer… then who designed the designer.
    Until you can answer that, your proposition goes nowhere but in a spiral down the drain.
    Flush.

  155. on 29 Jul 2011 at 5:42 pm 155.Lou said …

    152.Atheist Goose said …

    “Think so?

    ERP)
    SQL
    The Guggenheimer
    Combustion engine
    I7 Processor

    I could go on but no need.”

    You could, but it would be equally incorrect examples of your faulty reasoning. Get this through your thick head – nobody denies that those things were designed and built by man. But that is not evidence that man and nature was designed by an intelligent imaginary creator.

    “All designed, all complex and all produced by intelligence. That is not opinion, it is fact.”

    DUH?! REALLY?! Thank you Mr. Wizard.

    “Why would we expect something different from the rubble of a big bang? Please give us one reason, one example to believe?”

    Because it’s rational and logical. Not a childish fantasy like “goddit.”

    “The list provided does not even compare to DNA and the cellular systems.”

    The list you provided is inorganic, man-made devices. Nature is organic. Nature has natural laws that operate independently from man. Your examples are irrelevant.

    “Now please, show us your examples of systems this complex that reproduced from the chaos of the big bang.”

    What do you mean by “systems?”

  156. on 30 Jul 2011 at 6:13 am 156.Severin said …

    152 Atheis Goose
    “…reproduced from the chaos of the big bang.“

    First „chance“, now „chaos“!?
    You persistently repeat them as something that was the very base of natural evnets.
    NONE of the two were ever involved in big bang or in abiogenesis, and in trying to deny possibility of spontanious “creation” (in fact NOT creation, but more or less violent changes of forms of mattere enrgy that was never created, but always existed), without gods, you are starting from wrong premises, probably because you don’t know anything about physics and chemistry, and probably, also, because you are too much poisoned with your mud (dirt) kneeder, who “produces” DNA byfrom mud and life from his breath.

    Whatever happened in the BB, it was not chaotic, it run according to laws that were built in matter/energy. Each single particle (subatomic particles, strings, whatever) „behaved“ according to those LAWS, and nothing „chaotic“ happened ever.
    Each single particle „knew“ how to „behave“ under certain conditions, and did (and still does) so, when such conditions realize. No exceptions.

    „Chaos“ is a word invented by ignorant people to describe something that they don’t quite understand, have no explanation for it, can not connect causes and effects, …
    Some of them like to stay ignorant, other ones admit they don’t know, and wait for people cleverer than themself explain things.

    There is NO „chaos“ in nature.
    There is NO „chance” in nature.

    If there is „chaos“ somewhere, it is in your mind.

  157. on 30 Jul 2011 at 3:14 pm 157.DPK said …

    Look at it this way. If light from a distant star travels though a gas cloud, it is altered. It then contains information about the chemical makeup of the gas cloud due to the spectral shift that we observe. This is information being encoded in light simply as a result of the way electromagnetism behaves. No magic super-being had to “place” the information there.
    Radio frequencies from a distant quasar or neutron star come to us with “information” that tells us stuff about the properties of the source. It isn’t a coded message from god, it’s information encoded according to natural physical laws of the universe.
    When you see a red car, you perceive it as red because of the information encoded in the light reflecting from it. Mainly that the red waves have been reflected and the blue and green waves have been absorbed. That is information.
    When a planet is in orbit around a star, it’s motion contains information about the mass of the sun and the star, as well as other bodies around it. The information exists because matter and energy follow natural, predictable laws of physics.
    Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen contain all the “information” they need to create a water molecule. They “know” how to do it and don’t need an angel or holy spirit to direct them to do so.

    So: ““Information, design and code require a being who has these abilities. ”
    This is a claim without any evidence to back it up.”

    Think so?”

    Yes, I do. Show me how a magical, supernatural power is REQUIRED for any of these things to occur, and then maybe your point might not seem so totally ridiculous.

  158. on 30 Jul 2011 at 6:32 pm 158.Lou said …

    154.DPK said …

    “If the existence of a molecule of dna cannot have occurred without the action of an intelligent designer… then who designed the designer.
    Until you can answer that, your proposition goes nowhere but in a spiral down the drain.”

    Or more accurately, their “reasoning” is a form of circular reasoning. It’s a logical fallacy. Yet they claim “goddidit” is, as Hor claims, “Such a simple deduction.” It’s certainly simple, and just as incorrect and flawed.

    Their argument is fallacious because it relies on its own proposition – that anything complex requires a designer. So, as you very clearly noted, something had to design the designer. Either Hor and his ilk are incredibly stupid not to understand this, or they are simply pretending to present a logical argument when in fact they know their belief is nothing but blind faith.

  159. on 30 Jul 2011 at 8:19 pm 159.DPK said …

    I wonder if Horatiio is ever going to respond to my direct question in #135?

    Oh, I forgot… Horatiio never responds to questions that actually require some thought. He only chastises others and comments with an occasional LOL.
    Par for the course, I suppose………..

    Shame, once again he misses a chance to enlighten us with his knowledge of god that he has attained though his close personal relationship. What can you expect from someone who thinks atheists believe motorcycles come from the ocean.

  160. on 31 Jul 2011 at 5:45 pm 160.Apollo said …

    “I could go on but no need. All designed, all complex and all produced by intelligence.”

    You are exactly right goose. Nothing about origins science even remotely meets the criteria for science but it is remarkable how many look to it as real science.

    Of course the creation was designed and created by a Creator. It is without question, Not only the examples you give but thousands more are available.

    People will check their brains at the door to protect their myopic worldview. If they admit to a Creator then this will turn their world upside down. Better to pretend I guess.

  161. on 31 Jul 2011 at 5:49 pm 161.Apollo said …

    DPK,

    A very nice slight of hand however; the discussion is about where the information and code originally came from to start these processes. Hydrogen? Oxygen? (they know?)Why? How?.

    I notice you tend to go to the process already in place to make your points. The fact their is a process points to the designer who put them in place. Would you be a politician?

  162. on 01 Aug 2011 at 12:51 am 162.DPK said …

    Apollo… aptly named for another imaginary god dreamed up by humans to willfully ignorant to accept anything but magic as an explanation for anything they didn’t comprehend. You’re not much of a thinker, are you? I understand, dogma is safer, and you don’t have to think about it.. plus someone promises you eternal life in a magical kingdom and you buy it… ok.

    Readers, notice that Apollo has not provided ANY evidence or reasoning other than “it is without question”. Newsflash.. it is not without question. It is questioned by a great many people, many way smarter than you and I.

    “People will check their brains at the door to protect their myopic worldview.”
    How very true. Do you get the concept of irony?? This is soooo funny coming from your fingers. Thanks.

    I predicted a while back:
    “If science showed a complete process step by step from the big bang to a human inventing calculus, you would still claim god started it all……”

    Notice that is exactly where Apollo has now retreated. How predictable.

    Now Apollo, you still have not answered the million dollar question:
    “If the existence of a molecule of dna cannot have occurred without the action of an intelligent designer… then who designed the designer?
    Until you can answer that, your proposition goes nowhere but in a spiral down the drain. Nice try anyway.

  163. on 01 Aug 2011 at 1:12 am 163.Scott said …

    “If the existence of a molecule of Dna cannot have occurred without the action of an intelligent designer… then who designed the designer?”

    Whoa DPK, back the horse up there cowboy. Since you believe there is no God, how DID DNA, information and design come about without a creator? How? Why?

    You jumping the gun there partner. If creation can come about without a God (as you believe) why would God need a designer? You violate your own policy.

  164. on 01 Aug 2011 at 2:16 am 164.DPK said …

    God, if he where real, would need a designer because those that are insisting on the existence of god claim that complexity cannot occur without a designer. Therefore if there is a god, by their argument (not mine) he must have a creator, and the creator must have a creator.

    If, on the other hand, YOU can accept the idea that a god can exist without a creator and designer, then why would you claim that it is impossible for the universe to do so?

    This is your side’s position, not mine. Here’s a simpler answer that fits all the observable evidence. Your god, just like every other god, is a figment of your imagination.

  165. on 01 Aug 2011 at 2:59 am 165.Lou said …

    163.Scott said …

    “You jumping the gun there partner. If creation can come about without a God (as you believe) why would God need a designer? You violate your own policy.”

    No, he didn’t “violate his own policy.”

    Scott, you’re desperate.

  166. on 01 Aug 2011 at 3:08 am 166.Lou said …

    161.Apollo said …

    “I notice you tend to go to the process already in place to make your points.”

    I notice that you tend to post gibberish.

    “The fact their is a process points to the designer who put them in place.”

    WOW! Apollo knows this is “fact.” Yet somehow it’s not news.

    “Would you be a politician?”

    Wold you be an idiot?

  167. on 01 Aug 2011 at 3:25 am 167.DPK said …

    These guys are so predictable. They show up on a forum like this and think they are going to be able to convince people of this existence of their magical fairy-beings by using logic and rationality… that always fails, and then they keep regressing into their old pattern of circular reasoning.

    Guys… there is a reason that your beliefs are called “faith”… it’s because it doesn’t make any sense and you have to accept that and then decide to believe it anyway. If your position made sense, you wouldn’t need to have faith to accept it. So just give it up. As mark Twain said “Faith is believing stuff you know ain’t true.”

    Why don’t you just admit that logic and reason simply don’t support your contentions, and that it takes faith and the suspension of disbelief to accept it. If that’s for you… have at it… just stop trying to sell your bullshit to other people… we’re not buying it.

  168. on 01 Aug 2011 at 5:07 am 168.Severin said …

    160 Appolo
    “Why? How?.”

    It was presented how.

    “Why” is unnecessary question in nature, has no answer, and is senseless. The only answer could be: it is just so.

    Why is grass growing? Why is sun shining?
    Why billions of suns shine? Why black holes exist?
    Senseless questions!
    I stopped crushing my head with such questions when I was about 12, and accepted that something can exist without reason.

    You claim there was a creator.
    You never answered our question about HOW god created universe and life. At which point he involved his powers in “creation”? What was the mechanism of creation? Hocus-pocus, a word, kneeding mud, …

    Now a simpler question comes for you: WHY god created universe and life?
    You don’t know?

    Is there anything you DO know?

  169. on 01 Aug 2011 at 6:06 pm 169.Swede said …

    “Whoa DPK, back the horse up there cowboy. Since you believe there is no God, how DID DNA, information and design come about without a creator? How? Why?”

    Scott I don’t know if you have posted here before but you nailed their ploy. They believe in a universe that created itself but they will not believe it was designed by God although everything we see in the real world has a designer.

    1. A universe that created itself?
    2. A God who has always existed?
    Which is more likely?

    The universe and reality shows no evidence of this ability. B is the much more logical choice.

    They are very much like politicians. Very few buy their argument so they are desperate. Sort of how Obama portrays those who want to balance the budget and cut spending as extremist.

  170. on 01 Aug 2011 at 7:20 pm 170.Lou said …

    169.Swede said …

    “Scott I don’t know if you have posted here before but you nailed their ploy.”

    What “ploy?” There is no “ploy.” But there is “present your evidence that god created the universe.” That’s not a ploy.

    If there’s any “ploy,” it’s your faulty circular reasoning that anything complex requires a designer, but you can’t answer what designed the designer.

    “They believe in a universe that created itself but they will not believe it was designed by God although everything we see in the real world has a designer.”

    What do you mean by “the real world?” Your comments are completely nonsensical.

    “1. A universe that created itself?
    2. A God who has always existed?
    Which is more likely?

    The universe and reality shows no evidence of this ability. B is the much more logical choice.”

    As Hor would write – LOL! There is no B. No wonder you can’t think logically. But in fact, you propose a version of 1. (not A). You propose that god created himself or always existed, but you won’t accept that the universe created itself or always existed.

    “They are very much like politicians. Very few buy their argument so they are desperate.”

    The argument is that some god created the universe. Yet you offer absolutely no evidence for that argument.

    “Sort of how Obama portrays those who want to balance the budget and cut spending as extremist.”

    No, sort of how you try to present your delusion and fantasy as reality.

  171. on 01 Aug 2011 at 7:55 pm 171.Severin said …

    169 Swede
    “1. A universe that created itself?
    2. A God who has always existed?
    Which is more likely?”

    None of the two. No one ever offered such options, but yourself.
    Don’t you twist our claims, please! None of us mentioned creation or self-creation of anything, especially not of the universe.

    The right answer is:
    3. Universe that has always existed

    What objections can you find to this approach?

  172. on 01 Aug 2011 at 8:35 pm 172.DPK said …

    And unlike god, we can demonstrate that the universe actually exists… so a universe that exists or a god that has no evidence of existing? Yeah, that’s not a tough choice.
    A universe that created itself? Well, no one ever claimed that… the universe before the big bang existed… perhaps in some other state we don’t know about, but no one ever said it created itself.
    So, a universe that is… and we know because we live in it, or a god that always was, and we have no evidence for?

    So, if you accept that god “always existed” I take it you are abandoning your claim that nothing exists without a designer? Come on now, you can’t have it both ways. You want to eat your cake and have it too….. doesn’t add up.

    You continue to claim that information is not created with out a creator… but we have shown you this is false. Light leaves a distant star and travels through an interstellar gas cloud. There, information about the chemical make up of the cloud is encoded in the light waves. Why do you insist that a magical being put it there? You argument is simply wrong.
    A building collapses and information about the collapse is encoded in the sound and light waves that leave the building. A natural process that does not require a designer to encode it.
    A meteor strikes the earth and leaves an impact crater. The crater topography contains information about the mass and speed of the meteor, as well as information about the angle it hit, and it’s composition. Information there for the taking. No god needed to encode it. Nature is full of information. No magic needed for it to happen.

    Now, even if your argument had any merit to it, which it does not, please explain how you jump from a designer, to a judgmental, all loving god who listens to prayers, demands worship, and will reward you with eternal life?

  173. on 01 Aug 2011 at 9:01 pm 173.Horatiio said …

    DPK

    You silly fella. All your examples you cite were put there by God! LOL!

    C’mon, that is like saying DNA is in a cell and we extract the data. So what? You still fail to answer who initiated the process!

    LOL, I am beginning to think you fellas just don’t get it.

    Here let me use your reasoning:

    The Big Bang took place we extract the complexity of all the data and conclude an intelligent being must be behind the genesis.

    Swede,

    I will take B for 200,000 dollars please.

    As long as they continue to admit they don’t know I have no issues with their arguments.

  174. on 01 Aug 2011 at 10:01 pm 174.DPK said …

    Hor,

    You no longer get the courtesy of a response to your idiocy because you chicken out and disappear when asked direct questions. See post 135 and until you are willing to commit to an answer, I see no reason to discuss anything with you because you are a fraud.

    I WILL comment to others reading that it seems Hor has now retreated to a deist philosophy, that god initiated and big bang and then stepped back to let it happen. That’s progress anyway. At least he isn’t claiming god was going around materializing elephants and smallpox bacteria and motorcycles one by one. Good for him.

  175. on 02 Aug 2011 at 12:30 am 175.MrQ said …

    Hor #173

    You still fail to answer who initiated the process!

    Maybe it was done by committee. You know what they say about things organized by committee, don’t you?

    Hey Hor….Are you giving Jesus the punt in favour of a deist approach, like Flew? Wow, as DPK stated, we have progress!!!

    Please feel free to elaborate on how your god (or committee of gods) started simple life 3-4 billion years ago only to have the biodiversity we have today? Your position is all about micro-evolution and fixed species.

  176. on 02 Aug 2011 at 1:26 am 176.DPK said …

    175.MrQ ….

    I have to smile when I see theists confronted with their own contradictions.
    Now Hor claims god encoded all the information in the entire universe at the moment of the big bang and that it all evolved from there, but in other threads he claim evolution is false!
    By his current theory of everything being encoded at the moment of creation, therefore it only stand to reason that we, and everything in the universe is pre-destined. So much for free will. We are simply living as frames in a movie that plays out from beginning to end…. it has all be predestined by god in his infinite intelligence. Think about it… if everything that occurs in the universe only results in information that has already been created and encoded… then every event in the universe… every single event, has been pre-coded and pre-determined. Therefore, Jeffery Dahmer and Adolf Hitler were just acting out god’s instructions…….

  177. on 02 Aug 2011 at 2:52 am 177.Lou said …

    173.Horatiio said …

    “DPK

    You silly fella. All your examples you cite were put there by God! LOL!”

    And you continue to avoid providing any evidence of god.

    “C’mon, that is like saying DNA is in a cell and we extract the data. So what? You still fail to answer who initiated the process!”

    You still are a liar. He has answered that question many times. However, you never answer any questions. When challenged, you stay away for days until your challenge has cooled, hoping nobody remembers. Not only are you a liar, you are a coward. One usually goes hand-in-hand with the other.

  178. on 02 Aug 2011 at 3:07 am 178.Swede said …

    “As long as they continue to admit they don’t know I have no issues with their arguments.”

    Well, good point Horatio. That begs the question why do they argue? Why the blog? If they don’t know why are they so passionate?

    I am one who believes they do know. They just suppress the reality. Not necessarily my opinion but I have listened to former atheist share this truth.

  179. on 02 Aug 2011 at 4:24 am 179.Severin said …

    178 Swede
    “That begs the question why do they argue? Why the blog? If they don’t know why are they so passionate?”

    I debate here, among other things, to learn something.
    I am always ready to accept evidences and to consider good arguments and logic.

    I alway give answers to posed questions.
    You never do, you only cackle: goddidit, goddidit, goddidit, without any explanation…How, the hell, can I know you are right if you give only your words to support yur claims.

    Stop cackling and DO something to support your claims.
    Tell us, for example your opinion about:

    WHY did god create universe?
    HOW did god create universe?
    WHEN was it?

  180. on 02 Aug 2011 at 4:28 am 180.Lou said …

    178.Swede said …

    “As long as they continue to admit they don’t know I have no issues with their arguments.”

    “Well, good point Horatio.”

    Good point? It’s not even a point, much less a good one. His poorly formed sentence is merely an acknowledgement, almost a concession.

    “That begs the question why do they argue? Why the blog? If they don’t know why are they so passionate?”

    Because you are wrong. And you are wrong to force delusion upon society.

    “I am one who believes they do know. They just suppress the reality.”

    That’s nothing but gibberish. If god is reality, then neither he, you, nor anyone else has presented any evidence of said reality. Therefore, it can’t be suppressed. Even if it was reality, it wouldn’t be suppressed – hey everybody, I’m suppressing the reality of gravity.

    “Not necessarily my opinion but I have listened to former atheist share this truth.”

    Truth? Somebody shared with you that he knew for a fact that god created the universe, but “suppress[ed] the reality?” How did this person get past suppressing reality? Your comment is complete and utter b.s. You’re inventing fiction as you post comments. But, what’s new with your delusion?

  181. on 02 Aug 2011 at 2:25 pm 181.DPK said …

    Well, good point Lou. That begs the question why do they argue? Why do they spend so much time on blogs trying to convince others (perhaps themselves) that their fairy tales and delusions are real? Why are they so threatened by anyone who dares to challenge their “belief system”? If they were so secure in their knowledge and in such a majority, you’d think they’d be content. But the tide is rising and they see it and it scares the hell out of them. The don’t want anyone to take away their delusion of living forever, and they much enjoy pointing fingers at the condemned and imagining themselves smugly laughing as the train for eternal damnation departs.

    I am one who believes they do know the truth. They just suppress the reality. Not necessarily my opinion but I have listened to former believers share this truth. The handful of true believers are the ones strapping on explosive vests, bombing abortion clinics and picketing funerals of fallen soldiers. The rest know in their hearts that it’s all a fairy tale, but they continue the facade because of social pressure.

  182. on 02 Aug 2011 at 4:36 pm 182.Lou said …

    181.DPK said …

    “I am one who believes they do know the truth. They just suppress the reality.”

    That’s a much more believable scenario.

    What’s more likely – knowing the truth that god created the universe and that he promises an eternal life in heaven, yet denying that reality for no good reason while being scorned, ostracized, and outcast for denying it? Or knowing the truth that there is no god who created the universe without an eternal life in heaven, yet denying that reality while being socially accepted for it?

    DUH! Obviously, it’s the latter. There’s no good reason for the former scenario to be plausible. But unfortunately there’s also the reality of truly delusional theists:

    “The handful of true believers are the ones strapping on explosive vests, bombing abortion clinics and picketing funerals of fallen soldiers.”

    Yet they ask “…why do they argue? Why the blog? If they don’t know why are they so passionate?”

    REALLY?! ARGUE?! BLOG?! Hell yeah, let’s blow-up something instead. Let’s murder in the name of an imaginary god. Stupid theists.

  183. on 03 Aug 2011 at 11:24 am 183.nony mouse said …

    “As long as they continue to admit they don’t know I have no issues with their arguments.” — This above all speaks volumes as to what the theists are looking for.

    As above, the believers are desperate and up against the rails. It seems that they don’t want answers but to drive the conversation in the directions of the gaps in the scientific account and, so, they can continue to delude themselves that god did something. If there isn’t a gap, then they ask for more detailed answers and at some point they exclaim “you can’t explain THAT” and up pops god. Of course, they have no proof nor explanation as how they know which of the thousands of gods man has believed in did it which is where they dig themselves into a hole.

    We also see the double standard of proof that the theists employ in order to maintain the illusion that their god is somehow relevant to discussion at hand. Contrast the theist challenge: ‘How did DNA originate using the natural processes you calim “diddit”’ (sic) with the intellectually vacuous theist answer: “I don’t NEED to understand how he did it at this point to know these qualities must exist in order to propagate them in creation. It is evident.” – For the believer, faith and ignorance are qualities that are preferred over evidence. Of course seeing as they have exactly zero evidence for their god, then there’s not really much they could say.

    Speaking of holes, it’s ironic to see the believers getting so desperate to to find gaps in which to insert a god that they end up making a case for deism which is an argument against the existence of their own god.

    So, come on believers, we are still waiting. You have several questions to answer. Let’s see you answer them in the same level of detail as you expect for those from science. Let’s see some proof not circular logic, assertions, or contradictory gibberish. Accept that the burden of proof belongs on you to prove your point. If you can’t do this without appeals to faith, magic, mysticism, other ways of knowing, and other dodges, then accept that you are wrong and come join us in reality and the 21st century.

  184. on 03 Aug 2011 at 12:09 pm 184.nony mouse said …

    By they way, for those that truly want answers, here’s a list of links that you might find interesting.

    We can know nothing about the origin of life (many links): http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/07/we_can_know_nothing_about_the.php

    Again, consider what the application of the scientific method has contributed to our understanding in a short space of time. Compare how our knowledge has expanded and how our lives have been changed. Now compare that to how much religion has contributed to the advancement of our understanding of reality (nothing) and how Christianity, for example, has stayed fixed to the understanding and superstitions of a pre-scientific age of two thousand years ago. Ludicrous appeals to “context” aside, religion as dogma remains set in stone.

    Of course for being the cause of war, intolerance, the proliferation of hate, bigotry, discrimination, misogyny, ignorance, and discord, religion is still a top-scorer and certainly has science beat hands-down.

  185. on 24 Aug 2011 at 8:27 pm 185.I believe in Him said …

    god is not a toy to be used at your disposal
    you will be afraid to put this up, but God is with me. I think Science uses faith a lOT- you have FAITH in yourself, you rely on FAITH to keep your nerves down
    please read the bible, many things in the bible have been proven to exist i’m not a pastor, im a person trying to save you with (A LOT) of help from God. I gave my life to him and you should to…
    -He gave his life for us
    TTYL, RAL

    P.S.nony mouse said we are up against the rails lol, we are not -i’m willing to prove god exists any time and day-m BTW IM NOT ONE OF THOSE”CRAZY” BELIVERS you are the crazy ones

  186. on 24 Aug 2011 at 9:00 pm 186.godskingdomway said …

    I believe him said…” im a person trying to save you with (A LOT) of help from God. I gave my life to him and you should to…
    -He gave his life for us”

    This implies that jesus christ is god.You also said go read the bible.I then figured it would be good to point out that they are not the same.Read john 17:3-10-This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. 6 “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. 7 They have now come to know that all the things you gave me are from you; 8 because the sayings that you gave me I have given to them, and they have received them and have certainly come to know that I came out as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me forth. 9 I make request concerning them; I make request, not concerning the world, but concerning those you have given me; because they are yours, 10 and all my things are yours and yours are mine, and I have been glorified among them.
    Please reread verse five jesus said he was alongside god before the aerth was .Do you need more

  187. on 29 Sep 2011 at 7:30 pm 187.JD Atwell said …

    1. The Sanctuary of Heaven
    The end of all Good God and Evil Devil Religions.
    Our Creator created Adam out of dust of the ground and blew the Breath of Life into him and he became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)
    This means that your mother’s belly is made of dust of the ground… so this also means that your Creator “MyHoly” formed you out of the dust of the ground in the same manner as Adam. And when you came out of your mother’s belly he blew the breath of life into you and you became a living soul just like Adam no difference at all.
    This means we all have the same warning in the form of a commandment that MyHoly gave to Adam; if we want to live don’t eat of the knowledge of a good God and an evil devil our Creator is one and we must worship him as one.
    Become a child of the first resurrection and the second death has no power over you (to die in the flesh) stop eating of the knowledge of good and evil and you will live, eat of it and you will die. This is the error of our forefathers that we keep eating of the knowledge of a good God and an evil Devil thinking we can gain life by eating of the very tree that was told to us that if we take in its knowledge we would die.
    JD Atwell
    jda@my-holy.org

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply